Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

The World's Growing Number of Smokers

By Bryan Farrell, In These Times. Posted October 4, 2007.


Big Tobacco won't stop until it's infiltrated every possible market.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

The past decade has seen a remarkable shift in the way Americans view cigarette smoking. Since the massive tobacco litigation settlements began in 1997, the federal government has phased out support for tobacco farming, states and cities have enacted public smoking restrictions, and the number of smokers has steadily declined.

Meanwhile, the tobacco industry’s manipulative advertising tactics have become part of the cultural lexicon. In the 2005 big screen satire Thank You For Smoking, the film’s protagonist -- a “morally flexible” tobacco lobbyist -- admits, “I earn a living fronting an organization that kills 1,200 people a day.”

With Hollywood now taking jabs at its one-time co-conspirator, it’s no wonder that the Centers for Disease Control found that 70 percent of the current 45 million adult smokers in the United States want to quit. While slightly less than half will succeed, the mere desire offers hope that cigarette smoking in America could one-day go the way of trans-fats or MSG.

Such logic, however, does not extend to the tobacco manufacturers themselves. The multinational tobacco corporations have moved their production and marketing efforts overseas, causing experts to predict that by 2010, 87 percent of the world’s tobacco will be grown in the developing world.

Since the ’60s, global production has doubled and 33 million people work cultivating tobacco to serve the world’s 1.2 billion smokers -- one-fifth of the world’s population. Meanwhile, according to conservative estimates by the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, since 1997 consumption has increased at an annual rate of 1.7 percent in developing countries, meaning people there will smoke 71 percent of the world’s tobacco by 2010.

Deforestation and land erosion

Without even factoring in the paper wrapping, packaging and print advertisements -- which require as much paper by weight as the tobacco being grown -- nearly 600 million trees are felled each year to provide the fuel necessary for drying out the tobacco. That means one in eight trees cut down each year worldwide is being destroyed for tobacco production. In South Korea and Uruguay, tobacco-related deforestation accounts for more than 40 percent of the countries’ total annual deforestation. While in Malawi, in a region where only three percent of the farmers grow tobacco, nearly 80 percent of the trees cut down each year are used for the curing process.

Such a rapid depletion of trees in an already semi-arid climate will lead to desertification. Parts of Uganda are currently losing much of their arable land as the topsoil erodes.

Yet farmers in developing countries continue to grow tobacco because of the tremendous financial incentives from multinational corporations like Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds. With enticements such as farming supplies or a guaranteed foreign exchange for their crops, farmers are reluctant to use their land for anything else.

Even when some corporations try to boost their green reputation by offering to replant trees on excess farmland, most tobacco farmers use what little land is left to grow food for their families. Moreover, were farmers to stop growing tobacco and only grow food crops -- as the Yale University School of Medicine proposed more than a decade ago -- 10 to 20 million of the world’s current 28 million undernourished people could be fed.

Aside from land erosion, deforestation also affects the atmosphere, by raising the level of carbon dioxide emissions responsible for global warming. Scientists affiliated with the climate research group Global Canopy Programme in England have reported that the 51 million acres cut down every year account for nearly 25 percent of heat-trapping gases. By that standard, the 9 million acres being deforested annually for tobacco production account for nearly 5 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.

Deadly litter

In the United Kingdom, people throw away 200 million butts and 20 million cigarette packages every day, some of which end up on the street. According to the Tidy Britain Group, cigarette butts make up nearly 40 percent of litter.

Since the filters found in most cigarettes are comprised of 12,000 plastic fibers, they are not biodegradable and can take up to 15 years to break down. Meanwhile, the leftover tobacco releases toxins into the surrounding environment.

According to Californians Against Waste, cleanup of cigarette litter costs taxpayers billions of dollars each year. Even more costly are the losses incurred from fires started by carelessly discarded cigarettes. Not only are they a major cause of forest fires -- destroying wildlife and ecosystems -- but they are the leading cause of fatal fires in the United States, killing more than a thousand people annually. The tobacco industry is fully capable of selling fire-safe cigarettes -- wrapped with several thin bands of less-porous paper that act as “speed-bumps” to slow down a burning cigarette -- but it only does so when forced by a state government. So far, only four states have such a mandate in place.

Poisoning the developing world

The deadly impact of cigarettes as post-consumer waste is one side of the story. Before being rolled and packaged, the tobacco leaf subjects humans and wildlife to numerous health hazards.

Since it is a particularly sensitive plant, tobacco often requires 16 applications of pesticides during the three-month growing period. In developing countries, where environmental laws are absent or not enforced, chemicals like DDT and dieldrin -- both banned in the United States -- are sprayed on the tobacco.

These pesticide applications often harm animals that live or feed near them, causing loss of biodiversity or genetic mutations. And runoff and leaching during a rainstorm carry the pesticides into waterways and aquifers, thereby contaminating the drinking supply.

Since tobacco farming requires an estimated 3,000 hours of work per year per hectacre -- astonishing when compared to the 265 hours needed to produce maize -- field workers endure long hours of exposure to these harmful pesticides. To make matters worse, most farm workers are in subtropical climates, where an extra layer of clothing -- even if it’s for protection -- could result in heatstroke. It’s no wonder that pesticide poisoning is almost exclusively a problem in the developing world, where an estimated 25 million poisonings occur each year.

Popular pesticides used on tobacco crops, such as acephate, cause twitching, headaches, salivation, diarrhea, difficulty breathing and death. A study conducted by the University of Rio Grande do Sul, one of Brazil’s largest federal universities, found that the suicide rate among Brazilian tobacco workers between 1979 and 1995 was nearly seven times greater than the national rate. They also discovered that the occurrence of these suicides corresponded with pesticide sprayings, harvests and preparation for the next year’s crop (the study admitted that its findings were not conclusive, as workers’ depression might also stem from their often insurmountable debt).

Even without pesticides, farm workers are getting sick from the nicotine their skin absorbs while handling wet leaves. This condition has come to be known as green tobacco sickness (GTS) and its symptoms include nausea, weakness, abdominal cramps, and changes in blood pressure and heart rates. While its hard to estimate the number of people suffering from GTS, one study conducted on migrant workers in North Carolina suggests that 41 percent of tobacco handlers get the illness at least once during harvest season.

Exposure to the plant and its chemicals pose a greater threat to children, increasing the risk of cancer as well as damage to their immune and nervous systems. No figures exist on the number of child tobacco workers worldwide, but many tobacco-growing countries have a history of child labor.

The Norway-based Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research is one of the only organizations in the world to investigate tobacco-production. After researching the use of child labor on African tobacco estates -- which are strikingly feudal -- Fafo found that 78 percent of the children of tobacco workers between the ages of 10 and 14 work either full or part time with their parents, performing all the tasks of tobacco cultivation.

Solving the crisis

The looting of natural resources, the destruction of ecosystems, and the poisoning and enslavement of people are all reasons to end our dependence on a product that is completely unnecessary to humans. Economic alternatives to tobacco production need to be encouraged, with the goal of eradicating tobacco as a cash crop.

According to the London-based Panos Institute, which specializes in development issues, “Many crops can grow in land that is now under tobacco -- they include the majority of grain crops and vegetables. Sugar cane, bananas, coconut, pineapples and cotton could all be suitable.”

Since 1999, the Golden Leaf Foundation has used funds from the settlement with cigarette manufacturers to help farmers in North Carolina transition from a tobacco-dependent economy to alternative programs like goat farming. In this respect, other parts of the world could follow America’s lead.

The fight against tobacco consumption can be won with awareness and education. The industry has suffered a massive blow to its U.S. propaganda machine. Such attacks must continue throughout the world until smoking is not just looked upon as a poor personal health decision, but one that has deadly implications for all the world’s inhabitants.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: globalization, smoking, tobacco, deforestation, litter, pesticides

Bryan Farrell is an independent journalist in New York. He can be contacted at www.bryanfarrell.com

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Tobacco Companies
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Oct 4, 2007 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tobacco companies should be treated as terrorist or facist
governments, because they are. I remember a book title: "Corporate Crime".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

please stop the propaganda
Posted by: drblack on Oct 4, 2007 1:56 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tobacco can be and is often dried by putting it in the sun.
Though it has always been obvious that smoking is hurtful to ones health it is just as obvious and scientifically proven that so called second hand smoke is not harmful.
The amount of waste generated by almost every other product is greater than that for smokes.
It was terrible and silly the way smokes were perceived in the past as being good...and it is just as silly as todays smoking is the devil mentality.
No one makes people smoke and I find people to be smart and savvy enough to make up their own minds.
If you really want to help the environment stop using, computers, cars and cell phones. they cause WAY more environmental damage than smokes do.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: please stop the propaganda Posted by: Windwhistler
» RE: please stop the propaganda Posted by: chugach3Dguy
» RE: please stop the propaganda Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: please stop the propaganda Posted by: chugach3Dguy
» RE: please stop the propaganda Posted by: wishninja
» RE: please stop the propaganda Posted by: wishninja
Smokers rights
Posted by: morningstar1972 on Oct 4, 2007 4:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a world where independance is a valued idea of logic, I find it highly ironic that individual smokers often become a target of "butt" jokes.
I chose to smoke because I like it.
I am well aware of the "chemicals" in my tobacco as I am in my
food products.
I was just shocked to find out a glass of water has more cyanide in it than a cigarette, but we aren't attacking water facilities. hmmm. or the chemicals that produce our artificial flavored foods. Why not? maybe that is next on the agenda.
as for the butts? please. goto a landfill sometime.
the average household waste every year, does not even compare to a cigarette butt.
so, how many bottled waters have you had lately?
it would take me a year to fill up 1 empty bottled water bottle
with my cigarette butts, wow!
regardless, the idiocy to attack smokers will continue.
it is sickening.
the difference now is that we smokers are now tired of the constant attacks from what we used to call right winged do gooders gone wild.
I'd rather attack the many ranchers who kill animals for our consumption for our big mac over a plant.
after all, much of the rain forests are cut down for livestock, and we think nothing of it.
instead, I guess attacking a plant, something I actually find enjoyable and consume less of than red meat is more justifiable?
wow. I should venture off immediately and visit my local Mcdonalds, and praise their no smoking signs while enjoying my cow burger.
the hypocrisies are innumerable.
next time you think of pollution think of the flatulence from a cow, the smoke from a cars tailpipe and industrial waste.
It is hardly accurate to decide tobacco is the cause of all your ailments, and maybe that of some overzealous anti tobacco hater, who just so happens to be allergic to tobacco smoke, and has his own agenda.
while we are at attacking personal liberties, how about ridding the world of chocolate?
because if you eat too much of it, it will make you fat, and you will die seven years too soon. and the waste from the wrappers?
oh god, look at the landfills!
look at all the chocolate bar wrappers!
and we all know obesity effects all of us, such as our health plans, and besides, we can start SEE'S anti-Chocolate rallies, and charge higher taxes on those whom choose to consume chocolate!
and we will fine Willy Wonka companies for making people obese!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: You are a pathetic addict Posted by: boydranchitos
» RE: You are a pathetic addict Posted by: chugach3Dguy
» RE: Smokers rights Posted by: inverse_agonist
Rights vs Responsibilities
Posted by: Cap'n Solar on Oct 4, 2007 6:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Living in a free society we should be able to do as we please as long as it does not harm others. The problem with tobacco is that it does harm others – as is clearly pointed out in this article and as we are all aware with the staggering health devastation caused by smoking.

No one should be able to make a profit from a product that when used correctly kills people. All tobacco products harm others directly via the users and indirectly via second-hand smoke. Thus, all tobacco companies should have their corporate licenses revoked and shut down. Smokers who choose to harm the health of others are being selfish and should not be surprised to be treated with scorn. (Except in the case of smoking near their own children, which is a form of child abuse and should be dealt with in a criminal court).

The other externalities outlined in this article (and some that are missed like increased health insurance costs for us all to pay for smokers) are simply icing on the cake. Any government that cares about its people would outlaw the sale of tobacco products along with other harmful drugs. If they care a little less (e.g. Canada) they would raise the tax on cigarettes to be prohibitive. If they don’t care at all, they do nothing and watch the body bags pile up.

Our governments obviously do not really care - so it is our responsibility.

You can do the following:

1) If you smoke – stop smoking to stop subsidizing an industry that profits from killing you slowly.

2) If you are an investor -- dis-invest from all cigarette companies – there are many good “socially responsible investments” like mutual funds that screen out tobacco companies.

3) If you are a student encourage your school to screen out tobacco companies from their portfolios as well. See /www.bio.psu.edu/greendestiny/publications/6.pdf”> this for a good example.

4) If you own or manage a store that sells cigarettes – just stop. You surely sell other products.

5) If you are a farmer that grows tobacco switch to other crops that can be more profitable – like /www.organicconsumers.org/organic/organic_tobacco.cfm”> organic food .

6) If you know someone who smokes – bribe them to quit. I have found several hundred dollars is usually enough to entice them. They pay twice back if they start again. It is a small price to pay for your friend’s life.

7) If you are a teenage delinquent and want to be a rebel. Instead of smoking, steal a can of white spray paint and graffiti “smoking” on all the STOP signs in your area.

8) If you work in the government and you do care, use what power you do have to stop the tobacco companies. E.g. If you are IRS - audit them. If you are Homeland Security - make sure that none of their tobacco products have poison hidden in them.

9) If you are a tv star or movie star, refuse to work on any film or show that has you smoking and setting a bad example for the next generation.

10) Do something once a week for 10 minutes to stop the tobacco companies – write a letter, oped, write to your congressmen, sign a petition. YOU DO SOMETHING!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: ights vs Responsibilities Posted by: wishninja
» RE: car exhaust, BBQ camp fire Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: ights vs Responsibilities Posted by: Cap'n Solar
TOBACCO AND CAFFEINE- THE DRUGS THAT MADE AMERICA "GREAT"
Posted by: drricklippin on Oct 4, 2007 6:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These "productivity drugs" and accompanying US workaholism ethic is now being exported not only by the tobacco companies and "starbucks", etc, but by multinationals who push workers into work schedules that require these drugs to maintain productivity quotas.

JUST SAY NO

Dr. Rick Lippin
http://medicalcrises.blogspot.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's criminalize YOUR pleasure instead
Posted by: Puffin on Oct 4, 2007 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Do you like to drink, for example? How about an analysis of the liquor industry, the wine industry and the beer industry? How safe are their products and what's the impact on the planet? What's the carbon footprint of the Glenlivet Distillery? How many Blue Goose bottles are cluttering the landfill?

God, spare me from the wusses and the people trying to protect me from bad habits.

Everything people do impacts other people. This pretentious, health-policing version of "science", for example, has elevated my blood pressure far more than my morning cigarette.

There have always been people willing to tell others what to do. They used to do it in the name of religion. Now it's in the name of science. But it's the same old thing. Wowserism, the fear that somewhere somebody is having a good time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ANOTHER CHILLING FACT! Posted by: chugach3Dguy
LIGHTEN UP ON THE SMOKERS, PLEASE
Posted by: VZEQICVA on Oct 4, 2007 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only people who can be publicly criticized by anyone and everyone are the smokers. Fat people, drunks, obnoxious kids, cell yellers, express-holes, religious nuts, loud mouths, the perpetually angry, loud TV everyplace, boom boxes, F--K spoken or in writing, people saying "shoot me", Be glad to. It's enough to make some of us light up again. The smokers of this country are not 'what's wrong' with us. They're just an easy target. Let's move on. Thanks, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Breathing is a Right
Posted by: Gravitas on Oct 4, 2007 9:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As someone who has been studying the morality of health and fitness, as well as having strong civil libetarian beliefs, I have tried as hard as I can to have compassion for smokers. I simply can't do it anymore. There is some cough going around Chicago. I resisted getting it for weeks. Then I went to the Celtic Fest where smokers light up in an enclosed tent. Being allergic to smoke, I felt my throat start to hurt and my chest burn. Because of the distress on my lungs, I became more vulnerable to the virus. It ruined my entire vacation - I spent it hacking away. (Made worse by the smokers in my apartment building who like to light up in the common area under my window.) I coughed so hard I threw out muscles in my back, which is now preventing me from walking without pain. Sorry, but to those who are allergic to second hand smoke, it is a violent act.

I really don't want to judge them, but this last episode forced me out of denial that smokers only hurt themselves. No other habit can cause such severe consequences to innocent bystanders. I just don't see how people can be so selfish as to light up in public places knowing that some people are allergic and you will cause them physical pain. Then again, many nonsmokers are wusses and afraid to say it bothers them, even when asked. I do because breathing is a right!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Breathing is a Right Posted by: Iconoclast421
» RE: Breathing is a Right Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: Breathing is a Right Posted by: chugach3Dguy
» RE: Breathing is a Right Posted by: kimbari
» RE: Breathing is a Right Posted by: AsteroidMiner
breathing is a right
Posted by: sashi on Oct 4, 2007 9:45 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
i live in california where smoking is prohibited in a lot of public areas. i also have asthma. i realize that other people like to smoke, and they feel it is their right.

however, i feel i have a right to breathe in public without using an inhaler. its unfortunate that people feel persecuted for this habit, but i feel persecuted by their smoke.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

You're In Pleasure Country!!
Posted by: MAD on Oct 4, 2007 11:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smoking is merely a slow form of population control. Yes, big tobacco must be responsible CUZ those big, bright labels on the side of your pack of Marlboros that say "SMOKING KILLS" or "SMOKING CAUSES CANCER" are simply too subtle for the average nicotine junkie to comprehend. In their nicotine induced state of euphoria, the ability to read is rendered non-functional. Sure big tobacco is SCUM but so is BIG AUTO, OIL and INSURANCE but that hasn't stopped you from buying scrips, putting oil in your Toyota Tundra and paying Kaiser for shitty insurance.

So I say, spark 'em up, smoke monkeys!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

So Tell me this...
Posted by: chugach3Dguy on Oct 4, 2007 11:41 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a former smoker, there are a couple of things I'd like to add. I smoked about a half-pack per day for 5 years. I found cigarettes to be a great tool as far as socializing was concerned. I was always very shy and quiet, but I must admit that I learned just as much during 5-minute cigarette breaks in college as I did during the course of a 3-hour long class. Had I been a non-smoker at that time, I wouldn't have the knowledge I do now. I'm not saying it's for everyone, but it worked for me.

Why did I end up quitting? Well, I was unemployed for several months, and couldn't afford them. Quitting was much easier than I thought it would be. I weaned myself down to 1 cigarette per day, and then, when I moved out of the place I was staying, I stopped all together. No nic-fits or anything. I never started again because I need to spend my money on other things. Once a year I'll smoke one just to enjoy it and give myself a treat, but there's no real URGE or anything to start smoking 3 packs a day.

Anyway, I personally think that cigarettes aren't all that different than many of the things we take for granted in life. True, they're not good for your health. Neither is bacon or soda or too much soy. If you eat 2 pounds of bacon every day, you bet there's going to be some consequences! If you drink a gallon of Coca Cola every day, there are going to be negative consequences. I think the problem is that people refuse to exert the self control and will power to enjoy these things in moderation.

I find it humorous and ironic to a degree that so many people that post here have such passionate arguments about the legalization of marijuana- and yet they bash tobacco products like they were forged from pure evil. Get a grip folks.

Anyway, what I really want to know is this: Say, for instance, that every smoker suddenly quit when they went to sleep tonight. Starting tomorrow, no more cigarettes would be bought or sold here in the USA. What would that do? For me, I know it would cause my state to develop a 53 MILLION DOLLAR hole in the annual budget. So how are they going to replace that money? They're not just going to "make do" without that revenue. What are they going to target next? Junk food? Red Meat? Face it folks, we need those smokers to keep smoking, and we need them to replenish their numbers to keep taxes down. Because if they stop smoking for good, that means you and I will have to pay more to cover that loss. I already have 28% of my pay taken away. I don't need to be relieved of any more money.

Finally, it may come as a shock to many of you, but WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE SOMEDAY. If you've ever been born, you're doomed to die. You can think your parents for that. Even if you're the strictest vegan or exercise-oriented person in the world, you're gonna kick the bucket. Personally, I'll gladly trade a few years in if that means I can let loose and have fun every once in a while. You may disagree, and that's all great- for you. Please leave me to my own methods of fun life experiences, and I will leave you to yours.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: So Tell me this... Posted by: Gisele
» RE: So Tell me this... Posted by: AsteroidMiner
» RE: So Tell me this... Posted by: tjg1984
Why
Posted by: aonghus36 on Oct 4, 2007 1:18 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why smoke something that'll kill you, and not get you high?
Answer: There's a sucker born every minute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Haha! Posted by: chugach3Dguy
» RE: Haha! Posted by: aonghus36
70 years ago, Big Tobacco worked with Big Oil/Chemical/Religion to BAN CANNIBIS.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 4, 2007 2:00 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They knew what they were planning for and how America would never know for a looooooonnnnnnng time what hit them. The problem is consumers will go against things such as cigarette taxes not realizing the blind support they're giving to Big Tobacco.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why is it always "Big" tobbaco?
Posted by: wishninja on Oct 4, 2007 4:02 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just funny is all these companies are big tobacco big oil ect. Funny demonizing tactic. I have to wonder why it is so appealing to prohibitionists. I also wonder if it wasn't for the size of these companies if liberals would still be on the side of the prohibitionists and the conservatives on the other side. Would it be reversed and we'd be seeing the left aligned with the poor tobacco users just growing for medicinal and personal use of a plant and conservatives talking about marijuana smoking is a right and they should be able to do it where ever they want.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Ummm, because they're BIG? Posted by: jparsons
Confliting agendas
Posted by: sfo on Oct 4, 2007 10:42 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most of you consider yourselves environmentalists right?

Well, what is the reason humanity is destroy the environment? Overpopulation.

I would think that anything that leads to dead humans would be supported by the environmentalists.

I support dying humans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Seocnd Hand Smoke and Child Abuse
Posted by: Cap'n Solar on Oct 5, 2007 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Second hand smoke kills people- lots of people (3,400 lung cancer deaths and 46,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year) -- see http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422 for lots of data with references.

I think we could all agree it would be child abuse if you left you child in the garage while the car was running routinely -- knowing that it could kill them. Why is it different when there is plenty of data showing that second hand smoke is bad for children and in fact kills them.

Secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year, and causes 430 sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) deaths in the United States annually.

If you have children you should stop smoking today.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Second hand"???
Posted by: Puffin on Oct 5, 2007 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The term "second-hand smoke" is from the same word factory that brought you "death tax" instead of "estate tax".
And what's passing for science with regard to smoking these days is as agenda-driven and money-driven as anything the tobacco companies ever cooked up.

You're buying into the new bourgeois paradigm of what you're "supposed to do, supposed to think". It used to be religion fueling it, now it's half-baked science.

Think about this: if one of the researchers funded by the American Lung Association, say, discovered that some smoke in the room doesn't have much effect after all, what would happen to that researcher's future funding? And if the ALA sent out a press release with that finding, what would happen to their donations?

The tobacco companies have pretty much quit funding research because any articles from them have "tobacco-funded study" in the first paragraph.

As always, you have to analyze things, not just march in lock-step. And always, always, follow the money. These days, what pays is demonizing smokers.

Better watch out...whatever you like to do might get the treatment next.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Please give up the bold. Posted by: jparsons
Hopefully amusing anecdote
Posted by: jparsons on Oct 5, 2007 1:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In New Zealand, we banned smoking in restaurants, then
progressed to the pubs. (The pubs, of course, were sure this
would reduce their custom, but it didn't.)

Anyway, there was a small article not long after the last
cigarette was smoked in a pub. The gist? Without the cigarette
smoke, customers suddenly noticed how bad their local pubs
smelled - presumably years of spilled alcohol and food, moldy
old carpets, BO, and neglected hygiene!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Overwhelming Scientific Evidence of Second Hand Smoke Harm
Posted by: Cap'n Solar on Oct 5, 2007 1:42 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It does not matter what you call it -- "second hand smoke" or "environmental tobacco smoke", which is inhaled involuntarily or passively by someone who is not smoking, is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths in the US every year. More than 40,000 dead Americans every year!

There is no question at all that second hand smoke is dangerous. Please see the overwhelming majority of articles on the subject in Pubmed . Note these are from sources with a myriad number of funding sources - there is no anti-smoking cabal bent on hiding the truth from the proletariat.

The medical and scientific communities have spoken in the peer-reviewed literature on this point with force. The tobacco companies have stopped trying to fight the academic fight because a) they are wrong and b) they have been completely and totally discredited. The best Big Tobacco can do now is rely on their addicts (customers) to make weak arguments for the defense of an industry that is responsible for thousands of deaths every year.

Smoking is a choice – follow the money – quit giving your money to the Tobacco companies so they can addict others.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Example of smoking "science"
Posted by: Puffin on Oct 5, 2007 3:46 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This from the latest issue of Health Magazine, October 2007, on page 100, which contains the following blurb:
_________________________
“Keep your distance from outdoor smokers.

Indoor-smoking bans in 25 states have smokers stepping outside. That’s good, right? Yes and no. New Stanford University research reveals that secondhand smoke–which increases your risks for heart disease, lung cancer, and respiratory infections–can be just as concentrated in outdoor gathering spots like patios or playgrounds as it is indoors. If you linger near a smoker outdoors, says Neil Klepeis, PhD, a civil- and-environmental-engineering expert at Stanford, you may be exposed to 100 times the toxic pollutants in the air on a typical smoggy day. Advice: Stay 12 feet from the smokers (upwind, a 6-foot buffer zone is OK). And if you’re passing through a smoke zone, hold your breath and cover your nose and mouth.”
___________________________

We will pause now to see if common sense kicks in among the readership. My money’s on not, but you never know.

Now, I took the time to google this Dr. Klepeis. He’s made a fine living for many years drawing frightening conclusions about smoke, both indoor and outdoor, receiving payments from all sorts of organizations whose purpose now appears to be making smokers non-persons.

He’s a scientist, right? What do you think would happen if one of his studies led him to the conclusion “hmmm–it makes no difference to health”? Think he’d keep getting funded? Think the organizations who pay him would hand out press releases about his findings? Think the organizations’ donations would increase as a result?

The American Lung Association and company are as questionable a source of science as the tobacco companies. They all have an agenda.

You can party-poop in the name of religion or you can party-poop in the name of science if that’s what you want to call it but it’s all become the same thing.

And of course, let's not forget the history of science serving the dominant agenda...peer review okayed the notions that the craniums of blacks proved their inferiority to whites for many years. Science dances with whoever brung 'em, just like everything else in our society.

Somebody’s always willing to tell other people not to have fun and feel all huffy and superior while doing it. Same stuff, new excuse.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Example of smokers' logic? Posted by: jparsons
I smoke, don't appoplgize....
Posted by: ellie on Oct 6, 2007 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
have been for 40+ years and don't plan on stopping.... hey, congress wants to fund SCHIP with a $.61 tax per pack.... now, it's my civic duty to smoke to support health care for kids.... where do you think the money would come from if everyone quit smoking all at once?

yes, I have already decided on life expectancy, have a living will that includes no treatment allowed for 'curable' cancer or 'smoking related', and plan to smoke to my last day on earth.... ok health insurance companies, relax now....

period

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A scam?
Posted by: henderson on Oct 6, 2007 11:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was growing up, EVERYBODY (almost) smoked. I did, and still do, and don't ever apologize for it. I enjoy it, and my family doesn't complain.

When all the brouhaha came out about smoking and "second-hand" smoke, I knew that it was a scam. Smoking cigarettes doesn't cause whole forests to lose their leaves (as acid rain does), nor does it peel the paint from cars, (headlines from years ago).

I figure it like this: Whatever the government says is GOOD for you, like wars and taxes, genetically modified food and so on, I stay away from. Whatever the government says is BAD for you, I think, "Hmmmmm" - must be okay; they've got something up their sleeve".

That's how I feel about cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke. I have a sneaking suspicion that all the bigwigs got together decades ago and decided that spewing NINETY-FIVE TONS of deadly chemicals into the air (as Commonwealth Edison plants do in the state of Illinois alone) every year is just fine, along with all the other chemicals that we breathe from exhausts, etc. But they would have to blame the rising incidents of asthma, etc. on SOMETHING, so why not blame cigarettes? Easy choice! I'm sure the cigarette manufacturers got something out of it, or they wouldn't have let themselves be smeared as they did.

I think it's all politics. I don't think cigarette smoke is any worse than most of the horrible, chemical things in the air that we can't see....it's just that cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke is visible, and easy to blame for ANYTHING.

Sure, cigarettes/cigars/pipes are messy and annoying sometimes, but to blame tobacco for EVERYTHING???? Nah.

And tobacco is and always has been sacred to American Indians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: A scam? Posted by: Puffin
Tobacco is so gay! (part 1 of 2)
Posted by: HoboHomo on Oct 7, 2007 3:06 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tobacco is so gay!

To My nicotine addicted LGBT Brothers/Sisters:

Do you trust tobacco companies? Are you aware they've been surveying our queer community via gay bars for the last four years? In exchange for a trinket, a piece of junk (a cigarette lighter made in China), the survey requires you to scan your driver's license into their database, and answer a few questions. Of course the solicitors are cute young men and women, in order to seduce you to comply. They take your ID card, and scan it on a portable, flat-screen computer.

This is your picture ID, peoples, with your license number, photo, and personal information! Which, to my dismay, many bar patrons willingly provide...to one of the most scurrilous industries in the world.

What tobacco companies can do with this information, eh? Big bucks can be theirs, if they sell your data to other marketing companies. Of course, they promise never to do this...but you KNOW that's a lie. You KNOW how our rights to privacy and identity are rapidly being stripped away by just such big-brother industries (not to mention government). And what vulnerability to indentity theft, once your ID is now the property of irresponsible monopolies! Capitalist syndicates which cater to right-wing, homophobic/racist/misogynistic elements, who presently run roughshod over our civil rights, since taking over the White House in 2000.

Bad enough, that some of our watering holes allow soliciting in a place where we expect to relax, AWAY from advertising come-ons. Why any bar owner or manager allows soliciting by ANYONE for ANY reason is beyond me. I don't even think they receive a financial reward for letting tobacco zombies invade our hangouts, who destroy the casual ambience by their hideous, glowing laptops, and syrupy-sweet personas. Shades of the Moonies, Scientology, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons!

But keep in mind, these are TOBACCO companies targeting new customers from our queer family. Like they really care about improving our lives, caring for our health. We are already a frighteningly-besieged community, ravaged by hostile factions of all sorts, who are out to destroy us; or at least, make us very, very miserable! (Then they turn around and say "happy gay" is an oxymoron, for most homosexuals are terribly sad.) So why not make a quick buck off us, before we die of lung cancer, a coronary, or emphysema...if we don't first get mortally bashed? (Or are escorted to detention centers for our own good...enjoying a final puff on a Marlboro before the firing squad riddles us with bullets.)

It is quite sad that young people desperate for work, find themselves money whores to tobacco's pimp daddy. "What's wrong, if those interviewed ALREADY smoke?" queried one defensive solicitor...who was also African American (another oppressed group hooked to this toxic weed). She herself claimed to be gay; which for me makes this a double shame. If anything, she should be INSPIRING smokers to cut down, and finally (hopefully) give up the dangerous habit for good. Would she just as gleefully survey her black sisters and brothers, if it earned her keep? I shudder to think of the answer.

Why so many patrons comply EAGERLY to volunteer their sensitive, personal data to a corrupt and powerful interest, astounds me! I have not heard one peep of disapproval or disgust from anyone who was approached by these tobacco lackeys. For myself, I make it a point to confront them, and say that, if I were the owner, I'd kick them out. I also bring this up to fellow patrons, to discourage them from freely contributing personal information to a malicious corporation...one that is DEFINITELY homophobic.

cont'd in next post...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Tobacco is so gay! (part 2 of 2)
Posted by: HoboHomo on Oct 7, 2007 3:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Forget the evil tobacco aspect; the fact they are SOLICITING at all, should be justification enough to bar them from our hangouts. If you understand where I'm coming from, and agree, you ought to consider engaging these solicitors in conversation, in order to tell them what a bad thing they're doing. I would also complain to the manager, followed by a phone call or letter, to the bar's owner. Even BOYCOTT the bar, if you get no satisfaction via a simple complaint. We CAN put a stop to this, if we bother to care about what is being done to the fabric of our community, by this commercial intrusion to our highly treasured social spaces. Human spambots!

Saving the worst for last: What if the government decides it NEEDS the ID database of this national gay-only survey...and MANDATES these tobacco companies to turn it over. (Foolish of me to think tobacco industries wouldn't eagerly VOLUNTEER to donate a valuable list of queers that comes complete with photo and license number, to our right-wing government.)

We sexual minorities ARE under vicious attack by no other than our Federal gov't via that evil triangle: Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft. And here we have a database that is an ever-growing list of queers, under the auspices of tobacco companies. But who knows why they're REALLY collecting this data? Even if they sincerely have no intent to create a master list of known queers...that fact they are doing so makes it that much EASIER for the government to sabotage our lives. And we now know that if they can get away with it, they WILL.

Years ago, the government asked ONLY HOMOSEXUALS to volunteer for the final testing of the Hepatitis B vaccine. A few years after that, we had our very first gay AIDS patients. Now, we are being put on a national list, under the "innocent" auspices of tobacco companies. Could this actually be another ploy by government to sabotage our community? Call me paranoid, but just keep in mind how one women's liberationist (who said this years ago, and whose name I've since forgotten) defined paranoia: "Heightened awareness."

Sincerely,

Zeke Krahlin
http://www.gay-bible.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Life KiLLS
Posted by: JJdazer on Oct 8, 2007 8:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As a smoker I am tired of the demonisation of smoking.
Dying is a matter of timing; choose your poison, there is plenty to go around.
Most aspects of western lifestyle are destructive to ourselves and others.
Just be aware of this fact.

Perhaps our masters; dissatisfied with the publics tiring of terrorism now seek enemies closer to home. After all they really do care, don't they.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smokers are the best friend Social Security ever had...
Posted by: Landbaron on Oct 8, 2007 11:18 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So smoking cuts 10 years off your life, what are those, the drooling years?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check THIS out!
Posted by: henderson on Oct 9, 2007 1:16 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/100907O.shtml

"Air Polluter to Pay $4.6 Billion
By Lara Jakes Jordan
The Associated Press

Monday 08 October 2007

Washington - One of the nation's largest power generators has agreed to end a years-long federal lawsuit by paying $4.6 billion to reduce pollution that has eaten away at Northeast mountain ranges and national landmarks, The Associated Press has learned."

Ah, yes! "pollution that has eaten away at Northeast mountain ranges and national landmarks"......and they aren't blaming it on cigarette smoke!!!!! Well, well!!!

As I said in a previous post, cigarettes are taking the blame for a LOT of crap that megacorporations are spewing in the air - most of the hullabaloo about smoking is a big scam. There's a lot worse things in the air than cigarette smoke - and what about chemtrails that being sprayed all over the US?

I think if we knew the truth, cigarette/cigar/pipe smoke would be the LEAST of our worries about the air we breathe.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smoking Is Selfish
Posted by: Maxwell House on Oct 9, 2007 4:07 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You ever watch someone you love die from lung cancer? The painful, body-shattering illness, totally avoidable if only this once vibrant person hadn't been seduced by the "glamour" of smoking by the cigarette companies at the tender age of NINE???

It's not pretty. She is missed everyday by her family and friends. She even has a grandchild now, one she never got to see because of the rich and powerful tobacco industry. They don't care that our friend suffered a dreadful long and drawn-out death at the early age of 43; they just see that adorable little baby as their new replacement customer.

Do smokers really think they have the right to put their loved ones through this torture, all for a filthy selfish habit? Don't they know that they are being taken for a ride by the industry shills, all for the sake of greed?

As for second hand smoke, many of our professional musicians have stopped playing in smoking bars because they were getting sick from it. We stopped going out because we got tired of coming down with sore throats and coughing every time we went in a bar (not to mention the smell!), and only go out now to the few that already switched to non-smoking. The non-smoking bars are, of course, raking in the dough. Non-smokers generally make more money than smokers, so any business owner with half a brain would cater to the demographic with money to spend.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Smoking Is Selfish Posted by: Puffin
» BUT... Posted by: Maxwell House
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement