<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Pipe Smokers Intelligencer</title>
	<atom:link href="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Apr 2012 15:09:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Milking a Dry Cash Cow</title>
		<link>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1470</link>
		<comments>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1470#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 16:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Breaking News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tobacco Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IDEA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sen. Tom Harkin]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/?p=1470</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, once again, I have been caught asleep at the switch. Back in July, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, introduced a bill that if it is passed and signed by President Obama will wreck the pipe tobacco industry. The bill has the support of 13 other Senate Democrats. You got to wonder, [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>Well, once again</strong>, I have been caught asleep at the switch. Back in July, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, introduced a bill that if it is passed and signed by President Obama will wreck the pipe tobacco industry.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">The bill has the support of 13 other Senate Democrats. You got to wonder, “What are they thinking, if they can think.” This nation needs a complete overhaul of its political system. Not just a fix. It needs new everything, in my humblest of opinions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">But, I am off track. This epistle has nothing to do with the innards of politics today, but everything with specifics. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>My apologies</strong> for not seeing this sooner. I am making no excuses, but I read newspapers everyday in print and online. If this made it in our local newspaper, I missed it. Likewise, I missed it online as well and I read several online newspapers daily as well.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">What I am saying is that once again, it appears the mainstream media, which once was the mighty newsprint industry, failed to report a significant issue. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong><a href="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sen.-Tom-Harkin.jpg"><img class="alignleft size-full wp-image-1475" title="Sen. Tom Harkin" src="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Sen.-Tom-Harkin.jpg" alt="" width="100" height="122" /></a>Sen. Tom Harkin</strong>, a Democrat from Iowa, who really brings home the bacon for his state—just look up his pork report—has now set his sights on funding the federal disabilities act for disabled children, which Congress approved more than three decades ago. It just never got around to funding the thing.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: #993300;"><strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Note:</span></strong><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"> I have created another &#8220;page&#8221; where you can read the entire act. Or, you can go to <a title="Library of Congress SB 1403" href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:S.1403:"><span style="color: #993300;">Thomas</span></a> for the whole enchilada.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Now, before you haul me off to the disabled children’s agents for quartering, I want every disabled child in the nation to be helped. I can carry you to some of the most pitiful places on earth in Appalachia and show you disabled children who never get a solitary dime from anyone. So, don’t talk to me about helping. This big-time happy yak of helping the disabled needs to start at home. I have seen the bleakest of the bleak in Appalachia, and it is a disgrace to this nation the life some of those people live. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">My newspaper reporting, in fact, for several years fell on deaf ears. I am hard-nosed when it comes to this, so if you want to argue with me about helping the poor and disabled you best bring your lunch and some experience.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">I digress. Congress did its usual two-step with the help for disabled children bill several decades back: It passed a bill and then passed payment on to the next generation.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">And now Harkin has gotten the idea that he can completely fund the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and stop you from smoking your pipe or cigar at the same time. That’s a “win-win,” one of the worst word descriptions I have ever read, as some would say in Washington.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>I have read the bill</strong> and how it heaps tax increases upon all smokers, and yes, pipe smokers you are included this time. No dodging this one for you.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Harkin’s bill, officially alive as SB 1403, would destroy the tobacco industry as we know it. Oh, maybe he hadn&#8217;t thought of that, because tobacco taxes from his bill are how the senator plans to fund the IDEA.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Here is what happens under his proposal:</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">(1)  Excise tax on SMALL CIGARS- goes from $50.33 to $100.50.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">(2) CIGARETTE taxes take a double whammy of heading up from $50.33 to $100.50, and from $105.69 to $211.04.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">(3) Harkin’s Tax Parity for Pipe Tobacco and Roll-Your-Own Tobacco would send pipe tobacco from $2.8311 per pound to $49.55 per pound. Mind you, we are talking merely the tax on a pound of pipe tobacco, not the retail price. Manufacturers and retailers are on their own as to how they get their money.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>If Harkin assumes</strong> that he will fund the IDEA through this scheme, he has been smoking something other than tobacco. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">These kinds of taxes will demolish the tobacco industry, taking down his revenue stream with it and will put thousands of people out of work at a time when the nation is desperate for jobs. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">If I were running for office, my only political placard would be, “It’s Jobs, Stupid.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Not only does Harkin’s act of incredible stupidity destroy an American industry, it also takes out the hundreds of thousands of people who are part of the Dominican Republic-Central America-United States Free Trade Agreement, or known by its initials as CAFTA-DR.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Friends, CAFTA isn&#8217;t small potatoes. The region includes Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Nicaragua. It is a very large trading partner with the U.S., regardless of what you think of free trade agreements. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">You cigar smokers will recognize those names right off. The big kahuna left off of any trade agreement, of course, is Cuba and one of these days the U.S. will come to its senses and realize that the cold war is over, Fidel is really a sick old man, his brother Raoul is a numb nuts and we should be trading with the nation that is so broke, its best car on the lot is a 1956 Chevy. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">And, by the way, Cuba isn&#8217;t hundreds and thousands of miles away. It’s a boat ride from Miami. Get real. You mean to tell me, a nation the size of a spaghetti noodle remains some sort of a threat to the U.S.?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>And while</strong> you have read this far, you might as well peruse this: The CAFTA-DR region was the <em>15th largest</em> U.S. export market in the world in 2010, and the third largest in Latin America behind Mexico and Brazil. The United States exported $24.2 billion in goods to the five Central American countries and the Dominican Republic in 2010, an increase of 21 percent over 2009. That is money in the pockets of American business enterprise.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">For the five-year period that CAFTA-DR has been in force (2006-2010), U.S. exports grew by 43 percent, which compares very favorably to the 25 percent growth experienced during the five years (2001-2005) before CAFTA-DR. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">U.S. exports to all the CAFTA-DR countries have experienced significant growth during the first five years of the agreement, led by Guatemala and Nicaragua (both up 57 percent), followed Costa Rica (44 percent), Honduras (42 percent), Dominican Republic (39 percent) and El Salvador (32 percent).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">I think you are getting the picture. We are about to shoot off our toes and feet with Harkin’s hair brain IDEA. A majority of the U.S. cigar market depends upon the names you just read. We are about to put thousands of those people out of work because U.S. taxes have been hoked up by some halfwit politician (a career pol who has been in the U.S. Senate since 1984, and was in the U.S. Congress before that beginning in 1974).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">And, yes, this comes at a really critical time in American history. The jobless rate is running over 9 percent. Today, something like 53 million children in America live in poverty, more than ever before, because both parents are out of work.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>If this sort of numb skull</strong> political bill, which is a bone to the educational lobby, and the Americans with Disability Lobby, who have actually said that Harkin’s bill will “fully fund” the IDEA with no consequences, and at no cost to the American taxpayer, gets by then coming around the bend is an economic monster that will make the Great Recession look like the Great Recess.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">No consequences? No cost to the American taxpayer? Now, dear reader, you can see that your tax dollars for public education in the past decades have failed. It produced idiots whose deductive reasoning powers are in the minus wattage.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Dropping this load of tax increases on the already staggering tobacco industry will simply finish it off, wiping out thousands of jobs, closing thousands of retail outlets, shuttering thousands of manufacturers, creating a huge joblessness in the CAFTA nations, and affecting a choking impact on America’s trade deficit and the GDP (that’s gross domestic product for those of you anti-tobacco zealots who have a hard time understanding economics 101).</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">So, if you are a smoker of any sort, and you want to continue to be a smoker, you need to read this, and then get busy contacting your congressmen and women. You need to tell them that Harkin is a hair ball, and that if you think the past few years have been bad, wait until you shut down the tobacco industry, and force it to go on the black market, where the federal government receives zippa in taxes. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">That’s because, for those who are not too street wise, black market sales never happen on anyone’s books. Strictly cash and carry. No records or nice sales slips and tax forms. Your state treasuries will love this result.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>I am truly amazed</strong> at the depth of stupidity in Congress. I am also astounded that the mainstream media has lost its chones to face up to its responsibilities as the last bastion of hope for the little guy, for mom and pop and apple pie.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">I am proud that I was a newspaper reporter under the old breed: they would kick your ass and challenge you to a fist fight outside the bar. They wrote both sides of the news with all the facts, because frankly their reporters were afraid for their asses if they had the facts wrong. You got it right or got gone. You got it first or you were the first out the door. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">You were tough or some old man twice your age would break your head with a glue pot. And if a reporter could get through that gauntlet, his editor knew his reporter would be fearless when he had to tackle the real crooks out there in zulu land at the county courthouses, the city councils and the school boards, where people were attaching their sticky fingers to taxpayer’s hard earned dollars.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>Those days are gone</strong>. You, dear reader, are the loser. And so is our nation.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">You can either vote Harkin and his kind out of office (that would be any Senator who has been in the U.S. Senate more than two terms, which is 12 years, and any Congressman who has had six terms, which is also 12 years.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Or, you can watch your favorite pastimes disappear, along with your rights, one by one. And, you are picking up the tab.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>In 2011,</strong> rank and file Congressmen and women in the U.S. House and Senate receive a current salary of $174,000 per year, plus office expenses for bloated staffs, plus health insurance, some for life. And, you are also picking up an enormous tab for Congressional pensions, also lifetime for many of the career pols.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Are you getting the picture that the fox is in the hen house and the American taxpayer is getting plucked?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Tobacco was once America’s largest and most important cash crop. Today, it is a cash cow for politicians. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">And, folks, that cow is running on dry.<a href="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ashton-TaylorIcon.png"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-810" title="Ashton-TaylorIcon" src="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ashton-TaylorIcon.png" alt="Pipe Icon" width="29" height="23" /></a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1470/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Working on You</title>
		<link>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1466</link>
		<comments>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1466#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 14 Aug 2011 17:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Commentary]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDA News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[casinos]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Online gambling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/?p=1466</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well, it was bound to happen, right? States and municipalities are running out of money and rather than cut unneeded services and bloated bureaucracy, they are turning to Internet gambling. Yes sir, what we need in this country is more gambling and more casinos. That&#8217;s like a $5 cigar. It&#8217;s good for the country, doncha [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>Well, it was bound</strong> to happen, right? States and municipalities are running out of money and rather than cut unneeded services and bloated bureaucracy, they are turning to Internet gambling.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Yes sir, what we need in this country is more gambling and more casinos. That&#8217;s like a $5 cigar. It&#8217;s good for the country, doncha see.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">You can believe there is already an outcry from those who view gambling as an evil influence. It will lead to a road of perdition.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>States are saying</strong> that gambling casinos on the Internet and in bricks and mortar palaces should be allowed and they should be able to receive revenue from those who like to gamble away their money. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">And, why not? It is legitimate in many states, so the argument goes. Besides, states and towns need the revenue to keep services up and running and the bureaucracy fat and happy.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Sound familiar? It should. It has the ring of hypocrisy just like lifting the budget ceiling debacle that darn near sank the nation. Instead of facing the hard realities of lean times, states would rather depend on you, the taxpayer and those in the gambling community to pull their mule out of the ditch.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>Uh, see, tobacco</strong> taxes have been used up already. Pols have rifled those pocketbooks and gone to that money well once too often. Levying more taxes on tobacco and tobacco will be another failed industry, just like manufacturing in this nation. Gone, gone, gone.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Now, states are saying that they should be allowed to rake in taxes from Online gaming and to build their own casinos to bring in the hordes, most of whom can ill afford to lose the rent, house and car payments.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Do you find it odd that states and municipalities seem to have a single track mind when it comes to revenue streams: more taxes, or figuring out another way to relieve you of your hard-earned cash?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>I find this</strong> totally objectionable, not because I am against a friendly game of poker, but because elected officials who stuff their pockets full of largess from the public till can think in one direction and that is find the public horse and ride it until it drops.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Instead of creating real, lasting jobs, we get another dog and pony show about raking off revenues from gambling. Something about that approach just seems absolutely rotten to me.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">But, hey, I’m accustomed to these things now. I have been made a pariah in my country because I enjoy my pipe tobacco. I can no longer smoke my pipe in restaurants, public buildings, some streets and parks and soon, I expect tobacco will be outlawed permanently while the mainstream press goes along with this idiocy.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>And then one day</strong>, the pols will come after another segment of society, say fattening foods. Oh, that’s right; the feds are already working on that one. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">You are being told now what foods you can and can’t eat, but, hey, it is all right for large chemical companies to produce synthetic seeds so mega farms can grow unsafe and FDA-approved foods for your shopping pleasure.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">So, pull up a chair at the table all you gamblers. You are about to see your federal, state and local governments at work. . . on you.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Selah<a href="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ashton-TaylorIcon.png"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-810" title="Ashton-TaylorIcon" src="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ashton-TaylorIcon.png" alt="Pipe Icon" width="29" height="23" /></a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1466/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Louisiana Swamp Land for Sale</title>
		<link>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1461</link>
		<comments>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1461#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 08 Aug 2011 13:52:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tobacco Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/?p=1461</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This is so much fun, isn&#8217;t it? Congress sets the place on fire and then takes off on vacation to fiddle around in la la land. Lame, lame, lame. Don’t know about you, but I think the whole bunch in Washington needs to be tossed and we start all over again. Of course, I know [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">This is so much fun, isn&#8217;t it? </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Congress sets the place on fire and then takes off on vacation to fiddle around in la la land. Lame, lame, lame.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>Don’t know</strong> about you, but I think the whole bunch in Washington needs to be tossed and we start all over again. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Of course, I know that isn&#8217;t going to happen, but I still have hope.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Here’s my point: Congress pushed the U.S. to the very brink of economic disaster and then high tailed it for home. Then, S&amp;P downgraded America’s credit rating at a time when the economy is swirling in the tank. This is the same group, recall that approved all those exotic mortgage swaps that went toxic and south a couple of years ago, taking the U.S. economy with it. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>All this time,</strong> the Food and Drug Administration has been quietly, but surely, administering its death blow to the tobacco industry, which provides jobs and, must I say it, taxes, to the economy. Oh, yeah, that makes sense: let&#8217;s kill off an industry, although jobs are dropping like flies in delta heat and the economy is on its knees in the desert, looking for a watering hole.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Why, those tobacco taxes are now being counted on to bail some communities out of poor money management, poor investments, and crooks running city hall.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>I’m just saying</strong>, it again seems to me that the FDA and other wonky agencies have been heavy handed with an industry that at least pays its way, unlike some I can mention, such as Big Oil, Big Pharma, and a slew of others.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Yeah, I know the routine: cigarettes kill 400k smokers a year. That’s from the CDC. I am still looking for the direct connection of tobacco to all that crap the antis hoke up. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Give me the science and the details so that I can read it for myself and come to a conclusion. I am not about to take the FDA’s word, the word of the CDC, or the anti-zealots, who are in this to advance their own agendas. That is as bizarro as believing Congress has your best interests in mind.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Uh, if you look at the number of automobile accidents, the number of gunshot accidents, the number of alcohol-induced accidents, the number of drug-induced accidents leading to death and mayhem, you might wonder why those social realities aren&#8217;t labeled with gruesome warning photos, or those death tolls bandied about freely by the CDC such as is done with tobacco?</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>OK. I digress</strong>. I am just tired of the federal government picking on an industry that, like all others on this planet, has its own set of environmental problems. But, ahem, tobacco does pay more than its fair share to make amends and to help bear the burden of health costs that it may or may not cause. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">That’s like paying the daily double before the horses leave the gate. But, nonetheless, tobacco in its ever decreasing state in the U.S. continues to bear increased prices, taxes and handing it all over to people who should not be left in a room alone with anything sharper than a rubber ball.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">You can do anything with numbers, make ‘em look like a gold mine when what you have is a dry hole.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"> I am fed up with the FDA’s number crunchers, who like S&amp;P need to learn how to add and subtract properly.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>Oh, you didn’t hear?</strong> Standard and Poor’s downgraded the U.S. debt on bad math. Its bad math. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">When sharp-penciled folks in the U.S. Treasury Department pointed out that S&amp;P based its downgrade on a $2 trillion dollar mistake, S&amp;P said, “oops. Well our bad. No matter, your debt stinks and we recommend that it be downgraded anyway. Ha, ha, ha.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Sound familiar? </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">I love this country. It’s the only place in the world where you can elect politicians to steal you blind, run you over a cliff and have those who are supposed to help you cheer you on over the side.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">By the way, I got some swamp land down in Louisiana that I need to sell. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Selah<a href="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ashton-TaylorIcon.png"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-810" title="Ashton-TaylorIcon" src="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ashton-TaylorIcon.png" alt="Pipe Icon" width="29" height="23" /></a></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1461/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Is it Time to Holler &#8216;Calf Rope?&#8217;</title>
		<link>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1447</link>
		<comments>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1447#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:06:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Tobacco Politics]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/?p=1447</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[My many apologies for taking a hiatus from PSI blog duties. First, there was a hectic vacation with family; then other writing responsibilities and exhaustion as a result of my 8-year-old twin grandsons in for a week. I was frazzled. You can&#8217;t catch &#8216;em and you can&#8217;t keep up with &#8216;em. But, I am back, recovered [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>My many apologies</strong> for taking a hiatus from PSI blog duties. First, there was a hectic vacation with family; then other writing responsibilities and exhaustion as a result of my 8-year-old twin grandsons in for a week. I was frazzled. You can&#8217;t catch &#8216;em and you can&#8217;t keep up with &#8216;em.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">But, I am back, recovered from the family wars, I think.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">In my absence, we have had some interesting changes. I am posting a <a href="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/WSJ-graphic.pdf">WSJ graphic</a> from <strong>Dr. Dan Locklair</strong>, Composer-in-Residence and Professor of Music at Wake Forest University. </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">The pdf is Dr. Locklair’s thoughts he expressed in a letter to the editor he wrote to the Wall Street Journal back in June. The good professor is a longtime pipesmoker and observer of the pipe scene. He is also good friends with <strong>Craig Tarler</strong>, master of the universe, tobacco manufacturer on Mount Zeus, and a special friend.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>The Locklair</strong> letter deals with the outrageous artwork requirement the Food and Drug Administration has slapped upon cigarette manufacturers. You’ve no doubt seen some of that horrible graphic material. It is not only highly offensive and absurd, but represents a cave-in of the FDA to the anti-smoking zealots.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="font-size: large;">And with that in mind, it is newsworthy to note that The U.S. 6</span><sup><span style="font-size: medium;">th</span></sup><span style="font-size: large;"> Circuit Court of Appeals is considering the question of just how far the FDA can go in placing those graphic warnings on cigarette labels. It is also looking into how far the FDA can extend its reach in regulating how tobacco companies advertise and market their products.</span></span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>It is about time</strong> a court somewhere took up the issue of what the FDA is doing under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">And here is a novel idea in the appeals story: Noel Francisco, attorney for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., explained to athe three-judge federal panel that the FSPTCA actually forbids cigarette manufacturers from making statements that are “true and those that are not misleading.”</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Check out the </span><a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hW5clMgwJH0Pjttn1vz4lU66Cp0A?docId=19788f17a9de4f1294c5ff64c25b2a22"><span style="color: #0000ff; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">Associated Press</span></a><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"> story on this important court action.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>Although there </strong>is little hope the Appeals Court will rule in favor of the cigarette makers, there is some slim chance, which is better than none.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">In 2010 a U.S. District Judge in Bowling Green, Ky., upheld most of the FDA’s marketing restrictions.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"><strong>Uh, you’d think</strong> that with the economy in the tank, unemployment at 9.2 percent, Congress fiddling while the debt ceiling burns as the nation nears default on its debts and devaluation of its credit worthiness, somebody might figure out higher cigarette taxes and lost revenues and jobs in the tobacco business is not good for the nation just now.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;">But, go figure. I’ve given up, and holler calf rope.</span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: large;"> </span></p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1447/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Deepest of Doodoo!</title>
		<link>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1437</link>
		<comments>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1437#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 16:05:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Editor</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Breaking News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tobacco Politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FDA]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/?p=1437</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Well sports fans, it has happened. Your federal government and the Food and Drug Administration have released those absolutely horrible and disgusting pictures that will appear on packets of cigarettes. That&#8217;s coming to a retail outlet near you soon. The New York Times had the news story this morning. If you haven&#8217;t seen the upcoming package [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Well sports fans</strong>, it has happened. Your federal government and the Food and Drug Administration have released those absolutely horrible and disgusting pictures that will appear on packets of cigarettes. That&#8217;s coming to a retail outlet near you soon.</p>
<p>The New York Times had the news story this morning. If you haven&#8217;t seen the upcoming package photos, go <a title="NYT graphic images for cigarette packs" href="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/06/22/business/22smoke-web/22smoke-web-articleLarge.jpg">here</a>. If this doesn&#8217;t shock you, then nothing will.</p>
<p>The images are the product of the anti-tobacco campaign against smokers of all stripes. I know the argument that this is just for packages of cigarettes. Believe me, pipe tobacco tins and packages, cigar boxes and labels, won&#8217;t be long in receiving the same treatment. Bet on it.</p>
<p>Smokers of anything will soon be so ostracized that you&#8217;ll be lucky to smoke in the confines of your home, or in my case the outside deck. I am waiting on Real Estate laws to change that say if you have smoked inside your home, you will have to pay some sort of fine.</p>
<p><strong>These images</strong> are outrageously bad and come to you via the <a title="Tobacco Free Kids" href="http://www.tobaccofreekids.org/">Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids</a> and similar well-funded anti-smoking outfits.</p>
<p>We pipe and cigar smokers are in the deepest of doodoo. If you fail to see the wisdom of that, just think about how long it took FDA to come up with these images, get federal law written and changed and signed into reality. About a year, tops.</p>
<p>But, not to worry. Your tax dollars are at work. They just aren&#8217;t going after some other products with the same zeal. For instance, how do you like eating genetically-engineered tomatoes? Hey, I&#8217;m not an organic nut job. I love tomatoes, especially Grainger County (Tennessee)  Tomatoes and Vidalia, Georgia onions slathered with mayonnaise between two pieces of bread.</p>
<p><strong>But, the point is</strong>, your drinking water isn&#8217;t safe, either. It is laced with enough chemicals to dissolve a train engine.  Your foods from the grocery store aren&#8217;t safe. That fruit you are eating from Costa Rica was probably sprayed with DDT or some other chemical outlawed in the U.S.</p>
<p>Hey, don&#8217;t fret. The FDA is watching over you!</p>
<p>If you are not buying and hoarding pipe tobacco and cigars, then you are not paying attention. If you don&#8217;t have a humidor or a cellar full of Ball glass jars filled with tobacco, you will be left at the loading dock when the last bales  of tobacco are shipped out to be burned in large piles</p>
<p>This is serious business.</p>
<p><strong>I talked to Joyce White</strong>, whose tobacco ancestry goes back to Royal Cigar in Atlanta, the other day. She told me not only are the rules inside the U.S. becoming so stringent that it is hard to make a living selling pipe tobacco, but also rules governing foreign tobacco manufacturers are biting down hard.</p>
<p>Yes, boys and girls, a new day is upon us. The large media types are not on our side. Big Media has forgotten how to publish both sides of an issue. It is up to you to find out for yourselves. PSI tries to help.</p>
<p>But that&#8217;s like pushing a boulder uphill with a string.</p>
<p>The handle is coming off of the pump.<a rel="attachment wp-att-810" href="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/796/ashton-tayloricon"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-810" title="Ashton-TaylorIcon" src="http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Ashton-TaylorIcon.png" alt="Pipe Icon" width="29" height="23" /></a></p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1437/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada Encourages Local Anti-Smoking Advocates to Deceive the Public in Order to Get Outdoor Smoking Bans Enacted</title>
		<link>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/physicians-for-smoke-free-canada.html</link>
		<comments>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/physicians-for-smoke-free-canada.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:39:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Michael Siegel</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/06/physicians-for-smoke-free-canada.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is encouraging local anti-smoking advocates throughout Canada to deceive the public in order to promote widespread outdoor smoking bans that cover wide-open areas such as parks, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is encouraging local anti-smoking advocates throughout Canada to deceive the public in order to promote widespread outdoor smoking bans that cover wide-open areas such as parks, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs and retaining walls.<br /><br />Specifically, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada <a href="http://www.smoke-free.ca/pdf_1/Smoke-free%20outdoor%20spaces%20advocacy%20-sept2010.pdf">instructs local advocates</a> to tell the public that: "Even in very small concentrations, second?hand smoke causes immediate, short?term and long?term harm to people exposed to it. ... The long?term harm can include premature death from cancer or heart disease."<br /><br />Thus, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is instructing local advocates to claim that even very small concentrations of secondhand smoke causes heart disease and cancer.<br /><br />In addition, the physicians group is encouraging anti-smoking advocates to deceive the public about how well outdoor smoking bans are working. Advocates are told to: "Plant stories in the media about non?smokers politely asking smokers to move to a designated smoking area or outside the smoke?free area and smokers complying. Create the impression that the bylaw is working...".<br /><br />Moreover, advocates are encouraged to conduct bogus public opinion polls in order to make it look like there is more support for smoke-free outdoor areas than there really is by driving people to these online, non-scientific polls: "What is important with any online advocacy tool is that you have to drive traffic to the site to get the numbers that you need to influence politicians."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">The Rest of the Story</span><br /><br />I'm not sure which is more remarkable:<br /><br />1. The fact that Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is encouraging anti-smoking advocates to deceive the public in order to get smoke-free outdoor laws passed; or<br /><br />2. The fact that Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada had the chutzpah to put is advocacy manual online so that the entire world can see that the group is encouraging local advocates to deceive the public in order to get these increasingly aggressive anti-smoking policies enacted.<br /><br />First, it is not true that "very small" concentrations of secondhand smoke cause heart disease and lung cancer. The evidence that secondhand smoke exposure causes these chronic diseases comes from studies of relatively high levels of chronic exposure to secondhand smoke, such as that experienced working for many years in a workplace with tobacco smoke or living for many years with a smoker. There is no evidence that merely a brief exposure to secondhand smoke, such as might be experienced in a park or on a street, is sufficient to cause heart disease and lung cancer. In fact, the effects brief exposure to secondhand smoke are reversible and one would therefore need to be regularly exposed to secondhand smoke for many years in order to develop heart disease and lung cancer.<br /><br />Where are the physicians getting their information? From the U.S. Surgeon General, of course, who claimed - <a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/03/rest-of-story-proposes-corrective.html">incorrectly</a> and without any scientific support - that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer.<br /><br />Second, it is apparent that Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada wants local advocates to "create the impression" that the outdoor smoking ban is working by "planting" stories in the media about single episodes of compliance. There is nothing here about actually conducting an objective evaluation of the law to see whether it is working. Instead, advocates are instructed to tell the public that the law is working, whether it is or not.<br /><br />Third, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada apparently is content misrepresenting as scientific an online public opinion poll for which the group urges advocates to "drive traffic to the site." Obviously, this isn't a scientific poll at all and should not be misrepresented as such. It certainly doesn't indicate public opinion. Instead, it indicates which side is doing a better job of driving their members to the web site.<br /><br />I want to emphasize that what Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is doing here is antithetical to public health and to its ethical principles. We are not supposed to deceive the public by spreading misleading scientific information. We are not supposed to misrepresent as scientific a poll in which supporters have been drive to a web site to try to affect the outcome of the poll. We are not supposed to conduct bogus evaluations of public policies which have a pre-determined conclusion and then create a public impression which may be false.<br /><br />In fact, objective evaluation of policies is an important part of public health practice. It is our job, and our responsibility, to objectively evaluate policies to determine whether or not they are working. It does no good to pretend that a policy is working if it really isn't. That doesn't provide public health protection to anyone. In fact, it does the opposite. It denies public health protection because it prevents action from being taken that could correct the problem.<br /><br />While my readers recognize that I am not crazy about policies that ban smoking in wide-open outdoor places like parks, streets, and parking lots, my opinion here is not based on my opposition to such policies. My opinion is based instead on basic ethical principles of public health conduct. I simply do not believe that we should deceive the public to advance our policy aims.<br /><br />The rest of the story is that Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is encouraging local anti-smoking advocates to deceive the public in order to promote smoke-free outdoor laws. I suppose that if these laws were well-justified, there wouldn't be the need to encourage advocates to deceive the public. The truth would be enough.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/11234862-1693804528192239791?l=tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1411/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>150 Additional Suicides Associated with Chantix Use; Breakdown in Surveillance Leads to Underestimate of Drug’s Potentially Severe Adverse Effects</title>
		<link>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/150-additional-suicides-associated-with.html</link>
		<comments>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/150-additional-suicides-associated-with.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 31 May 2011 16:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Michael Siegel</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/150-additional-suicides-associated-with.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to an article at MSNBC.com, a “breakdown” in surveillance of the adverse effects of Chantix has led to an underestimate of the potential harm caused by the drug, with an additional 150 Chantix-associated suicides having not been reported ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[According to an <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/43187290/ns/health-health_care/">article</a> at <i style="">MSNBC.com</i>, a “breakdown” in surveillance of the adverse effects of Chantix has led to an underestimate of the potential harm caused by the drug, with an additional 150 Chantix-associated suicides having not been reported to the FDA. <br /><br />According to the article: “Hundreds of reports of suicides, psychotic reactions and other serious problems tied to the popular stop-smoking drug Chantix were left out of a crucial government safety review because Pfizer Inc., the drug’s manufacturer, submitted years of data through ‘improper channels.’ Some 150 suicides — more than doubling those previously known — were among 589 delayed reports of severe issues turned up in a new analysis by the non-profit Institute for Safe Medication Practices.” <br /><br />“’We’ve had a major breakdown in safety surveillance,’ said Thomas J. Moore, the ISMP senior scientist who analyzed the data. The serious problems — including reports of completed suicides, suicide attempts, aggression and hostility and depression — had been mixed among some 26,000 records of non-serious side effects such as nausea and rashes, with some dating back to 2006, the year Chantix, or varenicline, was approved. They echo previous claims that the drug can induce extreme reactions in people trying to quit cigarettes, including vivid nightmares, crippling depression and sudden, violent outbursts. ‘It’s really chilling,’ said Moore, who analyzed 26 Chantix reactions in a paper published in the September 2010 issue of the <i style="">Journal of Pharmacotherapy</i>. ‘This seems to unleash something in people. It can be violence to anything around.’" … <br /><br />“Moore, who has served as an expert witness in court regarding Chantix, said it's the riskiest drug among those analyzed from the FDA's adverse event reports. In the third quarter of 2010, it ranked first in reported deaths, with twice as many fatalities logged as any other drug, he said. … 'To us, it raises questions about whether this drug is safe for widespread clinical use,' Moore said. 'Does this tip the balance?'"<br /><br />According to the article, there have now been a total of 272 suicides associated with Chantix use. Pfizer continues to deny that there is a causal link between the drug and these suicides.<a href="http://www.ismp.org/QuarterWatch/2010Q3.pdf">  </a><br /><br /><b style="color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">The Rest of the Story</b><a href="http://www.ismp.org/QuarterWatch/2010Q3.pdf">  </a><br /><br />The most interesting aspect of this story is why anti-smoking groups that have called for a ban on electronic cigarettes, for which there have been adverse reports of zero suicides or deaths, are not calling for the removal of Chantix from the market, in light of the 272 suicides that are potentially linked to almost immediate neuropsychiatric effects of the drug.<br /><br />The argument in favor of keeping Chantix on the market is that the benefit of its use in smoking cessation outweighs these potential side effects. That’s fine, but why doesn’t the same reasoning hold for electronic cigarettes. Given that e-cigarettes are helping thousands of people to quit smoking or cut down substantially on the amount that they smoke, shouldn’t they remain on the market? Don’t these benefits outweigh the risks, especially when there are no known risks, as not a single severe adverse event has been reported despite more than four years of widespread use?<br /><br />The answer appears to be two-fold. First, the anti-smoking groups advancing this inconsistent policy on smoking cessation aids are all funded by Big Pharma. Most, if not all of them, have received money from Pfizer itself.<br /><br />Second, there is an ideological block in the tobacco control movement which does not allow these groups to possibly view as favorable a product which simulates smoking behavior, even if it may save lives.<br /><br />I believe that some form of relatively safe nicotine delivery in the form of a cigarette-like device is going to be the most important intervention of our time to reduce smoking-attributable morbidity and mortality. Just last week, Altria purchased rights to a product which delivers nicotine vapor through a device similar to an electronic cigarette, except that there is no electricity or heat involved. Instead, a chemical reaction takes place which results in the release of nicotine vapor, which is inhaled by the user.<br /><br />Ironically, it is the anti-smoking groups which stand as the main roadblock between these interventions and their use in preventing smoking-related disease. You see, it’s not acceptable to quit smoking unless you quit smoking in the way <b style="">we</b> tell you to quit smoking. Doing so in a manner that simulates smoking is not OK. You must use the least effective of approaches: pharmaceutical agents that only address the pharmacologic aspects of smoking addiction, not the critical physical, behavioral, and social aspects of the addiction.<br /><br />It might be the least effective method, but at least the financial relationship between the anti-smoking groups and pharmaceutical companies are not threatened. I have demonstrated how much money influences the anti-smoking groups, and nowhere is that money talking more than in the area of approaches to smoking cessation.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/11234862-5797454831490488045?l=tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1412/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>New England Journal of Medicine Commentary Suggests that NYC Outdoor Smoking Ban Goes Too Far</title>
		<link>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-england-journal-of-medicine.html</link>
		<comments>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-england-journal-of-medicine.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 12:58:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Michael Siegel</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/new-england-journal-of-medicine.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Echoing the sentiments I presented in my op-ed in the New York Times, a commentary appearing this week online ahead of print in the New England Journal of Medicine suggests that the outdoor smoking ban which went into effect in New York City this week ...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[Echoing the sentiments I presented in my <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/06/opinion/06siegel.html">op-ed</a> in the <span style="font-style: italic;">New York Times</span>, a <a href="http://healthpolicyandreform.nejm.org/?p=14539&amp;query=home">commentary</a> appearing this week online ahead of print in the <span style="font-style: italic;">New England Journal of Medicine</span> suggests that the outdoor smoking ban which went into effect in New York City this week goes too far (see: Colgrove J, Bayer R, Bachynski KE. Nowhere left to hide? The banishment of smoking from public places. <span style="font-style: italic;">New England Journal of Medicine</span> 2011; 10.1056/nejmp1104637).<br /><br />In the article, Colgrove et al., who are from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, argue that the New York City outdoor smoking ban goes beyond the need to protect nonsmokers from the health hazards associated with exposure to secondhand smoke. They cite testimony indicating that the purpose of the ordinance was, in part, to protect nonsmokers from having to see smokers in public.<br /><br />In support of this point, the researchers cited a statement made by the NYC Health Commissioner in support of the ordinance: "Farley emphasized the importance of protecting children from exposure to adult smokers who would serve as negative role models. “Families,” he said, “should be able to bring their children to parks and beaches knowing 0that they won’t see others smoking.”"<br /><br />The authors point out that: "air-monitoring studies have shown that health risks to people exposed to secondhand smoke outdoors drop off dramatically when the source of the smoke is more than 2 m away. The editor of the journal <span style="font-style: italic;">Tobacco Control</span> dismissed as “flimsy” the evidence that secondhand smoke poses a threat to the health of nonsmokers in most outdoor settings. Nevertheless, smoking opponents continue to press their case using a variety of claims, including public health rationales as well as “public nuisance” arguments such as litter abatement."<br /><br />The article concludes: "In the absence of direct health risks to others, bans on smoking in parks and beaches raise questions about the acceptable limits for government to impose on conduct."<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">The Rest of the Story</span><br /><br />This is an interesting article because it shows how many public health practitioners who are outside of the tobacco control movement view the issue of these widespread outdoor smoking bans. This type of opinion would never be tolerated inside the tobacco control movement, as I demonstrated last week when I revealed that members of the Globalink list-serve attacked me for sharing my similar opinion publicly, rather than keeping it confined within the tobacco control movement.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/11234862-9141395354052891541?l=tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1413/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Why Fallacious Assertions About Low TSNA Cigarettes are Scientifically Worse than Fraudulent Statements About Low-Tar Cigarettes by Big Tobacco</title>
		<link>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-fallacious-assertions-about-low.html</link>
		<comments>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-fallacious-assertions-about-low.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 26 May 2011 14:45:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Michael Siegel</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/why-fallacious-assertions-about-low.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I reported yesterday that anti-smoking researchers have attacked the U.S. tobacco companies for failing to produce lower TSNA (tobacco-specific nitrosamine) cigarettes. The attack occurs in a research article published in the journal Tobacco Control. T...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[I reported yesterday that anti-smoking researchers have <a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/anti-smoking-researchers-tell-public.html">attacked</a> the U.S. tobacco companies for failing to produce lower TSNA (tobacco-specific nitrosamine) cigarettes. The attack occurs in a research <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/05/20/tc.2010.042192.full.pdf">article</a> published in the journal <span style="font-style: italic;">Tobacco Control</span>. The attack on the cigarette companies is based on the research finding, reported in the article, that TSNA levels in current cigarettes produced by Philip Morris, Reynolds American, and Lorillard are not significantly lower than they were three decades ago. The researchers further assert that cigarettes with lower TSNA levels reduce cancer risk. Thus, they argue that the tobacco companies have been neglectful by failing to reduce the TSNA levels in their products.<br /><br />Yesterday, I explained why the assertion by the researchers in this article is a fallacious one: there is no evidence that cigarettes with lower TSNA levels are safer than other cigarettes because there are more than 60 carcinogens in tobacco smoke and the processes by which TSNA levels are reduced (which represent only 2 of the 60+ carcinogens) might actually increase levels of other carcinogens.<br /><br />Today, I explain why the assertion that "TSNA-light" cigarettes are safer than "full-TSNA" cigarettes is even more fallacious than the tobacco companies' historical assertion that light (low-tar) cigarettes are safer.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(153, 51, 153);">Reason #1:</span> The researchers knew that there are more than 60 carcinogens in tobacco smoke, yet they were willing to draw a conclusion about cancer risk based on lowered levels of two of them, with no knowledge of the levels of the other 58+ carcinogens. In contrast, low-tar delivery at least is indicative of a lowering in levels of all constituents, across the board.</span><br /><br />I am not in any way justifying the claim that low-tar cigarettes are safer than high-tar cigarettes. However, it is at least the case that low-tar yields are indicative, to at least some degree, of a lowering of many types of carcinogenic substances in tobacco smoke, across the board. Lower tar yields presumably (if they translated into actual lowering of human exposure) indicate a lower amount of carcinogens and toxins across the spectrum.<br /><br />In contrast, reduced levels of TSNAs in cigarettes indicates a reduction of only two of more than 60 known carcinogens. Not only is there the problem of the machine yields not adequately representing human exposure, but even if the exposure estimate was accurate, it would indicate a lowering of exposure to only two carcinogens. With low-tar cigarettes, if the machine yields were accurate, they would at least be indicative of a more across-the-board reduction in carcinogen exposure.<br /><br />In fact, there is some evidence that cigarette filters have conveyed a <span style="font-weight: bold;">small</span> degree of health protection by slightly lowering lung cancer risk because of substantial tar reduction, the benefits of which are not undermined (or not completely undermined) by smoker compensation.<br /><br />For example, Armadans-Gil et al. reported a <a href="http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/28/4/614.full.pdf">60% reduction in lung cancer risk</a> associated with long-term use of filter-tip versus non-filter cigarettes.<br /><br />In addition, there is some evidence that <span style="font-weight: bold;">very high</span> tar cigarettes (greater than 21 mg) do confer an <a href="http://www.bmj.com/content/328/7431/72.full">increased risk of lung cancer</a>. For example, Harris et al. found a quite robust and consistent relationship between very high tar cigarettes and higher cancer risk compared to medium, low, and very low tar cigarettes. Presumably, these findings are explained by a modest degree of protection conferred by the cigarette filter -- an effect that is not completely undermined by smoker compensation.<br /><br />Moreover, the researchers knew - or at least should have known - that the evidence presented in the Department of Justice lawsuit against the tobacco companies made it clear that lower nitrosamine cigarettes do indeed have a higher yield of other carcinogens. The primary process by which TSNA levels are reduced - substituting flue-cured tobacco for burley tobacco - has the adverse side effect of increasing levels of other hazardous smoke constituents, including carcinogens.<br /><br />In fact, lower TSNA cigarettes were found in tobacco company laboratory experiments to produce <a href="http://www.justice.gov/civil/cases/tobacco2/amended%20opinion.pdf">higher tar yields</a>, as well as to increase hydrogen cyanide, carbon monoxide, and aldehyde deliveries.<br /><br />In her final decision in the DOJ tobacco lawsuit, Judge Kessler found as follows: "This process allowed substitution of air-cured Bright tobacco for burley tobacco, and thus represented a potential advance in reducing the delivery of harmful TSNAs to smokers. ... When the air-cured bright tobacco was substituted for burley tobacco in the control cigarettes, as described in the experiments discussed in the patent, there were instances in which carbon monoxide (“CO”), hydrogen cyanide (“HCN”), FTC tar, and aldehyde (“RCHO”), deliveries were increased."<br /><br />In light of this evidence, it seems to me to be quite disingenuous to assert that a low TSNA cigarette is safer than, and less carcinogenic than other cigarettes, especially when you know that the tar delivery may well be higher.<br /><br />Moreover, it seems hypocritical to attack cigarette companies for failing to lower the TSNA levels using these methods, since such an approach would probably have led to higher overall carcinogen delivery and the anti-smoking groups would then have made toast of the companies in the courtroom.<br /><br />Thus, while the fallacy of the tobacco companies "lights" assertion is primarily that machine yields do not accurately reflect human exposure, there are two fallacies with the researchers' "TSNA lights" assertion. First is the machine yield fallacy. Second is the fallacy that lowering levels of two specific carcinogens will reduce cancer risk when the levels of many other carcinogens are likely being increased.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: rgb(102, 0, 204);">Reason #2:</span> The government required cigarette companies to disclose machine-measured tar yields to consumers and therefore implied that low-tar cigarettes convey some degree of health protection.</span><br /><br />Again, I'm not excusing the tobacco companies, but the government was complicit in the fraud perpetrated upon American consumers by requiring what they knew was fallacious health-related information. The "light" labels largely corresponded to government-mandated product testing and the companies were accurately conveying the results of that testing.<br /><br />In contrast, the government is not in any way suggesting that lower TSNA cigarettes are safer and has - at least up until now - rejected the idea of requiring TSNA level reporting to consumers. In fact, the FDA clearly stated, just yesterday, that low-TSNA cigarettes are not any safer.<br /><br />Thus, while the tobacco companies were making assertions that were in line with official government policy, the <span style="font-style: italic;">Tobacco Control</span> article is making an assertion that directly contradicts the official policy of the leading federal agency that regulates tobacco products.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">The Rest of the Story</span><br /><br />I think it is important to close this commentary by repeating a set of important findings from the scientific literature. In their <a href="http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/17/12/3366.full">article</a> on levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines in different types of tobacco, Ding et al. concluded as follows:<br /><br />1. "The pyrosynthesis of benzo[<em>a</em>]pyrene (BaP) in cigarettes made exclusively with flue-cured or sun-cured tobaccos produces <span style="font-weight: bold;">higher BaP levels</span> in the smoke                      than in cigarettes made with burley tobacco."<br /><br />2. "In cigarette brands containing different                      types of tobacco that delivered low TSNA levels in  smoke, PAH levels increased as TSNA levels decreased. ... King et al. further illustrated the inverse relation between BaP and NNK emissions (nicotine-adjusted) in Australian and                      Canadian cigarettes (16).  Such findings are important because smokers concerned about their  health risk may switch to a brand that delivers lower                      levels of a particularly worrisome chemical but may  not actually reduce risk because of their overall exposure to other  harmful                      chemicals."<br /><br />Fortunately, one of the authors of this article was Dr. David Ashley, and so I don't think he is going to fall for the anti-smoking researchers' claim that lowering TSNA levels in cigarettes reduces carcinogenic risk and that the FDA should therefore require cigarette companies to lower the TSNA levels, as recommended in the <span style="font-style: italic;">Tobacco Control</span> article.<br /><br />The rest of the story is that there is an abundance of existing literature (I've only cited a few select articles) which indicates that the methods used to produce low-TSNA cigarettes result in products that have higher levels of other toxins and carcinogens, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrogen cyanide, and benzo(a)pyrene.<br /><br />So the truth is that the researchers who have blasted the cigarette companies for failing to reduce TSNA levels have also attacked the companies for keeping <span style="font-weight: bold;">down</span> the levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, hydrogen cyanide, and benzo(a)pyrene.<br /><br />In other words, the current thinking, research, and policy recommendations in tobacco control are really no more science-based than the original deception of consumers by the tobacco companies, for which those companies were found guilty of RICO statute violations.<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/11234862-358909456564391939?l=tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1414/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Anti-Smoking Researchers Tell Public that Marlboro Virginia Blend Cigarettes are Safer than Regular Marlboros, Camels, Kools, Winstons, and Dorals</title>
		<link>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/anti-smoking-researchers-tell-public.html</link>
		<comments>http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/anti-smoking-researchers-tell-public.html#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 May 2011 17:44:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dr. Michael Siegel</dc:creator>
		
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2011/05/anti-smoking-researchers-tell-public.html</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fraudulent Statements for Which Tobacco Companies Were Found Guilty Under RICO Statute are Now Being Made by Tobacco Control ResearchersIn a shocking development, anti-tobacco researchers - including a member of the FDA Tobacco Products Scientific Advi...]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<span style="font-weight: bold;"><br />Fraudulent Statements for Which Tobacco Companies Were Found Guilty Under RICO Statute are Now Being Made by Tobacco Control Researchers</span><br /><br />In a shocking development, anti-tobacco researchers - including a member of the FDA Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) - are today telling the public that a particular brand of Marlboro cigarettes (Marlboro Virginia blend) is safer than many other brands of cigarettes on the market, including regular Marlboros, Marlboro special blend, Marlboro blend No.27, Marlboro blend No. 54, Marlboro smooth menthol, Basic, Camel, Winston, Kool, Pall Mall, Newport, and Doral.<br /><br />Specifically, these tobacco control researchers are asserting that Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes are safer than many other cigarette brands because they contain lower levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNAs), which reduces the risk of cancer among smokers of this cigarette brand.<br /><br />The researchers <a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/05/20/tc.2010.042192.full.pdf">report</a> that the overall level of TSNAs in Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes is only 76 ng/cigarette, compared to 398 in Marlboro full flavor, 353 in Marlboro special blend, 371 in Marlboro blend No. 27, 572 in Marlboro blend No. 54, 386 in Marlboro smooth menthol, 514 in Basic, 301 in Camel full flavor, 424 in Winston full flavor, 327 in Kool filter kings, 279 in Pall Mall full flavor, 467 in Doral, and 340 in Newport.<br /><br />Furthermore, the researchers assert that "higher levels of TSNA in cigarette smoke are associated with a higher risk of cancer in smokers."<br /><br />Thus, these researchers are asserting that the lower levels of TSNA present in Marlboro Viriginia blend cigarettes are associated with a lower risk of cancer, and therefore, a safer cigarette compared to all the other brands tested in their study.<br /><br />The researchers blast Philip Morris, Reynolds American, and Lorillard for failing to reduce the levels of TSNAs in their cigarettes over the past three decades, calling this failure a "remarkable neglect" by the tobacco industry.<br /><br />In contrast, the researchers congratulate the Canadian cigarette manufacturers for lowering TSNA levels in their cigarettes. The researchers call on the FDA to require a reduction in TSNA levels in American-made cigarettes.<br /><br /><a href="http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/early/2011/05/20/tc.2010.042192.full.pdf">Source</a>: Stepanov I, Knezevich A, Zhang L, Watson CH, Hatsukami DK, Hecht SS. Carcinogenic tobacco-specific N-nitrosamines in U.S. cigarettes: Three decades of remarkable neglect by the tobacco industry. <span style="font-style: italic;">Tobacco Control</span> 2011. Published online ahead of print. doi 10.1136/tc.2010.042192.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(0, 153, 0);">The Rest of the Story</span><br /><br />If Philip Morris were to make the exact same assertion as these tobacco control researchers, it would take all of about five minutes before the company would be attacked by anti-smoking groups for continuing its decades of fraud and deception of the public about the claim that some brands of cigarettes are safer by virtue of lower delivery of certain toxic constituents.<br /><br />In fact, the major tobacco companies were found guilty of fraudulent activity under the RICO statute for making very much the same claim that these anti-tobacco researchers make today in their article: that certain brands of cigarettes are safer based on their lower delivery of specific carcinogens.<br /><br />In my opinion, the assertion by these researchers, if appearing in any forum other than a research article, would be fraudulent. It would be little different from the deception of which we in tobacco control have attacked the tobacco companies.<br /><br />Let's face the facts. If I were, today, to make a statement on my blog that Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes are safer than Camel cigarettes, I would be essentially guilty of fraud. Certainly, I would be guilty of making a fraudulent claim. The claim would also be damaging, because it could mislead some smokers to believe that the cigarettes they are smoking are safer. I can assure my readers that I would not make such a claim unless I had very solid evidence to back it up.<br /><br />But this is precisely the claim that these researchers are making today!<br /><br />They are asserting that Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes are safer than Camel cigarettes and a host of other brands because they deliver much lower levels of TSNAs and therefore reduce cancer risk. They are asserting that Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes are less carcinogenic than other brands of cigarettes. They are also asserting that Canadian cigarettes are generally safer than U.S. cigarettes.<br /><br />This is a first, as far as I am aware. I have never before witnessed anti-smoking researchers or advocates claim that one brand of tobacco cigarettes on the market is any safer than another brand.<br /><br />Ironically, Philip Morris has had the restraint to refrain from honestly and accurately telling consumers of its Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes that: "In the opinion of some anti-smoking researchers, this is a safer cigarette because it reduces your risk of cancer."<br /><br />The glaring flaw in the reasoning of this study is that TSNAs are only one of the many (more than 60) carcinogens in tobacco smoke, and it is not necessarily the case that reducing TSNAs will reduce overall cancer risk. For example, it is entirely possible that the process of reducing TSNAs results in an increase in the level of some other carcinogens.<br /><br />In fact, there is strong evidence that this in indeed the case. One of the prime strategies for reducing TSNAs is shifting from burley to flue-cured tobacco. While this does result in lower TSNA levels, it also appears to <a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/06/fctc-commentary-1-implementation.html">increase levels</a> of benzo(a)pyrene and tar. Since tar and benzo(a)pyrene are also implicated in cancer risk, it is entirely possible that reduced TSNA cigarettes could <span style="font-weight: bold;">increase</span> cancer risk. We simply do not know.<br /><br />Moreover, the cigarette smoke TSNA yields were studied using a smoking machine, not a real person. It is an unwise extrapolation to assume that the yields derived by a machine are going to be the same as those produced by an actual smoker, who may increase smoking intensity (puff volume and amount smoked) in response to decreases in certain constituents in the cigarette.<br /><br />Just as it would be irresponsible, fraudulent, and illegal for Philip Morris to claim that its Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes are safer than many other cigarette brands, I believe it is also irresponsible and inaccurate for those of us in tobacco control to assert that Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes are less carcinogenic than other brands.<br /><br />The FDA would be well-advised not to follow the researchers' recommendations here because such an action would essentially amount to a shift of the fraudulent tobacco industry claim of the past that cigarettes which deliver lower amounts of some constituent are safer than other brands from Big Tobacco over to the federal government. There is simply no scientific support for such an assertion. Thus, there is no scientific support for such a regulation. I hope this type of reasoning does not make its way over to the TPSAC.<br /><br />What a tragedy it would be if the FDA did require the lowering of TSNA levels, forcing tobacco companies to abandon burley tobacco and switch to other blends which - although producing lower TSNA cigarettes - also produced cigarettes with higher yields of benzo(a)pyrene and other carcinogens, resulting in an overall increase in cancer risk among the population.<br /><br />Of note, the researchers in this study did not measure any other carcinogens (other than TSNAs). Thus, I don't see how they can assert that Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes are safer.<br /><br />Not only are these researchers asserting that Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes are safer than other brands, but they are also asserting that one can compare the carcinogenicity of any two brands of cigarettes simply by examining their TSNA content. Thus, for example, they are asserting that although not as safe as Marlboro Virginia blend cigarettes, Camel No. 9 menthols are less carcinogenic than Marlboro full flavor cigarettes.<br /><br />Can you imagine R.J. Reynolds displaying ads in retail stores notifying the public that: "In the opinion of anti-tobacco researchers, Camel No. 9 menthol cigarettes produce a lower cancer risk than Marlboro full flavor cigarettes. As a tobacco company, we make no such assertion. We remind the public that they should be guided by the opinions of public health professionals. We defer to the opinions expressed by these professionals."<br /><br />It is surprising that the tobacco companies aren't already having a field day with these assertions in this published article.<br /><br />I should add that this deception - now being practiced by tobacco control practitioners rather than by tobacco companies - is not just taking place in the U.S. It is occurring internationally, as the implementing bodies for the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control are also <a href="http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/05/fctc-commentary-2-proposed-tobacco.html">proposing regulations on the TSNA content of cigarettes</a>, which could potentially lead to an increase in overall cancer risk, but at best would be a guinea pig experiment on the world population accompanied by an implied fraudulent assertion of relative safety compared to older cigarettes.<br /><br />I cannot help but close this piece by speculating as to the reasons why these study authors would make such an unfounded assertion, one that if made by tobacco companies instead of anti-smoking advocates would immediately bring vicious attacks and most certainly, a rash of lawsuits.<br /><br />My only speculation is that anti-smoking advocates often have so much zeal and determination to attack the tobacco companies that this zeal can obscure scientific judgment. Apparently, the underlying "purpose" of this study was to show that TSNA levels have not decreased over time and therefore, that the tobacco companies have committed some sort of irresponsible, negligent act. If you read the entire paper, you'll see that this is indeed the underlying premise of the paper.<br /><br />So if you begin from a position of wanting to attack the tobacco companies, I suppose that when you indeed find that TSNA levels have not declined, your first thought is to attack the tobacco companies and accuse them of "neglect," rather than to realize that if the tobacco companies had taken your recommended action and advertised their products as safer because of lower TSNA yields, those very same companies would have been attacked by anti-smoking advocates for misleading the American people and likely, would have faced a multitude of lawsuits for fraudulent deception of consumers.<br /><br />The rest of the story, then, is that in their apparent zeal to attack the tobacco companies, anti-smoking researchers have made inaccurate and unsupported scientific assertions that are damaging to the public's appreciation of the hazards of smoking and of the lack of existence of any demonstrably safer brand of tobacco cigarettes in the current market.<br /><br />What is even more shocking to me, however, is that although anti-smoking researchers are apparently readily willing to assert that some cigarette brands are safer than others, they are not willing to entertain even the possibility that some non-combusted, non-tobacco products (such as electronic cigarettes) are safer than combusted tobacco products such as the ones that were investigated in this study.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">ADDENDUM </span>(May 25, 2010 - 3:30 pm): Just moments ago, the FDA released <a href="http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fda-takes-action-against-illegal-marketing-of-tobacco-products-122596523.html">warning letters</a> to a number of tobacco retailers, declaring them guilty of <a href="http://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/ResourcesforYou/ucm255658.htm">health fraud</a> for implying that their products are safer than other tobacco products on the market. The FDA asserted that: "<strong>To date, no tobacco products have been scientifically proven to  reduce risk of tobacco-related disease, improve safety or cause less  harm than other tobacco products." </strong><br /><br />In light of this clear statement by the FDA, perhaps they should also send a warning letter to the authors of this research article, since the assertions in this article represent "health fraud"<br />according to the FDA.<br /><strong></strong><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/11234862-447617279125119319?l=tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://pipesmokersintelligencer.org/archives/1415/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
<!-- WP Super Cache is installed but broken. The path to wp-cache-phase1.php in wp-content/advanced-cache.php must be fixed! -->
