About-face on smoking?

The U.S. military 's long love affair with tobacco could be snuffed out someday.

[Disabled Veteran]

We are sending our military men and women off to fight in two wars, and, they are worried about smoking!

[Sheri]

Disabled Veteran wrote:

We are sending our military men and women off to fight in two wars, and, they are worried about smoking!

They are not worried about smoking or health. The anti smokers are only worried that there is still one organization that has rejected themA. Control is their purpose: control of governments, legislature, individuals, and now the military: world domination. Only one recent historical figure and his followers has attempted such power, and Adolph was nearly successful. He even promoted smoking bans with the exact tools of propaganda practiced by ASH. Let's hope that, like Adolph, ASH is incinerated before reaching the "final solution."

[Frisbee]

Paranoid Drama rears it's head again.

Such a persecution complex. Such delusions of Grandeur.

Really, You're not that important. You just stink.

[Frisbee]

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with:
"Tobacco-related health problems cost the military $846 million annually in medical care and lost productivity, and cost the VA another $6 billion, the report said."
-Could it?

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Military wanting soldiers and sailors that can perform PT and their mission without wheezing and coughing, could it?

[azmac]

Frisbee wrote:

Couldn't possibly have anything to do with:
"Tobacco-related health problems cost the military $846 million annually in medical care and lost productivity, and cost the VA another $6 billion, the report said."
-Could it?
Couldn't possibly have anything to do with the Military wanting soldiers and sailors that can perform PT and their mission without wheezing and coughing, could it?

I served in the military when almost all smoked stronger and unfiltered cigarettes. Not one person every got sick except with a cold. So I do not think it costing the military any thing. Worked at military bases for years all over the world. The flu and bad teeth seemed to be the biggest problem. I forgot all health problems and death are caused by smoking. If we eliminate smoking no one will ever get sick or die again. Smoking has gone down by 50%, SHS down by 75% and cancer and lung diseases are up over 500%. Maybe smoking isn't the cause. But we will keep blaming smoking and let the real causes go unanswered.

[Sheri]

Frisbee wrote:

Paranoid Drama rears it's head again.
Such a persecution complex. Such delusions of Grandeur.
Really, You're not that important. You just stink.

Perfect example. That is exactly what the NAZIS said about those they persecuted. Before the denormalization campaign, smokers were just regular people, not a separate group singled out for anything. The purpose of the denormalization campaign is to establish a race of people known as "the smokers" so they can be singled out and denormalized. Like the NAZIS, ASH's propaganda machine begins with repetition of phrases like, "you stink" Eventually, the population starts to see "the smokers" as a separate entity and neighbors turn against neighbors. The denormalization plan builds, and smokers are forced out of housing, out of jobs, out of adoption eligibility, and eventually out of medical coverage. The loss of housing, jobs, and medical coverage adds to the "final solution" in this modern NAZI extermination. "The smokers" become homeless and poverty stricken, a self fulfilling prophesy of the denormalization campaign's propaganda that smokers are from the lowest income status and do not deserve human rights. Finally, as smokers reach old age and have no medical coverage for the illnesses of old age, they die: the ultimate final solution. What if they quit smoking? Doesn't matter. The computer that assesses their risk for illness will spit out that ex smokers are 200 times more likely to die of whatever illness they currently have and deny coverage. You sir, are a good little soldier. You are also too ignorant to realize you are a tool.

[azmac]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
Perfect example. That is exactly what the NAZIS said about those they persecuted. Before the denormalization campaign, smokers were just regular people, not a separate group singled out for anything. The purpose of the denormalization campaign is to establish a race of people known as "the smokers" so they can be singled out and denormalized. Like the NAZIS, ASH's propaganda machine begins with repetition of phrases like, "you stink" Eventually, the population starts to see "the smokers" as a separate entity and neighbors turn against neighbors. The denormalization plan builds, and smokers are forced out of housing, out of jobs, out of adoption eligibility, and eventually out of medical coverage. The loss of housing, jobs, and medical coverage adds to the "final solution" in this modern NAZI extermination. "The smokers" become homeless and poverty stricken, a self fulfilling prophesy of the denormalization campaign's propaganda that smokers are from the lowest income status and do not deserve human rights. Finally, as smokers reach old age and have no medical coverage for the illnesses of old age, they die: the ultimate final solution. What if they quit smoking? Doesn't matter. The computer that assesses their risk for illness will spit out that ex smokers are 200 times more likely to die of whatever illness they currently have and deny coverage. You sir, are a good little soldier. You are also too ignorant to realize you are a tool.

Very well said.

[Baja]

Well, they aren't exactly "tobacco related" health problems as much as they are problems caused by Pesticide and Chlorine Contaminated cigarettes.
If you put arsenic in someone's wine, it's not enough to say it's an "alcohol related" or "drinking related" problem. It's a murder or attempted murder caused by whoever put the arsenic there. And it's complicity regarding those in public office who allowed it.
Since a typical cigarette may not contain a shred of tobacco---unless package says it does---the idea of "tobacco related" anything is ridiculous until the presence of tobacco is verified....Industrially Contaminated Tobacco being a vital issue as well.
Google up "Bill Drake Smoke and Illusion", and "Fauxbacco", for more.

[Baja]

An irony here is that most soldiers have really been fighting to preserve US control of global oil supplies... petroleum being a prime component of many tobacco pesticides.
So, soldiers fight (and are injured or killed) partly to assure continued supply of petroleum to make deadly pesticides that leave residues on their own cigarettes.

If the Pentagon cared a toot about soldiers' well being, it would supply only natural tobacco.

BUT...it is so convenient to blame a soldier for "smoking", or to blame the natural tobacco plant, rather than to blame illnesses on military pesticide use and depleted uranium and deadly chemicals used for weapons, etc., that it may be hard to deny soldiers right to smoke. What will the Pentagon then use to blame for their own reckless endangerment of soldiers?

[azmac]

Baja wrote:

Well, they aren't exactly "tobacco related" health problems as much as they are problems caused by Pesticide and Chlorine Contaminated cigarettes.
If you put arsenic in someone's wine, it's not enough to say it's an "alcohol related" or "drinking related" problem. It's a murder or attempted murder caused by whoever put the arsenic there. And it's complicity regarding those in public office who allowed it.
Since a typical cigarette may not contain a shred of tobacco---unless package says it does---the idea of "tobacco related" anything is ridiculous until the presence of tobacco is verified....Industrially Contaminated Tobacco being a vital issue as well.
Google up "Bill Drake Smoke and Illusion", and "Fauxbacco", for more.

Did you know the EPA allows 700 times the amount of arsenic found in one cigarette in one glass of drinking water.

[azmac]

Baja wrote:

An irony here is that most soldiers have really been fighting to preserve US control of global oil supplies... petroleum being a prime component of many tobacco pesticides.
So, soldiers fight (and are injured or killed) partly to assure continued supply of petroleum to make deadly pesticides that leave residues on their own cigarettes.
If the Pentagon cared a toot about soldiers' well being, it would supply only natural tobacco.
BUT...it is so convenient to blame a soldier for "smoking", or to blame the natural tobacco plant, rather than to blame illnesses on military pesticide use and depleted uranium and deadly chemicals used for weapons, etc., that it may be hard to deny soldiers right to smoke. What will the Pentagon then use to blame for their own reckless endangerment of soldiers?

Here is another one for you. Bill HR 2749 will outlaw all organic food. All food will be under codex rules and will be genetically modified. Bill HR 645 will give the government control of all water and that includes the mud puddle in your yard.

[generalsn1234567]

Publishing tripe like this will most likey discourage many people from considering enlisting, knowing that these tobacco control nannies will be badgering gullible politicians forever. I hope they draft all these nannies.

[Frisbee]

sure thing DRAMA QUEEN.
You're going to get rounded up, put into camps, and exterminated. Perfect metaphor.
Get over yourself.
You stink, and nobody wants your stink around.
It's that simple.

No grand conspiracy, you just stink.

Your paranoid fantasies are really quite funny.

[Frisbee]

Hey Sheri, Don't believe that you're a paranoid loser?

Look who's rallying to your defense. The guy who thinks that the census is conducted to GPS locate your house so they can send missiles to your house, that FEMA is building camps and digging mass graves in the desert thinks your drivel is "very well said".

That's a big red flag that you're in nutter territory. Nazis indeed. Pure Drama victimization complex. Smoke until your lungs bleed, because, despite what you seem not to understand.......... Nobody cares.
If millions of people were in the habit of coming into restaurants and bars after pissing themselves, the reaction would be the same. YOU STINK, Go away.

[azmac]

Frisbee wrote:

sure thing DRAMA QUEEN.
You're going to get rounded up, put into camps, and exterminated. Perfect metaphor.
Get over yourself.
You stink, and nobody wants your stink around.
It's that simple.
No grand conspiracy, you just stink.
Your paranoid fantasies are really quite funny.

You keep saying nobody wants the stinky smoker around, when in truth it is only a very few of you anti's. I find non-smokers do not care one way or the other. I go off to smoke by myself and all follow me. When at work the smokers would all go out side for a smoke break and the non-smokers would go with them. Many people in foreign countries think all Americans stink. Why? because we drink milk. It is amazing that many people do not know I smoke until they see me smoking.So I find many do not smell the tobacco. Quit watching TV commercials they lie to sell a product and make the trillion dollar a year drug companies even richer. Most drugs are made in China, so you are helping support China a communist country. I always did think anti's were communist. Taking away private property rights which is what the constitution is based on.

[Confederate1989]

THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

Chart (Table 1)

[Confederate1989]

Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking,[it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts")--not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.

[Confederate1989]

pay the flying dish plate no mind.........we all know second hand smoke is a joke and the nazis that push the bans are absolute morons........

[Sheri]

Frisbee wrote:

Hey Sheri, Don't believe that you're a paranoid loser?
Look who's rallying to your defense. The guy who thinks that the census is conducted to GPS locate your house so they can send missiles to your house, that FEMA is building camps and digging mass graves in the desert thinks your drivel is "very well said".
That's a big red flag that you're in nutter territory. Nazis indeed. Pure Drama victimization complex. Smoke until your lungs bleed, because, despite what you seem not to understand.......... Nobody cares.
If millions of people were in the habit of coming into restaurants and bars after pissing themselves, the reaction would be the same. YOU STINK, Go away.

If ever there was a Drama Queen, that would be you. The irony is astounding. READ your post; it is the rantings of a psychotic.

[BleuJei]

Sheri wrote:

<quoted text>
If ever there was a Drama Queen, that would be you. The irony is astounding. READ your post; it is the rantings of a psychotic.

Aside from being a bigot (one serious character flaw I taught my kids to recognize and avoid), Frisbee needs to seek help for his hypersensitivity disorder.