I thought this deserved its own thread - http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2014/01/cdc-is-intentionally-hiding-conflicts.html ... pretty strong stuff.
More from Dr. Siegal on Surgeon Gen'l Rpt./CDC conflicts of interest
- Thread starter Roger_Lafayette
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
- Status
Strong stuff, and oh so true! This government-sponsored hypocrisy needs to be shouted from the rooftops!
It's been clear for several months (years, even) that the ANTZ are becoming increasingly desperate; now it's government's turn...
It's been clear for several months (years, even) that the ANTZ are becoming increasingly desperate; now it's government's turn...
I find the comments interesting.... it happens to be a fact that Dr. Siegal - though on our side now, was in full Antz mode in the '90's and beyond. Some are pointing this out.
I view Siegel and Godshall in the same light - they both seem to have similar backgrounds in the "tobacco fight" 'arena'. Bill was instrumental in getting the indoor smoking bans in place (
); but he and Siegel, I believe, have realized that beating dead horses gets tiring after a while and with THR at least some progress can be made to "population health".JMHO
I view Siegel and Godshall in the same light - they both seem to have similar backgrounds in the "tobacco fight" 'arena'. Bill was instrumental in getting the indoor smoking bans in place (
JMHO
...and Phillips for that matter.... And not just opinion, go beyond their current ecig blogs and you can see they have not been "friends of liberty" - not like Forbes, Reason, Cato and many others who fight from a liberty position. And in the end, that is what we need (not just in this area) rather than someone who can create junk science on the one hand and dismiss it on the other.
In fact, they have been 'front men' for those who know what's best for us - ie. the ruling class. For some, not me esp. 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' but whatever regulations that may come down the pike, may well be greased by these types. I'll praise what they say for ecigarettes, but not for who or what they are.
Last edited:
I don't have enough of a science background to assess the validity of secondhand smoke studies. However I do believe from anectdotal experience that some people do experience a fair amount of genuine discomfort from tobacco smoke - something that goes well beyond some kind of "ick factor." In my mind that doesn't justify demonizing smokers or punitively taxing them, or even refusing to provide indoor smoking areas (let alone making entire college campuses, airports, public parks and so forth "smoke free.").
And if indeed smokers die younger, they save society a lot of money in pension payments (thus any taxation should logically be applied to non- smokers, if such redistribution is deemed acceptable). Skinny people like me should also be taxed, for the same reason
And if indeed smokers die younger, they save society a lot of money in pension payments (thus any taxation should logically be applied to non- smokers, if such redistribution is deemed acceptable). Skinny people like me should also be taxed, for the same reason
A federal judge has done it for you
Along with staff help I'm sure. I linked this earlier but it is significant here. The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute
"Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions."
I don't discount the other effect second hand smoke might have, just that it isn't carcinogenic. And despite the fact that it was proven so, the bans still exist. Once gov't gets something passed (or in this case, executive ordered), there's no rolling it back. It's why some still have to register even though there is no draft and why we have gov't helium surpluses that were intended for dirigibles in WWI.
A federal judge has done it for you
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade | Cato Institute
"Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the “confidence levels” in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally “confessed” that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had “proven” its preconceived conclusions."
I don't discount the other effect second hand smoke might have, just that it isn't carcinogenic. And despite the fact that it was proven so, the bans still exist. Once gov't gets something passed (or in this case, executive ordered), there's no rolling it back. It's why some still have to register even though there is no draft and why we have gov't helium surpluses that were intended for dirigibles in WWI.
Helium Shortage - Why Is There a Helium Shortage? - Popular Mechanics
Bit of a broad-brush generalization there, I'd say. There are a several recent well-known counterexamples of states passing legislation that directly contradicts federal law and increases folks' abilities to control what they put in their bodies (I don't think I can say more here, but you know what I'm talking about). There are also plenty of instances in which obsolete prohibitions are simply ignored and unenforced (e.g. laws regulating what Americans do in their bedrooms have been ignored/unenforced for decades - some prohibit practices which virtually everyone now regards as normal). And then of course there's the example of alcohol prohibition.
One more example - the "raw (unpasteurized) milk movement" (I believe I can discuss that here without being highly obtuse in my language). Although the FDA regards it as illegal to sell for human consumption, enforecment has been mostly left to local authorities. The record is mixed on this, but many states just don't bother as long as it's marked "pet milk only" or something of that sort. I used to manage a natural foods (Co-Op) grocery store that had an interesting dodge, we served as pickup point for vendors who independently contracted with customers. I used to tell everyone, "Repeat after me, The Co-Op does not sell raw milk."
We also used to teach free cooking classes even though the FIre Dep't made us sign a statement saying that we had to have a fume hood to "cook." Called a contact at the mayor's office and told him before we started doing it. Fire Dep't never bothered us.
There's an old saying in the law - "without a remedy, there is no right." The same is true of restrictions on personal behavior. If they aren't actually enforced (or are effectively unenforceable because there is no public support for them), then they might as well not exist.
People are not automatons - they think for themselves and will act based on their own common sense. And in some cases, that includes regulators as well.
Why cut our support and arguments in half just because you like one half better than the other? We need all we can get.
Saying second-hand-smoke causes cancer is junk science, saying that INDOOR second-hand-smoke aggravates asthma and other breathing problems is not. I've seen it in real life plenty of times.
A lot of people subscribe to the idea that your freedom ends where my nose begins (this originally refers to the use of fists but can validly apply to other things THAT AFFECT OTHER PEOPLE.)
Let some folks support liberty-based arguments and the others support 'no harm where there is no victim" science-based arguments, why throw away half of our ammunition?
I wish that (bolded) applied to nasty smelling reheated microwaved leftovers at lunch in a small office.
Almost every one of your examples given has incidents where the 'old law' was invoked by the feds, including raids on non-pasteurized mild vendors. Recall Reno's threats to doctors regarding California's law on certain commodities. And an older sex law was used in a recent case in Georgia, iirc. While prohibition was reversed - 'correctly' I might add - by a Constitutional Amendment - it still is one of the most regulated industries.
And while it is almost definitional in fascistic gov't to pass laws and only enforce them selectively, they remain on the books for that very purpose. Ask anyone who has ever lived under those circumstances.
Last edited:
I don't 'cut our arguments in half' - "I'll praise what they say for ecigarettes, but not for who or what they are." - but they are not my 'heroes'. If Barney Frank would vote for the repeal of 'Dodd/Frank' I'd praise him for the action, but not forget the damage he had done.
In another note to Roger I acknowledge the harm that second hand smoke can do to some, but it was the carcinogenic aspect of second hand smoke that all mentioned were on the junk science side. And my solutions to the harm some have, is returning property rights to owners and choices to people patronizing their establishments. And I might add, a full enforcement when the harm is done in areas outside of private property, such as in areas where people are sometime forced to go - into gov't establishments.
[Warning, this is a free-ranging and somewhat rambling rant on regulation and/or descriptions of same. It's arguably mildly off-topic, although my personal experience posting the daily media reviews suggests otherwise. YMMV.]
Kent, I'm not sure what case you're referring to that concerns restrictions on what Americans can do in their bedrooms, but if it was Bowers, the state A/G agreed to file an affidavit as a "test" case. As with Griswold (contraception, if I'm allowed to use that word here), neither prosecutor would've actually prosecuted a case like that. This is often done in "test" cases, particularly those that address controversial statutory and con. law issues that are getting a lot of attn. in the law reviews. Lawyers tend to be curious folks, and evading the justiciability requirements of Art. III ("case or controversy") and so forth are not an unknown variety of behavior. Many seminal decisions have originated in this manner.
The raw milk thing is a bit more ambiguous. The reason I was so careful when I ran the Co-Op store is indeed because I'd heard about some incidents in which the FDA went overboard. But what I hear from raw milk activists is that the issue is now mainly one with state authorities (and it varies greatly by state). Frankly I don't keep up w/ it much, since I never bought into what I consider to be mostly hype (and I hardly ever drink milk anyway).
The main reason for my reply to you - however - was that I don't think generalizations about regulations are helpful, based on my own experience in the food industry. (And I got to know plenty of people who were restauraunt managers, producers/farmers, distributors, etc.)
In some cases, regulations can be helpful to "small fry"/start-ups (for ex., if I heard about an e-juice vendor that supposedly made e-juice that was as good as JC, but at half the price, I wouldn't necessarily rush out and try them until I was more comfortable with their reputation. But if a new restaurant opened up in town, I'd be more than willing to try it, because I know they're regulated.)
For another ex., look at how much money egg producers lost after the recent scares. You might say it proves that regulations don't stop bad actors. But I wonder how many people would eat eggs from an unknown or new producer if we had no regulations whatsoever. (Actually the "egg board" is a joke where I live, but that's another subject Please don't even get me into the subject of duck eggs regulation in Indiana. (Or in other places: I have store manager friends in other states w/ have the same prob. Quite stupid.)
On the other hand, regulations can also dramatically increase costs for start-ups, i.e. they provide "market entry barriars." (I suspect you already agree w/ me there, so I won't go into it.)
Regulations can often be overbroad: beef jerky is considered a beef product. Therefore it has to have the same expiration ("sell by") dates as other cooked beef, and it has to be refrigerated how ludicrous: beef jerky is designed to last virtually forever and to not require refrigeration!
And sometimes they don't go far enough. My policy at our store was clear - you gotta be "hatted up" (wear a hairnet) when filling a bulk bin. Even if it's not required by the gov't. That's just good standard food industry practice.
Bottom line ... boilerplate generalizations just aren't informative. Some regulations and regulators are good. Others suck. Some are unnecessary because only an insane business would fail to follow them. Some are utterly nonsensical. Some make it easier for start-ups. Others create market entry barriars.
One thing I will say that applies to the vaping context: most of us in the food industry believe that people who write and enforce the regulations should have some experience in the industry (as well as additional qualifications). Once you work in an industry, you get a much better understanding of the public safety issues.
I'd say the same thing about politicians and opinion makers in the field of public health who really don't have a clue about what a PVD actually is, other than some definition which they can rattle off without really understanding it.
(See, this isn't entirely off-topic
Kent, I'm not sure what case you're referring to that concerns restrictions on what Americans can do in their bedrooms, but if it was Bowers, the state A/G agreed to file an affidavit as a "test" case. As with Griswold (contraception, if I'm allowed to use that word here), neither prosecutor would've actually prosecuted a case like that. This is often done in "test" cases, particularly those that address controversial statutory and con. law issues that are getting a lot of attn. in the law reviews. Lawyers tend to be curious folks, and evading the justiciability requirements of Art. III ("case or controversy") and so forth are not an unknown variety of behavior. Many seminal decisions have originated in this manner.
The raw milk thing is a bit more ambiguous. The reason I was so careful when I ran the Co-Op store is indeed because I'd heard about some incidents in which the FDA went overboard. But what I hear from raw milk activists is that the issue is now mainly one with state authorities (and it varies greatly by state). Frankly I don't keep up w/ it much, since I never bought into what I consider to be mostly hype (and I hardly ever drink milk anyway).
The main reason for my reply to you - however - was that I don't think generalizations about regulations are helpful, based on my own experience in the food industry. (And I got to know plenty of people who were restauraunt managers, producers/farmers, distributors, etc.)
In some cases, regulations can be helpful to "small fry"/start-ups (for ex., if I heard about an e-juice vendor that supposedly made e-juice that was as good as JC, but at half the price, I wouldn't necessarily rush out and try them until I was more comfortable with their reputation. But if a new restaurant opened up in town, I'd be more than willing to try it, because I know they're regulated.)
For another ex., look at how much money egg producers lost after the recent scares. You might say it proves that regulations don't stop bad actors. But I wonder how many people would eat eggs from an unknown or new producer if we had no regulations whatsoever. (Actually the "egg board" is a joke where I live, but that's another subject
Please don't even get me into the subject of duck eggs regulation in Indiana. (Or in other places: I have store manager friends in other states w/ have the same prob. Quite stupid.)On the other hand, regulations can also dramatically increase costs for start-ups, i.e. they provide "market entry barriars." (I suspect you already agree w/ me there, so I won't go into it.)
Regulations can often be overbroad: beef jerky is considered a beef product. Therefore it has to have the same expiration ("sell by") dates as other cooked beef, and it has to be refrigerated
how ludicrous: beef jerky is designed to last virtually forever and to not require refrigeration!And sometimes they don't go far enough. My policy at our store was clear - you gotta be "hatted up" (wear a hairnet) when filling a bulk bin. Even if it's not required by the gov't. That's just good standard food industry practice.
Bottom line ... boilerplate generalizations just aren't informative. Some regulations and regulators are good. Others suck. Some are unnecessary because only an insane business would fail to follow them. Some are utterly nonsensical. Some make it easier for start-ups. Others create market entry barriars.
One thing I will say that applies to the vaping context: most of us in the food industry believe that people who write and enforce the regulations should have some experience in the industry (as well as additional qualifications). Once you work in an industry, you get a much better understanding of the public safety issues.
I'd say the same thing about politicians and opinion makers in the field of public health who really don't have a clue about what a PVD actually is, other than some definition which they can rattle off without really understanding it.
(See, this isn't entirely off-topic
Last edited:
I took the warning literally and declined.... I hope someone gains something from what you've said, but we should go back to the agree to disagree on this. Basically all of these type of discussions should go right to epistemology and I'm pretty sure I know where that would go. So I'll bow out at this point.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
