It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FDA New Tobacco Sales Compliance Checks

page: 2
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


Nothing is safe. It's a matter of allowing adults to make their own decisions.

Example:

Coffee-

Over 1,000 chemicals have been reported in roasted coffee, and 19 are known rodent carcinogens

Coffee can damage the lining of the gastrointestinal organs, causing gastritis and ulcers.

It can also cause anxiety and irritability, in some with excessive coffee consumption, and some as a withdrawal symptom. Coffee can also cause insomnia in some. In others it can cause narcolepsy.

This increase in LDL levels is an indicator that coffee raises cholesterol. The Baylor study suggests a possible link between cafestol, kahweol and higher levels of cholesterol in the body.

Coffee consumption can lead to iron deficiency anemia in mothers and infants.

en.wikipedia.org...

You can make anything sound scary.

I should note that I am not saying smoking doesn't kill you. It does. Second hand smoke, on the other hand, has been the catalyst for all these laws and the science behind that is inconclusive despite what the anti-smoking lobby groups would have you believe.

I will post an email I sent to such a anti-smoking group here in Australia, to which I am yet to get a reply:

Hi Anne,
Thanks for those links as well.

I have spent some time reading the Surgeon Generals 2006 Report on second hand smoke and would just like to present some points outlining disinformation and manipulation conducted by anti-smoking lobbyists and groups.

Here is what the Surgeon General's report concluded regarding the effects of secondhand smoke exposure on heart disease and lung cancer:

"The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. ... The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker. ... The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and increased risks of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality among both men and women."

Here is what the Surgeon General's press release stated:

"Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer, the report says."

That statement from the press release is a gross misrepresentation of the facts.

The press release claims that a significant finding of the Surgeon General's report is that: "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer."

To re-phrase this for clarity, the Surgeon General is publicly claiming that brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer.

But there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Certainly, no evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report to support this claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General's report draws no such conclusion.

In fact, such a conclusion flies in the face of common medical sense. How could it possibly be that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease? It takes many years for heart disease to develop. It takes years of exposure to tobacco smoke even for a smoker to develop heart disease. I estimate that it takes at least 25 years of exposure (based on the fact that very few smokers are diagnosed with heart disease before age 40).

So how could it possibly be that for an active smoker, heart disease takes 25 years of exposure to tobacco smoke to develop, but for a passive smoker, it only takes a single, transient, brief exposure?

It is also quite misleading to tell the public that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer. There is certainly no evidence for this and the Surgeon General's report itself draws no such conclusion. In fact, the report makes it clear that most of the studies linking secondhand smoke and lung cancer studied nonsmokers with many years of intense exposure.

The other claims made by the Surgeon General are also quite misleading, although perhaps not as absurdly inaccurate.

"Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion. Brief exposure can have immediate harmful effects on blood and blood vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack."

TBC




posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:15 PM
link   
continued...

This statement is misleading because it implies that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cancer (by setting the cancer process in motion). There is simply no evidence to support such a claim, and no such evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report. More importantly, there is no evidence that brief exposure increases the risk of a heart attack and the Surgeon General's report offers no evidence to this effect, nor does it conclude that brief secondhand smoke exposure does increase heart attack risk. This is pure speculation, unsupported by any compelling scientific evidence.

"Breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can have immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system, interfering with the normal functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems in ways that increase the risk of heart attack."

Again, while there certainly is evidence presented in the report that brief secondhand smoke exposure interferes with the "normal" functioning of the heart, blood, and vascular systems, there is no evidence that these changes acutely increase the risk of a heart attack. Moreover, even if one relied on pure speculation, rather than on science, one would have to clarify one's claim by specifying that it only referred to individuals with pre-existing severe coronary artery disease, something which the Surgeon General does not do here.

"Even a short time in a smoky room causes your blood platelets to stick together. Secondhand smoke also damages the lining of your blood vessels. In your heart, these bad changes can cause a deadly heart attack."

Once again, this is pure speculation, not based on any scientific evidence. There is no conclusion in the Surgeon General's report that brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes fatal heart attacks, as claimed here. There is no evidence presented in the report which documents any increased fatal heart attack risk associated with a brief exposure to secondhand smoke. And even pure speculation would require one to clarify this claim to refer only to individuals with severe existing coronary artery disease.

I need to make it clear that none of these misleading and inaccurate scientific claims are made in the Surgeon General's report which I have attached should you wish to peruse.

The science is simply being distorted to sensationalize the findings, resulting in assertions that are misleading, inaccurate, absurd, unsupported by scientific evidence, and inconsistent with the findings of the report itself.

It appears to me that tobacco control organizations of all kinds and at every level are simply unable to accurately and honestly communicate the science of secondhand smoke to the public. For some reason, there appears to be a need to distort the science in an effort to sensationalize it and increase the emotional impact of the communication. The end result is to produce public claims that are inaccurate and which mislead the public.

Regarding your response regarding workplaces being smoke free. I have no issue with this and this is not what I was referring to when I said "establishments". I was actually after your or your groups opinions on having places like Bars/Pubs/Clubs having the ability to be either smoking or non-smoking venues. That way smokers have a place they can go and non-smokers have a place to go. If smoking venues weren't in demand, then none would stay in business but if it is then everyone wins. What would be the downside to this?

In relation to electronic cigarettes, are you or your group pushing for studies in this area? Since public health and wanting to prevent early deaths of Australians, I would assume groups such as yours would be lobbying the government to look into these alternatives.

Again, thanks for taking the time to respond to me. I do appreciate it.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:21 PM
link   
reply to post by aaron2209
 


Thank you for trying to be a voice of reason, Everytime I try to get these points across, I get harassed and called names. I am so sick of it.


It's easy to follow the crowd and pick on the group of the moment, but before you know it they will pick a group you are part of.

Disgusting anti smoking ads and a liberal agenda

Please read my info on all the other causes of lung cancer.....most non-smokers are subjected to these carcinogens everyday, but still insist it only comes from the person with the cig.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 


i feel that eventually we'll be conditioned to accept the need to show ID for all things in society

well, that is only if the '1984' future many fear is not defeated soon
edit on 1/30/2012 by indigothefish because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I have worked in the convenience store industry for a long time. One of the main problems that I have a seen different changes due to the laws and regulations concerning tobacco products. It went from such being where anyone could get access to such, to restricted in an attempt to prevent children and underage persons from having access to such.

The problem that has been seen and shown time and time again, that many times it is not the clerk behind the counter. While yes such does happen, but the majority of the time, the clerks do their best not to allow for the sale of such to minors, all of the time. Many companies have policy in place, that the clerks have to sign, sometimes on a monthly basis, acknowledging that if they get caught selling to an under age person, they will loose their job, and could, if not will, face fines and prosecution by the county, city, or state.

While it may seem like a good idea to go after the clerks, it is only one half of the problem, and the other part has to lie in the parents of the children. We can not be expected to police the actions of minors or those who are legally adults all of the time, when they are not within sight of the store. As it has been shown, and I know, as that is how many of the people who I grew up with got such, it either started with the child getting a hold of tobacco products either from sneaking them from their parents, or from older friends. After all who is to blame if an 18 year old person, purchases a pack of cigarettes and then gives one or 2 to someone who is 16 or not legally able to purchase such from a store? And yet the cries that it is the clerks still raise up. I have attended many meetings by different city councils, often proposing harsher penalties on stores for the violation of such, to even running stings every month, that they fail to address that one issue, and often ignore such.

If they want to tackle this, then they need to attack it on 2 fronts, one is to keep monitoring the convenience stores to ensure that they are doing their jobs and carding those who appear reasonably under the age, while at the same time start to hammer it home and bring the children to court who they find are smoking and are under age. In a few cities where the city council did just that, the number of minors smoking or actually getting access to tobacco products went down, after all what kid wants to have to stand there in court with their parents while a fine is given out to them for them smoking?

All this is going to do is piss a lot of people off, and ultimately do nothing to stop underage smoking, until they do just that, go after the teens as well, and parents start being parents.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by timetothink
 


Smoking is a very touchy subject with many. The propaganda that has been fed over the last 10 years or so has convinced many of "dangers" of second hand smoke.

I'm used to not being believed. In fact the lady I am corresponding with in the above email indirectly called me a shill for the tobacco industry or claimed I was a victim of tobacco industries lies and manipulation. Hence my email to her outlining the only groups left doing the lying and manipulation are the anti-smoking lobby groups.

I'll take a look at your thread


edit: your link appears to be broken
edit on 30-1-2012 by aaron2209 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 09:50 PM
link   
reply to post by aaron2209
 


Sorry about that, first time I tried to do that. my post was moved to the rant forum.

Disgusting antismoking ads and the liberal agenda



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by mnmcandiez
 


You sound really well educated on tobacco, yet you do it in such a way you don't seem to be judging so much as educating, nice, thanks.

As for OP, good job on this eye opening thread.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:33 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I like the idea of the kids caught with the cigarettes getting fined. That would do a lot more to control the problem than charging the clerks for not carding everyone under 27.

Where I work, the sheriff's son was repeatedly caught trying to buy tobacco, but not as part of a sting, just for his personal use. It's just not right that these kids who are old enough to know better can jeopardize our livelihoods without personal consequence. Some of them are just little punks that think the world owes them anyway.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Komaratzi11
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


I like the idea of the kids caught with the cigarettes getting fined. That would do a lot more to control the problem than charging the clerks for not carding everyone under 27.

Where I work, the sheriff's son was repeatedly caught trying to buy tobacco, but not as part of a sting, just for his personal use. It's just not right that these kids who are old enough to know better can jeopardize our livelihoods without personal consequence. Some of them are just little punks that think the world owes them anyway.




It sounds good, but who ends up really paying that fine? Wasting more tax dollars for kids to show up at court for having smokes? i would like for them to tax soda more than ciggerettes because ive seen 90 yr old people smoking, but when was the last 90yr old fat person you saw?

Thats not a good analogy but its all about MODERATION



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Soon they will just install our chips and every retailer can just wave us as we check out , no cash or ID necessary

edit on 30-1-2012 by sweetnlow because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 10:49 PM
link   
Here's why things aren't going well for smokers and there is so much pressure on people who sell cigarettes:

www.reuters.com...

Dr. Tim McAfee, director of the CDC Office on Smoking and Health, said the slowing trend signifies the need for states to intensify tobacco control efforts. He urged states to spend more revenues from tobacco taxes on tobacco control, noting that states with the strongest tobacco control programs have the greatest success at reducing smoking. "We know what works: higher tobacco prices, hard-hitting media campaigns, graphic health warnings on cigarette packs, and 100 percent smoke-free policies, with easily accessible help for those who want to quit," he said.



posted on Jan, 30 2012 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 


FDA sucks.. the cigarette companies are irresponsible as well though, they needed to be brought into compliance but the Federal Government has done absolutely NOTHING to make cigarettes safer (chemicals, additives, "flavoring" and added nicotine) they've only made it more expensive to buy. Biggest racket ever.. find a product that's addictive and place excessive taxes on it, creating billions in revenue. Bastards.

It effects recreational smokers like myself too though. I enjoy pipe tobacco and cigars, and I smoke only every so often yet we are treated like criminals because of the bad rap cigarette smokers go. It's a pain to see the small business owner who own and run the cigar shops I go to struggle under the weight of infringing government regulations.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:22 AM
link   
reply to post by aaron2209
 


I said in my previous post that people should be able to consume whatever they want. But putting a monetary value through tax revenue on human life is what I had the issue with.
edit on 1/31/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 12:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by mnmcandiez
reply to post by aaron2209
 


I said in my previous post that people should be able to consume whatever they want. But putting a monetary value through tax revenue on human life is what I had the issue with.
edit on 1/31/2012 by mnmcandiez because: (no reason given)


Cool and I agree but that's exactly what governments are doing. Here in Australia all the safer alternatives are illegal to sell and taxed so high on importation that it's not worth it.

The Australian government is addicted to the $5B in tobacco revenue it receives each year. If it was all about health, these safer alternatives would be allowed on the market. The only alternatives on the market are big pharma products who would also try to block other products entering the market as they would lose out on millions as well.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by LDragonFire
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 


Free markets are a joke.

Freedom no longer exists.



Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose...








posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   
In my opinion such measures have nothing to do with the welfare of children or anyone's health. When was the last time you saw your government care for your health? Depleted Uranium, atomic bomb tests, medical experiments on the public, crap in the water, GMOs... yeah, they are doing this for our "health" alright.... I got a bridge, want to buy it?

I believe the government is doing this to destroy American business - that is all. I buy stuff to roll my own cigarettes and guess what... The tubes? Made in the USA. The tobacco? Made in the USA. The machine? Made in the USA. My cigarettes are the only product in my house that is 100% Made in the USA.

The really sad part? One pack of cigarettes that are made in the USA will last me longer than an electronic can opener Made in China. Of course, one could claim that is because the cigarettes cost 200% more, but then again the only reason they cost more is the government can take money to fund children's eugenics, I mean "health" programs. Alcohol is next, BTW.

Also, the reason the gooberment does this stuff is because it costs stores money, which forces them to decide not to sell tobacco. IDing people takes time and cuts into sales. Every minute lost checking IDs means money lost. It annoys customers waiting in line, annoys the customer buying the product, annoys the clerk, and generally causes problems. I wouldn't be surprised if in the future all tobacco AND alcohol sales have to have IDs swiped so the government can cross reference your private life with your medical life in the interest of cutting costs for the universal healthcare plan. If you smoke, drink, or do drugs "legally", you'll be punished and made a second class citizen, like smokers are being treated now.



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by timetothink
Disgusting anti smoking ads and a liberal agendareply to post by Komaratzi11
 


since I am only getting non-smokers on my post, I was wondering if anyone on this post has anything to say....the point is ....taxpayer money is being used to beat up smokers and make them look like disgusting losers....even though there are so many other causes of lung cancer. the mom of a friend of mine just died from lung cancer and she never smoked. Why is it ok to condem and harass some groups...while others that engage in risky or disgusting behaviors should be treated with compassion. That is why the gov't has no business regulating behavior unless it is a crime against someone.

your post is good...it's time to fight back against totalitarianism.
edit on 30-1-2012 by timetothink because: (no reason given)
\

More recently and more well known
JOE PATERNO he was never a smoker
and he died from lung cancer, now ain't that
some #?



posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 01:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Komaratzi11
 


ughhh this is one of my pet peeves.
I don't feel like ranting about it now- may come back with my personal stories tomorrow-
but I will just say for now that the FDA is a complete joke, corrupt, and an unforgivable disgrace of an organization.




posted on Jan, 31 2012 @ 04:37 AM
link   
I just wanted to say that the anti-smoking campaign has been a money maker all the way around. The people who are running the anti-smoking campaigns get paid from government funds. The scientists who crank out the epimiological surveys finding the smoking causes everything and is responsible for all death and disease get paid from the pharmaceutical companies. The pharmaceutical companies get paid selling their useless nicotene replacement therapies. The tobacco companies get their money by increasing their prices everytime the government increases the tax and by investing in pharmaceutical companies.

The government also gets rewarded because everytime they institute new measures to protect the "public health" and protect the children - they are actually fraying civil rights and increasing their power.

And it is all a game.

someone mentioned Joe Paterno dying of lung cancer. Here is a link showing that 25 % of all lung cancers are caused by HPV and that is just a preliminary study. They haven't really studied it in depth yet.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

We also know that it isn't tobacco causing oral and throat cancers - its HPV

www.ctv.ca...

Nobody knew that HPV could cause cancer 50 years ago when tobacco first became implicated with cancer. This HPV thing didn't just happen yesterday. Its possible that smokers got more lung and oral cancers because smokers are generally more social people than never-smokers and obviously people who are more social are going to get kissed and have sex more often than non-social people

www.ctv.ca...

We also know that the rate of respiratory illness has been increasing along with the decrease in smoking rates all over the world

www.copd-international.com...

This includes an increase rate of childhood asthma of 800 % that increased in lock step with the decrease in the smoking rates, starting in the 1960s.

Are you beginning to get the feeling that we have all be "had"

Tired of Control Freaks




top topics



 
18
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join