Well, we all know the risks of second-hand smoke have been exaggerated to the point of being completely absurd now.
Editor of journal Tobacco Control refuses to discuss the issues
- Thread starter Vocalek
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
That's one! But there are a lot more lies, misdirection, huge exaggerations or statements based on pure junk science like:
- Smoke-free tobacco is not a safe alternative to smoking.
- Switching from smoking to smoke-free is just exchanging lung cancer for oral cancer.
- Smoke-free tobacco causes oral cancer, pancreatic cancer and heart disease.
- Smoking bans reduce adult smoking rates.
- Tobacco tax increases reduce smoking rates.
- Smoking bans reduce heart attacks.
- Just a whiff of second-hand smoke can cause a heart attack or stroke.
- Nicotine is as or more addictive than her-oin.
- Tobacco companies added chemicals that made cigarettes "more addictive."
- Smoke-free tobacco is a gateway to smoking.
- Dual users (smokeless and smoking) are more addicted and at greater risk than smoking alone.
- 443,000 smokers die from smoking-related diseases every year.
- 49,000 non-smokers die from second-hand smoke every year.
- Cigarettes contain 4,000 toxic chemicals and 65 carcinogens.
- Flavored cigarettes were created by Big Tobacco as a way to addict youth.
- Nicotine causes heart disease.
- Chantix is safe and effective.
- NRT is safe and effective.
Last edited:
Not that I doubt you at all Kristin (you should know I don't, anyway
), but if I use these statements in a conversation with someone, and they want to know the source, are the sources linked on CASAA.org inclusive of these? TIA 
Not that I doubt you at all Kristin (you should know I don't, anyway
No, you'd have to do a lot of reading to find the truth - but it's out there. Most of these claims have been debunked by Dr. Phillips, Brad Rodu, Paul Bergen, Joel Nitzkin, Dr. Siegel etc., and the rest are either common sense that has contrary supporting evidence or determined by much research on the web & reading a few books about the ANTZ tactics.
I have a CASAA board meeting tonight, but if I get a chance I'll find links that show how they are all false or misleading in some way. Many, I'm sure, you know have been clearly debunked in discussions on this forum (ie. smokeless risks compared to smoking, Chantix/NRT is safe and effective, nicotine is more addictive than her-ion/causes heart disease.)
Something that is common sense would be "Cigarettes contain 4,000 toxic chemicals and 65 carcinogens." We know how ANTZ exaggerate the "toxic chemicals and carcinogens" in e-cigarettes - have you ever wondered at what levels the toxic chemicals and carcinogens are in real cigarettes? Look it up.
Or "443,000 smokers die from smoking-related diseases every year." Ever notice that number hasn't changed since 2004, in spite of decreasing smoking rates and medical advancements? Ever wonder how they calculated that number? If people think it's based on actual known deaths (real people) and conclusive evidence that the smoking caused the death (able to rule out other factors), they'd be wrong. And the evidence for second-hand smoke deaths is even more shaky, as not only is it essentially an educated wild guess, it's based on non-smokers who lived over 30 years with a smoker, NOT SHS exposure in public for a few hours. Yet they use those deaths to justify smoking bans even outdoors now.
It's amazing the facts you can find when you stop taking the ANTZ's word for it. Just most people never bother to look beyond the headlines (including doctors.)
Just one correction, Kristin. In order to complete their demonization of tobacco companies and products, they changed
- 443,000 smokers die from smoking-related diseases every year.
to
-- 443,000 tobacco-related deaths
Implying that the number estimates include deaths from other type of tobacco products, which isn't true.
- 443,000 smokers die from smoking-related diseases every year.
to
-- 443,000 tobacco-related deaths
Implying that the number estimates include deaths from other type of tobacco products, which isn't true.
Thank you Kristin, you saved me a lot of tying to get my point across. Yes, BT lied much the same as BP has lied on numerous occasions about products that went bad.
However, I can't get past the lies that have been perpetuated by the entire ANTZ world for decades about smokeless tobacco products when the decided to move their efforts beyond controlling smoking. Most smokeless tobacco products are significantly safer than cigarettes but the ANTZ used propaganda to make us believe were at least as bad, if not worse, than smoking. I can not forgive them for that any more than some can not forgive the tobacco industry.
Today we have numerous tobacco and nicotine products that are >95% safer than smoking but the rhetoric from the ANTZ doesn't change, quit or die. Who do we place the death toll on today? I know who I do, because I could have and would have looked for viable alternatives decades ago had I been told the truth. Instead of wasting money on BP's snake oil over and over again, I could have been done with cigarettes long before I finally found tobacco products that allowed me to quit.
However, I can't get past the lies that have been perpetuated by the entire ANTZ world for decades about smokeless tobacco products when the decided to move their efforts beyond controlling smoking. Most smokeless tobacco products are significantly safer than cigarettes but the ANTZ used propaganda to make us believe were at least as bad, if not worse, than smoking. I can not forgive them for that any more than some can not forgive the tobacco industry.
Today we have numerous tobacco and nicotine products that are >95% safer than smoking but the rhetoric from the ANTZ doesn't change, quit or die. Who do we place the death toll on today? I know who I do, because I could have and would have looked for viable alternatives decades ago had I been told the truth. Instead of wasting money on BP's snake oil over and over again, I could have been done with cigarettes long before I finally found tobacco products that allowed me to quit.
This is the thing that makes my blood boil.
THEY have switched tactics many times...
First it was smoking that was evil, which most could agree on.
Then it became tobacco that was evil, which is where they entered into the realm of BS.
Then it became nicotine is evil, because that is their last resort.
Their motivation is clear. Their desperation is evident. Their lies are defeatable. And their days are numbered.
We WILL beat these monsters some day soon.
And they will have to find new jobs and new ways to profit from their "public health" scams.
- Apr 2, 2009
- 5,171
- 13,288
- 67
Please note that Ruth Malone has worked for Stan Glantz at UCSF for the past 2 decades, and both are prohibitionists who want to destroy the existing tobacco industry and ban all tobacco products.
Also, Glantz, Malone and other UC tobacco prohibitionists led the campaign 5-10 years ago to ban all tobacco industry sponsored research at the University of California.
Its also important to note that Glantz and Malone did NOT urge Congress to enact the FSPTCA (because they knew Philip Morris negotiated and drafted the bill to protect its Marlboro cigarette empire, and because the legislation does/did virtually nothing to reduce tobacco use.
And during the past several years, Malone and Glantz have urged the FDA to ban menthol cigarettes, and they've criticized the FDA for not banning menthol cigarettes.
Malone's letter rejecting the FDA's invitation to participate on a FDA panel, and her urging other tobacco prohibitionists to similarly boycott the FDA's Third Party Governance panels is very good news for science, scientific research, tobacco harm reduction and public health, as these extremist prohibitionists (who have writen and published junk science and propaganda attacking all tobacco companies and all tobacco products, including e-cigs) should not be allowed to serve on any FDA panel.
Several key reasons why Glantz, Malone and others at UC (especially at UCSF) are obsessed with hating all tobacco companies is because they've read tens of thousands of industry documents from the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's (that were accessed during state and DOJ lawsuits against tobacco companies), because they've actively urged (for the past decade) the DOJ to impose far more punative penalties against cigarette companies (and criticizing states and the DOJ for not being more aggressive against the industry during litigation), and because they have longstanding policies of not meeting with or talking to anyone affiliated with the industry.
In reality, Glantz, Malone and other tobacco prohibitonists know very little about the tobacco industry (other than to hating it), and are delusionally still living in the 1990's (as they truly believe that the industry hasn't changed in the past 25 years).
Now, maybe FDA will get some objective panelist for its Third Party Governance panel, and maybe the FDA has finally realized that tobacco harm reduction advocates are the truly objective and dedicated public health advocates, and that tobacco prohibitonists are only interested in banning and demonizing all things tobacco.
Also, Glantz, Malone and other UC tobacco prohibitionists led the campaign 5-10 years ago to ban all tobacco industry sponsored research at the University of California.
Its also important to note that Glantz and Malone did NOT urge Congress to enact the FSPTCA (because they knew Philip Morris negotiated and drafted the bill to protect its Marlboro cigarette empire, and because the legislation does/did virtually nothing to reduce tobacco use.
And during the past several years, Malone and Glantz have urged the FDA to ban menthol cigarettes, and they've criticized the FDA for not banning menthol cigarettes.
Malone's letter rejecting the FDA's invitation to participate on a FDA panel, and her urging other tobacco prohibitionists to similarly boycott the FDA's Third Party Governance panels is very good news for science, scientific research, tobacco harm reduction and public health, as these extremist prohibitionists (who have writen and published junk science and propaganda attacking all tobacco companies and all tobacco products, including e-cigs) should not be allowed to serve on any FDA panel.
Several key reasons why Glantz, Malone and others at UC (especially at UCSF) are obsessed with hating all tobacco companies is because they've read tens of thousands of industry documents from the 1950's, 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's (that were accessed during state and DOJ lawsuits against tobacco companies), because they've actively urged (for the past decade) the DOJ to impose far more punative penalties against cigarette companies (and criticizing states and the DOJ for not being more aggressive against the industry during litigation), and because they have longstanding policies of not meeting with or talking to anyone affiliated with the industry.
In reality, Glantz, Malone and other tobacco prohibitonists know very little about the tobacco industry (other than to hating it), and are delusionally still living in the 1990's (as they truly believe that the industry hasn't changed in the past 25 years).
Now, maybe FDA will get some objective panelist for its Third Party Governance panel, and maybe the FDA has finally realized that tobacco harm reduction advocates are the truly objective and dedicated public health advocates, and that tobacco prohibitonists are only interested in banning and demonizing all things tobacco.
Last edited:
Everyone on the planet is opposed to tobacco except those in the industry
and their customers. If it even reminds the public of tobacco ...
They are opposed to it.
We definitely are fighting an up-hill battle
and their customers. If it even reminds the public of tobacco ...
They are opposed to it.
We definitely are fighting an up-hill battle
The ANTZ would have you believe that, Petrodus. The truth is that the vast majority of non-smokers don't even care about tobacco - or even smoking - so long as it isn't annoying them. Most people were perfectly happy with non-smoking and smoking section, which is why most non-smokers are OK with vaping (since it's not as annoying or irritating as smoke.) It's a minority if non-smokers, ex-smokers and smoker's loved ones who blame tragedy on tobacco who are ANTZ and that are the loudest and call the shots. The squeaky wheel and all that...
Our greatest hurtle is the apathy for tobacco and a willingness to take the path of least resistance - not the hatred of tobacco.
OK ... I was exaggerating somewhat
I'm really not a student of the ANTZ movement.
Just made that comment from witnessing the movement around the world
The lying ANTZ is the motivational force ...
However, the bottom line ... from this observers eyes
There's a world-wide intense effort to ban e-cigarettes
and restrict the use of tobacco ... since they can't/won't out-law it.
Who all is behind it is interesting and important to know.
However, the bottom line remains the same.
E-smoking and harm reduction is under attack ... All around the world.
I think it's still important to understand we are fighting a vocal minority, so we can figure out how to win over the majority.
FDA begged, Ruth did not cave:
http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2013/02/06/...-real-change-to-tobacco-product-consultation/
http://blogs.bmj.com/tc/2013/02/06/...-real-change-to-tobacco-product-consultation/
My god, is it just me or is she a real obnoxious witch? I wanted to use a "B" there, but was PC. I wish there was some integrity in some of these schools. However, I have found that most CA based groups are very one sided in their thinking and if you don't like it you are either killing someone, racist.....etc.
I wish there was some integrity in some of these schools. However, I have found that most CA based groups are very one sided in their thinking and if you don't like it you are either killing someone, racist.....etc.And they funny thing is, they are the ones killing people.My god, is it just me or is she a real obnoxious witch? I wanted to use a "B" there, but was PC.
But hey, smokers are expendable, right?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
