Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
=> Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
=> Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
Smoke-Free Policies Prove Effective
Tuesday, July 1, 2008; 12:00 AM
TUESDAY, July 1 (HealthDay News) -- Smoke-free policies are extremely
effective at reducing smoking rates, exposure to secondhand smoke, and even
smoking-related heart disease, new research shows.
The report, by an International Agency for Cancer Research working group,
also found smoke-free rules don't affect business in restaurants or bars.
The researchers analyzed available evidence and found:
Implementation of smoke-free policies substantially decreases secondhand
smoke exposure.Smoke-free workplaces decrease cigarette consumption in
continuing smokers.Smoke-free policies decrease respiratory symptoms in
workers.Smoke-free policies don't decrease business in restaurants or
bars.Voluntary smoke-free home policies decrease adult and youth smoking and
children's exposure to secondhand smoke.Smoke-free workplaces decrease adult
smoking rates.Smoke-free policies decrease tobacco use in youths.Smoke-free
legislation reduces rates of heart disease.
The working group recommended that governments implement smoke-free policies
that conform to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework on Tobacco
Control (FCTC).
"Implementation of such policies can have a broader population effect of
increasing smoke-free environments. Not only do these policies achieve their
aim of protecting the health of nonsmokers by decreasing exposure to
secondhand smoke, they also have many effects on smoking behavior, which
compound the expected health benefits. These benefits will be greater if
these policies are enacted as part of a comprehensive tobacco-control
strategy that implements all of the provisions called for by the WHO-FCTC,"
the working group concluded.
Until now, most research on smoke-free policies has been conducted in rich
countries. The working group recommended "the establishment of a
multinational surveillance system to allow assessment of the effect of these
policies in low-resource and medium-resource countries."
The report was published online and in the July edition ofThe Lancet
Oncology, an issue dedicated to lung cancer.
More information
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about
smoke-free policies.
SOURCE:The Lancet Oncology, news release, June 30, 2008
Smoke-Free Policies Prove Effective
Tuesday, July 1, 2008; 12:00 AM
TUESDAY, July 1 (HealthDay News) -- Smoke-free policies are extremely
effective at reducing smoking rates, exposure to secondhand smoke, and even
smoking-related heart disease, new research shows.
The report, by an International Agency for Cancer Research working group,
also found smoke-free rules don't affect business in restaurants or bars.
The researchers analyzed available evidence and found:
Implementation of smoke-free policies substantially decreases secondhand
smoke exposure.Smoke-free workplaces decrease cigarette consumption in
continuing smokers.Smoke-free policies decrease respiratory symptoms in
workers.Smoke-free policies don't decrease business in restaurants or
bars.Voluntary smoke-free home policies decrease adult and youth smoking and
children's exposure to secondhand smoke.Smoke-free workplaces decrease adult
smoking rates.Smoke-free policies decrease tobacco use in youths.Smoke-free
legislation reduces rates of heart disease.
The working group recommended that governments implement smoke-free policies
that conform to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework on Tobacco
Control (FCTC).
"Implementation of such policies can have a broader population effect of
increasing smoke-free environments. Not only do these policies achieve their
aim of protecting the health of nonsmokers by decreasing exposure to
secondhand smoke, they also have many effects on smoking behavior, which
compound the expected health benefits. These benefits will be greater if
these policies are enacted as part of a comprehensive tobacco-control
strategy that implements all of the provisions called for by the WHO-FCTC,"
the working group concluded.
Until now, most research on smoke-free policies has been conducted in rich
countries. The working group recommended "the establishment of a
multinational surveillance system to allow assessment of the effect of these
policies in low-resource and medium-resource countries."
The report was published online and in the July edition ofThe Lancet
Oncology, an issue dedicated to lung cancer.
More information
The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about
smoke-free policies.
SOURCE:The Lancet Oncology, news release, June 30, 2008
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
Liar & Bullshitter
"Reality Check©" <Reality@Check,it > wrote in message
news:6d289hFg4eqU1@mid.individual,net ...
> Smoke-Free Policies Prove Effective
>
> Tuesday, July 1, 2008; 12:00 AM
>
>
>
> TUESDAY, July 1 (HealthDay News) -- Smoke-free policies are extremely
> effective at reducing smoking rates, exposure to secondhand smoke, and
> even smoking-related heart disease, new research shows.
===> They forgot to mention economic damage
> The report, by an International Agency for Cancer Research working group,
====> Nameless Cowards Huh.???
> also found smoke-free rules don't affect business in restaurants or bars.
====> Maybe they forgot to look here then
http :// www .khon2,com /news/local/13663882.html
Hawaii's Smoking Ban reviewed after 1 year
By Kirk Matthews
The Legislative Health Committee reviews the Smoking Ban that went into
effect at Hawaii bars and restaurants one year ago.
The goal of Act 295 was to eliminate the second hand health threat for
patrons and employees in bars and restaurants. Bar owners claim the effect
has been a loss of business.
"Since January of '07 until December, there's a 65 thousand dollar loss.
I've lost anywhere between 7 to 10 thousand to nine thousand each month,"
said Sam Kekaula, a Big Island Bar owner.
Kekaula told the committee he's not the only bar owner to lose money -
another owner divided his property into a restaurant and bar.
"Leased the restaurant side out, opened their bar and since this effect
came in, the smoking ban, they've lost 89 thousand dollars," said Kekaula.
The state health department director countered that claim.
"A study commissioned by the department of health for the Roswell Park
Cancer Institute to evaluate, that can help us evaluate the economic impact
on the state as a result of the passage of Act 295 has revealed that no
negative economic impact has resulted because of the passage of this law,"
said State Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
Researcher Andrew Hyland told the committee that similar bans in other
states have not resulted in a change of restaurant and bar patronage.
"For most people, it doesn't make a difference, they say they go out the
same. Some say they go out less often, and some people say they go out more
often and it tends to be polarized by their smoking status. But on a net
effect there tends to be no difference," said Researcher Andrew Hyland.
{TRACK}
The Smokers Alliance appealed for exemptions in the law that would permit
bars to allow smoking. The Alliance claims the smoking ban is based on
"false science."
"My friends, it is unconscionable that these mega-billion dollar
associations have been allowed to spew forth these falsehoods all at the
horrific expense of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue,
business closings and job losses across the globe with their smoking bans,"
said Kawika Crowley, with the Smoker's Alliance.
The Legislature may consider modifications to the smoking ban. Kirk
Matthews, KHON2 News.
http :// www .bloomberg,com /apps/news?pid 601102&sid¬qEZhZDCsiM
Wetherspoon Sales Decline Worsens After Smoking Ban (Update4)
By Amy Wilson
Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- J.D. Wetherspoon Plc, the owner of almost 700
British town-center pubs, said a sales decline worsened in the second
quarter because of a smoking ban, and scaled back plans to expand.
Revenue fell 3.2 percent at pubs open at least a year in the 11 weeks ended
Jan. 13, the Watford, England-based owner of almost 700 town-center
properties said today in a statement. That was worse than the first
quarter's 1 percent drop. Wetherspoon cut the number of pubs it plans to
open this year to 25 from 30.
Indoor smoking in places such as pubs has been barred across Britain since
July, when the English measure took effect. It has cut into sales at
properties run by Punch Taverns Plc, the biggest U.K. pub landlord by
outlets, and caused profit to stagnate at main rival Enterprise Inns Plc.
Britons also face pressure on incomes from higher mortgage, tax, utility
and food bills.
Wetherspoon's pubs are ``most exposed to the smoking ban,'' Ian Rennardson,
an analyst at Merrill Lynch in London, said in a note. He has a ``neutral''
rating on the stock.
The operating margin, a profitability gauge, will narrow for the first half
by less than the 0.6 percent reported for the first quarter because of
lower costs for pub repairs and energy, it said. Total sales have gained
0.4 percent so far in the fiscal year.
Wetherspoon shares rose 15.5 pence, or 5.3 percent, to 308 pence as a U.S.
Federal Reserve interest-rate cut boosted U.K. equities. The stock has
fallen 17 percent so far this year.
http :// www .bloomberg,com /apps/news?pid 601102&sid® gebxmCnok
Stock Purchases
Chairman Tim Martin has spent almost 3 million pounds ($5.8 million) this
month to buy stock, taking his stake to 23.5 percent. Nigel Parson, an
analyst at Evolution Securities in London with a ``buy'' recommendation on
the shares, said today in a note to investors they should start rising
again when same- outlet sales increase in the next six to 12 months.
Wetherspoon said it's still ``cautious'' about the outlook for the fiscal
year, citing the smoking ban. Ending tobacco use at a pub tends to fuel
food revenue while hurting beverage purchases, the company says. Chief
Executive Officer John Hutson in September forecast a possible slowdown in
sales for the rest of the year.
Martin started Wetherspoon, which has converted former cinemas and post
offices into pubs, in 1979 with a single property in north London. The
company has said it sells more Pimm's, the gin-based beverage made by
Diageo Plc that can be drunk over ice or in a cocktail, than anyone else in
the world.
To contact the reporter on this story: Amy Wilson in London at
awilson23@bloomberg,net .
Last Updated: January 22, 2008 11:59 EST
http :// www .bloomberg,com /apps/news?pid 601102&sid«gQJH2CPgZ0
Punch Sales Fall as Smoking Ban Deters Visits to Pubs (Update3)
By Amy Wilson
Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Punch Taverns Plc, the largest U.K. pub landlord by
outlets, said sales fell at company-managed properties after an English ban
on indoor smoking discouraged pub visits and consumer spending weakened.
Punch shares fell to a three-year low after the company said sales slid 2.2
percent at managed properties open at least a year in the 20 weeks ended
Jan. 5. Profit dropped 0.8 percent on that basis at outlets leased to
tenant managers, Burton-on- Trent, England-based Punch said today in a
statement.
The pub owner invested in expanded meal menus last year, boosting the share
of sales from food to 40 percent, to keep customers coming back after the
ban. Punch also sold some of its least profitable outlets before the
measure took effect. That hasn't been enough to keep sales rising as
smokers stay at home and higher mortgage payments, taxes and utility bills
pressure incomes.
``Punch's tenancies are not poor-quality, but they are going backward,''
Mark Brumby, an analyst at Blue Oar Securities in London who advises
selling the stock, said in a research note. ``The managed houses are
likewise high-quality, but are also moving backward at quite a rate.''
Punch shares fell 30.5 pence, or 4.9 percent, to 587.5 pence in London.
They have dropped 23 percent this year after sliding 40 percent in 2007.
Food Sales
Including acquisitions and disposals, average profit at leased pubs rose 10
percent, Punch said, attributing this to the ``improved estate quality''
after the sale of pubs last year.
Food sales at company-managed pubs gained 1 percent in the period, Punch
said. The ban on indoor smoking in public places has spurred pub owners to
expand menus to win new customers.
The company, which holds its annual shareholder meeting today, also said a
reorganization of office staff will cut costs by 10 million pounds ($19.6
million) this year.
Punch had 8,450 outlets at the end of the 20-week period, of which about
nine-tenths are tenanted and the remainder are run by the company. The
landlord spent 202 million pounds last year to renovate pubs and sold 869
outlets. Punch said today it has spent 53 million pounds on renovations
this year.
To contact the reporter on this story: Amy Wilson in London at
awilson23@bloomberg,net .
Last Updated: January 16, 2008 11:56 EST
http :// www .bloomberg,com /apps/news?pid 601102&sid=akPEJ7lWbDYg
Punch Says Pub Sales Dropped on Smoking Ban, Consumer Spending
By Amy Wilson
Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Punch Taverns Plc, the largest U.K. pub landlord by
outlets, said sales have declined since the fiscal year started in August
because of a ban on indoor smoking in public places and slower consumer
spending.
Revenue fell 2.2 percent at company-managed properties open at least a year
in the 20 weeks ended Jan. 5, the Burton-on- Trent, England-based company
said today in a Regulatory News Service statement. Profit dropped 0.8
percent on that basis at outlets leased to tenant managers.
The smoking ban spurred pub owners to invest in expanded meal menus with
the aim of keeping customers coming back after they could no longer smoke
inside. While Punch is now getting a larger share of sales from food,
revenue growth has weakened, hurt by the prohibition and pressure on
incomes that discouraged some Britons from going out to pubs.
``Whilst we remain cautious over the short-term outlook for the sector, the
enduring popularity and appeal of the local community pub will continue and
we remain confident about the long-term prospects,'' Punch said in the
statement.
Punch shares fell 45.5 pence, or 6.9 percent, to 618 pence in London
yesterday. They have dropped 19 percent in 2008 as consumer spending has
been squeezed by higher mortgage payments, utility bills, taxes and food
prices.
The pub owner had almost 8,500 outlets at the end of the fiscal year, of
which nine-tenths were tenanted and the rest were run by the company. Food
sales at Punch-managed outlets gained 6 percent for the year. The landlord
also spent 202 million pounds ($398 million) to renovate pubs and sold 869
of its least-profitable outlets.
Punch released the statement as its annual shareholder meeting takes place
today.
To contact the reporter on this story: Amy Wilson in London at
awilson23@bloomberg,net .
Last Updated: January 16, 2008 02:22 EST
>
> The researchers analyzed available evidence and found:
They' ve bullshitted us enough !
Open your mouth sucker. (:>{0} <=======Paahauuktouui !
Nah Swaller
Feel Better ?
> The report was published online and in the July edition ofThe Lancet
> Oncology, an issue dedicated to Anal cancer.
> The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about
> smoke-free policies.
>
> SOURCE: Assholes @The Lancet Oncology, news release, June 30, 2008
Liar & Bullshitter
"Reality Check©" <Reality@Check,it > wrote in message
news:6d289hFg4eqU1@mid.individual,net ...
> Smoke-Free Policies Prove Effective
>
> Tuesday, July 1, 2008; 12:00 AM
>
>
>
> TUESDAY, July 1 (HealthDay News) -- Smoke-free policies are extremely
> effective at reducing smoking rates, exposure to secondhand smoke, and
> even smoking-related heart disease, new research shows.
===> They forgot to mention economic damage
> The report, by an International Agency for Cancer Research working group,
====> Nameless Cowards Huh.???
> also found smoke-free rules don't affect business in restaurants or bars.
====> Maybe they forgot to look here then
http :// www .khon2,com /news/local/13663882.html
Hawaii's Smoking Ban reviewed after 1 year
By Kirk Matthews
The Legislative Health Committee reviews the Smoking Ban that went into
effect at Hawaii bars and restaurants one year ago.
The goal of Act 295 was to eliminate the second hand health threat for
patrons and employees in bars and restaurants. Bar owners claim the effect
has been a loss of business.
"Since January of '07 until December, there's a 65 thousand dollar loss.
I've lost anywhere between 7 to 10 thousand to nine thousand each month,"
said Sam Kekaula, a Big Island Bar owner.
Kekaula told the committee he's not the only bar owner to lose money -
another owner divided his property into a restaurant and bar.
"Leased the restaurant side out, opened their bar and since this effect
came in, the smoking ban, they've lost 89 thousand dollars," said Kekaula.
The state health department director countered that claim.
"A study commissioned by the department of health for the Roswell Park
Cancer Institute to evaluate, that can help us evaluate the economic impact
on the state as a result of the passage of Act 295 has revealed that no
negative economic impact has resulted because of the passage of this law,"
said State Health Director Dr. Chiyome Fukino.
Researcher Andrew Hyland told the committee that similar bans in other
states have not resulted in a change of restaurant and bar patronage.
"For most people, it doesn't make a difference, they say they go out the
same. Some say they go out less often, and some people say they go out more
often and it tends to be polarized by their smoking status. But on a net
effect there tends to be no difference," said Researcher Andrew Hyland.
{TRACK}
The Smokers Alliance appealed for exemptions in the law that would permit
bars to allow smoking. The Alliance claims the smoking ban is based on
"false science."
"My friends, it is unconscionable that these mega-billion dollar
associations have been allowed to spew forth these falsehoods all at the
horrific expense of hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue,
business closings and job losses across the globe with their smoking bans,"
said Kawika Crowley, with the Smoker's Alliance.
The Legislature may consider modifications to the smoking ban. Kirk
Matthews, KHON2 News.
http :// www .bloomberg,com /apps/news?pid 601102&sid¬qEZhZDCsiM
Wetherspoon Sales Decline Worsens After Smoking Ban (Update4)
By Amy Wilson
Jan. 22 (Bloomberg) -- J.D. Wetherspoon Plc, the owner of almost 700
British town-center pubs, said a sales decline worsened in the second
quarter because of a smoking ban, and scaled back plans to expand.
Revenue fell 3.2 percent at pubs open at least a year in the 11 weeks ended
Jan. 13, the Watford, England-based owner of almost 700 town-center
properties said today in a statement. That was worse than the first
quarter's 1 percent drop. Wetherspoon cut the number of pubs it plans to
open this year to 25 from 30.
Indoor smoking in places such as pubs has been barred across Britain since
July, when the English measure took effect. It has cut into sales at
properties run by Punch Taverns Plc, the biggest U.K. pub landlord by
outlets, and caused profit to stagnate at main rival Enterprise Inns Plc.
Britons also face pressure on incomes from higher mortgage, tax, utility
and food bills.
Wetherspoon's pubs are ``most exposed to the smoking ban,'' Ian Rennardson,
an analyst at Merrill Lynch in London, said in a note. He has a ``neutral''
rating on the stock.
The operating margin, a profitability gauge, will narrow for the first half
by less than the 0.6 percent reported for the first quarter because of
lower costs for pub repairs and energy, it said. Total sales have gained
0.4 percent so far in the fiscal year.
Wetherspoon shares rose 15.5 pence, or 5.3 percent, to 308 pence as a U.S.
Federal Reserve interest-rate cut boosted U.K. equities. The stock has
fallen 17 percent so far this year.
http :// www .bloomberg,com /apps/news?pid 601102&sid® gebxmCnok
Stock Purchases
Chairman Tim Martin has spent almost 3 million pounds ($5.8 million) this
month to buy stock, taking his stake to 23.5 percent. Nigel Parson, an
analyst at Evolution Securities in London with a ``buy'' recommendation on
the shares, said today in a note to investors they should start rising
again when same- outlet sales increase in the next six to 12 months.
Wetherspoon said it's still ``cautious'' about the outlook for the fiscal
year, citing the smoking ban. Ending tobacco use at a pub tends to fuel
food revenue while hurting beverage purchases, the company says. Chief
Executive Officer John Hutson in September forecast a possible slowdown in
sales for the rest of the year.
Martin started Wetherspoon, which has converted former cinemas and post
offices into pubs, in 1979 with a single property in north London. The
company has said it sells more Pimm's, the gin-based beverage made by
Diageo Plc that can be drunk over ice or in a cocktail, than anyone else in
the world.
To contact the reporter on this story: Amy Wilson in London at
awilson23@bloomberg,net .
Last Updated: January 22, 2008 11:59 EST
http :// www .bloomberg,com /apps/news?pid 601102&sid«gQJH2CPgZ0
Punch Sales Fall as Smoking Ban Deters Visits to Pubs (Update3)
By Amy Wilson
Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Punch Taverns Plc, the largest U.K. pub landlord by
outlets, said sales fell at company-managed properties after an English ban
on indoor smoking discouraged pub visits and consumer spending weakened.
Punch shares fell to a three-year low after the company said sales slid 2.2
percent at managed properties open at least a year in the 20 weeks ended
Jan. 5. Profit dropped 0.8 percent on that basis at outlets leased to
tenant managers, Burton-on- Trent, England-based Punch said today in a
statement.
The pub owner invested in expanded meal menus last year, boosting the share
of sales from food to 40 percent, to keep customers coming back after the
ban. Punch also sold some of its least profitable outlets before the
measure took effect. That hasn't been enough to keep sales rising as
smokers stay at home and higher mortgage payments, taxes and utility bills
pressure incomes.
``Punch's tenancies are not poor-quality, but they are going backward,''
Mark Brumby, an analyst at Blue Oar Securities in London who advises
selling the stock, said in a research note. ``The managed houses are
likewise high-quality, but are also moving backward at quite a rate.''
Punch shares fell 30.5 pence, or 4.9 percent, to 587.5 pence in London.
They have dropped 23 percent this year after sliding 40 percent in 2007.
Food Sales
Including acquisitions and disposals, average profit at leased pubs rose 10
percent, Punch said, attributing this to the ``improved estate quality''
after the sale of pubs last year.
Food sales at company-managed pubs gained 1 percent in the period, Punch
said. The ban on indoor smoking in public places has spurred pub owners to
expand menus to win new customers.
The company, which holds its annual shareholder meeting today, also said a
reorganization of office staff will cut costs by 10 million pounds ($19.6
million) this year.
Punch had 8,450 outlets at the end of the 20-week period, of which about
nine-tenths are tenanted and the remainder are run by the company. The
landlord spent 202 million pounds last year to renovate pubs and sold 869
outlets. Punch said today it has spent 53 million pounds on renovations
this year.
To contact the reporter on this story: Amy Wilson in London at
awilson23@bloomberg,net .
Last Updated: January 16, 2008 11:56 EST
http :// www .bloomberg,com /apps/news?pid 601102&sid=akPEJ7lWbDYg
Punch Says Pub Sales Dropped on Smoking Ban, Consumer Spending
By Amy Wilson
Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Punch Taverns Plc, the largest U.K. pub landlord by
outlets, said sales have declined since the fiscal year started in August
because of a ban on indoor smoking in public places and slower consumer
spending.
Revenue fell 2.2 percent at company-managed properties open at least a year
in the 20 weeks ended Jan. 5, the Burton-on- Trent, England-based company
said today in a Regulatory News Service statement. Profit dropped 0.8
percent on that basis at outlets leased to tenant managers.
The smoking ban spurred pub owners to invest in expanded meal menus with
the aim of keeping customers coming back after they could no longer smoke
inside. While Punch is now getting a larger share of sales from food,
revenue growth has weakened, hurt by the prohibition and pressure on
incomes that discouraged some Britons from going out to pubs.
``Whilst we remain cautious over the short-term outlook for the sector, the
enduring popularity and appeal of the local community pub will continue and
we remain confident about the long-term prospects,'' Punch said in the
statement.
Punch shares fell 45.5 pence, or 6.9 percent, to 618 pence in London
yesterday. They have dropped 19 percent in 2008 as consumer spending has
been squeezed by higher mortgage payments, utility bills, taxes and food
prices.
The pub owner had almost 8,500 outlets at the end of the fiscal year, of
which nine-tenths were tenanted and the rest were run by the company. Food
sales at Punch-managed outlets gained 6 percent for the year. The landlord
also spent 202 million pounds ($398 million) to renovate pubs and sold 869
of its least-profitable outlets.
Punch released the statement as its annual shareholder meeting takes place
today.
To contact the reporter on this story: Amy Wilson in London at
awilson23@bloomberg,net .
Last Updated: January 16, 2008 02:22 EST
>
> The researchers analyzed available evidence and found:
They' ve bullshitted us enough !
Open your mouth sucker. (:>{0} <=======Paahauuktouui !
Nah Swaller
Feel Better ?
> The report was published online and in the July edition ofThe Lancet
> Oncology, an issue dedicated to Anal cancer.
> The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has more about
> smoke-free policies.
>
> SOURCE: Assholes @The Lancet Oncology, news release, June 30, 2008
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> Smoke-Free Policies Prove Effective
>
> Tuesday, July 1, 2008; 12:00 AM
> > The report, by an International Agency for Cancer Research working group,
> also found smoke-free rules don't affect business in restaurants or bars.
>
> The researchers analyzed available evidence and found:
>
I suggest you actually read the report. This was not a study but the
"findings of a working group of scientists reviewing the available
literature. Their findings were not as reported by their PR agency.
Here's some actual quotes:
""Studies of workers who are affected by workplace smoking
restrictions suggest that such policies are consistently associated
with an individual decrease in cigarette use of 2-4 cigarettes per
day." WOW!!!
"Although these mostly cross sectional studies cannot prove that
workplace smoking restrictions decrease cigarette use, two (WOW) such
stdies provided additional evidence for a causal effect." (WOW)
"Implementing compreshensive smoke-free policies has not had a net
negative economic effect on the restaurant and bar industry." This
statement from one study quoted does not reflect the numerous
businesses which have gone under because of these policies. It is in
itself meaningless.
"Most studies have not been able to identify the contribution of
decreased second-hand smoke exposure in non-smokers from policy-
related changes in smoking behaviour and publication bias cannot be
ruled out." So why the conclusion:.."there is strong evidence
suggesting that the introduction of smoke-free legislation decreases
heart disease mortality" ????? Once again, inappropriate conclusions
given the data. Can you spell junk science?
"...conclusive evidence for the effect of these policies on the
incidence of lung cancer will be difficult to obtain because most
mandated population databases on cancer morbidity and mortality do not
include smoking status, making it impossible to separate the effect on
health events of changes in second-hand smoke exposure from changes in
smoking behaviour." So they freely admit the baselessness of their
own report.
WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
conclusions of a yellowed press.
CigarBaron
On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> Smoke-Free Policies Prove Effective
>
> Tuesday, July 1, 2008; 12:00 AM
> > The report, by an International Agency for Cancer Research working group,
> also found smoke-free rules don't affect business in restaurants or bars.
>
> The researchers analyzed available evidence and found:
>
I suggest you actually read the report. This was not a study but the
"findings of a working group of scientists reviewing the available
literature. Their findings were not as reported by their PR agency.
Here's some actual quotes:
""Studies of workers who are affected by workplace smoking
restrictions suggest that such policies are consistently associated
with an individual decrease in cigarette use of 2-4 cigarettes per
day." WOW!!!
"Although these mostly cross sectional studies cannot prove that
workplace smoking restrictions decrease cigarette use, two (WOW) such
stdies provided additional evidence for a causal effect." (WOW)
"Implementing compreshensive smoke-free policies has not had a net
negative economic effect on the restaurant and bar industry." This
statement from one study quoted does not reflect the numerous
businesses which have gone under because of these policies. It is in
itself meaningless.
"Most studies have not been able to identify the contribution of
decreased second-hand smoke exposure in non-smokers from policy-
related changes in smoking behaviour and publication bias cannot be
ruled out." So why the conclusion:.."there is strong evidence
suggesting that the introduction of smoke-free legislation decreases
heart disease mortality" ????? Once again, inappropriate conclusions
given the data. Can you spell junk science?
"...conclusive evidence for the effect of these policies on the
incidence of lung cancer will be difficult to obtain because most
mandated population databases on cancer morbidity and mortality do not
include smoking status, making it impossible to separate the effect on
health events of changes in second-hand smoke exposure from changes in
smoking behaviour." So they freely admit the baselessness of their
own report.
WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
conclusions of a yellowed press.
CigarBaron
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
In article
<2ed491e7-280d-4b6a-a3f1-92c2bc8e7e87@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
CigarBaron <garbaron67j@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality_Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> [sillness snipped for brevity]
> WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
> article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> conclusions of a yellowed press.
Over at
http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/Secon
dhand_Smoke/default.aspx
Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
says:
"Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
(middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
around them.
We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
non-smokers."
So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
your views are based in reality.
In article
<2ed491e7-280d-4b6a-a3f1-92c2bc8e7e87@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
CigarBaron <garbaron67j@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality_Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> [sillness snipped for brevity]
> WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
> article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> conclusions of a yellowed press.
Over at
http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/Secon
dhand_Smoke/default.aspx
Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
says:
"Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
(middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
around them.
We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
non-smokers."
So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
your views are based in reality.
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
On Jul 5, 6:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article
> <2ed491e7-280d-4b6a-a3f1-92c2bc8e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
>
> CigarBaron <garbaron...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> > [sillness snipped for brevity]
> > WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
> > article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> > conclusions of a yellowed press.
>
> Over at http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health Issues/S...
> dhand Smoke/default.aspx
>
> Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
> says:
>
> "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
> cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
> in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
> as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
> (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
> public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
> exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
>
> Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
> conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
> of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
> secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
> to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
> children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
> around them.
>
> We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
> concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
> measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
> believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
> should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
> health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
> non-smokers."
>
> So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
> at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
> Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
> government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
> officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
> happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
> vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
> investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
> your views are based in reality.
Do you really think that big tobacco believes this or are they forced
to state this as policy given the hugh tobacco settlements?
CigarBaron
On Jul 5, 6:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article
> <2ed491e7-280d-4b6a-a3f1-92c2bc8e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
>
> CigarBaron <garbaron...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> > [sillness snipped for brevity]
> > WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
> > article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> > conclusions of a yellowed press.
>
> Over at http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health Issues/S...
> dhand Smoke/default.aspx
>
> Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
> says:
>
> "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
> cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
> in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
> as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
> (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
> public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
> exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
>
> Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
> conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
> of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
> secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
> to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
> children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
> around them.
>
> We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
> concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
> measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
> believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
> should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
> health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
> non-smokers."
>
> So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
> at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
> Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
> government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
> officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
> happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
> vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
> investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
> your views are based in reality.
Do you really think that big tobacco believes this or are they forced
to state this as policy given the hugh tobacco settlements?
CigarBaron
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
In article
<21918c98-1ac1-4577-a767-6b47633eb4db@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
CigarBaron <garbaron67j@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 6:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > In article
> > <2ed491e7-280d-4b6a-a3f1-92c2bc8e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
> >
> > CigarBaron <garbaron...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality_Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> > > [sillness snipped for brevity]
> > > WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
> > > article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> > > conclusions of a yellowed press.
> >
> > Over
> > at http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/S...
> > dhand_Smoke/default.aspx
> >
> > Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
> > says:
> >
> > "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
> > cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
> > in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
> > as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
> > (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
> > public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
> > exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
> >
> > Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
> > conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
> > of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
> > secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
> > to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
> > children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
> > around them.
> >
> > We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
> > concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
> > measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
> > believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
> > should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
> > health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
> > non-smokers."
> >
> > So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
> > at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
> > Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
> > government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
> > officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
> > happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
> > vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
> > investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
> > your views are based in reality.
>
> Do you really think that big tobacco believes this or are they forced
> to state this as policy given the hugh tobacco settlements?
Yes, I do. They were forced to state this because its true. By making
those statements, they shield themselves from some expensive litigation.
That does not mean the statements are false. If they were false, the
executives at tobacco companies would be in violation of their fiduciary
obligation to their stock holders.
In article
<21918c98-1ac1-4577-a767-6b47633eb4db@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
CigarBaron <garbaron67j@gmail,com > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 6:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > In article
> > <2ed491e7-280d-4b6a-a3f1-92c2bc8e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
> >
> > CigarBaron <garbaron...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > > On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality_Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> > > [sillness snipped for brevity]
> > > WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
> > > article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> > > conclusions of a yellowed press.
> >
> > Over
> > at http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/S...
> > dhand_Smoke/default.aspx
> >
> > Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
> > says:
> >
> > "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
> > cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
> > in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
> > as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
> > (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
> > public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
> > exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
> >
> > Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
> > conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
> > of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
> > secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
> > to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
> > children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
> > around them.
> >
> > We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
> > concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
> > measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
> > believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
> > should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
> > health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
> > non-smokers."
> >
> > So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
> > at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
> > Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
> > government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
> > officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
> > happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
> > vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
> > investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
> > your views are based in reality.
>
> Do you really think that big tobacco believes this or are they forced
> to state this as policy given the hugh tobacco settlements?
Yes, I do. They were forced to state this because its true. By making
those statements, they shield themselves from some expensive litigation.
That does not mean the statements are false. If they were false, the
executives at tobacco companies would be in violation of their fiduciary
obligation to their stock holders.
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
"CigarBaron" <garbaron67j@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:21918c98-1ac1-4577-
> > article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> > conclusions of a yellowed press.
>
> Over
> at http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/S...
> dhand_Smoke/default.aspx
>
> Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
> says:
>
> "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
> cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
> in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
> as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
> (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
> public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
> exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
>
> Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
> conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
> of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
> secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
> to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
> children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
> around them.
>
> We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
> concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
> measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
> believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
> should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
> health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
> non-smokers."
>
> So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
> at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
> Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
> government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
> officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
> happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
> vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
> investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
> your views are based in reality.
Do you really think that big tobacco believes this or are they forced
to state this as policy given the hugh tobacco settlements?
=======================================
In his valiant effort to convince us of exactly that Robert quoted us major
portions of the Master Settlement Agreement. None of which could, by any
interpretation, be taken to mean they had to support anything for which they
had evidence to the contrary. Robert had hoped that if he quoted enough
verbiage we wouldn't actually read it. All it boiled down to was they are no
longer allowed to buy off valid researchers.
"CigarBaron" <garbaron67j@gmail,com > wrote in message
news:21918c98-1ac1-4577-
> > article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> > conclusions of a yellowed press.
>
> Over
> at http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health_Issues/S...
> dhand_Smoke/default.aspx
>
> Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
> says:
>
> "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
> cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
> in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
> as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
> (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
> public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
> exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
>
> Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
> conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
> of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
> secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
> to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
> children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
> around them.
>
> We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
> concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
> measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
> believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
> should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
> health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
> non-smokers."
>
> So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
> at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
> Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
> government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
> officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
> happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
> vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
> investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
> your views are based in reality.
Do you really think that big tobacco believes this or are they forced
to state this as policy given the hugh tobacco settlements?
=======================================
In his valiant effort to convince us of exactly that Robert quoted us major
portions of the Master Settlement Agreement. None of which could, by any
interpretation, be taken to mean they had to support anything for which they
had evidence to the contrary. Robert had hoped that if he quoted enough
verbiage we wouldn't actually read it. All it boiled down to was they are no
longer allowed to buy off valid researchers.
Reply from: -- messaggio eliminato --
Date: 05 Jul 2008, 13:27
-- deleted messages --
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
On Jul 5, 7:27 am, The BIG N <ni...@verizon,net > wrote:
> , The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
> Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In 1999,
> the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed from 245
> million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases every
> year.Last year’s sales were still more than triple the early 1990s pre-
> boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places where smokers
> can’t light up.
>
I agree that the bans have had little effect on the cigar market.
CigarBaron
On Jul 5, 7:27 am, The BIG N <ni...@verizon,net > wrote:
> , The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
> Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In 1999,
> the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed from 245
> million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases every
> year.Last year’s sales were still more than triple the early 1990s pre-
> boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places where smokers
> can’t light up.
>
I agree that the bans have had little effect on the cigar market.
CigarBaron
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
CigarBaron wrote:
> On Jul 5, 7:27 am, The BIG N <ni...@verizon,net > wrote:
>> , The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
>> Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In
>> 1999, the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed
>> from 245 million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases
>> every year.Last year’s sales were still more than triple the early
>> 1990s pre- boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places
>> where smokers can’t light up.
>>
>
> I agree that the bans have had little effect on the cigar market.
> CigarBaron
Except for where you can smoke them.
Makes herfs a little more work.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
CigarBaron wrote:
> On Jul 5, 7:27 am, The BIG N <ni...@verizon,net > wrote:
>> , The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
>> Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In
>> 1999, the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed
>> from 245 million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases
>> every year.Last year’s sales were still more than triple the early
>> 1990s pre- boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places
>> where smokers can’t light up.
>>
>
> I agree that the bans have had little effect on the cigar market.
> CigarBaron
Except for where you can smoke them.
Makes herfs a little more work.
bernie
--
"Official ASC Shaman"
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
In article
<e1806322-8f51-4bcb-8623-b5d6b4468b47@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >,
The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:
> Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> <snip self-serving twaddle>
>
> Sorry idiots, The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
> Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In 1999,
> the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed from 245
> million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases every
> year.Last year¹s sales were still more than triple the early 1990s pre-
> boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places where smokers
> can¹t light up.
>
> ³There¹s never been a better time to be a cigar connoisseur,² said
> David ³Cigar Dave² Zeplowitz, whose Tampa-based radio show celebrating
> good smokes is heard in more than 100 markets and on satellite
> stations. ³The cigar industry is vibrant, it¹s healthy, even though
> there are more restrictions on peoples¹ right to enjoy a cigar than
> ever before.²
As long as those noxious cancer sticks are not smoked inside publicly
accessible business, it is of no concern to me.
In article
<e1806322-8f51-4bcb-8623-b5d6b4468b47@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >,
The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:
> Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> <snip self-serving twaddle>
>
> Sorry idiots, The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
> Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In 1999,
> the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed from 245
> million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases every
> year.Last year¹s sales were still more than triple the early 1990s pre-
> boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places where smokers
> can¹t light up.
>
> ³There¹s never been a better time to be a cigar connoisseur,² said
> David ³Cigar Dave² Zeplowitz, whose Tampa-based radio show celebrating
> good smokes is heard in more than 100 markets and on satellite
> stations. ³The cigar industry is vibrant, it¹s healthy, even though
> there are more restrictions on peoples¹ right to enjoy a cigar than
> ever before.²
As long as those noxious cancer sticks are not smoked inside publicly
accessible business, it is of no concern to me.
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
On Jul 5, 10:19 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article
> <e1806322-8f51-4bcb-8623-b5d6b4468...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >,
> The BIG N <ni...@verizon,net > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > <snip self-serving twaddle>
>
> > Sorry idiots, The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
> > Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In 1999,
> > the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed from 245
> > million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases every
> > year.Last year¹s sales were still more than triple the early 1990s pre-
> > boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places where smokers
> > can¹t light up.
>
> > ³There¹s never been a better time to be a cigar connoisseur,² said
> > David ³Cigar Dave² Zeplowitz, whose Tampa-based radio show celebrating
> > good smokes is heard in more than 100 markets and on satellite
> > stations. ³The cigar industry is vibrant, it¹s healthy, even though
> > there are more restrictions on peoples¹ right to enjoy a cigar than
> > ever before.²
>
> As long as those noxious cancer sticks are not smoked inside publicly
> accessible business, it is of no concern to me.
Then why do you incessantly and habitually troll here? C'mon pudge-
boy, we're still waiting for the "real" answer. Come clean, Twinkie.
Clear your mind and clean your soul.
Any errant smoke coming from this (a smokers) newsgroup that is
affecting your already dismal physical, mental, and emotional
conditions?
No smoke here except your own attempts at smoke and mirrors to
disguise your own neurotic and grotesque disdain for the lovers of the
leaf.
Talk to me junkfoodmeister. (A trolls dilemma - coming up with a
logical explanation)
TBN - lovin' this idiots one-man parade of fools.
On Jul 5, 10:19 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article
> <e1806322-8f51-4bcb-8623-b5d6b4468...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >,
> The BIG N <ni...@verizon,net > wrote:
>
>
>
> > Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
>
> > <snip self-serving twaddle>
>
> > Sorry idiots, The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
> > Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In 1999,
> > the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed from 245
> > million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases every
> > year.Last year¹s sales were still more than triple the early 1990s pre-
> > boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places where smokers
> > can¹t light up.
>
> > ³There¹s never been a better time to be a cigar connoisseur,² said
> > David ³Cigar Dave² Zeplowitz, whose Tampa-based radio show celebrating
> > good smokes is heard in more than 100 markets and on satellite
> > stations. ³The cigar industry is vibrant, it¹s healthy, even though
> > there are more restrictions on peoples¹ right to enjoy a cigar than
> > ever before.²
>
> As long as those noxious cancer sticks are not smoked inside publicly
> accessible business, it is of no concern to me.
Then why do you incessantly and habitually troll here? C'mon pudge-
boy, we're still waiting for the "real" answer. Come clean, Twinkie.
Clear your mind and clean your soul.
Any errant smoke coming from this (a smokers) newsgroup that is
affecting your already dismal physical, mental, and emotional
conditions?
No smoke here except your own attempts at smoke and mirrors to
disguise your own neurotic and grotesque disdain for the lovers of the
leaf.
Talk to me junkfoodmeister. (A trolls dilemma - coming up with a
logical explanation)
TBN - lovin' this idiots one-man parade of fools.
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
In article
<2e0509eb-5cf3-46b5-ae84-05bea8bdac1d@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:19 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > In article
> > <e1806322-8f51-4bcb-8623-b5d6b4468...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >,
> > The BIG N <ni...@verizon,net > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> >
> > > <snip self-serving twaddle>
> >
> > > Sorry idiots, The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
> > > Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In 1999,
> > > the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed from 245
> > > million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases every
> > > year.Last year¹s sales were still more than triple the early 1990s pre-
> > > boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places where smokers
> > > can¹t light up.
> >
> > > ³There¹s never been a better time to be a cigar connoisseur,² said
> > > David ³Cigar Dave² Zeplowitz, whose Tampa-based radio show celebrating
> > > good smokes is heard in more than 100 markets and on satellite
> > > stations. ³The cigar industry is vibrant, it¹s healthy, even though
> > > there are more restrictions on peoples¹ right to enjoy a cigar than
> > > ever before.²
> >
> > As long as those noxious cancer sticks are not smoked inside publicly
> > accessible business, it is of no concern to me.
>
> Then why do you incessantly and habitually troll here? C'mon pudge-
> boy, we're still waiting for the "real" answer. Come clean, Twinkie.
> Clear your mind and clean your soul.
I explained why I post here several times previously. Clear my mind? How
ironic of you to say that, considering your mind is addled by the
effects of nicotine and tobacco smoke.
> Any errant smoke coming from this (a smokers) newsgroup that is
> affecting your already dismal physical, mental, and emotional
> conditions?
Psst! Newsgroups do not generate smoke.
> No smoke here except your own attempts at smoke and mirrors to
> disguise your own neurotic and grotesque disdain for the lovers of the
> leaf.
>
> Talk to me junkfoodmeister. (A trolls dilemma - coming up with a
> logical explanation)
If you want to serve as an example of logical thinking, explain the
logic behind your decision to continue smoking. Hint: Its a trick
question because there is no logic behind smoking.
In article
<2e0509eb-5cf3-46b5-ae84-05bea8bdac1d@e53g2000hsa.googlegroups,com >,
The BIG N <nizo1@verizon,net > wrote:
> On Jul 5, 10:19 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> > In article
> > <e1806322-8f51-4bcb-8623-b5d6b4468...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups,com >,
> > The BIG N <ni...@verizon,net > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > Troll "Twinkie" Shane <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> >
> > > <snip self-serving twaddle>
> >
> > > Sorry idiots, The Big N disagrees. Smoking bans have little effect.
> > > Cigars, pipes, and pipe tobaccos are continually on the rise. In 1999,
> > > the numbers started another upward turn. Imports had climbed from 245
> > > million to 319.4 million cigars, with additional increases every
> > > year.Last year¹s sales were still more than triple the early 1990s pre-
> > > boom numbers, even though new laws keep adding places where smokers
> > > can¹t light up.
> >
> > > ³There¹s never been a better time to be a cigar connoisseur,² said
> > > David ³Cigar Dave² Zeplowitz, whose Tampa-based radio show celebrating
> > > good smokes is heard in more than 100 markets and on satellite
> > > stations. ³The cigar industry is vibrant, it¹s healthy, even though
> > > there are more restrictions on peoples¹ right to enjoy a cigar than
> > > ever before.²
> >
> > As long as those noxious cancer sticks are not smoked inside publicly
> > accessible business, it is of no concern to me.
>
> Then why do you incessantly and habitually troll here? C'mon pudge-
> boy, we're still waiting for the "real" answer. Come clean, Twinkie.
> Clear your mind and clean your soul.
I explained why I post here several times previously. Clear my mind? How
ironic of you to say that, considering your mind is addled by the
effects of nicotine and tobacco smoke.
> Any errant smoke coming from this (a smokers) newsgroup that is
> affecting your already dismal physical, mental, and emotional
> conditions?
Psst! Newsgroups do not generate smoke.
> No smoke here except your own attempts at smoke and mirrors to
> disguise your own neurotic and grotesque disdain for the lovers of the
> leaf.
>
> Talk to me junkfoodmeister. (A trolls dilemma - coming up with a
> logical explanation)
If you want to serve as an example of logical thinking, explain the
logic behind your decision to continue smoking. Hint: Its a trick
question because there is no logic behind smoking.
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
On Jul 5, 6:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article
> <2ed491e7-280d-4b6a-a3f1-92c2bc8e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
>
> CigarBaron <garbaron...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> > [sillness snipped for brevity]
> > WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
> > article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> > conclusions of a yellowed press.
>
> Over at http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health Issues/S...
> dhand Smoke/default.aspx
>
> Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
> says:
>
> "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
> cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
> in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
> as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
> (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
> public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
> exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
>
> Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
> conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
> of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
> secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
> to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
> children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
> around them.
>
> We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
> concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
> measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
> believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
> should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
> health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
> non-smokers."
>
> So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
> at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
> Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
> government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
> officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
> happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
> vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
> investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
> your views are based in reality.
This is the same company that is exporting its product to the Orient
and Third world countries! They know the American market has shrunk
considerably, and so have put their focus overseas!
On Jul 5, 6:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
> In article
> <2ed491e7-280d-4b6a-a3f1-92c2bc8e7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups,com >,
>
> CigarBaron <garbaron...@gmail,com > wrote:
> > On Jul 2, 4:55 pm, "Reality Check©" <Real...@Check,it > wrote:
> > [sillness snipped for brevity]
> > WOW.....such conclusive "evidence." I suggest your actually read the
> > article before blurting out press releases or the inappropriate
> > conclusions of a yellowed press.
>
> Over at http :// philipmorrisusa,com /en/cms/Products/Cigarettes/Health Issues/S...
> dhand Smoke/default.aspx
>
> Philip Morris appears to disagree with you. Here's what that web page
> says:
>
> "Public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke from
> cigarettes causes disease, including lung cancer and heart disease,
> in non-smoking adults, as well as causes conditions in children such
> as asthma, respiratory infections, cough, wheeze, otitis media
> (middle ear infection) and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. In addition,
> public health officials have concluded that secondhand smoke can
> exacerbate adult asthma and cause eye, throat and nasal irritation.
>
> Philip Morris USA believes that the public should be guided by the
> conclusions of public health officials regarding the health effects
> of secondhand smoke when deciding whether to be in places where
> secondhand smoke is present, or if they are smokers, when and where
> to smoke around others. Particular care should be exercised where
> children are concerned and adults should avoid smoking cigarettes
> around them.
>
> We also believe that the conclusions of public health officials
> concerning environmental tobacco smoke are sufficient to warrant
> measures that regulate cigarette smoking in public places. We also
> believe that where cigarette smoking is permitted, the government
> should require the posting of warning notices that communicate public
> health officials' conclusions that secondhand smoke causes disease in
> non-smokers."
>
> So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
> at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
> Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
> government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
> officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
> happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
> vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
> investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
> your views are based in reality.
This is the same company that is exporting its product to the Orient
and Third world countries! They know the American market has shrunk
considerably, and so have put their focus overseas!
Re: => Smoking Bans are VERY Effective says Lancet study ! <=
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 05:57:42 -0700 (PDT), sheder1 <turtletrot1@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>On Jul 5, 6:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
>> So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
>> at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
>> Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
>> government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
>> officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
>> happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
>> vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
>> investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
>> your views are based in reality.
>
>This is the same company that is exporting its product to the Orient
>and Third world countries! They know the American market has shrunk
>considerably, and so have put their focus overseas!
Actually, it is no longer the same company.
The Board of Directors of Altria Group, Inc. (Altria) voted on January 30, 2008, to
authorize the spin off of 100% of the shares of Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) to
Altria's shareholders. The distribution was made on March 28, 2008 (the Distribution
Date), to Altria shareholders of record as of 5:00 p.m. New York City Time on March 19,
2008 (the Record Date). Altria distributed one share of PMI for every share of Altria
stock outstanding as of the Record Date, based on the number of Altria shares outstanding
at 5:00 p.m. New York City Time on that date.
http :// www .altria,com /investors/2 2 1 pmispinoff.asp
On Sat, 5 Jul 2008 05:57:42 -0700 (PDT), sheder1 <turtletrot1@bellsouth,net > wrote:
>On Jul 5, 6:50 am, Shawn Hirn <s...@comcast,net > wrote:
>> So it seems to me, you ought to try making your case with the big brass
>> at Philip Morris and the rest of the big tobacco industry's companies.
>> Despite Robert Wagner's protestations, the First Amendment prevents the
>> government from barring big tobacco from pointing that public health
>> officials are using so called "junk science" if that was indeed what is
>> happening. This statement is made by the company who has the biggest
>> vested interest in agreeing with you and also a fiduciary duty to its
>> investors to agree with your conclusions if its executive officers felt
>> your views are based in reality.
>
>This is the same company that is exporting its product to the Orient
>and Third world countries! They know the American market has shrunk
>considerably, and so have put their focus overseas!
Actually, it is no longer the same company.
The Board of Directors of Altria Group, Inc. (Altria) voted on January 30, 2008, to
authorize the spin off of 100% of the shares of Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI) to
Altria's shareholders. The distribution was made on March 28, 2008 (the Distribution
Date), to Altria shareholders of record as of 5:00 p.m. New York City Time on March 19,
2008 (the Record Date). Altria distributed one share of PMI for every share of Altria
stock outstanding as of the Record Date, based on the number of Altria shares outstanding
at 5:00 p.m. New York City Time on that date.
http :// www .altria,com /investors/2 2 1 pmispinoff.asp
Next: => VT Bans Internet Cig Sales ! <= tax, restrict, humiliate
Previous: => Public Smoking Now ILLEGAL in Germany! <= tax, restrict, humiliate!
