Roll Your Own Magazine, RYO, Winter/Spring 2012, The Magazine of Roll Your Own.
Fixing Congress, the Economy and the Executive Branch, Real Tobacco in Cigarettes, Pipe
and Smoking Tobacco, Tobacco and Product Reviews, Powermatic II, Simron's New Easy
Roller, Pure Herbal Smoking Blends, Tobacco Alternatives, Smoking Issues, SCHIP revealed,
TopOMatic, EXP 1000, EXP 2000, Injector, Cigapipe Evolution and Autoloader from Piparette,
D&R Tobacco, RYO Tobacco, Rolling Paper Depot, HBI, Gizeh,
Republic, Drum, ZigZag, American Thrust, The New Cigapipe, The Magnum Electric
Injector, The Oldham Electronic Injector, S-Chip and FDA regulation, New Pipe Tobaccos
 
           
 
"Unions, Non-Profits,
Religions, Wall Street, the Professional Politician, and Media Mouthpieces"
"Against Stupidity, Even the Gods Themselves Contend in Vain!"
UPDATE: May 2012 - Happy New Year from All here at RYO
Magazine: And remember, with at least 50 million voters in the US who enjoy tobacco
products, it would seem logical that their interest should be observed. Since government
(politicians) at all levels seems to be incapable of achieving anything that vaguely
resembles the will of the people or greater good for the nation, is it not time to
consider a single issue vote. 50 million people can certainly turn the tide of any
election and despite your other concerns (which should be more important), the current
political system and its power elite are not likely to solve any problems. So why not a
single issue?
The following quote purported
from Warren Buffett says what we've been saying for years. And it has been at the top of
this publication for years. Read "Buffet's" comments then read below. A whole
lot of people are on the same page and perhaps a double issue vote is more appropriate.
Both sane regulations and taxation of tobacco products AND the dismissal (by vote) of all
incumbent politicians. We've been saying it for years. Now the first part is part of a
direct quote as stated, the second was part of a chain letter email that is circling the
internet which claims Buffett said the whole thing. While we cannot confirm this, the
ideas are so close to what we've been saying for years that we felt it wise to provide.
After all, when does a good idea need a source, our government is sure not up front
on sources of information they use to rule. By the way, until we've added a bit more info
in the magazine get the book, "Throw Them All Out." by Peter Schweizer. Details
of congressional corruption are incredible, whether its Nancy Pelosi or republican
analogs.That's why we've said for so long that NO incumbents should get anywhere near
public office ever again. Enjoy reading. The DETAILS you will never get from political
speak or from TV or Radio news can be found if you are willing to read. Reading long and
hard is your only source of information that is usually not bought and paid for by big
corporations and by big government and when it is, it is far easier to smell for the crap
it is! get Schweizer's book. You will be shocked and it is 100% vetted as to its accuracy.
Now for Warren B.
Warren Buffett, in a recent
interview with CNBC, offers one of the best quotes about the debt ceiling:
"I could end the deficit in 5
minutes," he told CNBC. "You just pass a law that says that anytime there is a
deficit of more than 3% of GDP, all sitting members of Congress are ineligible for
re-election.The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3
months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971
- before computers, e-mail, cell phones, etc.Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution,
seven (7) took one (1) year or less to become the law of the land - all because of public
pressure. Here is what he proposes - with a few *comments by the editor - pass it on!
Congressional Reform
Act of 2011
1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman
collects a salary while in office and receives no pay, no benefit when they're out of
office.
2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the
Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future
funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American
people. It may not be used for any other purpose.
3. Congress *may purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans may do.
(*change "may" to "must" or do without as do many of us)
4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the
lower of CPI (consumer price index) or 3%. (*both too generous)
5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health
care system as the American people. (*which means they buy a policy if they can afford it)
6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
(*Surprisingly, in many instances this is not currently the law)
7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The
American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congress made all these
contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding
Fathers
envisioned CITIZEN LEGISLATORS, so ours should serve their term(s), then
go home and back to work.
THIS IS HOW YOU FIX CONGRESS!
Editor's note - no
current politician is going to vote for this which is why it remains essential that no
incumbents (who are up for election) remain in office after November 2012 and one term
representatives, (term limits) including POTUS, become a reality. Again, below we've been
saying this for many years. It is the ONLY solution! AND IT REQUIRES ENORMOUS PUBLIC
PRESSURE. Keep reading - the ed
As
a preamble to the now ready massive update with lots of new products and videos as well as
current information on the state of . . well, just about everything, let me start
with the following. Much will be coming by the hour. Read the latest Weekly Update (click on
the link at lower left) and then . . . Consider the following . . .
You
can write all the letters you want, you can claim foul all you want, and you can whine
about governmental takeover and intrusions into all things you hold dear, again, all you
want, but the true and sole remaining peaceful power that the American people have is
their individual vote. Never again vote for ANY incumbent, and from the pool of possible
candidates who qualify (i.e., not being a "professional politician" is an
absolute first qualification), along with displaying common sense, those who display logic
if you will, and a dedication to seek and embrace good ideas on their merit alone and not
just those ideas which are most likely to be funded by heavily lobbying special
interests). Select those who will commit to one term limits. We need one
term Presidents, one term Reps and one term Senators. We should never again tolerate
"politician" as a job description or a profession. It's the only way this
egregious trend of a more intrusive government (at all levels) will be reversed. And it is
the only way to get the large special interest groups out of the process. Our Reps and
Senators at both the State and Federal level should be banned from meeting with ANY group
representing specific business, ideologies, or unions. The only lobbying group that should
be classified as having access are groups formed by private citizens that the Rep or
Senator represent. So along with the "professional politician", we need an
abrupt end to the "professional lobbyist" They are practically one and the same.
Only with laws passed by this new kind of representative will these institutional
parasites be banned forever from the halls and back rooms of our governments. True citizen
groups are the only entities that should have access to lawmakers. Be sure to read "Once Again - Our Position On Tobacco" following the update info section below.
Take the time to find qualified candidates in your
local, state, and federal elections who will make such commitments. Letter writing to
current politicians is no longer an effective strategy alone, in reality it never has
been. You have to get involved directly with the candidate selection process. You will not
be alone. This is the reality of the future. A reality that also needs significant change
in those who provide news to the people. Whether network or cable, print or radio, we are
being under served by those we have to listen to most. They are every bit as contaminated
with dollars as the politicians and lobbyists we reject. The only agenda that should be
relevant is the absence of government unless it is requested. And always be careful for
any help for which you may ask. There is always a price. Mass media journalism needs an
unprecedented purging. There is no right or left, only greed. And it's damn time people
realized the information they are being fed by such media has an all too obvious agenda,
which mostly results in fat wallets for the feeders of such blatant foggy soup. They
almost always have books to sell and will say practically anything to sell them. Boy, this
is going to be fun. A full year's worth (and much more) of research went into the upcoming
issue and we think you will be amazed at what is now the new reality.
By Section the new update will include:
Tobacco: This section will be the most controversial and is
the one we absolutely wanted to wait to update until we had one more chance (at the 2010
TobaccoPlusExpo in Las Vegas, in early March 2010) to finally and VISUALLY (first hand)
verify what the various manufacturers are doing and what they intend to do if a couple of
pending legislations pass. The legislations at the Federal level include the PACT
Act which will effect online sales of tobacco products (except perhaps cigars - more on
that in a moment). This industry (manufacturers) and special interest groups, like the
convenience store lobby all support PACT. They say that the internet sources of tobacco
cut into the convenience store profits. However what they don't talk about publicly is
that the vast majority of convenience stores are attached to gas stations and the oil
lobby is the real power behind these lesser lobbying groups. Ask yourself, how many really
great products would you buy at a convenience store. I can't think of one. They exist (or
should) for those who need last minute or after hours goods to get one by until normal
businesses open. Buying tobacco from these establishments is no more logical than trying
to buy a good guitar or a good set of tools from them. Tobacco is a serious purchase and
the customer is best served by people who specialize in it. Many online sellers of tobacco
have a whole lot more knowledge of tobacco than you will find at any convenience store or
unfortunately even more than many so called Tobacco Outlets that mostly sell cigarettes.
Availability of products through the internet is a driving factor for brick and mortar
stores to carry a wider range of products. With no competition from the "NET",
states would have unlimited power to even further raise taxes and local retailers could
very likely decide to carry a much more narrow selection of products as their customers
would have no alternative choice. Much more on this in the Editorial Section when I
return.
The second piece of
legislation (to be kind) is known as the Tobacco Tax Parity Act, which involves the
controversy created by a number of RYO tobacco manufacturers switching to pipe tobacco
blends exclusively. Obviously the excise tax on pipe tobacco is 1/10th of that on rolling
tobacco, so though we encouraged certain manufacturers not to go down this path, it was
their choice. Congress now, constantly harassed by their respective state governments want
to equalize the tax on both products by raising the tax on pipe tobacco to the same level
as rolling tobacco, about $25 per pound. Most of you are already aware that rolling
tobacco was raised by the latest S-CHIP from $1.03 per pound to this ridiculous $25 level.
You can't blame the RYO manufacturers in trying to save their customers some serious money
but our contention has always been that the RYO/CMC experience is so superior, that cost
should not be an issue and CHEAP never should have been a promotional tool anyway. Yeah I
hate the taxation schemes of both the Feds and the States but as far as tobacco, with
moderate use of really good tobaccos, consumption usually goes down anyway and will always
remain a better value than any packaged cigarette.
One
state (TEXAS) even went so far as to begin taxing all loose tobacco at $1.10 per ounce in
response to this pipe versus cigarette tobacco debacle. And the problem was exacerbated by
certain retailers promoting the new pipe tobaccos for roll you own use. People just can't
keep their mouths shut it seems. Anyway it has effected some of our favorite tobaccos, but
those like Stokkebye, ZigZag, Republic,
and Commonwealth were smart enough (or wealthy enough) to keep their
cigarette tobacco lines, even if they decided to offer a pipe tobacco line as well. Stokkebye
has been in the pipe tobacco business for very long time (4 generations) and D&R
has all the qualifications to be a REAL pipe tobacco manufacturer. D&R practically
controls the Perique tobacco supply which is an important component in
many historic pipe blends. They have for a long time and still do use Latakia in their
blends (another important pipe component), and they changed the cut of their tobacco
dramatically rather than simply re-packaging as did some. Anyway this controversy will
reach a head and eventually we'll all know where we stand and we certainly look forward to
some kind of stability. In the meantime, Stokkebye rules at the high end
(where most who really love tobacco should be) and Republic, with Top
and Gambler makes good cigarette cut offerings we all are familiar with.
The expanded tobacco strategy that Gambler Tube Cut has adopted (they still make regular
Gambler) has some negatives and some positives. It appears that Premier has followed the
same path but we need to see it to verify. Their original Premier blends
introduced a couple of years ago were really quite good. Our readers are torn as much as
we are about expanded tobacco. In Canada I hated it. While on a visit to CTC in 2001,
Stephane David (then from CTC) and I went into a local tobacco store in Toronto to buy
some tobacco. One of my favorites used to be Export A and they had that as well as Players
and a few other brands of note. And they all came in three sizes of plastic tubs. Each tub
whether it was 10 inches tall or 4 inches tall or 6" held 150 grams. What was
that??!! That's right, it went from slightly expanded to REALLLLLY expanded. I bought a
4" and a 10" tub. Looked like a lot more tobacco in the 10 incher. Then I made a
stick out the most expanded. Lasted 4 puffs and it was gone. And the taste was
significantly different than the less/not expanded in the 4 incher. I talked to a few
patrons who absolutely refused to buy the big tubs after being burned a first time. The
point is the new Tube cuts and SuperRoll expanded blends from Republic taste a whole lot
more like non-expanded Gambler than I expected. And the Tube cut in both experiments we
did here along with a friend who owns a bunch of tobacco shops in Michigan who I trust
scientifically, found that an ounce of regular Gambler would make about 30 sticks and an
ounce of Tube cut about 38 sticks max. So its not THAT expanded which is why it tastes so
much better than the expanded crap I found in Canada years ago. Anyway we'll explore this
more. We have had numberof readers complain about the Gambler Tube Cut. Nothing like the
volume of complaints we had about the New Polish McClintock - but that is another story
altogether that will be told when I return.
There
is much more politics to share on the Tobacco issue. For instance, here's a teaser: The
World Health Organization (WHO) has published its Tobacco Atlas that has a lot of facts
about tobacco consumption and where it is grown. On one page of this Atlas it MAKES
the case we've been hammering on since our beginnings eleven years ago. According to the
WHO, in 1960 it took 2.5 pound of leaf tobacco to make 1,000 cigarettes. By the year 2000,
it took only .9 pounds to make the same 1,000 sticks. How you can even classify a packaged
cigarette (except for Shermans and a very few others) as tobacco is oxymoronic. We'll show
you the actual page when we get back as well as the misleading documents provided to
Congress by one of our favorite anti-tobacco nanny groups that caused the S-CHIP excise
tax hike to go through the roof. You're gonna love this trail of treachery.
ZigZag
blends have improved continuously every year and now make some of the finest widely
accessible tobacco out there. There is much more to this story which we will share with
you when we return but suffice it to say that with a can of ZigZag (Dark Blue),
you will enjoy yourself immensely. Oh yeah, as far as why cigars keep getting a break. It
is not just the fat cats in DC liking cigars as many think, although that is certainly a
part of the equation. Sources tell us what should already be obvious. The countries that
provide most cigars and whose economies strongly depend on these exports to the US are
very close geographically to Hugo Chavez and Venezuela, and of course, Cuba. The US does
not want to damage relations with Central American, South American, and Caribbean
countries for fear they may once again (as during the Reagan administration - the
Contras?) begin to align against us. Having traveled quite a bit to those regions in the
last few years, North America is not particularly well thought of by many there. It is
interesting to note that cigars made here in the US (Miami mostly) from components from
the Latin countries have more severe regulatory requirements than the imports. Again more
specifics when we return in a week or so. Interesting to note that we're informed that the
most powerful lobbying group for the cigar industry in DC are the UN Ambassadors from the
potentially affected countries. We are still checking that one out, but I would not doubt
it for a minute. And lastly remember that Stokkebye is now Villiger/Stokkebye
and they make some truly kick ass (as good as it gets) cigars as well as the highest
quality cigarette and pipe tobaccos in the world. And Organic Smoke, Inc.
with their new Kentucky Select have finally bridged the
gap between great taste and pure organic tobacco. I've never tasted an organic blend like
this. It is absolutely delicious. More on that blend as well.
Rolling Papers: This category is under almost as much attack right now as tobacco, at least
from the FDA. Specifically, flavored rolling papers have been made nearly illegal,
completely so for tobacco use (is there
a caveat there?). However the many
purveyors of fine rolling papers still have much to be proud of. Fine rolling papers we
have not spent a whole lot of time writing about. The fact is that brands like Bambu
(my go to papers for 30 years from the 60s on) are every bit as cool as they ever were and
remain one of my very favorite. A tobacco or smoke shop without Bambu
papers is operating under false pretenses. Of course there will be no flavored versions,
but I've never been a fan of flavored papers no matter what I used to smoke or what I
smoke today. Gizeh's Hamf (Hemp) remain a favorite as do all of the Zig
Zags. Republic's Ventura Whites (Lights), JOB
and Tribals are outstanding as are the Joker series from
Commonwealth/RBA. HBI continues its huge line of papers but our favorites
remain the RAW series as well as the really classy Elements
(some now with magnetic closures - cool). Chris Hill (founder of Chills)
is back with his outstanding Island papers in truly dazzling packaging,
the Cris line as well as the somewhat mystical Nine Dragons.
Again, none of these varied brands are flavored - not for tobacco use per FDA current
postions. Read into that what you will and we will explain in a week. Safe to say the
Rolling Paper Section has some comprehensive details to investigate and share as to the
flavoring issue and ultimately the final rulings on the issue.
Tubes: There are a few new tubes in addition to the Vera Cruz
line which will include in the future not only a slim (6.9mm) version in 84mm as well as
ultimately a 100mm slim. (**see the Injector Section now to see what that is about). A new
tube, the Beretta, made in the same factory as the VeraCruz is another
designer quality tube that is pure eye candy. Gizeh has had their newest
25mm filter element tube, the SilverTip Extra, out for a while and more
people need to try it. It is really nice with the expected benefits of the longer element
one would expect. There are some really cheap-ass tubes out there as well, but after
looking at them, we've decided pretty much "so what". And of course the Premier
line, and the Top and Gambler and ZigZag
lines are always good values and easily found. Much more on the whole tube picture (much
more important to the future of this industry than you might expect, PLUS
a new pipe that replaces the much missed Tattoo. It's called the CigaPipe
from an Australian company by the name of Piparette. It comes in two versions, both much
smaller than the original Tattoo and far better for the cigarette smoker. The high tech
filter is much more effective than any we've seen in any pipe to date. The Evolution
series of the Cigapipe is a well made traditional pocket pipe with an
incredible filter that smokes really nicely. The AutoLoader version has a
tobacco reservoir that many will find useful. As with most other categories in this
industry, innovation is excitingly energetic and continuing to increase in intensity.
Injectors:
March 2011 Here the story really gets exciting. (Please note
there is already some new stuff at the top of the Injector Section). The Powermatic II, The new Easy Roller from Simron with variable speed
control, the Casspin Closer and more. While the industry in general has been bombarded
with legislation and regulation enough to drive any sane person to the nearest drug store,
the innovation in injectors continues to accelerate. A Slim Tube
crankstyle from Simron (the EXP2000) is on the way and could
likely change this industry in very big ways (the video and the review of the prototype is
already in the current Injector Section), Republic has
gone DeLorean with the incredible looking T2 Version of the already well
respected Top-O-Matic, as well as Republic's little red saucer shaped Gambler
injector (think short throw manual sports car shifter) which we've had a year to try and
break and have failed to do so, the Supermatic and Excel
remain intact and superb. However one thing that we must mention, driven both by a lot of
mail from readers and our own experiences: The newer larger pipe cuts are MUCH harder on
injectors and consequently we do not recommend them for injecting. Yeah they will go into
the tube, but they burn much less smoothly and evenly than cigarette cut tobacco and
again, they put a lot of stress on the injector, the fact being that moisture content is
ten times more important than ever before with these new cuts to keep from breaking your
injector. Frankly if it says Pipe Tobacco on the package, I smoke it in a pipe. I'll share
with you my rather elite collection of pipes that I've had and smoked for years and this
new pipe tobacco, especially some of the D&R blends, are downright
outstanding in a pipe. We also have a new design for a pipe under development that may
make the transition (if necessary) easier for those who choose pipe tobacco over cigarette
cut. More on that as well. There are a couple of very noteworthy electrics. There is an
electric that has undergone a lot of tweaking since we first saw it a few months ago. The
designer/manufacturer has gone to great pains to work out the kinks and we have huge hope
that this will be a real winner. It is small, electric and uses a spoon and works now as
well as it looks cool. There are older versions of this machine (the PowermaticII)
out there, but we suggest you wait for the latest version which we now have for testing.
It is far superior to its earlier iteration(s). For some, it may be the best electric out
there for now and recently we began to feel that it may be the best spoon injector period.
The Magnum is finished and but for the down turn in the economy, it would
be available now. It uses a gear driven steel rod, (they lost the batteries) and this
thing will inject anything that will fit through its nozzle, including rocks. We have one
of the only two existing prototypes here and will show it in detail when we return. The
push rod design is still the ultimate strategy and TSP really pulled out the stops on this
final design. Incredibly powerful planetary motor engaging a direct gear drive. It's
awesome, but will be more expensive than the original projections for the original Magnum
but legal and financial hoops still have to be navigated. And finally Simron's
new EasyRoller is doing some great injections and is priced right. Their
new auger and slower speed motor is really changing our views os the potential of auger
type injectors for the future. A high quality video of both the PowermaticII
and The Easy Roller is on the Injectors page. Be patient. You will be
rewarded with any of these machines. The injector world is really looking great!!
Rollers: There are a couple of new rollers worthy of notice.
The existing ones are all damn good but HBI has made the effort to make a roller made from
really futuristic and more natural materials. And there is a metal roller that is the best
roller I have ever seen that was sent to us for our evaluation. We won't say by whom but
it was a very large company. The problem is that we loved it, said so, did a personal DVD
for the manufacturer with our highest recommendations and yet until we get to Vegas, we
won't know if they actually decided to bring it into the US. It is very popular in the UK.
And if they don't have it by now, I'm sure someone else (hint) will pick up on the design
(barring patent infringements of course).
Grow Your Own: We did our first article on growing your own tobacco
in July of 2000. Here is the link. It was obvious to us then that the day may come when a
very large number of people would begin to see the benefits and perhaps even necessity of
becoming "Tobacco Gardeners". We are a hell of a lot closer now than ever
before. Jim Johnson still reigns supreme in knowledge (that he shares with the public)
about growing tobacco and what seeds to get. His site (referenced in the 2000 article)
remains http://www.seedman.com.
We have each year grown small plots of tobacco just to continually retain and
expand our personal knowledge of the best practices to achieve success in this endeavor.
It really is quite easy and the satisfaction one always derives from doing things for
oneself, combined now with the more severe economic/political component, makes this
absolutely the time to begin (if you've not already started). Plants can be grown in pots,
in small garden plots or in many cases, even indoors. The amount of production possible
for one's own use (a very strong caveat) is astounding with little
effort, a little knowledge, and some good seed. HBI is now selling a few varieties of
seeds, but the Seedman site has hundreds of every kind of tobacco one could hope for. And
again no one knows more than Johnson about seeds and personal growing endeavors. When I
return we'll will show you the results of this past summer's plantings. We think you will
be stunned as to the production and the ease at which it can be achieved. And remember,
our goal as far as Grow Your Own is not to hurt the great manufacturers of fine tobacco.
It is an insurance policy against a government that has been rotted to the core by special
interest groups and others who have taken it upon themselves to force you to live like
they do. Growing ones own tobacco may provide the ultimate hedge against such intrusions.
Last
thing: You hear the word corrupt or corruption a lot lately. Please remember that this
word not only applies to monetary greed or political chicanery. Its true meaning is rotting
and decaying, and that we should find even more of a danger to our
country and ourselves personally than all the Wall Street Gambling Casinos combined. From
a rotten core, the corruption will spread to engulf the entire organism, and the only
treatment when that happens is amputation. We have the peaceful and legal
means of performing this amputation (career politicians and lobbyists must be removed) but
if we wait too long, the corruption could be irreversible. We have before us a severe case
of Gangrene in this country and all of you know the ultimate consequence of ignoring that.
And
what can be REALLY done you may ask? The following has been at the bottom of this cover
page for eight (8) YEARS. It holds as an exercise in logic, as much today as has it
always.
Once Again - Our
Position On Tobacco
It
is our position that because of the sheer enormity of money that is involved in the
tobacco debate, and the fact that such vast amounts of resource can breed fraud and
corruption, as evidenced by the large number of claims of violations attributed to the
cigarette industry, as well as counter-claims of fraudulent research methods by those on
the other side of the issue, much more needs to be done to quantify the specific elements
of tobacco smoke as well as specific elements of other sources of smoke and pollution in
our environment that can lead to health problems. We therefore stress as a logical and
necessary step forward, in order to ameliorate the controversy and lessen the divisive
nature of the subject, that any and all tax revenues that are collected on tobacco,
as well as all punitive damages collected on behalf of US citizens by all local,
state, and federal litigations against tobacco, other than those funds already
allocated that are needed to satisfy current regulation and enforcement, be applied to
five (5) areas of investigation and compensation exclusively. These
areas are:
1. Scientifically rigorous, comprehensive research on tobacco and
health with full public disclosure detailing the accounting for the amount of research
money distributed, of how decisions are reached as to the ways and means said research
money is distributed, and to whom the research money is awarded and why.
2. Full disclosure and complete public dissemination
of information on experimental methodology and subsequent findings that are validated by
the oversight of non-partisan, scientifically qualified panels that are
accountable to the taxpayers by way of unimpeded public scrutiny and
debate.
3. All revenues allocated to any of the above as well
as to the subsequent health care of individuals who may be found damaged by tobacco or to
education programs for tobacco intervention, must be used in a cost-efficient manner as
determined by full disclosure and reasonable consensus between these scientifically
qualified panels and representatives of those who bear the burden of taxation.
4. During the above research phase, should OTHER
sources of polluting elements in our environment be found to be significant factors in the
symptomatic expression of illnesses previously attributed solely to tobacco use, that
those other entities found culpable be held fiscally accountable, to the degree determined
by the same scientifically qualified panels, with suitable restitution to the tobacco
taxpayers for previous unwarranted tax burdens as a consequence.
5. Additionally, be it found that institutions or
individuals have purposely, for profit, or gain of status, mis-stated or over-stated the
impact or role of tobacco usage in the symptomatic expression of certain illnesses, those
found culpable of purposeful deception for profit or manipulative power be held fiscally
accountable, to the maximum degree determined by the same scientifically qualified panels,
with likewise suitable restitution to the specific taxpayers as a consequence, in
conjunction with the strong possibility of criminal prosecution for fraud
for those, for any type of gain, who have been blatantly disingenuous with fact.
There
you have it, a pretty comprehensive taste of what the completed new issue of RYO Magazine
will look like. With few edits remaining and a little verification as mentioned above, it
will begin to show up within a week of our returning: Right now there is a lot of new
stuff on the Injectors
page and the RollingPapers
page to keep you interested and to prepare you for what you've read above.
In
the meantime if you have not read what is below, please do so. There is a wealth of
information there that remains timely and is, in reality, even more important to your
daily lives than the products we review. In fact, if current trends continue unabated by
people like you and me, all products we love in every product sector will face regulations
unlike those seen in even the most repressive societies in history. And grand schemes
supposedly in the public interest that in reality are only cash cows for the few must be
seen for what they, in fact, are. It really is in your hands. So take another look below.
Enjoy! For the impatient, click here
to see how our precious FDA (now in control of tobacco) conducts its business. Its like
reading a bad novel that is yet compelling simply because of its lack of focus or path.
You can't put it down because you naively remain certain that surely it will eventually
make sense and that something, SOME THING, will justify the effort. Good luck. More very
soon. - Doug
This issue has been one of the most
difficult to finish since our first issue nearly eleven years ago. More on that (a lot
MORE) in a moment. First off though, if you have a broadband internet connection, check
out the MultiMedia site and send your friends and/or customers there who
may have questions about the MYO/RYO methodology. There are comprehensive videos covering
all aspects of the experience. And there will be a lot more coming in the future. We are
concentrating heavily on this visual aspect as it answers a lot of questions in a very
straightforward manner - a manner that seems to be pervasive in our society where reading
is becoming somewhat of a lost art. For whatever reason, it is essential that those
cigarette smokers interested in perhaps migrating from the obsessive behavior of packaged
cigarettes get a clear understanding of the advantages of MYO/RYO. And these many
advantages far outweigh simply cost savings. Few retailers actively demonstrate the
method. This we know from a lot of readers, especially those new to MYO, who have
expressed amazement at the utility of the process. We got far too many letters daily from
folks who were confused as to what MYO/RYO is. They are intimidated by the term
"injection" and we have had more than a few questions like, "Is injecting
tobacco better than smoking it?" That, at least for those that have access to
broadband (thus the videos), has been eliminated for the most part. For those that don't,
the questions persist. The MultiMedia site speaks for itself and we hope adult readers,
old and new, enjoy it. It will grow as new questions come in and as new products emerge
whose advantages can best benefit from visual demonstration. Mac users will need the
latest Windows Media Player plug-in for Mac, easily obtained by clicking here.
Windows users will need the latest Window's Media Video 9 as well, all easily obtained at
the preceding link.
Now
on to this new issue: This magazine was initially created to show not only the cigarette
smoking public the advantages of MYO/RYO/CMC and to highlight what we felt, and still
feel, are the best products available, but as importantly to demonstrate and warn of the
direction our country (and others) are taking to satisfy special interest groups, in every
possible sector of life at the expense of our freedoms. RYO has always meant more to me as
a statement of personal choice and independence, than simply an acronym for a superior
method of enjoying tobacco. This is the largest, most comprehensive issue to date. It is
our intent to make subsequent issues more concise and return to our quarterly schedule. We
have a lot of product to show you in this issue and have already accumulated a lot more
for the upcoming issue which will be ready in early August after the RTDA show. We do
periodic updates to current issues and in this one, one particular area should not be
overlooked. As many of you know, we have been traveling extensively this last year, both
in the US and abroad. This magazine is read in well over 100 countries and our travels
reflect the interest in CMC (MYO) worldwide. .
Now
(again) along with showing our readers product, it was, even from its early beginnings,
our intention to make tobacco enthusiasts aware of the politics of smoking in general.
These "politics" could well be defined as both regulatory and health related and
our main thrust in these areas has always been quality, moderation, and public activism.
Seeking the truth about tobacco has been of primary concern. The economy of the method has
never been our point. Cheap cigarettes and cheap tobacco carry baggage that when used as
the sole reason for moving to  RYO/MYO,
will ultimately destroy the "real" tobacco industry, and those who enjoy great
tobacco will lose any reasonable access to it. And, as most know by now, our concern is
for the often ill-defined differences between the "cigarette" industry and the
"tobacco" industry. We have never encouraged readers to smoke and we have been
highly aggressive in our belief that if one chooses to smoke, use the best tobacco you can
buy and use it sparingly - like a good wine.
What
has taken so long to put this issue together lies mostly in the domain of the rapidly
changing regulatory and political situation that engulfs tobacco. While most of the
regulations we now have and will speak of supposedly were aimed at cigarettes, most all of
them, for various special interest group reasons, have landed squarely on the back of the
rolling tobacco industry as well. Before we begin what may be a rather disconcerting
journey for some, we want to make it clear that this page will outline the problems and
some of the reasons for them. In the Editorial section you will find our
best extrapolations of both solutions and what, in the very
near future, given some intelligent and logical application of easily instituted
possibilities, the rolling/make your own industry could look like in the future. You'll
notice that we refrain from using the phrase "Stuff Your Own" It sounds
egregiously ignorant and the acronym SYO is even worse than MYO. We even had a contest
you can read about in the Review Section that addressed our efforts to
come up with a better descriptor of all that Make Your Own is and can be. Basically,
"Custom Made Cigarettes", whereby those who truly enjoy
tobacco, have absolute control over the content of their smokes. There is no shortage of
new products in this issue but most of them have arrived rather late in the context of the
originally intended date of this issue. We wanted to have a chance to evaluate all of them
extensively before passing the information on to our readers. So again, there's a lot to
see in this issue. So why is this cover piece so long overdue? Read it and you'll see why.
Before
proceeding, we STRONGLY recommend the two books shown at above left and at
right. The book "Tobacco" is an incredible treatise on perhaps the most
controversial plant ever to grace the planet. More on it is in the Tobacco section but it
is a must read for all in order to put the current tobacco controversy in striking
historical perspective. Crichton's "State of Fear" is a
definitive look at what drives nearly all things intrusive into our personal lives
including the anti-tobacco movement. While its plot focuses on the junk science of
"Global Warming", its principles applies to anti-tobacco strategies as well. The
point is not whether Global Warming is occurring. The point is that it is big business as
is anti-tobacco, and frankly the profits generated from
"managing" these two "threats" are not only enormous (Trillions of
dollars), but these profits are the sole reason for  the existence of these organized
purveyors of doom. Global Warming may be a fact, but there is no profit in it being a
natural earth cycle. The big profit arises if it can be blamed on entities with deep
pockets - like manufacturers, the energy industry, or SUV makers. I'm frankly a bit
surprised some bright bulb with some financial angle hasn't already accused smokers of
contributing to excess so called Greenhouse gases as well. We need to
look at reality, not rhetoric. There is even research out there that is showing that
trees, and vegetation in general, produce a lot of methane (a major greenhouse gas) along
with the much welcomed oxygen. There have been many warming and cooling cycles that have
impacted the earth for many hundreds of millions of years. Global Warming alarmists fail
to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that the current condition is solely man-made. We
agree that the benchmark for "reasonable doubt" should be relatively low
considering the global consequences if man actually were to have sole responsibility and
control over this phenomena. Even such a lowered threshold has not been reached. An
example of how dumb these protagonists are and how dumb (or gullible) they assume the
general public to be can be found in the film, "The Day After Tomorrow."
There the lead character has a paleo-climate model that needs to be called into use to
help understand and predict the further progression of the sudden climate change that is
devastating the earth's populations. In a speech at a global warming conference near the
beginning of the film, as well as several other times in the film, when explaining the
efficacy of his model, he stresses it is based on a paleo-climatological event that
happened 10,000 years ago. Obviously he is admitting quite early in the film that such a
dramatic climate change happened well before humans were capable of the pollution that he
blames for the current crisis. Both critics and advocates of the film seem to have missed
this vital point. It speaks, as well, to the core of the anti-tobacco movement's excuse
for their excesses. And that is the differences between a casual
relationship, a causal relationship (click here
for a decent though somewhat circular look at this favorite term of the Epidemiologist),
and a directly attributable definitively sole cause. The first is a weak
possible relationship, the second only a little stronger possibility that a thing may
likely be a factor in a given outcome, and the third is, by definition,
the ONLY cause. Jumping off a 100 foot cliff onto rocks is logically the sole cause
of a death, whether the person smoked or not. All but the last are merely today's version
of Mammoth Flatulence.
Read
Steve Milloy's column linked below to see just how silly and dangerous this kind of narrow
thinking can become, especially when it attempts to lay blame for situations that may have entirely different causes, some
of which may be just as preventable by simpler means. I must repeat that the science is
still not conclusive as to the "cause" of what appears, at least, to be a
climatic change. Perhaps Al Gore is right. Perhaps it is human intervention even though it
has happened frequently before humans could have been the cause. It's not that the theory
itself is the culprit. Intelligent and creative humans and the science that results from
such beings are an essential part of our own evolution. The problem is not with the
creative or inventive pure scientists. The problem is how those not qualified to interpret
the science choose to use parts of any scientific theory as a launching pad for their own
agenda which is almost always profit motivated. Again, read another Milloy article at the
link here. You will be amazed and probably not too hard
pressed to see how certain groups may be able to profit enormously if what you read about
comes to pass. A hint - think "chemical companies" that make fertilizer.
Now
if global warming opportunists could prove that humans and their machines were the only
cause of global warming, or even the leading causality, we would be well advised to listen
and change our behavior, and you can bet strict laws to assist us in doing so would be
quickly forthcoming and widely accepted. However, since historically the Earth has
expressed this global warming (disease if you follow the analogy) before and well before
the machinery of humans, one must take great care in accessing responsibility lest we
overlook perhaps other more important factors and waste a lot of resources (money)
following a literally dead end trail. Read Steven Milloy's (Junskscience.com) latest in a
long line of criticisms involving the huge cost of the Kyoto treaty and the tiny amount of
impact this multi-billion (eventually multi-Trillion dollar) boondoggle is estimated and
even admitted to eventually have. Click here
for the article and note the archives at the immediate right on the page
you will be taken to. Read all the articles on various subjects. They contain vital
information regarding all kinds of pseudo-science scams. In fact. make www.junkscience.com one of
your bookmarks. What you will find there is what we've been telling readers for years
about the highly profitable business of pseudo-scientific fear mongering. The article on
the Kyoto Anniversary is shocking to the extreme and it appears now (the Kyoto Treaty) to
have been predominantly an experiment to see if humanity could be coerced to support the
high profit geo-political science of environmental activism, no matter how weak the actual
science behind any of it may be. Yes, we have been poor stewards of our planet, but we
need real solutions, not imaginary ones that enormously profit the very few and wind up
accomplishing little or nothing other than the redistribution of wealth from the producers
of the world to the non-productive, and puritanical nannies.
Much
in the same context, were tobacco to be PROVEN to be the sole cause of all the diseases it
is blamed for, the public health establishment (which is often a job creation service for
those who lack the skills to do anything else truly useful for the health of humankind and
make money at it) would be howling to make tobacco illegal, just like any other proven
dangerously toxic substance. (A bit below you will see what that establishment feels about
completely banning tobacco.) And their accomplices, the anti-smoking, pharmaceutical,
legal, and lobbying interests of all involved would have no choice but to join in the
eradication efforts. But again, their unidirectional frenzy over tobacco creates the risk
of overlooking something perhaps far more dangerous in our environment. The American
Cancer Society has no "cures" for cancer and conventional medicine understands
the parameters of the disease only a little better than it did 50 years ago. But where's
the money/profit in an, as of yet, unknown cause? One would have to spend money to find
that unknown factor, not extort it from a single sector of the population, and they would
have to use the money on the project, not on everything but. In reality, if tobacco were
banned, none of these groups would have income or jobs afterwards unless, of course, they
could find another cash cow to rape. And the fact is they already have. Obesity. As
mentioned, below is look at a piece of legislation attempted in North Dakota a while back.
Read it and then reconsider the true aims of public health departments, the anti-tobacco
coalitions, including ACS, AHA and so-called other disease "prevention"
organizations and, of course, the pharmaceuticals and other interests that fund them and
profit even more from them simultaneously
It
is an interesting fact that during  the great Black Plague in the middle of the last millenium, the equivalent of
the public health system (circa 1400-1600s) decided that rats were the cause of this
plague that was initially killing a few hundreds of Europeans. Their brightly narrow and
"quick fix" solution was to exterminate all the rats. By doing so the FLEAS,
that were the true carriers of the plague, were forced to find a new host other than the
rats. The fleas selected humans, which resulted ultimately in the deaths of as many as an
estimated hundred million people. Politically, these health bureaucrats had much to gain
from finding a fast solution - someone or something to blame - and who likes rats anyway -
or smokers for that matter. Heroes they would be in the same way justice officials, from
investigators to DAs make political hay by quickly solving crimes (front page stuff) even
if only to find later they hung the wrong man (page eight news at best). The medieval
(interesting word 'mid-'evil) solution (killing the rats) let loose the plague and
magnified the tragedy exponentially. If we apply the highly "flexible" (to be
kind) techniques of epidemiology using terms like casual, causal, and cause, we would wind
up with something like this. For a time the rats were thought to be the cause of
the plague. However even if this were true, the actual cause of death was
a pneumonia like illness. More specifically, the respiratory system shut down along with a
very high fever. Like the cliff jumper above, the actual cause of any
death is either cessation of brain function (which is still debated re: Schiavo) or the
heart stops. Whatever the reason for this to happen, the actual cause of
death is one of those two things.
This
is further demonstrated in homicide forensics by the examiner's (coroner) preoccupation
with specifics. For instance if a body is found dead in the water but has a bullet hole in
it, it is always the job of the forensic pathologist to determine if the dead person died
before or after entering the water. This is highly relevant to future prosecution of the
case and to the penalty the guilty party will receive. It is too bad that epidemiologists
who make up these inane statistics about everything that has a financial benefit to some
public health group (remember the 400,000 obesity related deaths reported by the CDC just
last year that was subsequently downgraded at least three times, arriving finally at a
little over 23,000) don't do the work of pathologists to find out what is really killing
people. Further down you will hear Dr Ronald Natale in the Larry King interview state that
"we really don't know how cancer kills or how tobacco smoke causes cancer."
Natale goes on to say that the organs of those who die from cancer are often in quite good
shape. The forensic pathologist, if they were involved in these studies, would likely find
many possible reasons for the person's death and smoking would be absolutely a casual
association at best. No doubt people do die in part because they smoke. Natale mentions
one out of eight smokers get cancer (mostly lung cancer, which by inference leaves out all
the other forms of cancer that tobacco is blamed for). A true causal (as opposed to
casual) relationship according to an epidemiologist would require all smokers to get lung
cancer. Therefore by the very fact that all smokers DON'T get sick, even causality must be
defined as a rather weak association. Now I've studied quite a bit of the research done on
lab animals regarding carcinogens. To be classified as a carcinogen, a substance must
cause a tumor in a lab animal, mostly rats and mice. Even the most carcinogenic compound
tested don't cause these tumors in ALL of the subjects and each research project differs
as to how many of a group must be so afflicted to satisfy the pre-determined "test
results" they seek.
The
anti-tobacco, public health establishment endangers us in the same way that the
"plague" medicos did 600 years ago. They focus on tobacco only and search no
further for what may be the real cause of cancer (or even what cancer really is, in its
widely varying forms) or any other pernicious human ailments for that matter to a degree
that will prove beyond a doubt the other or actual causes. Those other causes have no
money to conveniently extract (heard that before, but it bears repeating). And this lack
of intelligent use of existing scientific tools, preferring the weak science of
statistical analysis (Epidemiology) is causing the same knee jerk reaction with the Avian
(Bird) flu you've heard so much about lately. Rather than find ways to manage or actually
kill the pathogen (the virus) or even better, create immunity from all viruses, they are
simply killing the birds. Now viruses are not unlike fleas. They both need hosts. They are
parasites. And eradicating one host will only lead to the the viruses' search for another.
And viruses are MUCH better at this than are fleas. They can change symbiotic sources in a
matter of a couple of days. In the world of virology, it's referred to as MUTATION but it
is really adaptation. And the "science" of mutation is understood (or at least
appreciated) hardly better than 500 years ago, at least in its overall ramifications.
Better isolate but leave some of the birds alive and figure out how to kill the virus
without killing the host - certainly before you, at minimum, know the degree of risk of
viral host upgrading. Ultimately, when one talks about organisms being good at finding new
hosts, one must only look to the anti-everything litigation movement for a perfect
example. Too bad a vaccine has not been developed to combat this group of parasites.
Look at it this way. The American Cancer Society and other such groups
(with the possible exception of NCI - the National Cancer Institute, that actually HAS
done some cutting edge science on the possible viral and genetic
components of cancer) with its many billions of dollars has come up with no solution to
any cancers other than early diagnosis, surgery (based
on early diagnosis), radiation (oh yeah, can you say further mutation and
new cancers), and drugs (financial windfalls of epic proportions for
pharmaceuticals even though the Chemo is often so toxic, it can kill you almost as fast as
the original cancer). All highly profitable, short term exercises for certain groups of
businesses (including non-profits) with really no need to be successful to the degree that
any other normal product producer must. After all, the victim is already dying from cancer
- right? The medical related profits (and costs) continue to soar. Of course, the main
focus of late, the prohibitionist activity, (in other words things NOT to
do rather than any positive activity) has its own, hugely profitable rewards as well -
rewards that feed the other four regimen groups quite nicely and justify more revenue
gathering through increased taxes and lawsuits. Public Health professionals (hah
professionals - the third oldest profession - witch doctors - after hookers and spiritual
leaders - before even lawyers) and publicly/privately funded non-profits like the Cancer
Society and the Lung Association, who pay their leaders enormous salaries, and are
required to spend only 5% of all money they've amassed on their missions, have everything
to gain from maintaining the problem. The non-profit racket (no overstatement is possible
here) is finally getting some well deserved criminal attention as is the Loyal Order of
Money Grubbing Scum Bag Lobbyists (LOMGSBL). There aren't enough jails to hold them all if
it would come to that.
Now
even with all the money involved aside for a moment, we emphasize once again the sheer
folly and danger of making presumptions as to disease causation. For years we've been
emphasizing the difference between Tobacco and Cigarettes. They are two different things.
One is a natural substance, the other a chemically formulated, artificial product. Even
more important perhaps is what is used in the growing and manufacture of tobacco and
especially in products that cigarette makers heavily use like reconstituted tobacco sheet.
Tobacco has been around a long time. It has been both friend and foe to humans
intermittently through out its history. (Read the book mentioned above "Tobacco"
- please). Even the American Cancer Society concedes that lung cancer was relatively rare
before the birth of manufactured cigarettes. They attributed this solely to the fact that
manufactured cigarettes made it easier for people to smoke. Nonetheless, it should be
clear that even before the first manufactured cigarette was produced, a lot of people used
tobacco. That is clearly why cigarette companies emerged, to satisfy and enhance an
existing market. Like the poor scientific methodology of the Great Plague era, these so
called charitable health groups have trouble with facts because they fail to look for real
facts. Instead they look for a single villain, one with deep pockets, ignoring all
alternatives and nuances that make up the real world of threat analysis. They use the
terms tobacco and cigarettes interchangeably, a practice we've been trying to clarify and
change since our first publication. Many in the scientific community understand that
pesticides and other garbage that finds its way into cigarettes may likely be a much more
strident culprit than the tobacco plant itself. Now there is no doubt that most tobacco,
for reasons of crop yield, has been exposed to pesticides of one kind or another, natural
or not. Check out the following link here. It keeps moving around on the ACS site so if it
becomes inactive, go to the American Cancer Society site and search for "risk factors
for lung cancer."
RADON
Radon, which is a naturally occurring gas (from
natural uranium decay) in our environment has long been linked to lung cancer. To what
degree is still uncertain and since there is little profit in more definitive assessments,
(except for the proliferating radon intervention companies which, like the asbestos
irradication attempts of a decade or more ago, often prove to make the problem worse not
better), Radon is given minor consideration. That may be a serious mistake, as serious as
blaming tobacco seemingly for all the ills of mankind. The simple solution as to Radon
(for which there are already maps provided by satellite imaging - for maps by state and
for the US in total, click here)
would be to see how the lung cancer rate that is attributed to smokers is geographically
distributed and then compare that to each area's naturally occurring Radon levels.
Unfortunately, there is little profit potential in simple solutions and the fact that
Radon and Smoking may explain why certain people get lung cancer and others don't would
fly in the face of the pseudo-science that generates obscenely large profits for the
anti-smoking establishment. Again, there is no one to sue over radon - it occurs
naturally.
For
now let's just look at the following provided on the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
website regarding Radon. Also on that site you can find maps (again click here)
of Radon distribution in the US and begin to wonder (as do we) how many of the high radon
areas have larger rates of lung cancer that are now solely attributed to cigarette
smoking. What is most interesting about what follows is the admission from the EPA as to
the methodology of risk assessment for both Radon and how it applies to the same
statistical models that were used to invent tobacco and health data. If you look hard
enough in this world you will find contradictions to everything that public health claims.
You don't have to read between the lines or read from sites that are at odds with the
public health community. Again this is from the EPA and you can begin to access the entire
wealth of information by clicking here and scroll to the top of the page the link takes
you. This (below) is only an excerpt from a very robust site on Radon and risk assessment
so make sure you read the entire page this link takes you to.
QUOTE: "To have a reasonable certainty
in the conclusions, many thousands of cases are required to detect the increased risk of
lung cancer due to radon. This is because the more things that cause a disease the harder
it is to separate one cause from another, thus it takes many cases to pinpoint the risk
from each separate cause. The U.S. Public Health Service radon experts estimate that
10,000 to 30,000 cases, and twice as many controls would be needed to conduct a definitive
epidemiologic study of residential radon lung cancer risk. The residential studies
conducted to date have all included between 50 and 1500 cases and thus have been too small
to provide conclusive information.
Some years ago this same process was used
to detect an increased risk of lung cancer due to cigarette smoking. It took many years of
study to make the positive link between the cause and effect of smoking and lung cancer. Most
of the increased lung cancer risk is attributable to smoking through mathematical
modeling. The research process for smoking was very laborious. However, radon's
process is even more challenging because radon's contribution to increased lung cancer
risk (12%) is difficult to see against the large background of lung cancer due to other
causes, which include smoking, asbestos, some heavy metals and other types of radiation;
i.e., detecting radon-related lung cancer is like trying to detect a 12% increase of sand
on a beach already full of sand.
Finally, it is difficult to accurately
determine radon exposures in residential settings since we are estimating past exposures
from current measurements. The number of required study participants increases with the
difficulty in determining the exposure.
We already have a wealth of scientific data
on the relationship between radon exposure and the development of lung cancer. The
scientific experts agree that the occupational miner data is a very solid base from which
to estimate risk of lung cancer deaths annually. While residential radon epidemiology
studies will improve what we know about radon, they will not supersede the occupational
data. Health authorities like the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the
Surgeon General, the American Lung Association, the American Medical Association, and
others agree that we know enough now to recommend radon testing and to encourage public
action when levels are above 4 pCi/L. The most comprehensive of these efforts has been the
National Academy of Science's Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation (BEIR VI) Report. This
report reinforces that radon is the second-leading cause of lung cancer and is a serious
public health problem. As in the case of cigarette smoking, it would probably take
many years and rigorous scientific research to produce the composite data
needed to make an even more definitive conclusion." End QUOTE
Please remember that the above report was
the work of the National Academy of Sciences and funded by the EPA (in the end both are
funded by YOU!). I know reading this long pdf will give most brain pain but it is
important to see the manipulative steps these kinds of epidemiological imitations of
scientific research use to prove a point. By the way as to the non-profit status of the
NAS, its president Bruce Alberts was pulling down over 750,000 dollars per year. In fact
there are many high paid officers working within this organization. We provide an excerpt
for their form 990 below. You can see the whole thing as well as any non-profit salaries
at guidestar.org. Membership is free and when you begin searching YOUR favorite charity
for salaries, you will quickly come to understand that these "for the good"
organizations are mostly for the officers and directors. Whether it be the Girls Scouts
whose head pulls down well over $630,000 per year or the others that will be noted above,
the non-profit scam is the single biggest threat to our economy.
After reading the above, pay
particular note to a statement found on the American Cancer Societies site (see the ACS
link just above the beginning of this Radon section) and see how it differs dramatically
from the EPA information. The ACS site states:
Recently, concerns have been raised about
houses in some parts of the United States built over soil with natural uranium deposits
that can create high indoor radon levels. Studies from these areas have found that the
risk of lung cancer may be doubled or even tripled if you have lived for many years in a
radon-contaminated house. This is a very small increase though, when it is compared to the
lung cancer risk from tobacco.
The Shelby Amendment
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa366.pdf
The Shelby Amendment, which we've discussed in
previous issues, was created to provide a watchdog element on supposedly scientific
research that results in regulations and laws. Click here
for a short overview and above for greater detail of the Amendment itself
and why it is so vital this Amendment be enforced. The research community does not like
this Amendment to the Freedom of Information Act. They whine that it implies that we don't
trust them. Well . . . .I don't . . .especially when their findings have not only been
proven wrong, in some cases long after regulations and litigation based on their findings
have already done their damage, but most importantly, when the researchers themselves have
vested financial interests in the outcomes of a given "research" project. Drug
companies, the FDA, and the EPA are especially unhappy about Shelby which should be all
the reason you need to encourage its rigorous enforcement. When drug companies push the
efficacy of certain "cessation" drugs, these same drugs can become the basis for
regulations. How? Well, for example, with the new drug varenicline, touted by its maker to
be more effective than previous smoking cessation drugs, the anti-tobacco movement
immediately jumps on this as both a source of revenue for themselves (which often comes
from the drug maker itself in return for the anti-smoking group recommending its use), and
as yet another reason to push the idea that smoking is hard to kick, and therefore should
be taxed even more heavily and regulated even more aggressively. People who have been
smoking moderate amounts of real tobacco have almost no problem quitting if they really
want to. Even those addicted to packaged cigarettes can quit if they really want to.
People are not as weak as the public health community, or the pharmaceutical industry,
would have them believe and the constant dogma about how hard it is to quit, is
counter-productive for those who wish to quit.
The problem with most smokers is that they really don't want to quit. They
enjoy the experience. It is often, for many, much more of a recreational pleasure than a
chemical dependency, again at least for those who've used moderate amounts of real
tobacco. Even Pfizer's (the manufacturer of Chantix - the commercial name for varenicline)
"research studies" show that on average 22% of smokers quit for the one year
trial while 18% of those given Zyban (the other non-nicotine cessation drug) were able to
quit. In the same tests, about 10% given placebos were able to quit. While these numbers
may seem significant to some, they are provided with absolutely no contextual look into
the the lives and personalities of the subjects. Were the 10 % who quit with placebo only
therapy stronger willed than the other groups? Did the placebo effect have any
relationship with those that were actually given the "real stuff". These kinds
of questions are what the Shelby Amendment is intended to address. If it is not obvious
yet to you why we need oversight, keep in mind that most of what folks hear about
prescription drugs is fed to them by the drug companies themselves. Journalists have
become lazy. AP and UPI reporters (stringers) now basically provide press releases fed to
them by representatives of pharma companies. For instance, the AP story that first
appeared in most newspapers, big and small, regarding varenicline (Chantix) was as
follows: "Smoking, the leading cause of preventable death worldwide, is a critical
public health imperative that takes an extraordinary toll on health care systems. In the
United States alone, the cost of treating smoking-related diseases is an estimated $150
billion a year," said Karen Katen, Pfizer vice chairman and president, Pfizer Human
Health. "The priority review designation for Champix underscores the significant
patient need for new therapies that will reduce the health burden of smoking."
No reporter, in any story I could find, went
further than the press release, not even to ask Katen questions on the specific results of
medical trials. As far as I'm concerned, those AP and UPI stringers are no more than
mouthpieces for the pharmaceutical industry. They are not even close to being journalists.
If
you search online for "Nicorette Gum" you will find a large number of sites,
especially forums, that in large part stress that the addiction created by these nicotine
replacement products is quite problematic. Do these newer non-nicotine cessation products
have side effects? You bet they do and they are often more severe than the minor cravings
one might face when one is dedicated to quitting. And these drugs - all of them - are
really expensive, high profit items for drug makers. None of these questions are asked or
answered in drug research studies and there is really no oversight in the FDA hearing
process that approve a drug for use. As you will see if you read the FDA hearing documents
regarding IRESSA that we highlight further down, FDA hearings have no counter argument
provided by anyone. The FDA listens to representatives of the drug companies, to
researchers employed by the drug companies, and to a handful of patients who claim to have
been helped by the drug in question. Read the document on FDA IRESSA hearings. We provide
the link here as well to this complete transcript of the proceedings.
It's long but highly instructive as to the weakness of the FDA process, most especially
when drugs are given a fast track approval based on how badly society needs a drug (in
most cases the "fast track" seemingly has more to do with the size of the
pharmaceutical company offering the drug).
Not
all drug companies are monsters and all drug companies have many times provided needed
help to those who suffer. What we want to note regarding them is that the temptation from
the huge profits derived from drug manufacturing is overwhelming for even those of high
moral fiber. Where there is high profit, there must be oversight, especially when some the
profits are used to create legislation that makes the use of the product nearly a
requirement to the eye of the consumer. This the Shelby Amendment addresses but
unfortunately, to date, there have been almost no reported uses of the power of this
amendment. Read more on the www.cato.org
website regarding this and other interesting attempts to "oversee" all kinds of
political/economic/legislative/environmental/public health and non-profit boondoggles.
The MSA (Master
Settlement Agreement)
The American Legacy Foundation, (set up by NAAG, the
Attorneys General's National Association that forged the 46 state Master Settlement
Agreement, as part of that Agreement), has well over a Billion dollars in its kitty. Yet
it pleads for more funding while spending a mere 130 million per year on its mission
including salaries and percs. Its CEO, Cheryl Healton, a couple of years ago took out a
near million dollar personal mortgage loan, secured by the Foundation, for a home. In
fact, it would be in your best interest to go to the American Legacy site (www.americanlegacy.org) and under
the link "About Us" look at their financial statements. You simply MUST do this
if you want the knowledge necessary to cast intelligent votes in the future for those that
state they are unwilling to further support this growing scandal. The personal loan
mentioned above is at Note J (about page 14 under "loan to officer"
- the page numbers appear in Acrobat as you scroll the right side slider button down) and
just above that is an incredibly generous life insurance policy that is paid for by the
foundation but owned ultimately by CEO Healton. The current financials (2005), to save you
time, can be found at: http://americanlegacy.org/americanlegacy_file_persistence/auditied_FS_summary.pdf
. The previous year's financial statement, where they received their last large
payment from the Tobacco Settlement (about $300,000,000), which they received ever year
from 1999 to 2003 can be found by clicking the link for 2004/2003 financials (again after
you go to the About Us /Financials link). Reading these documents may take a little effort
on your part but you will find many interesting things there they've done with all that
money, including lots of vehicles, and a ton of investing (both here and abroad) to
maintain/increase their financial power. Those who are adept at understand accounting
should let us know their opinions of what they see there. However, even the layperson will
see things there that have little to do with their mission - which is ostensibly to
curtail Youth Smoking, which is once again on the rise even with all the money spent so
far to intervene.
Read through the whole thing. Remember all the amounts are in thousands
(i.e., if it says 28,000 it means 28,000,000). After these people got their initial 300
million from the first MSA payment in 1999, they began investing it, here and all over the
world. The interest they receive alone on these massive investments is often greater than
the amount they spend on the programs they are chartered to support. In fact over 8
Billion dollars in investment transactions were conducted. No doubt their financial
advisor fees of over $3 million per year were justified. The numbers are huge and complex
as is the financial document itself. You can hide a lot in a large and complicated space.
They spend (again) over $3 million per year on financial investment advice alone. You
would be well advised to see where your MSA tobacco settlement money is going - so read
it. You'll need Acrobat Reader to read the PDFs.
In
all fairness, we do compliment this organization for at least supplying
this information on their site as, for most non-profits' financial disclosures, one must
contact the IRS or walk into the non-profit's office to get their form 990 to obtain this
information. The 990s are more detailed as to specific salaries and other items and anyone
can request and get them. If you do it through the mail with the IRS, you have to pay a
small fee and there are redactions - if you walk in their front door, they must give it to
you free of charge, or for a small copying fee and the information is more complete. You
will also find that even though this organization was initially well funded (again $250
Million the first year and $300,000,000 of your tobacco money for the next four years - an
expense that the pertinent cigarette companies simply passed on to the smoker), they still
found it necessary to take out two $30 million loans and another $20 million loan a bit
later to fund "expenses" Why? Because they put most of the initial money in
various-term investments or property. The fact that the lawyers at NAAG are supposedly
overseeing this operation, leaves me with little confidence in their oversight even though
two of its members always sit on the Legacy board. Currently, they get about $40 million
per year from tobacco. You can see the section of the MSA Agreement where the funding for
this organization is outlined at this link. Click here.
You will also see that they (all benefactors and participants of the MSA) had a very
specific mission and certain restrictions on attacking the tobacco industry. Many lawsuits
have evolved from the latter. In Acrobat PDF files the pages of interest as to this
Foundation, (which has had several names including the Nation Education Foundation, the
Master Settlement Agreement Foundation and ultimately the American Legacy Foundation) are
pages 32-38 as numbered in the document itself. However in Acrobat they are 42-48 (some
pages that are indexes and tables of contents are not numbered in the original document,
but Acrobat counts them anyway). On page 33 of the actual document is the heading
Establishment of a National Foundation. This is your starting point.
And
here, using Oregon's fairly current regulatory attempts as an example, is the same kind of
data that was used by the various 46 states to justify the lawsuits that resulted in the
eventual MSA settlement. You can find much more information on this state specific
legislation and the number's game employed by clicking here.
Part of the page/section is reproduced below. Note that this link is to the State of
Oregon's DHS - Department of Human Services, (in other words the Public Health Department)
website. Public money was spent to put it up and the law it supports is a legislative
activity not one that the voters had any say in. It is representative of the kinds of
tactics (number gymnastics) used over the many years by the states in order to justify
their portion of the MSA money and to justify their prohibitionist policies, which in the
end serve ultimately to justify their revenue raising by taxes and lawsuits. Look at the
numbers below and realize that most of the so called costs of smoking to the state, even
if one were to believe that the numbers themselves were anything other than extrapolated
(modeled - refer to the section above regarding "Radon Studies" for more
on modeling for profit) and skewed data, clearly shows that the state itself admits to
spending $350 million in direct medical expenditures (not the $1.5 Billion in the
headline) and even that number includes federal money, the percentage of which they
conveniently leave out. As you can see MOST of the estimated cost, (again the word
"estimated" leaves a LOT of wiggle room with, it seems, no verification
required) was borne by insurance and cost paid by individuals and most telling, even the
bulk of that cost estimate was based on such nebulous statistical forays as "Indirect
costs of lost productivity due to illness", and "Indirect costs due to premature
deaths", the latter being the largest slice of the pie. Both are clearly
"estimates" with absolutely no real data possible to support such claims. These
are precisely the kinds of "estimated" numbers that the states were using to sue
the large cigarette manufacturers that resulted in the MSA settlement. These numbers
remain the excuse for the states NOT to spend the bulk of revenues extracted from smokers
since the 1998 MSA Settlement on anything remotely related to Tobacco Intervention or
health care for those who may claim damage from smoking (packaged cigarettes). The states
continue to emphasize their need to "pay back" all of the past lost revenue due
to smoking related health care rather than use the money for current programs. At the
bottom (the last line) of this little exercise in creative accounting is the disclaimer
(if you will) that these numbers were from the CDC. Now, the CDC did no specific studies
in any one state. The states used the CDC numbers (which even today remain controversial
to the extreme) and divided them up according to population. It is these kinds of
unsupported, non-scientific generalizations that continue to feed the anti-tobacco
movement. It is extremely well fed with your dollars and with neither your permission, nor
with any hope of you receiving any direct benefit from the money extracted. We have little
sympathy for the big cigarette industry as you must have realized while reading these
pages over the years. However as we will continue to explore, there is a great deal of
difference between processed tobacco by products such as used in packaged cigarettes and
real tobacco. Even more to the point, the burning of ANY natural plant substance, just
like real tobacco, produces pretty much the same chemicals, sans nicotine. So for the
effort highlighted below to have any credibility whatsoever, the term "Tobacco
Use" should be replaced by "Packaged Cigarette Use." Again more on that
later. Here is the pitch for the "Workplace Law." Two underlined words, can
and economic, are worthy of note.
Why the Law is Needed
The law is designed to protect workers from secondhand smoke, which can
cause life-threatening disease:
Heart Disease
Lung Cancer
Poor Respiratory Health
The law will reduce the economic toll smoking exacts on Oregon:
Tobacco use cost Oregonians
approximately $1.5 Billion in 1996
Indirect costs of lost productivity due to
illness: 1 million lost days of work $100 million
Direct medical expenditure paid for by
public funds (federal and state) $350 million
Direct medical expenditures paid for by
private individuals and businesses $450 million
Indirect costs of lost productivity due to
premature deaths $600 million
Source: Smoking-Attributable Morbidity, Mortality and Economic Costs (SAMMEC II),
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
So the bottom line of the above is that less than 20%
of these so called costs to Oregon were paid by Oregon with an undefined portion of even
that borne by the federal government. The costs of lost work days and premature deaths are
the worst kind of irresponsible extrapolations with absolutely no data to support the
assessments. Further, they state second hand smoke CAN (not does) cause illness, and the
fact that this scheme focuses completely on "economic" cost and not on the
general welfare of humans is most telling. Remember, I do not like smoking indoors and I
don't like smoky environments. I do insist however that businesses have the right to
exclude non-smokers every bit as aggressively as establishments exclude smokers.
The MSA and all of its ramifications present a true
tragedy for American democracy and free capitalism. Regardless of the questionable
practices of the cigarette industry, this agreement has provided little to address the
problem and has encouraged local, state and federal governments to become more addicted to
tobacco than smoker's themselves. Most everyone in this country is unhappy with the
inefficiencies and corruption associated with this settlement (except, of course, for
those who are getting rich from it). Congress insisted on tracking the MSA, tasking the
GAO (General Accounting Office) to do so. Click on the following link to venture to a PDF
provided by the Government Accounting Office, GAO, that Congress demanded be published
showing how the states have been and are using their respective share of the MSA funds. In
some cases, the states have actually used the money for tobacco (cigarettes again)
intervention programs. In most cases, the state's records in this matter are poor indeed.
In fact many of the state's have already borrowed on their future MSA shares to the max
and all future revenues are being used to simply payback these MSA secured loans. Much
like the worker who goes to the "Cash Connection" to borrow against next week's
paycheck. Again, this linked document (click here)
is a fairly long read but if you don't thoroughly explore this stuff, you will never have
the whole picture of just how large the problem is and how little control even your
elected government has (or wishes to exert) over these kinds of coerced programs.
Non-profits,
in total, are among the biggest businesses in this country - and the best paying for those
that control them (other than certain trial lawyer firms that get very rich suing
companies for alleged social and business related wrongdoing - it is important to
note here that the fees these law firms get are enormous - like the 2 Billion
dollars one firm got for helping litigate the MSA settlement and another that got over a
Billion). Of course, the real dog work of these non-profits is done by volunteers, both
generous of heart, and armed only with dogma lacking any concrete scientific information.
Their CEOs are literally in a class akin to Royalty whereby, unlike top tax paying
industry CEOs, whose salaries are frequently attacked, they have a federal tax code
guaranteed advantage and they are tough to pin down for performance evaluations as their
missions are NEVER intended to be accomplished. People just give them money (or are forced
to through taxation) and all those donors have extremely limited control over where that
money goes. Keep in mind that all tax free (non-profits) are again, required by law, an
expenditure of only 5% of their take be applied to their mission. Even targeted donations
have an expiration date if not spent on the "target." More worrisome is that
there is no requirement for them to succeed in their mission. Private sector businesses
and even most politicians can't get away with that lack of performance for very long. So
they justify their existence by making a lot of noise about all the things they do.
Looking only at two subjects - natural disasters and disease, it is apparent that these
non-profits are abject failures. However in the business of wealth generation (for
themselves), they are amazingly proficient. Want more? For Instance . . . .
The
head (CEO) of the Oregon State's Goodwill for PORTLAND AREA Chapter ONLY pulled down over
$800,000 per year until enough people found out about it and complained. It is now down to
around $650,000. The head of American Cancer Society nearly 3/4 of a million per year. The
numbers are staggering. The Red Cross more than 1/2 million per year + percs (which nearly
doubles that) for its revolving door CEOs who keep getting "replaced" for
"political" reasons. With literally Trillions of dollars in
funds and endowments, the non-profit industry and ensuing scandal that is waiting to
detonate regarding them, will be of unprecedented proportions, and the problem has
grown exponentially since the non-profit industry got involved in the tobacco issue. You
can bet when that cash cow is finally dry, they will find new cattle - fast food, SUVs,
sugar treats, soft drinks, and yes, we speculate soon, caffeine (look out Starbucks -
you've got temptingly deep pockets AND, your lattes are fattening AND doctors for a long
time have urged their patients to go easy on the coffee and caffeine, which has recently
been classified as an addicting substance).
This
new wave of extortion in the name of the public good has already started and now includes
new hiring and employment practices that insist on controlling the personal behavior of
employees, even in the sanctity of their own homes. You as tobacco users have had the
dubious honor of paying for a whole lot of it initially, but be aware that ultimately
every person in this country, who has a passion for anything that a handful of people may
not appreciate, will be attacked. The core idea of non-profit charitable organizations is
a laudable one. The execution has been an alarmingly under-regulated, under-scrutinized
and in general, an enormously costly failure when defined by the actual positive
accomplishments they can honestly claim. The only solution is an all-out war on these
institutions, a war that will make their war on tobacco seem amicable by comparison. If we
lose this war, this country and its citizens will eventually live under a tyranny even
more destructive than those enforced at gunpoint. The all pervasive tyranny of the
mindless, the irresponsible, and the hopeless.
So before we look at the bad news and worse case scenarios, which are
frankly fact already, or likely to happen very soon unless serious intervention is
undertaken by all concerned citizens, we need to show you the true face of the enemies of
freedom - of those parasites that drive the vehicles of corruption, and of those who are
their dupes. And let it be made clear here that we've as much contempt for the dupes as we
have for those whose corruptions nurture and co-opt their weak minds and principles. It is
not our intent to dial into and spread the very state of fear we reject as a motivating
force. Anger and refusal to comply, and then action is not fear, it is indeed the inherent
human right of self interest. We continue to implore our readership that the ONLY solution
lies in individual positive activism consolidated ultimately into positive group action.
That is the only path to regaining control of not just tobacco use but all related issues
that threaten to control our most personal behavior and completely undermine the concept
of personal responsibility. We will begin with examples of the kind of unidirectional
thinking as well as the self-serving hypocrisy that has been at the forefront of the
anti-tobacco movement from the beginning. It applies to future intrusive attempts by those
few who would exercise control over the many. We will follow with a few examples of the
foregoing with the proposed and soon to be instituted new regulations on your rights to
acquire tobacco. Its not a pretty story and when you're finished reading, keep in mind
that we (a lot of folks in and out of government) are not yet at the point of definitively
uncovering the whole scandal. We won't stop until we do, but for now here's some
interesting information - a look at the real face of the antagonist(s) of this story. It
really comes down to this. One should not judge a person based on who they are or what
they are, or most especially who or what they SAY they are. People and organizations
should be judged by their actions alone. It's as simple as that and is the only reliable
measure of a human being or a group. And no matter how grandiose their public statements
on what they believe or the weight of their background or credentials, it is what they do
and have done that is pertinent. In the same way, organizations cannot and should not be
judged by their "mission" statements. No matter how altruistic their stated
goals may be, it is their actions that speak most loudly and accurately. And the following
couple of absolutely documented activities and discourses illuminate actions on behalf of
the participants. You don't have to take anyone's word for their motives. What they say
and do is more than revealing enough and is part of the public record.
As
with any good story one must begin with both protagonist and antagonist. Here, for plot's
sake, obviously the patrons of the MYO/RYO industry is the protagonist as a free and
unitary being, (perhaps smokers in general but the MYO/RYO methodology we find far more
defensible than merely the act of smoking) while the antagonists are numerous. Since life
is never black and white, there will be, we feel, a lot of common ground established
potentially between this industry (or any movements its existence generates), its
proponents and those that are seemingly against it at this moment. This is personal for me
in the context that I don't equate packaged cigarette smoking with tobacco usage. This is
a narrative of what has gone on for the last few years, much of which we have written
about, some of which is new information even for us. We will find allies among other
"libertarians" whose enjoyment of the "seasonings" of life will
eventually be challenged as well. We'll start with a news article that should well begin
to illuminate (brightly) the true intentions of some of those who claim to be most opposed
to the very existence of tobacco. Go get your reading glasses. The print is of necessity
small for reasons of space. Please note the text we've outlined in red is felt to be most
pertinent and disturbing. From the Grand Forks Herald, Jan 1, 2003, Grand Forks, North
Dakota:
The Headline
NORTH
DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Tobacco ban gets lit up in House
Bill sponsored by Grand Forks Republican DEFEATED
by 88-4 vote
By Xiao Zhang
Herald Staff Writer
BISMARCK - North
Dakota House representatives Monday voted overwhelmingly against a bill proposing to
ban tobacco sales in the state. The measure, which
would make selling or using tobacco products illegal except for using it for religious
purposes misdemeanors, failed by an 88-4 vote. The bill would have made it a crime to sell
or use tobacco in North Dakota, with sellers facing a maximum penalty of a year in jail
and a $2,000 fine. The bill labeled smoking, chewing or using smokeless tobacco as a less
severe crime, punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.
The
bill's sole sponsor, Grand Forks Republican Rep. Mike Grosz, said he was disappointed by
Monday's vote. But "it did get a fair day in the sun and generated a lot of
discussion," said Grosz, a member of the House Finance and Taxation Committee, which
heard the bill last week. Before the bill went to a vote on the floor, Grosz told his
fellow representatives that tobacco costs the state close to 1,000 lives every year and
$351 million in medical and productivity costs (completely
unsubstantiated numbers). Tobacco taxes are expected to bring $39.7
million to North Dakota's treasury during the state's current two-year budget period,
which ends in June.
"It seems the only gainers from allowing the use of
this product are the big tobacco companies and groups, such as the government and
organizations, which tax the product or sue the companies," he said. Grosz said he
would vote against all other measures on tobacco, including a tax increase, because trying
to reduce tobacco use through those measures is like "putting a bandage on a severed
leg." Gov. John Hoeven's proposed two-year budget for North Dakota state
government includes an increase in tobacco taxes, which would increase the levy on a pack
of cigarettes from 44 cents to 79 cents.
Passed Committee
Rep. Wes Belter, R-Leonard, chairman of the Finance and
Taxation Committee, said he decided to vote no on the floor Monday because he believes prohibition would drive smoking underground. His committee heard
the bill last week and recommended a "do pass" on the bill by a 9-4 vote. Six of
the nine committee members who voted yes on the bill changed
their vote on the floor Monday. Belter
told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from
anti-tobacco groups that testified AGAINST the tobacco ban,
including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American
Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and
North Dakota Nurses Association.
There's no evidence banning tobacco
would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented,
the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain FUNDING
for these groups for tobacco control programs. The North Dakota Grocer's Association
supported the bill. Tom Woodmansee, the association's president, told lawmakers during the
committee hearing that retailers have to spend too much time and money training employees
on proper procedures for proof-of-age in selling tobacco products. He said retailers are
subject to undercover stings by local law enforcement, fines and license suspension.
Belter did point out that legislators
are "hooked on tobacco," even though not all smoke. "It is time for
us to think about just how hooked we are on tobacco, whether we smoke or not," he
said.
Note: As
mentioned before, we used small print and will continue to do so with all of the reference
articles in this section. Get your reading glasses if you must. There is so much here,
that space will not permit larger type to fit efficiently. So . . . let's analyze
what you've just read. First, it seems that the anti-tobacco groups, who were highly
instrumental in killing this bill, believe that tobacco bans would not be effective and at
least one member felt a ban would drive tobacco use underground. Now I ask you, what is
the difference in a partial ban, which is precisely what higher taxes and regulation on
smoking is, and a total ban. Both would seem to have a similar effect, the partial ban
(tax) perhaps less so but still an analogous effect. In other words, as far as
consumption, these anti-smoking groups, all well established, self-appointed protectors of
the health of everybody, made it clear that banning tobacco may not reduce its use - at
all. This is a fair representation of their statements, I think, perhaps even understated.
They also bemoaned that they would lose all the revenue they live on (anti-tobacco once
again is a very BIG business) and all of their cessation programs would suffer. I ask
simply, "If there were no tobacco to be smoked, why would their cessation programs be
needed at all?" What we have here is a clear example of the dichotomy operated under
by the entire anti-smoking movement, whose very existence (and paychecks) rely on tobacco
taxes (and other taxpayer funded government programs), donations from dupes, and, of
course, lawsuits. These organizations are clearly as "hooked on tobacco" as the
members of the legislature whom the bill's sponsor admonished - for being just that.
Grosz, the sponsor of the bill, also made reference to two other points
that need examining. First, even though tobacco is "claimed" to kill 1,000 North
Dakotans per year (no idea where the actual figures comes from - that's right, you've
heard it above) the self proclaimed watchdogs seem ambivalent to the proportions of that
presumed tragedy. More striking yet, using his figures once again, even as the state
brings in $39.7 Million per year in tax revenues from tobacco, his figures show that the
state purportedly loses $351 Million in medical and lost productivity costs. That's nearly
ten times more than the revenue they take in. A very poor business model to anyone with a
3rd grade education or a $5 calculator. Even if they were to raise the taxes to the level
the governor wants, the shortfall would still be well over $200 Million per year, again
assuming any of the figures above (other than the revenue the state actually takes in)
have any basis in reality whatsoever. The truth is that the figures the states throw out
as far as cost related to smoking are pure BS and always have been. You can never pin any
state official down to where they get their figures (they are in fact pure extrapolations)
or whether they include costs paid by insurance companies for covered workers or by
residents personally. In fact, were told they do, which means that in more than a majority
of cases (however many that may really be), the states don't pay a thing for smokers who
get sick. Nonetheless, they add the cost to the total (again that total being highly
suspect to begin with) and of course they apply all illnesses to anyone who admits they
smoke, regardless if smoking were a minor, major or no cause at all to the distress of the
patient. We already went through this above but some things seem to need to be repeated in
order to get the required attention. The other side certainly uses this tactic in
compliance with the theory of "say something long enough and loud enough, and it will
eventually become fact." The very idea that the vast majority of the costs that
states claim are based on (as quoted above) "Indirect costs of lost
productivity due to illness", and "Indirect costs due to premature deaths"
is so offensive to the thinking human that only people with an intent to profit could
embrace such mythology.
This kind of sheer fiscal nonsense is being played out nationwide and
frankly worldwide, from local level smoking bans to the Federal attempts at Internet
Tobacco control (more on this as well). This nonsense includes statements by ACS and
others that smoking bans don't hurt businesses such as bars and private clubs. In nearly
every case, those who actually own these establishments disagree vigorously, to the point
that the latest restrictive law passed in Washington state that would ban all tobacco use
in all venues (other than "conveniently" Indian tribe lands and casinos)  has already
generated new proposed amended legislation that allows a business to disregard the ban if
their revenue dips 10% or more. The amendment failed its first test but continues to be
pursued. It is interesting to note here that while I typed the preliminary version of
this, suddenly on national news appeared a piece that downsized the CDC's estimate of the
impact of obesity on folks from 400,000 deaths per year (a strangely familiar number) to
120,000. Currently the estimate is now down to less than 30,000. Suddenly and recently
that figure is back up. Come on America. Wake up. None of these numbers have ANY
basis in reality. They are at best, made up, non-rigorous and highly convenient
extrapolations for the purpose of fund raising or lawsuits, and the time has come for
those that use them, to be audited for source and accuracy and aggressively prosecuted for
blatant fraud. All one has to do is look at the CDC mortality tables we keep posted on the
Editorial page to realize there simply "ain't enough bodies" to go around for
support of these estimates, especially for those under 65 of age.
In fact these, along with other "facts" that have permeated the
debate on tobacco (not cigarettes - again they are processed tobacco products that use
some really nasty chemicals in their processing) are rampant in our society. On almost
every subject there exist myths that have been propagated to not only enhance special
interest agendas, but even more so to enhance their "special interest" pocket
books. There are many writers and researchers out there dispelling these myths. Steve
Milloy (www.junkscience.com)
is frequently used here as a respected example of such seekers of truth. There is
even a Discovery Channel program "Myth Busters" that deals with some of the more
innocuous myths - such as what really happens when you put metal in a microwave, but even
more to the point is a new book by John Stossel of ABC News (shown above
left) that really brings home the point that our entire society (and the larger world for
that matter) are more susceptible to sheer superstitious myth than ever before. Why,
because it is more profitable than ever before. We should all take part of the blame and
shame for allowing such manipulations by special interest groups of every stripe whether
it is the CDC or WHO (World Health Organization - a UN hitman). Read the book. Read all
the books we recommend. You will grow a well rounded shell of skepticism that will help
protect you from the sheer enormity of BS we face every day - whether it be from media or
from government, and most especially from so-called health activists who could give a good
damn about your health. They want your money folks and control over your life in order to
keep getting it - that is the bottom line! As in the title of the above book and from the
Firesign Theater's (for those old enough to remember that great wacky comic ensemble)
classic album of the 70s (available on CD now) literally nearly "Everything You Know
is Wrong." And as with all the books we recommend, if they are not available in
paperback, don't be afraid to own a hardback copy. They are a little more expensive but
trust me, you will keep these books and re-read them many times for many years to come!
And share them with your friends. A great way to spread the word of healthy, intelligent,
and logical skepticism.
Next, as to the health risks of smoking, do not make the mistake that
smoking will have no impact on your health: While we are once again, NOT proponents of
smoking, we do feel people have the right to at least enjoy the practice privately
assuming whatever risk they, after studying all of the literature out there carefully,
shall deem likely, and without absurd taxation that funds everything BUT smoking related
programs. We are certain the paltry existing, purported scientifically rigorous research
data (sans Epidemiology which is based entirely on widely variable and suspicious
statistics) has been skewed, confused, misunderstood, or down-right lied about. Further,
the fact that the government (and private groups) are collecting revenue based on what
they consider a poisonous substance, seems to have been missed as a clear violation of the
trust we are expected to place in these entities. We've said it many times before. If
tobacco is that dangerous, it should be outlawed like any other toxic substance. It should
not be a source of profit for the very same folks who claim it to be a killer. Think of it
this way. How would the populace react if the government allowed victims with AIDS to have
unprotected sex with others as long as they paid a tax so they could? Not much different
is it?
Here's
yet another link that you will find interesting. In fact, in this issue there are many
and, once again, if you really want to know the depth of the scandal that is brewing you
need to read everything you can. This linked page concerns the dichotomy of cigarettes
versus real tobacco. It is yet another piece of the puzzle that allows certain elements in
our society to confuse the real issue - that being package cigarette regulation and
litigation or tobacco regulation and litigation. In fact, we'll repeat a link to an even
longer dissertation by Bill Drake on the same subject. The two links are below - the first
is much shorter than the second. Bookmark and read them in sections if necessary - but
read them. You'd better know what you are smoking and you'd better understand that even in
rolling tobaccos, cheap may not wind up being so cheap.
http://utah.indymedia.org/print.php?id=13425
http://www.ktc.com/~bdrake/views.html#nscv016
OK! You've heard it all here before, but let's now look at some interesting
dialogue from transcripts taken from a Larry King Live show on the subject of smoking.
These transcripts are available on the CNN site. We'll save you some time, but we urge you
to read each related transcript in its entirety (there is an index of topics going back a
number of years at the first link below). Now King is an avid anti-smoker who smoked 3
packs a day for many, many years. He's 70 now. And again he smoked manufactured
cigarettes. He had a heart attack a while back and tends to completely relate his
condition to smoking. The fact that he was extremely overweight (Larry used to be a really
"big" guy) and the epitome of the A Type personality does not seem to figure in
to his own assessments as to the cause of his prior malady. However much we respect King
for some of the things he's done, he is either a dupe or corrupted. His various shows on
the subject pander to the anti-tobacco activists and often result in embarrassing moments
when doctors can't agree on what it is about smoking the harms some people. I clearly
remember in a prior show from a couple of years ago his asking a noted cardiologist how
cigarette smoke harms the heart. The cardiologist replies were nearly incoherent and wound
up with "we don't really know", followed by, "well it can cause a
stroke." King changed the subject immediately. I also remember (perhaps the same
show) him asking actor Kirk Douglas if he thought his stroke had anything to do with
smoking. Douglas replied to the red faced King that he hadn't smoked for over 20 years
prior to his stroke. We choose here to use the precise words from one of his shows that
should make for interesting reading, enough at least to stimulate our readers to view the
entire transcript. The following are excerpts from conversation regarding smoking on one
of his shows. The full transcripts of all shows from 2000 to Current are at the following
link. We'll explore other pertinent ones next time:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html
The first show we'll look at is a fairly recent one
from April 5, 2005, the day that Peter Jennings announced he had lung
cancer. Jennings, a heavy smoker (several packs per day - up to five early on) for many
years, quit 20 years ago and the announcement of his condition obviously prompted the
subject of this particular episode of LKL. There are several panelists in whose statements
we are interested. It is not our intention to defame or denigrate any of the following
people. They each have their own stories, triumphs and tragedies, and other human baggage
that we all carry. Their statements that follow are meant to illuminate the various
factors, misconceptions, and mystery involving the tragic disease that is lung cancer.
There is little doubt in our mind that cigarette smoking (especially abusive amounts)
carries some serious health baggage for some. However does the risk rise to the level to
justify the extortion of hundreds of billions of dollars from smokers who will see little
of that money vested in any programs that will actually mitigate, to any degree, any
health risks that are present? And, again, remember cigarettes are one thing and tobacco
is yet another. The differences in usage behavior and dose are striking for most MYO
enthusiasts. One other thing that happened not long after this show was the announcement
by Christopher Reeves' (Superman) widow, Dana, that she had lung Cancer. Dana Reeves was a
life-long non-smoker. The news media went crazy over this as Chris' last nine years of
life as a paraplegic due to a riding accident (let's ban horseback riding) was a model of
hope for many with paralyzing ailments. They also went crazy over the fact that Dana was a
non-smoker - for precisely one day. Within two days, the fluffy blonde anchor (certainly
no journalist by any stretch of the imagination) Paula Zahn, made the following statement
in a report saying, "Dana Reeves has been diagnosed with lung cancer", followed
with no pause by the statement "you can find out more about the effects of smoking
and lung cancer at CNN.com." CNN is Larry King's agenda laden launch pad as
well. The point is Zahn never again mentioned that Dana was a never smoker - ever again -
in any of her news reports on Dana that I saw over the next few weeks. This kind of
reporting is shameless and its tendency to leave out pertinent facts is pervasive in every
network or cable news broadcast system. So dialogues like the one that follows have enough
time to be pretty revealing both in what is said and what King fails to ask as follow up.
We do that for him in red. The link to the specific show follows but we have below laid
out the pertinent dialogue below. And one last thing before we begin - both Dana and Peter
died within a few weeks of undergoing chemotherapy. I will always wonder how long they may
have lived with no such toxic treatment.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/05/lkl.01.html
The "cast" includes, Lori, the widow of Morton Downey, Jr., (the
well known talk show host who died several years ago of lung cancer and who was an avid
PRO Smoker Rights Activist up until the time he got cancer and then became an avid and
paid anti-smoking advocate, though, according to Lori, he continued to smoke). Next is
Tammy Faye Messner (remembered forever as the former evangelical partner of Jim Baker, who
went to prison for wrong doings regarding church funds - just think raccoon eye makeup -
she is the most frequent guest on Kings show, a fact that completely amazes me about
King's perception of who his audience is,. Following her is Alan Landers, "The
(former) Winston Man", (a two time survivor of lung cancer who began smoking at age 9
and smoked 5 packs per day and who has a huge lawsuit against tobacco companies pending)
and finally Dr. Ronald Natale MD, (an oncologist at Cedar Sinai Hospital in LA who heads
major lung cancer research projects and testifies before various FDA drug approval
hearings on behalf of Chemo and other cancer related products he's tested for
Pharmaceutical companies - he's involved in a lot more than that as you'll see). We'll
examine a few of each panelist's statements and make comments after each of their
utterings. While these are excerpts, they are not conveniently edited to make a point.
These are direct quotes, though abbreviated and are provided so that you will experience
what we experienced as we watched the show. My personal comments in red, are again, the
follow up questions I would have asked were I sitting next to Larry or other points I feel
are cogent to the discussion that were overlooked or are important to note. Full context
is available, again, at the specific transcript link above and we urge you to read the
entire transcript for the appropriate date. One last thing before we start. I hate doing
this. I hate calling attention to the tragedy of others. Lung Cancer is poorly understood
and is a rabid killer once you get it. I have all the empathy in the world for the victims
and suggest you take the possible negatives of smoking seriously, even if the true
correlation between "tobacco and health" MAY be exaggerated for the benefit of
the greedy. One last thing before we start: In every Larry King show I've seen on the ills
of smoking, he uses the dynamic duo of Tony Randall and Jack Klugman. Though we don't use
it in its entirety here, it is in the complete transcript. What we note on this is the
fact these "Odd Couple" characters were/are in real life quite similar as to how
they live(d). Tony was a complete health nut, practically a vegetarian who exercised
daily, and took great pride in eliminating smoking from the sets on which he worked. He
even claims to have perhaps been a partial founder of the non-smoking environmental
movement in the oft used (by King) video clip. It goes like this - King to Randall:
KING: Because you were the most
anti-smoking person that I knew.
RANDALL: I think that's true. I think I'm responsible for some of the anti-smoking laws,
as a matter of fact. I didn't allow smoking on the set.
Ok fine, I don't allow smoking in my audio or video studios. It can
gum up the electronics. I don't like it anywhere indoors - that's me. Nonetheless the
point is that Tony died a couple of years ago at the age of 84. He died from a respiratory
infection from complications after what was essentially bypass surgery. Now how the hell
does a true health advocate (in both diet, exercise, and smoking) need a bypass procedure?
Today the raucous Jack Klugman is 84. That's right - the heavy drinking, fat eating, cigar
and cigarette smoking, no exercise, walking health risk that was Klugman's character and
nearly identical to his real life persona is still around and kicking. The point is that
these two could not have had more divergent attitudes towards health and Klugman survives
while Randall does not. Logically there must be more to health and longevity than the
public health people will ever admit. Take the food pyramid defined horrible eating
habits, little exercise, smoking, and mix it with happiness and low anxiety personality
type (the type that spends little time worrying about what others may do or enjoy) and you
may have a formula for longevity that works far better than the strident, missionary,
evangelistic and uptight anxiety ridden prohibitionist approach. George Burns lived to be
over 100 even with a steady diet of cigars and who knows what else. Again extrapolations
and predictions are nearly useless when it come to human mortality. Put more directly
"Everything the Public Health Community Knows May be Wrong." So now the King
show transcript with again the most pertinent comments in red.
First, Lori Downey: After a brief video clip showing Morton poignantly, and I feel
honestly (in his mind) sharing his experience with tobacco and lung cancer, (remembering
of course the high voltage lifestyle that Morton was famous for) Larry turns to Lori
Downey and says:
KING: That was the late Morton Downey Jr.,
who died of lung cancer six years -- he died after battling it for six years. He died in
March of 2001. His widow Lori joins us in Los Angeles. How did Mort discover he had it,
Lori?
LORI DOWNEY, WIFE OF MORTON DOWNEY, JR.: We
thought we were treating a cold at the time. He had a cough and he had a high fever. We
went in because we thought he had bronchial pneumonia.
KING: Was he -- he smoked a long time, didn't he?
DOWNEY: He smoked many years. He said
50 years. That would make him very young, right? But he did smoke FIVE
packs a day.
KING: And he used to defend it on television. Do you remember? I know you weren't married
to him then, but I think you used to watch him. He defended it.
DOWNEY: I actually was married to him (wrong
again Larry). He actually belonged to
the National Coalition of Smokers Alliance. So he actually sat on the board and actually
believed that smokers had the right to smoke wherever they wanted to -- until he got sick.
(she used the word "actually"
4 times in three short sentences)
Comment: Five Packs a day? My God how can
anyone smoke five pack of cigarettes a day. That's 100 cigarettes a day or one every 9.6
minutes, constantly for an assumed 16 hour day (the assumption being he got 8 hours of
sleep, which given Morton's extremely high energy output that we all found edgy yet
extremely compelling, is unlikely). Since it takes nearly 7 minutes at minimum to smoke
most packaged cigarettes, he basically was smoking constantly during his waking periods.
And if he smoked for 50 years and died in his 60's he started awfully young. No editorial
here. You decide if is this a typical association with even packaged cigarettes (and again
not tobacco but cigarettes). Note - By the way Downey, as mentioned by Lori, was a
proponent of the right for people to smoke anywhere, indoors and even around non-smokers -
I am not. As to the amount of consumption, the latest text on the American Cancer Society
website draws specific attention to the fact that the more you smoke and the longer you've
smoked, the more the risk. A direct quote, "The longer you smoke and the more
packs per day you smoke, the greater your risk," found by clicking here. This flies directly in the face of what most of the greediest
and most venomous anti-smoking groups espouse, specifically that "Dosage doesn't
matter", and directly supports the logical philosophy of moderation in all things.
Next Larry asks Dr Ronald Natale, the esteemed oncologist (cancer
doctor) (I use the word esteemed as he has, in his multi-decade practice helped a lot of
folks with lung cancer to ease the suffering - but cures - no) - the following question:
KING: Dr. Natale, why -- what does smoke do -- we know that it does. Do we know why
it does.
NATALE: Well, not completely. We know that nicotine is one of the most addictive
chemicals ever discovered. And it's the nicotine that addicts people to smoking
cigarettes. And cigarettes, unfortunately, contain a large number of carcinogens,
chemicals that can mutate the cells and the bronchial epitheliums and even other parts of
the body. So those carcinogens cause lung cancer and a variety of other cancers.
Comment: First Larry uses the phrase
"we know that it does"! By reading the entire transcript and all of the medical
evidence available, he should have in all honestly said "MAY DO", not does -
even "often does" would have been more accurate. Natale's response shows
worthy restraint in admitting that NO ONE really knows the complete mechanisms leading
absolutely to this disease - not even close to knowing. Bear in mind however that I do
believe that a great majority of the lung cancer patients he has seen were smokers. The
real question is smokers of what, how long and how much, how deeply they inhale and on and
on. He further uses the phrase "CAN" mutate cells rather than "DOES"
mutate cells when speaking of the introduction of carcinogens (another really overly
stated classification of chemicals known to create tumors - "sometimes - even
sometimes often" - in lab rats (mice) when they (the mice) are exposed to
extraordinarily large amounts of the chemical, most often by injecting it under the
rodent's skin). There should be little doubt that some carcinogens under the right
conditions and in sufficient quantity can and do cause tumors, some more frequently or
easily in some people than others, as you will hear in a moment. However even rats locked
in cages filled with more smoke than even the heaviest smoker would ingest in years of
smoking have failed, to my knowledge, to present lung cancer tumors. Of course, you can't
get a rat to smoke a packaged cigarette like a human - maybe they are smarter after all
than those that do smoke pre-mades. No studies have been done with MYO cigarettes (real
tobacco), and no mention was made of the FACT that everything that burns, create
carcinogens and a lot of substances that are commonly burned create many more than does
burning tobacco.
A little later (King tends to ramble with his
lines of questions so, though this next part occurs a bit later, we bump it up to here
because it relates to the previous question. Larry asks the following:
KING: Dr. Natale, without being crass, what kills you? What happens from cancer
that causes death?
NATALE: We actually don't know, Larry. Many patients with lung cancer, when they die, they have healthy-appearing
lungs, or adequate amount of lungs, or their heart or other organs are still functioning
pretty normally. Somehow, the total tumor mass in the body gets to a
point where the body begins to shut itself down.
Comment: Jeez - this is a pretty weak
response from a supposedly scientifically oriented, authoritative and absolutely convinced
opponent of tobacco use.
KING: Is the body -- is it like going to war with itself, doctor?
NATALE: To some extent, it is.
KING: Like a civil war?
NATALE: Just about. There's no doubt that the body's immune system does try to fight the
cancer, but obviously unsuccessfully in most people.
We skip a bit and continue with a Caller (it's a call-in show you know):
CALLER: Hi, I wanted to ask the doctor, are
there serious -- or actual data about people who smoke all their
lives and never get cancer?
KING: Doctor Natale?
NATALE: Well, there are some lucky people who can smoke all their lives and not get cancer. Statistically, about one in eight
cigarette smokers develops cancer, most
of them lung cancer. So this is a dangerous habit.
Comment: While Natalie may have seen a
preponderance of lung cancer patients who were smokers, he has NO way of knowing how many
smokers get lung cancer other than by questionable statistics provided by epidemiologists
and their ilk. He only knows what he has seen and that is lung cancer patients, not
otherwise healthy smokers. Again, right off the bat, I'll tell you I hate generics like
"people who smoke" when dealing with such a serious subject. "People who
Smoke"- Smoke what, cigars, pipes, cigarettes, dope, tea, and further, Smoke how,
Smoke how much of WHAT! Next the term LUCKY offends the hell out of my scientific side.
It's a Vegas term and has no business being introduced into a scientific discussion.
There's a hell of a lot more in evidence here than "LUCK" But again these kinds
of discussions are NEVER really scientific and REALLY more about the continuance of many
businesses, both medical, pharmaceutical, plus a lot of fund raising. Then of course the
word Statistically ("There are Lies, Damn Lies, and then Statistics" - Mark
Twain, another gifted storyteller.) This is followed by the "one in eight"
quote... which I have reason to doubt as when reading statistics from all other health and
anti-smoking sites, the general "statistic" found, though it varies
considerably, states that roughly 150,000 people die of lung cancer per year. Natale says
most of the one-in-eight smokers who get cancer, get lung cancer. Okay so far?
Many other anti-tobacco and public health
sites state that roughly 170,000 are diagnosed with lung cancer per year. Now right here
it is important to note that unlike other statements about smoking related deaths, there
may actually be a database specific to lung cancer where victims have directly stated
their smoking habits to their doctors. So taking these numbers as better than most of the
more whimsical figures most groups use (like 400,000 people per year die of smoking
related diseases), let's analyze: There are "roughly" 48 million smokers in the
US. If you divide that number by 8, which is the One-in-8 number of smokers according to
Natale's estimate who get lung cancer, you arrive at (again roughly) 6,000,000 people who
smoke today are going to get lung cancer - sometime. If indeed 170,000 are diagnosed per
year and 150,000 die per year, using either number, those 6,000,000 folks are going to
take about 40 years to die and 33 years to develop the disease. Of course timing is
everything and projections like these do not run parallel. The point is that a hell of a
lot of time is going to pass before all of the 6 million current smokers can die from
smoking or even be diagnosed for lung cancer. That gives them a hell of a lot of time to
be exposed to a plethora of toxins, viruses and carcinogens from other sources including
genetic predisposition. Nonetheless, these numbers are tragic. However even more
tragic is that possibility that many other real causes will be overlooked because of the
fanatical unidirectional mindset of anti-tobacco, driven again, mostly by avarice.
Remember our Mortality statistics from last
issue's charts in the Editorial Section from the CDC which showed that of the 2.4 million
people total that died in 2002, 1.8 million were over 65 and 2.04 Million were over 55.
We'll keep that chart at the bottom of this issue's Editorial Page as we will find it
continually interesting.
KING: What about second-hand smoke?
NATALE: There's a weak association between prolonged inhalation of
second-hand smoke and the development of lung cancer. A lot of those studies, I believe,
are somewhat controversial. But you can develop lung cancer
from inhalation or passive inhalation of cigarette smoke from others.
And finally (you had to know this was
coming), King asks about the dreaded second hand smoke (ETS). Remember now, I dislike
indoor smoking personally and want to enjoy my own tobacco taste and aroma, not yours.
Even so, Natale admits a WEAK association. Now to be fair, the fiscally predatory nuts
that are running around banning smoking in bars and other adult environments, use figures
that include other smoking related diseases. Nonetheless, this weak association is
attributed to more diseases than one could possibly have scientifically studied it for and
the term "Prolonged" exposure is yet another undefined generic term that implies
a number but offers none. He uses the word CAN when speaking, at the end, of both active
and passive smoking which implies far less than a certainty. Now the groups calling for
smoking bans and reaping billions don't utter the words "may" or
"can", only "does" or "will". They only correctly use the
word "WILL" in any true way when they use it in conjunction with and after
the term "FREE." - a two word phrase that threatens their very
philosophical existence. And yes, you probably can get lung cancer from cigarette smoke,
and burning leaves, and diesel trucks, and barbecuing burgers.
Before we go on with this rather morbid display, I wanted to lighten the
mood a bit by sharing with you a classic comedy piece, brought up to date by subject
matter, that illustrates the problem with not asking the "Right" question. How
one asks a question is essential in research. Little is gained by not insisting on a
"Complete" question and a subsequent "Complete" answer. It's in a two
column table so read the left side first then go to the top of the right column.
You have to be old enough to
remember Abbott and Costello, and too old to REALLY understand computers, to fully
appreciate this. For those of us who sometimes get flustered by our computers, please read
on...
If Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were alive today, their infamous sketch, "Who's on
First?" might have turned out something like this. Abbot's the salesperson,
Costello the customer calling in:
ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store.
Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks. I'm setting up an office in my den and I'm thinking about buying a
computer.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.
ABBOTT: Your computer?
COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou.
ABBOTT: What about Windows?
COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?
ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with
Windows?
COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look at the windows?
ABBOTT: Wallpaper.
COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.
ABBOTT: Software for Windows?
COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals, track
expenses and run my business. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?
ABBOTT: I just did.
COSTELLO: You just did what?
ABBOTT: Recommend something.
COSTELLO: You recommended something?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: For my office?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!
ABBOTT: I recommend Office with
Windows.
COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows! OK, let's just say I'm sitting at my
computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need?
ABBOTT: Word.
COSTELLO: What word?
ABBOTT: Word in Office.
COSTELLO: The only word in office is office!
ABBOTT: The Word in Office for
Windows.
COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?
ABBOTT: The Word you get when you
click the blue "W."
COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue "w" if you don't start with some straight
answers. OK, forget that. Can I watch movies on the Internet? >>>> next
column
Continues from Column 1:
ABBOTT: Yes, you want Real One.
COSTELLO: Maybe a real one, maybe a cartoon. What I watch is none of your business. Just
tell me what I need!
ABBOTT: Real One.
COSTELLO: If it's a long movie, I also want to watch reels 2, 3 and 4. Can I watch them?
ABBOTT: Of course.
COSTELLO: Great! With what?
ABBOTT: Real One.
COSTELLO: OK, I'm at my computer and I want to watch a movie. What do I do?
ABBOTT: You click the blue "
1."
COSTELLO: I click the blue one what?
ABBOTT: The blue " 1."
COSTELLO: Is that different from the blue w?
ABBOTT: The blue " 1" is
Real One and the blue " W" is Word.
COSTELLO: What word?
ABBOTT: The Word in Office for
Windows.
COSTELLO: But there are three words in "office for windows"!
ABBOTT: No, just one. But it's the
most popular Word in the world.
COSTELLO: It is?
ABBOTT: Yes, but to be fair, there
aren't many other Words left. It pretty much wiped out all the other Words out there.
COSTELLO: And that word is real one?
ABBOTT: Real One has nothing to do
with Word. Real One isn't even part of Office.
COSTELLO: STOP! Don't start that again. What about financial bookkeeping? You have
anything I can track my money with?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?
ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your
computer.
COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?
ABBOTT: Yes. No extra charge.
COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?
ABBOTT: One copy.
COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?
ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license
to copy Money.
COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?
ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!
(A few days later)
ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?
ABBOTT: Click on "START".......
I received the above in an email with no author. Whoever wrote it
should be paid as a comedy writer . . .and as an epidemiologist as well. I will gladly
give credit to whoever was the creator if they contact us. Now rather than go through the
rest of the show, we will briefly provide some anecdotes about the rest of the program.
Please DO go to the link way the hell above eventually to read the entire transcript. The
following is interesting insight into the content of the rest of the program.
1. Alan Landers,
the Winston Man" started smoking at the age of nine. Now what the hell is up with
that - not to mention 5 packs per day?
2. Tammy Faye Messner (once Baker of the infamous Jim Baker) never smoked a cigarette in
her life and still got lung cancer.
3. Dr. Natale's response to this is "We know that 15 percent to 20
percent of the 170,000 Americans who will be diagnosed with (lung cancer) each year have
either never smoked or smoked very little. So there are other things that can cause lung
cancer. Comment: You heard it
here first. But he earlier said 1 out of 8 smokers get cancer (which we disputed as
hearsay). Nevertheless that means that 7 out of 8 don't which means that in fact
(using the kind or circular logic so common today regarding smoking and health) that 88%
of smokers don't get cancer whereas with say 20% of non-smokers getting lung cancer, only
80% don't. The case could be made that overall 8% more non-smokers get cancer than do
smokers. A little like Abbot & Costello's piece above.
4. Two other things that need
emphasizing here, both disturbing. First this exchange between actress Epatha Merkerson
who has a Lung Cancer Awareness non-profit organization:
KING: What, Epatha, does your
educational campaign, Lung Cancer Awareness, do?
MERKERSON: Well, we provide information for people who are suffering with lung cancer, for
their families who care for them, people can access www.cancercare.org for any
information. There's ways that they can get financial help, resources, where they should
go to get help, there are online services for them to talk to people, oncology specialists
and so forth.
Comment: So far so good. How could we possibly distrust an organization with such a noble
agenda. And it probably does help people who have this disease a great deal. However and
it is a BIG however, the next line is more frightening to me than that which generated the
fright in Epatha. The underlined part is most disconcerting. She goes on: " And it really strengthened my resolve to do this
when I saw those guys standing in front of Congress from the tobacco companies, with their
hands raised to God saying that they -- said that cancer -- that cigarettes were not
habit-forming, that nicotine did not cause cancer. That scared me. That scared
me."
Comment: Well it really scares the hell out
of me that someone like Merkerson who has been involved with this for years still thinks
NICOTINE causes cancer and that cigarette companies are tobacco companies. As I hope most
of you know, nicotine is not a carcinogen, and can have many benefits to balance its
addictiveness - which, by the way, is more than often found not to be nearly as addictive
as often advertised when obtained through natural tobacco products and in reasonable
doses from reasonably moderate consumption. Sure 5 packs a day of packaged brands and you
will likely have a serious chemical addiction to nicotine and many other chemicals as
well. Most MYO users, with moderation, lose their addictions pretty quickly.
Now two other links that should prove entertaining as a break before we
continue. The first is a disclaimer page from LungCancer.org. This is basically a PR firm
that rallies support with materials regarding smoking and lung cancer. You will see in
this disclaimer that they absolve themselves of any responsibility for accuracy or to
stand behind any of the so called "facts" they publish for the benefit of the
public health lobbyists. The second link is to a page that discusses the strange
coincidence of actors, including John Wayne who died from lung cancer (which was blamed
entirely even back then on his smoking habits) after working on a film in the deserts near
nuclear (not nuculear GW) test sites. Both pages are required reading as stated before to
get the whole picture.
http://www.lungcancer.org/misc_pages/fs_mp_disclosure.htm
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_016.html
Before we continue with Dr. Natale and drug
companies, we thought it prudent to show you what he said to King regarding cigars"
KING: Are cigars just as bad, Dr. Natale?
NATALE: Cigars are bad because the nicotine content is enormous. So the nicotine addiction
from that high dose can be really difficult to satisfy by just continuing to smoke cigars.
So many cigar smokers ultimately have to turn to cigarettes.
Comment: If cigars are such an enormous
source of nicotine, why would anyone need cigarettes as well. This is an entirely
illogical bunch of twaddle most disturbing as it comes from the mouth of a touted
"expert" on tobacco and health. The truth is people smoke cigarettes for
different reasons than cigars. Inhaling tobacco smoke from a cigarette is far different
from the normal practice at least of sucking on cigars and enjoying the ambient smoke
without inhaling it directly.
5. I now want to explore Dr Natale's
association briefly with big Pharmaceuticals. This association is often necessary for
doctors like Natale to get drugs for trial that may ease the symptoms or cure people
altogether of diseases (other than cancer of course). This kind of research partnering is
needed and to be respected - as long as there is no financial advantage for the researcher
personally to find the drug in question efficacious when reporting his/her findings to the
FDA to enhance its approval. And therein lies the devilish details. Medicine is not an
exact science in so far as new drugs, and less than cooperative diseases go. More dollars
are needed for research but they need to be spent wisely. In the case that follows, in
2001/2002, Dr. Natale was engaged in the study of a lung cancer drug (chemotherapy) for
relief of the symptoms of non-small cell lung cancer. The drug was IRESSA and for
discussion, the generic name you can easily find and then instruct me on how to pronounce
it. Anyway the study was conducted using IRESSA, which has far fewer side effects than
heretofore other Chemo drugs, and Natale's results were very positive. Side effects of
chemotherapy are often horrible, more so than the oft reported losing of one's hair. In
fact, nearly all lung cancer fatalities could be ostensibly blamed on the extreme toxicity
of typical Chemo drugs were one eager to skew the data - but who would do that!?
They (the drugs) hurt, they make you sick
as hell, but they can relieve some the worse symptoms of the disease itself and can in
some cases accomplish (or claim to) partial or even complete remission of the malignancy.
A worthy endeavor to say the least. The following link points to a formal hearing and
testimony before the FDA committee on such drugs regarding IRESSA (a drug from the giant
international pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP who also makes the
suspiciously sexy and attractive little purple and gold pill Nexium you see advertised 75
times per day on nearly any station you choose). At this link, Natale gives glowing
testimony as to the success of the drug IRESSA. Follow the link - (a new page will open,
which you should close when done and after you find, about halfway down a pretty long
page, Natale's testimony). The link is: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/transcripts/3894T1.htm.
I hope you actually go there and spend some
time reading both Natale's results and the testimony of other witnesses (cancer survivors)
to the amazing qualities and successes with this drug.
However, a subsequent trial showed
absolutely NO benefit to this drug whatsoever, at least for late stage cancers it was
successful on in Natale's tests. This after FDA approval. There are however mitigating
circumstances, especially the fact that none of the people who testified at the first FDA
hearing were smokers even though they contracted lung cancer and Natale is specific at
times about the fact that this drug may not help smokers, or more likely the kinds of
cancers, though oncologically similar, that are purportedly characteristic of smoking
related tumors. IRESSA was dropped by AstraZeneca soon after, although it is only fair to
point out that the company made a lot of money on it in the meantime and a lot of patients
continued to feel it was helping them. I often wonder how much the belief a patient has in
the efficacy of any drug, most especially one that has few of the horrible side effects of
most chemotherapy concoctions, has to do with its success rate. Of course I also wonder
about the accuracy of the initial diagnosis of such diseases as well - and I am not the
only one who remembers the scandals of the 60s regarding unnecessary and massive surgeries
relating to breast cancer.
Assuming you've read above the glowing
recommendation of Dr. Natale in front of the FDA hearing committee regarding IRESSA, (the
link is repeated here so read the damn thing) http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/transcripts/3894T1.htm, here is the later news on IRESSA's ultimate
rejection.
http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=8271
And what we found even more enlightening
was that Dr. Natale was and is an employee of the pharmaceutical company that produced
IRESSA, AstraZeneca. Though his test results showed significantly positive results and the
handpicked patient/witnesses who testified in front of the FDA, many of whom were asking
for a fast track approval, all looked incredibly positive, Natale never mentioned his
direct connection to the pharmaceutical giant, either at the hearings or on the King show.
I suppose the members of the FDA panel board (judges if you will) knew of it as it was
disclosed in the initial heading under those representing AstraZeneca but I initially read
this as those representing positive results of the trials, not direct employees of the
firm. It took some digging to find all the connections but eventually we found a page that
pretty much sums it all up. The link to it follows and the paragraphs that follow the link
are just two of several illuminating series of facts.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/cmc-cpk050503.php
WHO:
Physician: Ronald Natale, M.D., the Principal Investigator on the clinical trial at
Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Acting Medical Director at Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer
Center and National Program Director for Lung Cancer for Salick Health Care, Inc., is
available for media interviews. A patient who participated in the study at the
Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center and testified before the FDA’s Oncologic
Drug Advisory Committee is also willing to be interviewed.
The Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer
Center is managed by a subsidiary of Salick Health Care, Inc. Salick Health Care, Inc. is
an independently operated subsidiary of AstraZeneca. A lot of stars have gone through Cedars-Sinai medical facility, and a lot of
them never left. One would imagine that even the Beverly Hills crowd that patronize this
facility might look elsewhere. Oh and there remains great controversy regarding the Salick
Health Care facility(s) and the way AstraZeneca literally kicked out its namesake founder
Bernard Salick. Search the internet for Salick Health Care and you will find this dirty
little secret as well. Here's a good start on that issue.
http://www.nurseweek.com/news/zeneca.html
We will finish this issue's cover with a couple more
interesting things we uncovered during our research over the last year. To say what you've
seen so far is small in comparison to the volume of material we've collected during that
time is an understatement of epic proportions. The fact is there are at least 400 pages of
material of this length in the can. I can only guess that it will someday be a book.
Certainly all the writing and documentation is done. Time will tell. However, those most
juicy tidbits that we've shared in this issue would be incomplete without this last item.
It is a study in the sheer audacity of  the
non-profit/anti-tobacco/pharmaceutical/governmental/public health coalition. These groups,
having bled hundreds of billions of dollars from smokers with little to show for it, had
the added nerve to sue Philip Morris under the umbrella of the RICO statutes for another
280 Billion dollars. The document heading below can be found by searching, but it is three
hundred pages of some of the most inane legal arguments I have ever seen. I would not
recommend its reading to even the most bored of legal scholars. This case was thrown out
on the grounds that RICO penalties did not apply, and the extravagant monetary awards were
reduced to a limit of $10 Billion. However, money aside, it is the Appellees in this case
that are most disturbing. The US Government teamed up with the Pharmaceutical industry,
armed with reams of testimony for non-profit anti-tobacco groups and public health
departments to try to get the Court of Appeals to allow the former $280 Billion amount to
be used as a set sum at a lower court level decision before a verdict was even reached.
When you find this document, you will see that the opinion written by the judge throwing
this out was one of surprising insight and courage. Even so, the fact that the
Pharmaceutical industry was suing the very companies they do business with for their
nicotine replacement products is so absurd that it is difficult to write about with a
straight finger. Read Forces.org's Norm Kjono's column regarding this case. The following
link has both his comments and a direct link to the complete decision. Again, it is
frustratingly long but if you want a detailed look at the collusion between the
aforementioned groups, this really nails it. The Clinton administration started this but
Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has taken it up with full permission from his
boss. For those of you who think Republicans are on the side of honesty and freedom, think
again. This travesty is supported by both parties. Now do you finally believe me when I
tell you it is TIME for a new party, one that respects the rights of business and
individuals over incredibly powerful special interest groups. Sure Big Cigarette companies
are special interest groups as well, but they didn't get that way by suing people. They
produced a product that could be freely chosen to use. It is a lousy product and should
not be confused with real tobacco, but the fact that these Appellees were asking for even
more money, after the MSA already was shown to have been money wasted on everything but
tobacco intervention, demonstrates that this coalition has gone over the edge of sanity.
Again, read Norm's treatise on this and if you can stand the pain, the whole decision.
This is not over yet. The parasites will never give up until they are put completely out
of business. Here's the link:
http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/files/fed-suit.htm
And finally we again urge you to read Stephen
Baxter's book, Evolution. This piece of docu-fiction has fascinating
insights into those parts of each of us that have not changed since the first living
creature appeared on earth. The give and take of survival and the  absolute necessity of controlling one's own destiny as well as
the fragility of the species and the durability of the planet. It is perhaps the most
interesting piece of scientific extrapolation I've ever read. And it is a fun read as
well. Do yourself a favor and explore with Baxter what has been, what might have been, and
what could be. You won't be sorry. Enjoy - the Ed
Our greatest hope at this magazine is that we will
stimulate our readers, and those they come in contact with, to begin a journey that
involves increased self reliance and control over every aspect of their personal lives. If
you don't like taxes or the legislation your representatives are supporting, find new
candidates and vote for them. If you work for someone else, start your own business on the
side. Stay flexible. Eat healthy, exercise regularly, practice moderation and by all means
have FUN. Exorcise the bitterness life sometimes injects and replace it with a sense of
adventure. Look up once in a while and remember the dreams we had of the stars when we
were kids. Begin to think of the larger universe where opportunities unimagined lie. The
only limit to the achievements possible for each and every one of us are the ones that we
place on ourselves or allow other to place on us. With these principles in mind let us
once again state the purposes that guide the production of this publication.
Most of the information in this magazine is directed solely at
those people of legal age who already smoke, those who are trying to
reduce their tobacco intake, those wishing to spend less money on tobacco, and who are
interested in creating their own cigarettes using high quality tobacco products of their
choosing - in general, those who wish to have, in our opinion, a far more satisfying, and
economical smoking experience when compared with smoking pre-manufactured cigarettes. We,
in no way, wish to encourage people to smoke. Further, we subscribe to a more sane, more
logical approach for those that chose to smoke, that involves common sense as to quantity,
coupled with a strong commitment to manage the habit until it becomes an occasional,
freely chosen, diversion, that can be fully enjoyed without obsession, and hopefully, with
minimal health risks. No sensible person should assume that the intake of smoke or other
pollutants of any kind can be advantageous to your physical health, and we feel that any
tobacco use implies demonstrable statistical risk of varying degrees for varying groups of
people. We submit that, if you do not smoke, it would seem illogical to start. However, we
are likewise extremely interested in future determinations as to the degree of risk based
on dosage and smoking material and encourage much more research to be undertaken, using
sound, scientific methods that can be looked at as universally credible.
Once Again - Our Position On Tobacco
It is our position that because of the sheer enormity of money that is
involved in the tobacco debate, and the fact that such vast amounts of resource can breed
fraud and corruption, as evidenced by the large number of claims of violations attributed
to the cigarette industry, as well as counter-claims of fraudulent research methods by
those on the other side of the issue, much more needs to be done to quantify the specific
elements of tobacco smoke as well as specific elements of other sources of smoke and
pollution in our environment that can lead to health problems. We therefore stress as a
logical and necessary step forward, in order to ameliorate the controversy and lessen the
divisive nature of the subject, that any and all tax revenues that are collected
on tobacco, as well as all punitive damages collected on behalf of US
citizens by all local, state, and federal litigations against tobacco, other than
those funds already allocated that are needed to satisfy current regulation and
enforcement, be applied to five (5) areas of investigation and compensation exclusively.
These areas are:
1. Scientifically rigorous, comprehensive research on tobacco
and health with full public disclosure detailing the accounting for the amount of research
money distributed, of how decisions are reached as to the ways and means said research
money is distributed, and to whom the research money is awarded and why.
2. Full disclosure and complete public dissemination of
information on experimental methodology and subsequent findings that are validated by the
oversight of non-partisan, scientifically qualified panels that are
accountable to the taxpayers by way of unimpeded public scrutiny and
debate.
3. All revenues allocated to any of the above as well as to
the subsequent health care of individuals who may be found damaged by tobacco or to
education programs for tobacco intervention, must be used in a cost-efficient manner as
determined by full disclosure and reasonable consensus between these scientifically
qualified panels and representatives of those who bear the burden of taxation.
4. During the above research phase, should OTHER sources of
polluting elements in our environment be found to be significant factors in the
symptomatic expression of illnesses previously attributed solely to tobacco use, that
those found culpable be held fiscally accountable, to the degree determined by the same
scientifically qualified panels, with suitable restitution to the tobacco taxpayers as a
consequence.
5. Additionally, be it found that institutions or individuals
have purposely, for profit, or gain of status, mis-stated or over-stated the impact or
role of tobacco usage in the symptomatic expression of certain illnesses, those found
culpable of purposeful deception for profit be held fiscally accountable, to the degree
determined by the same scientifically qualified panels, with suitable restitution to the
specific taxpayers as a consequence, in conjunction with the possibility of criminal
prosecution for fraud.
The emerging Make You Own philosophy, (which is basically to regain
control of our ability to chose and be proactive in our views) especially as it extends
well beyond the scope of tobacco, is potentially a very powerful political force that,
with enough visibility, could foreseeably change the way our government looks at the
control of its population and better define the risks governments take in supporting
tax-driven, social engineering schemes. We at RYO Magazine are dedicated to the prospect
of accurate and fair information regardless of subject, as well as the uncompromising
appreciation of quality above profit. Profit will come from quality and have more
lasting benefits as well. We also believe that given complete and honest data, humans are
more than capable of making wise decisions. With the recent increases in taxation on
packaged cigarettes in so many states, even greater interest is being directed at this
magazine and the industry as a whole - this is increasing daily. We feel an
obligation to play it straight with our readers, who come from every point of view
imaginable, from every continent on the planet, as they are our most valuable resource.
As MYO becomes more
well known, some will say it is just another way to encourage people to smoke. While
patently untrue for now, the industry must be wise enough to never take
that path regardless of the possible financial rewards. Smoking is self-indulgent, private
behavior and, if conducted responsibly, in moderation, and away from those who want no
part of it, it MAY one day prove to be less of a health risk. We can only go by what we
hear from our readers, personal acquaintances and our own personal observations. That is,
that package cigarette smokers who convert to the MYO methodology tend to smoke less,
appreciate the flavor of tobacco more, and eventually gain control to the point that
tobacco is a freely chosen, occasional treat and often they eventually smoke so little
that their one or two cigarettes a week are quite possibly of little consequence to their
overall health. Certainly less so than poor diet and lack of exercise. Providing that kind
of alternative to the lifestyle of millions who may be damaging their health smoking pack
after pack of manufactured cigarettes daily, we feel can only be viewed as an improvement.
Smoking tobacco or breathing in any kind of smoke or other particulate matter must
certainly pose some health risk. Our aim is to find the truth as to dosage and degree of
risk. However, since we are convinced that the MYO method has improved the lives of many
smokers already, attracting more current smokers to an environment where quitting is far
easier and moderation is a fact, seems a worthy enterprise.
Check out the links
below and keep abreast of what is happening in the tobacco wars. These areas directly
effect you and your right to smoke as well as other endangered freedoms more and more
every day. Keep in mind though, that our position remains that non-smokers should not be
exposed to other's smoke. We feel that businesses that want a smoking environment should
have that choice and be able to discriminate against potential employees and customers who
do not smoke. The reverse is in wide practice already - the ed.
1. http://www.tobacco.org - A
pretty comprehensive site with pertinent tobacco issues definitely skewed towards
anti-tobacco but with some minor balanced exposure to other sides of the question. We
suggest you keep abreast of what is there as it is always good to both know what the
potential enemies of free choice are up to as well as experience for yourself some of the
absolute unsubstantiated and anecdotal twaddle that is thrust into the hands of the media
and Congress. This site is a perfect example of why we need much more scientifically
sound and current research on tobacco and health. This site is
interesting if for no other reason that it will keep you up to date on the Draconian
legislation that lies ahead that your vote might affect.
2. http://www.junkscience.com
- A highly entertaining site exposing fraudulent and expensive scientific extrapolations.
3. http://thomas.loc.gov -
Current, past, and pending legislative actions, bills, and sponsors - a huge resource.
4. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-366es.html - a "White" Paper
produced by the CATO Institute covering the Shelby Amendment which requires that all
aspects of research whose findings lead to legislation being enacted be made part of the
public record available to all. Fascinating reading although research organizations have
been painfully slow to comply.
Also, most of the news
services (CNN, Fox, ABC, MSNBC, etc.), have extensive archives of smoking related articles
both pro and con. They are great resources for both sides of the issue. Their websites are
easily found in search engines or by URL (i.e. cnn.com).
Below are some
additional links to sites with some in-depth information on the colorful
and fascinating history, complete with photos, of the American Tobacco Industry.
1. Jim Shaw's Burnt
Offerings
Lots of photos of old cigarette packs, ads and other
historical esoterica.
2. The Cigarette Pack
Collector's Association
Compendium of cigarette historical data and collectibles with lots of links.
3. The Duke Family
Homestead
Fascinating history of the founder of the American Tobacco Company and Duke
University.
EDITOR'S NOTE: These reviews are solely for the convenience of
people of legal age who already smoke, are trying to cut down on smoking, wish to spend
less money on their smoking, want to roll their own cigarettes from high quality tobacco,
and, in general, wish to have a far more satisfying, and economical smoking experience
when compared with smoking pre-manufactured cigarettes. We, in no way, encourage people to
smoke. Further, we subscribe to a sane, more logical approach to smoking that involves
common sense as to quantity coupled with a strong desire to manage the habit until it
becomes an occasional, freely chosen, diversion, that can be fully enjoyed with minimal
health risks. Finally, we strongly encourage those who do smoke to take it outdoors, or to
appropriate environments where tobacco can be enjoyed away from those who do not smoke,
most especially children. We do not sell tobacco or related products from this site;
We distribute information about our perceptions of the quality of what is available and
where it can be obtained. If you are under 18, it is illegal to buy tobacco and you
should immediately exit this site. If you do not smoke, it would seem illogical to start.
© 1999 RYO Magazine
A Publication of
The Andromedan Design Company
RYO Magazine™
is a trademark of The Andromedan Design Company,
and its contents are protected under all applicable copyright laws.
|
|
