Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [howardpubliced] Hooah Doc Carmona

Expand Messages
  • steve-jen l swanhart
    I don t care for tobacco as a pleasure drug never have lucky me. But prohibition have never worked. The problem with educating teens is that the affects of
    Message 1 of 12 , Jun 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I don't care for tobacco as a pleasure drug never have lucky me. But
      prohibition have never worked.
      The problem with educating teens is that the affects of smoking take
      decades to show. Teens can't relate beyond this week ends Beer blast.
      Some how a more peer based program has to be tried ,if you cut off the
      tobacco companies from new costumers they will whither away. Taxing
      tobacco makes it cost prohibitive so long as the government doesn't rely
      on that income . As long as government relies on sin taxes they will make
      sure the products stay around.
      Farmers will have to find so other thing to grow just like the buggy whip
      makers did. maybe medical pot?
      Steve
      On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:01:59 -0000 "bobrosebrough21045"
      <bobrosebrough21045@...> writes:
      > NB all - this action is as seminal as Koop's statements on AIDS.
      > Both appropriate actions by Docs who happen to be very conservative
      >
      > Republicans.
      >
      > Surgeon General Favors Tobacco Ban
      >
      >
      > By Marc Kaufman
      > Washington Post Staff Writer
      > Wednesday, June 4, 2003; Page A01
      >
      >
      > Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona said yesterday that he supports
      > the banning of tobacco products -- the first time that the
      > government's top doctor and public health advocate has made such a
      > strong statement about the historically contentious subject.
      >
      > Testifying at a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee hearing on
      > smokeless tobacco and "reduced risk" tobacco products, Carmona was
      > asked if he would "support the abolition of all tobacco products."
      >
      > "I would at this point, yes," he replied.
      >
      > He declined to state whether he would support a law to ban tobacco
      > --
      > saying "legislation is not my field" -- but did say that he "would
      > support banning or abolishing tobacco products."
      >
      > "If Congress chose to go that way, that would be up to them," he
      > said. "But I see no need for any tobacco products in society."
      >
      > Carmona's comments, made in answer to questions from Rep. Ed
      > Whitfield (R-Ky.), were received without much immediate response
      > from
      > the committee. But representatives from tobacco states later said
      > they were startled.
      >
      > "It just came out of the blue," Whitfield said after the
      > hearing. "I've never heard anything like that from any public
      > official -- and even from the advocates against tobacco. I was
      > pretty
      > disappointed and surprised, and quite shocked."
      >
      > Bush administration officials quickly distanced themselves from the
      >
      > comments, saying that they represented Carmona's views as a doctor
      > rather than the position of the administration.
      >
      > "That is not the policy of the administration," White House spokesman
      >
      > Scott McClellan said. "The president supports efforts to crack down
      >
      > on youth smoking, and we can do more as a society to keep tobacco
      > away from kids. That's our focus."
      >
      > But the comments yesterday also reflected how far medical, and to
      > some extent public, views about tobacco have swung. While Carmona's
      >
      > comments were the most dramatic during yesterday's hearing, those in
      >
      > the room -- from conservative Republican lawmakers to liberal
      > Democrats -- voiced a consensus that tobacco is a killer, is
      > addictive, has sometimes been sold through questionable practices to
      >
      > consumers and has to be controlled.
      >
      > The willingness to voice objections to tobacco in ways that would
      > have been considered controversial not long ago is striking,
      > especially in light of the millions of dollars in campaign donations
      >
      > the tobacco industry gives to politicians, especially to President
      > Bush and Republicans in Congress.
      >
      > Although surgeons general have little authority in policymaking,
      > they
      > have always had an influential role as chief spokesman for the
      > nation's health. Particularly on the subject of tobacco's dangers
      > and
      > efforts to control them, surgeons general have played a leading role
      >
      > since the 1960s and have often led the way to legislation.
      >
      > But while surgeons general have been increasingly aggressive in
      > advocating efforts to control tobacco use, none made the kind of
      > comments that Carmona did yesterday. C. Everett Koop, when he was
      > surgeon general in the mid-1980s, put himself at odds with the
      > Reagan
      > White House by saying that he supported a bill banning cigarette
      > advertising and promotion, but he didn't support abolishing tobacco
      >
      > sales while in office.
      >
      > Carmona, whose appointment was approved by the Senate last August,
      > is
      > a former Green Beret and trauma surgeon known for his sometimes
      > swashbuckling exploits. Raised in Harlem, he was a poor high school
      >
      > dropout who earned a reputation for his talents, daring and energy
      > as
      > a soldier, doctor and deputy sheriff in Arizona, and as the founder
      >
      > of the state's emergency medical system.
      >
      > Throughout his testimony yesterday, Carmona showed himself to be a
      > staunch critic of tobacco products -- which federal officials
      > estimate kill more than 400,000 Americans each year. He was adamant
      >
      > in saying there is no evidence that smokeless tobacco causes less
      > harm than cigarettes, a message that some Republican members of the
      >
      > committee were clearly unhappy to hear.
      >
      > The morning hearing, before the House Energy and Commerce Committee,
      >
      > was called to discuss efforts by U.S. Smokeless Tobacco Co. to have
      >
      > its products, such as chewing tobacco and snuff, recognized and
      > marketed as less harmful than cigarettes. An afternoon hearing
      > before
      > the House Government Reform Committee dealt more broadly with the
      > question of "risk reduction" in smoking and how tobacco products
      > should be regulated in the future.
      >
      > Tobacco companies have aggressively attacked any congressional or
      > regulatory efforts that they believe might allow for a ban. The
      > industry fought Clinton administration efforts to give the Food and
      >
      > Drug Administration authority to regulate tobacco by contending,
      > among other things, that the FDA might ban tobacco since it can
      > never
      > be either safe or effective -- the standard for approving medicinal
      >
      > drugs.
      >
      > The largest tobacco company, Philip Morris USA, strongly supports a
      >
      > bill introduced last year by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) that
      > would forbid a regulatory agency from banning tobacco, saying that
      > such a decision should be left up to Congress. Philip Morris and
      > other companies oppose another bill sponsored by Sens. Edward M.
      > Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) in part because it is
      > ambiguous on the issue.
      >
      > Responding to yesterday's comments by Carmona, Philip Morris
      > spokesman Michael Pfeil said prohibiting tobacco is bad policy and
      > would be counterproductive.
      >
      > "We were surprised, because over the course of the years there have
      >
      > been very few people advocating a ban on tobacco products," Pfeil
      > said. "It's just not a very effective way to deal with the
      > problem."
      >
      > Joel Spivak, spokesman for the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids,
      > agreed. "We would all like to see a tobacco-free world," he
      > said. "But the reality is that there are 45 million Americans who
      > are
      > smokers, and we can't just take away their tobacco."
      >
      >
      >
      > © 2003 The Washington Post Company
      >
      >
      >
      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
      >
      > This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List.
      > To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to:
      > howardpubliced-unsubscribe@egroups.com
      > To send a message to the mailing list owner, send
      > an e-mail to:
      > howardpubliced-owner@egroups.com
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
      >
      >
    • steve-jen l swanhart
      Are you saying that restricting personal choices is a liberal thing??? ... Even owning guns??????
      Message 2 of 12 , Jun 4, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Are you saying that restricting personal choices is a liberal thing???

        On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 08:58:44 -0400 maureensmom@... writes:
        > It sounds like a new era of Prohibition. I don't smoke, don't want to
        > smell it, but what you do behind your walls is your business.

        Even owning guns??????

        > This is a pretty liberal position to take for a very right wing
        > Republican administration.
        >
        > Melody
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        > This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List.
        > To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to:
        > howardpubliced-unsubscribe@egroups.com
        > To send a message to the mailing list owner, send
        > an e-mail to:
        > howardpubliced-owner@egroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >
        >
        >
      • maureensmom@aol.com
        Restricting personal choices from what I have seen belongs solely to the Bush Admnistration, specifically John Ashcroft. Wanting to protect the health and
        Message 3 of 12 , Jun 4, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Restricting personal choices from what I have seen belongs solely to the Bush Admnistration, specifically John Ashcroft. Wanting to protect the health and welfare of citizens is generally a more liberal position, unless of course you happen to own a large corporation then the conservatives want to help all they can.

          The problem with guns is that some people who have them in their homes tend to want to leave home with them, or leave them laying around so that they can be found by children. I have never understood the need to own guns, so I really cannot be much of a debater with you on this subject Steve. I know that gun owners say that guns don't kill, people do. But if the "people" didn't have the gun, then the gun or the person could not kill.

          Guns have been debated on this list before and most of us will never agree except to disagree. It was just an interesting observation on the cigarettes.

          Melody
        • bobrosebrough21045
          Both of these surgeons general were operating from a bully puppet in areas of health care policy. Both seemed to operate as physicians first and doctrinaire
          Message 4 of 12 , Jun 4, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Both of these surgeons general were operating from a bully puppet in
            areas of health care policy. Both seemed to operate as physicians
            first and doctrinaire conservatives second. Any libertarian
            discussion of tobacco starts with the premise that its addicts are a
            drain on my pocketbook(adjustment of health care costs). Tobacco use
            has effects on all of us whether second-hand smoke (what level of
            carcinogen exposure is acceptable to me or my family?) or demands on
            the health care dollar.

            Sin taxes are nothing but cynical admissions that demand for tobacco
            is highly inelastic and that these products can be a wonderful cash
            cow. Does the word ADDICTION cut to the chase with anyone. The
            pushers have no other reason to pump billions into advertising than
            to create more addicts. My newest Guns and Ammo magazine has an add
            for smokeless tobacco that equates dipping to some great experience
            in the outdoors. Perhaps a picture of a dipper after surgery to
            remove his tongue or jaw would have been better. How about the
            sponsorship of the Virginia Slims Tennis Tournament in the face of
            the fact that lung cancer has its greatest rate of growth in women?

            Furthermore, if you start with the concept of consulting adults using
            tobacco in the privacy of their own homes, then ratchet the argument
            up to marijuana use (far less deleterious than tobacco use).

            For sake of argumentation, if one follows the manufacturers'
            recommendations on tobacco use, there is an estimated 35% mortality
            increase. Following firearm manufacturers recommendations in owners'
            handbooks yields no such effect.



            --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, maureensmom@a... wrote:
            > Restricting personal choices from what I have seen belongs solely
            to the Bush Admnistration, specifically John Ashcroft. Wanting to
            protect the health and welfare of citizens is generally a more
            liberal position, unless of course you happen to own a large
            corporation then the conservatives want to help all they can.
            >
            > The problem with guns is that some people who have them in their
            homes tend to want to leave home with them, or leave them laying
            around so that they can be found by children. I have never understood
            the need to own guns, so I really cannot be much of a debater with
            you on this subject Steve. I know that gun owners say that guns don't
            kill, people do. But if the "people" didn't have the gun, then the
            gun or the person could not kill.
            >
            > Guns have been debated on this list before and most of us will
            never agree except to disagree. It was just an interesting
            observation on the cigarettes.
            >
            > Melody
          • steve-jen l swanhart
            Melody, Now you are making very broad accusations with no facts or examples to support them. Can you give specifics? Doesn t raising taxes give you less
            Message 5 of 12 , Jun 4, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              Melody,
              Now you are making very broad accusations with no facts or examples to
              support them. Can you give specifics? Doesn't raising taxes give you less
              choices so therefore less freedom?
              On Wed, 04 Jun 2003 11:17:49 -0400 maureensmom@... writes:
              > Restricting personal choices from what I have seen belongs solely to
              > the Bush Admnistration, specifically John Ashcroft. Wanting to
              > protect the health and welfare of citizens is generally a more
              > liberal position, unless of course you happen to own a large
              > corporation then the conservatives want to help all they can.


              >But if the "people" didn't have the gun, then the gun or the person
              could not kill.
              > Melody
              Actaully if you consult the statistic books more people are killed by
              baseball bats then assault rifles.
              More people are killed in and by cars then all guns.
              It easier for the liberal to blame the gun then the person who miss uses
              it. Its easier for the liberal to raise taxes then to fire some lazy
              employees and hire those who will work or pay the others more since they
              were caring the whole load anyway.
              Steve
              > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              >
              > This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List.
              > To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to:
              > howardpubliced-unsubscribe@egroups.com
              > To send a message to the mailing list owner, send
              > an e-mail to:
              > howardpubliced-owner@egroups.com
              >
              > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
              > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              >
              >
              >
              >
            • maureensmom@aol.com
              Read the Patriotic Act then let s talk again about civil liberties. Middle America, that is those making between 27K and 80K per year, will be squeezed the
              Message 6 of 12 , Jun 4, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                Read the Patriotic Act then let's talk again about civil liberties.

                Middle America, that is those making between 27K and 80K per year, will be squeezed the hardest with the tax cut that Bush just made. Your children and mine will be paying off this deficit long after we are gone. If a trillion dollar national debt is worth $400 to you, then by all means spend it and have a good time. If I get any thing, it is going right into my retirement account as I don't believe that there will be social security by the time I reach 67.5 years of age at the rate Bush is going.

                If you want to talk more about politics, we should probably take it off the list. I don't want to bore the rest of the group with our partisan sparring.

                Melody
              • steve-jen l swanhart
                Does the word ADDICTION cut to the chase with anyone. The ... Bob, Did you go smokeless because you saw the ad? Doubt it !!!!!!!! All the ads run the
                Message 7 of 12 , Jun 5, 2003
                • 0 Attachment
                  Does the word ADDICTION cut to the chase with anyone. The
                  > pushers have no other reason to pump billions into advertising than
                  > to create more addicts.
                  Bob,
                  Did you go smokeless because you saw the ad? Doubt it !!!!!!!!
                  All the ads run the disclaimer right? Even car commercials say (closed
                  course pro driver) so are the car companies responsible for addicting
                  people to speed? remember "speed kills"......
                  Quit whining that the advertisement made me do it!!!!!!!!!!! like O.J.'s
                  next line of defence was I saw a Ginsu commercial so its not my fault.
                  ADDICTION is a PERSONAL weakness requiring an individual to try harder
                  than the next guy.
                  Steve
                • bobrosebrough21045
                  No way - addiction. Many Addictive chemicals have as a characteristic, alterations in the dopamergic receptor system in the nigral striatal bundle (NSB) in
                  Message 8 of 12 , Jun 5, 2003
                  • 0 Attachment
                    No way - addiction. Many Addictive chemicals have as a
                    characteristic, alterations in the dopamergic receptor system in the
                    nigral striatal bundle (NSB) in the hippocampus. For you - that's
                    the brain. Still others are serotonin reuptake inhibitors. You got
                    yourself all washed up in parallels in argumentations. Nicotine has
                    been shown to interact with the dopamergic system. The attempted
                    classification of ciggies as nicotine delivery systems was entirely
                    appropriate. Incidently, tobacco is the only addictive substance
                    that mandates the FDA get approval by Congress for regulation.

                    --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, steve-jen l swanhart
                    <sjswanhart@j...> wrote:
                    > Does the word ADDICTION cut to the chase with anyone. The
                    > > pushers have no other reason to pump billions into advertising
                    than
                    > > to create more addicts.
                    > Bob,
                    > Did you go smokeless because you saw the ad? Doubt it !!!!!!!!
                    > All the ads run the disclaimer right? Even car commercials say
                    (closed
                    > course pro driver) so are the car companies responsible for
                    addicting
                    > people to speed? remember "speed kills"......
                    > Quit whining that the advertisement made me do it!!!!!!!!!!! like
                    O.J.'s
                    > next line of defence was I saw a Ginsu commercial so its not my
                    fault.
                    > ADDICTION is a PERSONAL weakness requiring an individual to try
                    harder
                    > than the next guy.
                    > Steve
                  • steve-jen l swanhart
                    SO WHAT You start with the hand your dealt. Steve On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:14:10 -0000 bobrosebrough21045
                    Message 9 of 12 , Jun 5, 2003
                    • 0 Attachment
                      SO WHAT
                      You start with the hand your dealt.
                      Steve
                      On Thu, 05 Jun 2003 15:14:10 -0000 "bobrosebrough21045"
                      <bobrosebrough21045@...> writes:
                      > No way - addiction. Many Addictive chemicals have as a
                      > characteristic, alterations in the dopamergic receptor system in the
                      >
                      > nigral striatal bundle (NSB) in the hippocampus. For you - that's
                      > the brain. Still others are serotonin reuptake inhibitors. You got
                      >
                      > yourself all washed up in parallels in argumentations. Nicotine has
                      >
                      > been shown to interact with the dopamergic system. The attempted
                      > classification of ciggies as nicotine delivery systems was entirely
                      >
                      > appropriate. Incidently, tobacco is the only addictive substance
                      > that mandates the FDA get approval by Congress for regulation.
                      >
                      > --- In howardpubliced@yahoogroups.com, steve-jen l swanhart
                      > <sjswanhart@j...> wrote:
                      > > Does the word ADDICTION cut to the chase with anyone. The
                      > > > pushers have no other reason to pump billions into advertising
                      > than
                      > > > to create more addicts.
                      > > Bob,
                      > > Did you go smokeless because you saw the ad? Doubt it !!!!!!!!
                      > > All the ads run the disclaimer right? Even car commercials say
                      > (closed
                      > > course pro driver) so are the car companies responsible for
                      > addicting
                      > > people to speed? remember "speed kills"......
                      > > Quit whining that the advertisement made me do it!!!!!!!!!!! like
                      >
                      > O.J.'s
                      > > next line of defence was I saw a Ginsu commercial so its not my
                      > fault.
                      > > ADDICTION is a PERSONAL weakness requiring an individual to try
                      > harder
                      > > than the next guy.
                      > > Steve
                      >
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >
                      > This is the Howard Public Education Mailing List.
                      > To unsubscribe from this list, send an e-mail to:
                      > howardpubliced-unsubscribe@egroups.com
                      > To send a message to the mailing list owner, send
                      > an e-mail to:
                      > howardpubliced-owner@egroups.com
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.