Thursday, October 25, 2012

So Much for Public Health

A report by the convention secretariat to the countries attending basically urges them to ban e-cigarettes, saying they are “products resembling cigarettes and could therefore undermine the denormalization of tobacco use…

Does anyone actually still believe that the WHO is about health? One thing is for certain though: They seem to fancy the idea of a worldwide dictatorship. Too harsh an assessment on my part? I hardly think so.

Let me get this straight: If the risk of partaking in the act of putting a nicotine stick to one's mouth is drastically or almost completely eliminated, the Neo Do Gooders of (Counter) Do Gooderism would still push for banning the act(s) of both smoking and vaping, merely due to prejudice? Apparently so.

Basically what they are saying is: 

We are not going to ALLOW the development and marketing of reduced risk tobacco products, no matter what form they may take either now or in the future. If you defy us by choosing to smoke, you deserve to DIE. Oh, and by the way, we are not going to give up on our little idea of getting our paws (ie., becoming the recipients/beneficiaries of) on that GLOBAL TOBACCO TAX that we have been greedily discussing with our member nation states around the world. Now, just how are we going to get our greedy little hands on all of that money if you tobacco harm reduction people actually succeed in eliminating all or most of the risk that's associated with smoking? Smoking must be kept as dangerous as possible to keep the cash flow going.

There is nothing democratic, moral, or "healthy" about this stance at all, which is why I believe that some of these people are actually dangerous to the very concept of freedom itself. ...and what of the nefarious effects on progress, innovation, as well as that of the very important and necessary field of science, without which the former cannot exist?

They are deathly (pun intended) afraid of "allowing" the continued proliferation of e-cigarettes into the marketplace, partially do to prejudice, but also due to the fact that they have the potential to open the door(s) for the development of a safer tobacco cigarette (..or for even that of several reduced risk cigarettes). They know that if the science is there (and it already is), that they will not be able to prevent the idea of tobacco harm reduction from going forward; therefore, they must squash, bury, and ban everything and anything that resembles the act of smoking itself, even if said product(s) pose no real threat to individual smokers or that of the public at large.

WHO takes aim at e-cigarettes - ACSH

Monday, October 22, 2012

Smoking lowers skin cancer risk

Thanks to Audrey Silk for posting this on Facebook via NYC CLASH-

Now this is interesting:

Men who had ever smoked had a significantly lower risk of melanoma (relative risk 0.72) compared to men who had never smoked, and current smokers had an even lower risk (0.52), according to the study involving 145,709 people pooled from two large national cohorts.

Cohort studies are the most reliable epidemiological studies, are they not?

Smoking lowers skin cancer risk | 6minutes

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Green Tea May Cut Smokers' Lung Cancer Risk

Don't expect to hear this from your doctor:

While Lin says the best way to avoid lung cancer is to stop smoking, green tea appears to reduce risk. "Green tea can protect them from lung cancer risk, a cup or more a day," she says.

You'll most likely hear about the first option as being the only option. I wonder what would happen if we smokers were exposed to information like this on a regular basis, coupled with the option of choosing between several reduced risk cigarettes on the free market... 

Green Tea May Cut Smokers' Lung Cancer Risk

..and here's a snippet from an article that is a bit more recent:

Active components in green tea, called polyphenols, are credited with stopping cancer in its tracks. Though some conflicting studies have arisen over the years, the majority point to green tea as an amazing health elixir.

Scientists began researching the effects of the tea when noticing the dramatically lower cancer rates in Asia, where consumption of green tea is highest.

It's obvious that diet plays a role in the development of lung cancer. Smoking is a factor, but not the only factor .

Then there's the role of genes:

Also related to green tea consumption, scientists found that a gene may play a role in the prevention of lung cancer. The greatest lung cancer prevention was seen in those people who not only drank green tea, but had a gene called IGF1.

Maybe this is one of the reasons why some smokers contract lung cancer whilst other do not?

In order to win the war against lung cancer (and cancer in general) it is critical for both the health establishment and the public at large to understand that we don't all wear the same shoe. There are many factors to consider when dealing with lung cancer and clearly, we are not all made up of the same physiological materials.

If those folks amongst us who are graced with the fortune of housing the IGF1 gene choose to smoke, why would we (err, the establishment) apply the quit or die approach to this faction of the population, when we could simply offer up the option/suggestion of daily green tea consumption?

..And what of the search for a safer cigarette for those of us who are not lucky enough to have been born with the IGF1 gene? Governments everywhere, especially here in the United States where 2/3 of tobacco monies are collected by and for the man himself, have a moral responsibility to encourage, develop, and promote the race to a safer cigarette.

I know...the only way to prevent lung cancer is to stop smoking....Whilst there is some truth to that statement, it is not the only truth, it is merely a brick from a house that has yet to be built.

Can Green Tea Aid in the Prevention of Lung Cancer?

Saturday, October 20, 2012

90 days in jail for what?

 Thanks to Silk Ziggy for posting this on Facebook via NYC Clash-

If approved, it will be one of the most draconian anti-smoking bans in the nation. The Boulder City Council is considering a ban on smoking at its Pearl Street Mall, with some very severe penalties.

DENVER, CO (Catholic Online) - The proposed ordinance would punish first-time offenders with a fine of $1,000 or 90 days in jail.
I've been to Boulder. It is a very pretty place. Unfortunately its ugly side is rearing its head. I'll make sure never to go there again. I wonder how many of their roads have been paved with smokers' money...

Smoking will land you 90 days in jail at this U.S. mall - Denver | Southern California | Catholic Online Local Edition

Friday, October 12, 2012

Blatant Discrimination on Display in Austin

Now this just proves what we've been saying all along:

Smoking bans have nothing to do with protecting the health of bystanders; they are about hate, prejudice, intolerance towards alternate lifestyles and a need to control the actions of others, plain and simple.

You Can't Smoke at ACL (Even Though the Burn Ban's Lifted) | KUT News

Friday, October 5, 2012

Senate committee examines tobacco harm reduction strategies

 “It’s time for us to examine how we can improve these figures and whether there are effective policy options we can use,” said Johnson, R-Kingfisher. “If tobacco harm reduction strategies can produce positive results without unnecessary intrusion and regulation on personal behavior, then they deserve careful consideration. We all understand that tobacco can be harmful, but if less risky forms are available, the public has a right to know the facts.”

This signifies a positive turn in the right (no pun intended) direction. If we can preserve freedom whilst simultaneously improving upon the health of the public at large (in this case, the health of smokers) shouldn't that be the path that we progress upon? There is no other sensible path, in my humble opinion; Senator Johnson seems to get that. Good for him. I hope that more of our representatives follow in his footsteps.

Oklahoma State Senate - News