Or why do I want peanut butter so bad every time I am bored?

These things are troubling. I wish I could be addicted to things that are good for me. Is anyone actually addicted to a healthy lifestyle? I would think not. They may trick themselves into thinking this, simply to make things easier. I seriously doubt whether someone craves sweating during a gym session or feeling muscles burn on a run. These things are love/hate. Not purely love. Addictions are strange creatures.

Notice for the Internet Usage

Internet Facility is provided to students for academic activities and e-mails. It is observed that few students are misusing the Internet facility by using excessive internet bandwidth for non-academic purposes. The students who are running the hubs are strictly informed to close their hubs. Computer Center will be starting official hub for the sharing of academic information and open source softwares.

If a student is found while doing so the network facility will be blocked by Computer Center for a semester. Further, a student will be called by a disciplinary committee and a severe disciplinary action will be taken.

This Notice from the Computer Center is creating waves all around. This isn't the first time, though, that the people in-charge of the Network have "acted".
Academic activities; wonder what it's definition is, in their dictionaries. It surely includes the following.

• Using Internet for 'academic activities' or emails, during class-room hours makes no sense.
• Anything 'academic' cannot have a size greater than 5 MB.
• Accessing version control systems ( svn, cvs et al ) cannot be classified 'academic'
• IRC cannot teach you anything. Don't ever dream of thinking it as 'academic' to hang out on #python or #emacs
• All 'academic' stuff is limited to the http(s) ports. You wouldn't need to use any other ports, ever.
• Any 'academic' activity fits within a span of 2 hours or can be done in blocks of 2 hours each, with gaps of 2 hours in between.
• 'Academic' stuff doesn't definitely contain key-words chosen by the "all-knowing" admins.

Moreover, the people in-charge who refused to allow the use of a computer in the CC as a server for on-campus repositories of GNU/Linux packages, now wish to host a 'hub' for sharing open-source softwares! There's already an official ftp server which hosts the academic info and a few useful softwares. I don't see how a hub would be different.

We don't have any disciplinary committees for people smoking in hostel rooms, causing a lot of trouble for others around them, but we are going to have them for hosting hubs. ( Well, a new law banning smoking in public places in India has been passed just a few days ago. Hopefully it'll work better than the older one, since now there's some pressure on the people in-charge of the public place. )

Also, it could be argued that college isn't meant only for 'academic' learning and a lots of other learning takes place here (and the hubs were definitely helping quite a bit) but I'll leave that for another day, probably. Also, I don't think 18+ year olds, people who are about to step into various big roles, leading the country need to be told how to make use of the facilities/resources available to them; A degree of freedom is indispensable, I believe.

I appreciate the efforts being made to improve the network situation here and also help the students get the most ( 'academically' ) out of their college experience, but I feel the situation deserves more careful handling.

Creative Anti-Smoking Ads

You should visit eBaum's WORLD if you like crazy stuff like...

1. Yachan The Karate Monkey
2. The Retro Encabulator - This video reminds me of listening to George Bush. note: Wikipedia defines this contraption this way: The Turboencabulator or turbo-encabulator is a fictional machine whose alleged existence became an in-joke and subject of professional humor among electrical engineers.

]]> http://somatiqua.wordpress.com/?p=55 Fri, 10 Oct 2008 20:21:37 +0000 somatiqua http://somatiqua.ru.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/unrequited-rapaciousness/ Day 26

Although humorous to myself, not actually following my plotted trajectory of topics is perhaps irksome to you.  I have conjured reveries of explicit sex and satan, but have not yet delivered.  Since the past two nights have in fact been filled with odd sex dreams, I thought it fitting to tie up some loose ends, cover all my bases, and tell you what bases were sadly not reached.

A few weeks ago, at the onset of the bizarre sex dreams, when I was deep in the throws of sexual voracity, I promised to tell of my conquests, regardless of outcome.  I don't intend to a) betray the privacy of my boyfriend b) get fired c) get socially shunned or d) get dumped.  Also, given the time of day, most of my beloved readers are currently at their respective places of employment and I don't want to necessitate any emergency bathroom runs.  Save it for tonite, kids.  I will, however, momentarily delve into the past two nights.  I will preface with the following...I haven't had any sex dreams for 1-2 weeks, which I think is largely unfortunate.  And to worsen matters, most of my dreams have been vivid nightmares involving repressed memories from my youth.  I just stepped down to level 2 patches, 14 mg versus the 21mg of past weeks.  The only differences I've detected are a marked increase in intense itching, and the return of that elusive and alluring beast, the bizzaro sex dream.

I must admit that the past two nights' dreams were enjoyable, but also frustrating in a blue balls sort of way.  The first dream involved a bartender I've never spoken to before, nor found particularly attractive in any way.  I'm not sure why he appeared in my dream.  I don't even go to that bar very often at all.  Anyway, he was a stripper in the dream. The setting was a sleazy, neontastic club with the appropriate amount of dark and dank.  The major problem of this dream was: I didn't get to fuck.  There was an ever present need and want, but no follow through.  And he was acting kind of bitchy and playing hard to get.  I don't need that in a fucking dream, jesus christ.  But, when I woke up and thought of the events, I wasn't altogether displeased.  The second dream involved a colleague who will go unnamed, and no, does not sit near me, or even on the same floor.  This dream was better than the first, to the extent that when I woke up to my first alarm (3 total) I quickly tried to fall asleep and continue the conquest.  I at least got to make out, and dare I say, go to second or third.  I don't think much beyond that happened, and I really want to know why the hell my dream lovers are such prudes.  I haven't seen this person at work today, but in the dream his girlfriend was kind of pissed, so maybe that's for the best.

I believe the overall point of this is that I am not getting satisfied in my dreams, but I'm getting closer to popping someone's cherry.

I set my alarm an hour earlier than the time I need to get up and then for one hour, I play Whack-a-Snooze.

:00 - beep buzz beep buzz WHACK

:09 - beep buzz beep buzz WHACK

Every nine minutes, my awesome reflexes sweep my arm across the bed and bring my hand crashing down on the snooze button- if it's a good day. Foreshadowing a crappy day are the mornings when listening to the alarm ring just doesn't seem so bad.

I like to think my morning game of Whack-a-Snooze prepares me for the glorious day when I'll need my reflexes to kick some ass on Family Feud:

WHACK! Dogs!

Survey says: X

Well, Family Feud aside, I still find it is a much better way to wake up in the morning. I am willing to sacrifice an hour of real sleep for a game of Whack-a-Snooze in order to wake up gradually. Unlike those who try to steal an extra hour of sleep and burst out of bed, still half asleep, and end up brushing their teeth with Prep H or whatever happens to be in the closest tube their squinty eyes can't read.  I get up after a game of Whack-a-Snooze feeling awake and slightly annoyed which is, to my estimation, the best way to greet the day. Plus, it is a great deal more practical than some of the other "Whack-a" games my brethren are wont to play first thing in the morning.

On a completely unrelated note, I have decided on a new "Best Thing Ever":

Discovery Channel's new TV spot. It makes me smile everytime.

Boom De Ah Dah Boom De Ah Dah...

“Whenever the wind stops howling over the mountains of Tora Bora, a deep, rich chuckle can presumably be heard echoing down the valleys. If he is still alive, nobody will be enjoying the plight of America more than Osama bin Laden. The anarchic carnage in the American financial and political system brings in sight a humiliating withdrawal and defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq. It even raises the possibility of the final collapse of the evil empire which Osama forecast.” British columnist Neil Lyndon

If you cant win em join em. Now that you have tried the rest, try the best—

—presenting The American Taliban. The US and UK have reviewed their strategies and plans and come up with a peace plan for Afghanistan. Only time will tell if the Americans will be smoking the peace pipe with the Taliban, but according to press reports the Saudis are playing a significant role in brining the Taliban and Karzai together.

Mr. Karzai has been a total failure. NATO and ISAF have failed to achieve its objectives. The economies of all Western countries are in a free fall. The Neocons sit discredited and maligned, seeking cover under new garb. Islampphobic Guiliani and Tancredo ware rejected by the electorate.

Before the American drones make space for Peace doves in Afghanistan, before the Olive Trees begin blossoming there is time to take stock of the crisis.

A few tactonic events have taken place in West Asia that has led to the new peace initiative:

1) Taking advantage of the confusion in the fledgling new coalition government in Pakistan, the US landed troops into FATA testing the resolve of the Pakistan Army. The Pakistan Army fired at the forces and apparently brought down one helicopter.

… Islamabad halted all fuel shipments to US forces in Afghanistan in the aftermath of a cross-border attack by US special forces in South Waziristan last month. “Any sustained interruption of supplies would seriously hamper our ability to operate in Afghanistan because 80% of the logistical support for the US military operating in Afghanistan flows through Pakistan,” it said, noting that Washington should explore alternative supply routes into Afghanistan in the event that ties with Islamabad worsen. ” Pakistan Policy Working Group” of the government-supported US Institute of Peace (USIP): The Next Chapter: The United States and Pakistan”.

2) A strong of RAW inspired suicide bombings, the rise of Indian agent, Bait Mehsud, and the bombing of the Islamabad Marriott by RAW agents of Indian agents disguised as Al-Qaeda brought the Americans to the clear understanding that things were getting out of control in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

3) The total ineffectively of the Karzai government to control any major chunk of Afghanistan or even Kabul.

4) The inability of NATO and ISAF to defeat and reverse the tide of the 39 insurgent groups that control a major section of Afghanistan.

5) The Financial and economic crisis that has forced Britain to withdraw from Iraq and cannot continue to transfer the forces from one theater of war (Iraq) to another (Afghanistan).

6) NATO and ISAF refused to be drawn into the Cambodiazation of the Afghan war–namely the incursion into Pakistan.

What are the implications of a Taliban ruling Afghanistan? The Removal of Musharraf was a pivotal in putting in place the new strategy.

The report argues that the advent of a civilian-led government in Islamabad during the past year and ultimately the resignation of former president General Pervez Musharraf, combined with the forthcoming change of administrations in the US, marks an important opportunity for Washington “to rethink its entire approach to Pakistan”. Pakistan Policy Working Group” of the government-supported US Institute of Peace (USIP): The Next Chapter: The United States and Pakistan”.

It all came tumbling down. For the past decade the US has attempted to create new realities in Afghanistan. It now thinks that it has sufficiently destroyed the old structures that were in place. It may be grossly mistaken about this. After all the US is only influential in cantonments and US bases. The policy makers may not understand the deep roots of affinity that run between the Pakhtuns. The Paktuns make up a significant part of the Pakistani Army and the Pakhtuns are very influential in the government. With Zardari in power, the US may feel that the tentacles of the ISI may not be as deep as they used to be. In its naivete, the US may feel that the ISI has been defanged. The status quo has been disrupted and now the Americans want a new breed of Taliban to take over Kabul. Afghanistan has now once again been declared an area of influence of Pakistan. It has taken the a decade to acknowledge the fact that the Taliban cannot be defeated.

India with dreams of super power status is the biggest loser in this peace deal. The 107 consulates should be packing their bags. One cannot imagine any circumstance where the current level of Indian influence has any staying power in Afghanistan. The 10,000 Indian soldiers ostensibly there to protect their construction workers will have to go back where they came from. The construction work will be slowed down and wound up. The Indian presence follow the same residence that allowed Lord Curzon to pursue a policy of On to the Oxus, but had to retreat after the defeats at Maiwand etc. The Indian delegation had to pack up its bags and leave Kabul after the Soviets left Afghanistan. A similar fate awaits India.

Pakistan will have to tread carefully. An overly aggressive policy in Afghanistan will rankle many of the powers to be. Slowly but surely, the Durand Line has to be erased, and the inevitable union between Afghanistan Pakistan will emerge.

The basic implication is that most of the NATO and ISAF forces will withdraw from Afghanistan. When the Soviets withdrew it took the Afghans a decade to purge Afghanistan of the remnants of a decade long Soviet Occupation. It may take the Afghans a bit longer. Mr. Karzai surely will either be hanging from the nearest tree or enjoying life on one of the islands that he has purchased for himself.

The long term interests of the US may or may not be secure in Kabul. For a decade it has tried itself and tried to use the Indians in controlling Kabul. Both policies have failed miserably. Now the US has not only acknowledged the role of Pakistan in Afghan affairs, it is now using the good offices of Pakistani politicians to broker a peace agreement between the warring factions. This is exactly the agreement that Pakistan has been espousing for more than a decade. This was the agreement to which the Taliban had agreed to in September 2001. However at the time “Imperial Hubris” did not allow the Neocon policy makers to listen to sanity. The American Tin ear did not listen to the sagacious advice given to Washington by Islamabad. Pakistani advice was ignored and Afghanistan and Iraq were bombed to smithereens. Sadly in doing so the US actually strengthened Anti-Americanism in the world.

Having learnt their lesson the Russians have tried to stay out of the conflict in West Asia. Now the Chinese and the Russians will vie for access to warm waters.

Various American and British newspapers are already reporting on the peace deal.

Against the backdrop of a string of suicide bombings in Pakistan, British, American, and United Nations officials are grappling with the idea of a negotiated settlement with the Taliban. Christian Science Monitor October 6th, 2008

Mr Karzai said his envoys had travelled to Saudi -Arabia and neighbouring Pakistan to try to kick-start negotiations that are increasingly seen as the only solution to the violent insurgency gripping Afghanistan. The Financial Times

The chorus about the defeat in Afghanistan is now plastered all over the media. Perception is reality. The reality has caught up with the perception of the war in Afghanistan.

The departing commander of British forces in Afghanistan says he believes the Taleban will never be defeated. Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith, the commander of 16 Air Assault Brigade… told The Times

that in his opinion, a military victory over the Taliban was “neither feasible nor supportable.”…He indicated that the only way forward was to find a political solution that would include the Taliban. The Sunday Times

The defeat in Afghanistan is complete. Only the announcement is left. Well now the announcement also just came in. The war in Afghanistan is over—Now there is a plethora of news stories endorsing the writings.

ISLAMABAD (AFP) — Former Pakistani premier Nawaz Sharif is willing to broker talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban, his spokesman said Tuesday, amid reports that Sharif is already playing a key role.

The offer came after a Pakistani newspaper reported that Sharif, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia, is helping to seek a settlement between the hardline Taliban and the US-backed regime of President Hamid Karzai. AFP October 6th, 2008

The story of Afghanistan and colonialism begins a long time ago. British tried to take up White Man’s burden in Afghanistan.

NATO Lessons: 1880 UK defeat at Maiwand-Afghanistan

NATO Lessons: 1880 UK defeat at Maiwand-Afghanistan
Is NATO committing suicide in Afghanistan.
NATO lessons: UK defeat at Maiwind may shed some light on today’s situation.

1) There are news items that Iran has been helping some of the insurgent anti-American groups in Afghanistan–most specifically there are reports that Iran has been supporting Gulbadin Hikmatyar.

2) The US has been pressuring NATO and ISAF to help the US in a Iraq-like surge in Afghanistan? The UK has made it clear that it is in no position to support the war in Iraq and is withdrawing its troops from Iraq next year. The redeployment of those forces to Afghanistan is no longer economically feasible for the United Kingdom.

3) In response to the growing pressure, various American, UN and British commanders have publicly announced that “the war in Afghanistan is not winnable.

4) The Saudis were pressured by the US to assist in brining Mr. Karzai and the Taliban to the “peace table”.

5) Mr. Nawaz Sharif the ex-Prime Minister of Pakistan and the Opposition Leader was the bridge between Mr. Karzai and the representatives of Mullah Omar

6) Apparently the US has agreed to the Taliban coming back to power on the condition that they sever the links with Al-Qaeda

7) The Taliban have demanded that they will only participate in a government if the NATO, ISAF, and US occupation forces are withdrawn from the Hindu Kush

SOLUTIONS FOR AFGHANS Saving the Pashtuns of Afghania from Afghanistan. Eradicating the Pashtun plight and ending occupation.

Nawaz mediating between Taliban, Karzai

ISLAMABAD: PML-N Quaid Nawaz Sharif is playing a key role in conjunction with Saudi Arabia in bringing about a negotiated settlement between the Taliban and the Karzai regime to pave the way for withdrawal of the US and Nato forces from Afghanistan.
“It was for this precise reason that the PML-N chief has put off his departure from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan for another two days,” an informed source told The News. According to his new programme, the PML-N chief will return home on Tuesday.

“Nawaz Sharif was invited by Saudi King Abdullah and he undertook the present visit to stay in Saudi Arabia for nearly two weeks to talk about the nitty-gritty of the peace process,” the source said.

The day the PML-N chief landed in Saudi Arabia, he had a 90-minute meeting with the Saudi monarch, the source said, adding different national and regional issues, particularly the ongoing wave of terrorist attacks in Pakistan and bloodshed in Afghanistan, were discussed in detail.

According to a US media report on Monday, secret peace talks have been held between the Afghan government and the Taliban in the Saudi Kingdom. Both sides agreed to resolve the Afghan issue through dialogue, it said.

While PML-N leaders, closely working with Nawaz Sharif, were aware of Nawaz Sharif’s objective behind his extended stay in Saudi Arabia, sources close to President Asif Zardari were oblivious of the PML-N chief’s “role” and “efforts” in bringing the warring sides on the negotiating table.

“Nawaz Sharif is serving as a bridge,” one political source said and added the PML-N chief is an “old hand” on Afghanistan. During his two stints as prime minister, Nawaz Sharif had developed good working relations with almost all the Afghan Mujahideen leaders, who were now largely irrelevant because of the fighting strength of the Taliban.

The source referred to the March 1993 Islamabad accord, which eight Afghan Mujahideen leaders had signed because of Nawaz Sharif’s efforts.Nawaz Sharif stayed just a few days in Pakistan after his return from Britain and then flew into Saudi Arabia. In London, British Foreign Secretary David Miliband had a meeting with him in which Nato forces’ operations in Afghanistan and constant failures to control the situation figured prominently.

Sources believed that the Saudi initiative in which Nawaz Sharif had his own role has the backing of Washington and London.A British general has been quoted as saying that the war in Afghanistan can’t be won. Additionally, there have been reports of willingness of Washington and London for holding talks with the Taliban, especially after the incapacitation of the Karzai regime.

NATO needs 400,000 soldiers in Afghanistan. According to British and American General, even that would not be enough to defeat the Taliban. No country or group of countries have that amount of manpower to spare. The financial crisis in America and Europe makes it virtually impossible for the UK to send in an additional 30,000 troops to Afghanistan. The Europeans and NATO is unable and unwilling to continue the war in Afghanistan.

There is not military solution to the Afghan quagmire. We have been advocating a more comprehensive solution for a decade. Replacing Mr. Karzai with Zalmay Khalilzad is like moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. The whole game is over. The US and European media too busy with the US elections has still not caught up with the reality of the fiasco in Kabul. The end is near.

Rupee News for several years has proposed that the Pakhtun areas of Afghanistan should be handed over to the Pakistani military and NATO and ISAF should leave Pakistan. Now this is affirmed by some American Thinktanks. Saving the Pashtuns of Afghania from Afghanistan. Eradicating the Pashtun plight and ending occupation. (http://rupeenews.com/2008/01/31/saving-pashtuns-of-old-afghanistan-in-afghania-eradicating-pashtun-plight-ending-occupation/)

Solution: ‘Pakistani boots’ on the ground inside Afghanistan (http://rupeenews.com/2008/09/06/solution-%e2%80%98pakistani-boots-on-the-ground-inside-afghanistan/)…a more compliant president Zardari will work with the new Afghan president Zalmay Khalilzad (expected to win the next elections in Afghanistan). Zalmay Khalilzad and Asif Zardari have been involved in a long term tet-a-tet even before the murder of Ms. Benzair Bhutto. Solution: ‘Pakistani boots’ on the ground inside Afghanistan

"The waterpipe smoker may therefore inhale as much smoke during one session as a cigarette smoker would inhale consuming 100 or more cigarettes."
-World Health Organization Advisory

Hookah. It's a pastime. You can sit down; relax with a group of friends for an hour or so and smoke some sweetly flavored steam.... Right?

Well, no. That's the pretty side of the issue. Here's the dirty end:

Hookah is purported to have been invented by an Indian physician, Hakim Abul Fath, around the 1600's as an alternative and safer method for smoking tobacco. He believed that the smoke, once passed through water, would be rendered harmless. (1)

Subsequently, this belief has spread and is often used to support hookah use over cigarette or other forms of tobacco use.

From a World Health Organization advisory on the health effects of water pipe smoking:

"A waterpipe smoking session may expose the smoker to more smoke over a longer period of time than occurs when smoking a cigarette. Typically, a cigarette smoker will take 8-12, 40-75ml puffs over about 5-7 minutes and inhale 0.5 to 0.6 liters of smoke.

In contrast, waterpipe smoking sessions typically last 20-80 minutes, during which the smoker may take 50-200 puffs which range from about 0.15 to 1 liter each. The waterpipe smoker may therefore inhale as much smoke during one session as a cigarette smoker would inhale consuming 100 or more cigarettes." (1)

Water does absorb a small amount of the nicotine, yet, as the WHO advisory states, "it is likely that the reduced concentration of nicotine in the waterpipe smoke may result in smokers inhaling higher amounts of smoke and thus exposing themselves to higher levels of cancer-causing chemicals and hazardous gases." (1)

Due to the nicotine, heavy metals and carbon monoxide (and various other toxic chemicals) that are in hookah smoke even after it passes through the water, hookah smokers are at a heightened risk of developing cancer, hearth disease, respiratory disease and problems with pregnancy. (1)

Some studies show that hookah smoke contains 802mg of tar, compared to 22.3mg for cigarettes. Hookah smoke also contains 145mg of carbon monoxide compared to 17.3mg for cigarettes. That means, regardless of the nicotine intake, there is about 36 times the tar and 8 times the carbon monoxide in hookah than in cigarettes. (2)

Studies on hookah's health effects are lacking, and more need to be performed. Current science shows that hookah is just as dangerous for a person's health as cigarettes.

Personally, I feel that outlawing psychoactive drugs is an uphill battle, at best. It's extremely hard to impose and expensive to fund the law enforcement.

Hookah is considered to be a fairly healthy alternative to cigarettes, and most people who would not ever consider smoking a cigarette smoke hookah regularly. This misconception has contributed to more hookah users who are unaware of the toxicity involved in this smoking pattern.

Moral of the story: More people need to be educated on the severe dangers of hookah and the misconceptions about it and more research needs to be done to support this educational initiative.

1. http://www.who.int/tobacco/global_interaction/tobreg/Waterpipe%20recommendation_Final.pdf

2. Alan Shihadeh and Rawad Saleh, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons, Carbon Monoxide, "Tar", and Nicotine in the Mainstream Smoke Aerosal of the Narghile Water Pipe, American University of Beirut, 2005, 7.

Four separate groups have filed complaints with the Office of Research Integrity, Health and Human Services against Ex-Surgeon General Carmona's 2006 Report.

Opponents of Ohio Bans filed a complaint against the scientific misconduct (manipulation of research) of the economic assessment/impact of smoking bans. According to Carmona's report, smokefree policies do not harm business. Two thirds of the studies in Carmona's report were either authored or co-authored by Stanton Glantz, Director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at the University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, who is not an economist. He and his university have profited heavily by anti-tobacco funding and grants. Absolutely no studies or reports conducted by economists or trade organizations were cited in Carmona's report, although many sources were available at the time. For example, the highly regarded Deloitte and Touche reported a study for the National Restaurant Association study (2004), the Ridgeway Economic Associates New York Nightlife Association/Empire State Restaurant and Tavern Association Study (05/12/2004), and Terry L. Clower, Ph.D. & Bernard L. Weinstein, Ph.D. completed a study for Dallas Restaurant Association Study (10/01/2004). "This is a glaring and obvious attempt to stack the deck in favor of anti-tobacco versus the real damage done to the hospitality industry. How was it even possible that the highest medical authority in this country got away with this?" asks Pam Parker of Opponents of Ohio Bans.

The Hawaii Smokers Alliance filed a complaint against the public statement "there is no safe level of exposure". In addition to violating the basic tenets of toxicology, this actually crosses the line of fabricating results because the SG is the highest healthcare authority in the United States of America and his press release to announce the results of his meta-analysis truly is his report to the American public. "We are committed to holding those who have chosen to misinform or misrepresent information to the general public accountable for such reckless and egregious behavior. Such misrepresentations are solely responsible for the destruction and incalculable financial harm to businesses both large and small across the nation," states Jolyn Tenn of Hawaii Smokers Alliance.

Ban the Ban Wisconsin's complaint cites the haphazard use of RRs or "relative risks". Coupled with the fact that the larger studies not included in Carmona's report would have diminished the already unacceptably low RRs, questionable studies inflated the appearance of RRs. Moreover, the relative risks don't appear to be discussed with respect to absolute risks. In the ORI's terms, this is a significant departure from accepted practice in the relevant field. Early in Carmona's report, a brief subsection stated that, "The quantitative results of the meta-analyses, however, were not determinate in making causal inferences in this Surgeon General's report." Clearly, in the absence of hard evidence, the Surgeon General chose to pontificate according to his pre-determined results. Carmona couldn't have deviated any further from accepted practice in the relevant field without stepping in something.

Citizens Freedom Alliance's complaint is centered on "changing and omitting data". The data for a meta-analysis is the studies collected from the body of research, but the SG's meta-analysis omits relevant studies such as the Enstrom/Kabat study, belittles other large relevant studies, includes highly questionable studies, and relies heavily on the thoroughly discredited 1992 EPA report (which was not only discredited by a Federal Judge, but by three congressional committees). By omitting relevant long-term, large studies as well as relying heavily on discredited reports, the Surgeon General both changed and omitted data in his meta-analysis of research on secondhand smoke (SHS)/environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), which did indeed ensure that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. He, therefore, committed "research misconduct" as defined by the "falsification" according to the "Public Health Service Policies on Research Misconduct". According to Gary Nolan, U.S. Regional Director for Citizens Freedom Alliance, "Americans should be angry about this waste of tax payer dollars. I truly believe this study was released for purely political reasons and is an insult to every honorable scientist in the world. The result of Carmona's ETS study was to needlessly ruin business, cost jobs and harm the economies of local communities and states across the country. He should be ashamed of his actions."

Dr. Michael Siegel is a prominent doctor specializing in Preventative Medicine and Public Health. From his commentary on Carmona's 2006 report, he is quoted as saying, "The Surgeon General is publicly claiming that brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer. But there is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Certainly, no evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report to support this claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General's report draws no such conclusion." http://tinyurl.com/5fq7r6

Many researchers and prominent organizations have written about the powerful influences of the anti-tobacco activists. Dr. Carl Phillips, University of Alberta School of Public Health, Edmonton, Canada wrote "Warning: Anti-Tobacco Activism May Be Hazardous to Epidemiological Science". http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/pdf/1742-5573-4-13.pdf . Other articles such as "Science and Secondhand Smoke: the Need for a Good Puff of Skepticism" by Sidney Zion (Skeptic, Volume 13, Number 3, 2007), "Where's the Consensus on Second Hand Smoke?" by Joseph Bast of Heartland Institute, and "Did Carmona Read His Own Report?" by Jacob Scullum with Reason Magazine 06/29/2006http://www.reason.com/blog/show/114497.html are but a small representation of the articles that give a glimpse of how damaging the epidemic of anti-smoking is.

The fact is, the Surgeon General title is one that is held in highest esteem. It is the medical authority in this country. When, for whatever reason, that position is compromised into producing a report that wreaks the damage his report has had on this country, that authority should be held accountable. Carmona's 2006 report is the sole reason given for several smoking bans, Ohio's ban for one. These bans have had devastating financial impacts on businesses. The worst offense is the offense against the American People and the Scientific Community. People will no longer be able to trust the word of the person holding the Surgeon General title. The damage to the science of Epidemiology is irreversible. The good news is many ethical doctors and scientists can no longer remain silent about the abuses of Epidemiology and are starting to speak out. "Because they've committed a huge fraud on the American public. And because they should be held accountable for that. They should be held accountable to the same rules of corporate and individual behavior as everybody else. It's very simple." This is a quote by Stanton Glantz during a PBS interview about Big Tobacco. Shouldn't the same apply to the Surgeon General?

This ACORN group and their ties to voter registration fraud stories across the country - especially in Indianapolis and Las Vegas gets very little press from LSM yet to me, seems very important.  Indianapolis has 30,000 more registered voters than those who are of voting age.  Voter registrations done by ACORN are being investigated.  Why the lack of concern LSM?  Slanted support for a certain "Chosen" candidate maybe?  Methinks the bias is shining on brightly.

McCain says "that one" referring to Obama at the debate.  CNN (mainly) and the NYT tries to make it a racial issue.  Nobody bites.  Move on.

Speaking of the debate - B O R I N G.  How about the issues, my friends?  I could really care less of hearing about the voting records AGAIN.  And Tom Brokaw - plah-lese.  For the first time in my life, I feel he needs to be put out to pasture.  Hey Tom, Dan Rather is calling.  Time to retire.

Obama admits to bumming smokes while on the campaign trail.  Gross.  Smokers are nasty and have no self-control.

The Washington Times has a story saying Obama tried to sway Iraqi leaders back in August to stall the Bush Iraq withdrawl plan until after the election so the Dems could take credit for it.  Read it here.  I wonder how much coverage - if any - this will get in the LSM.

Congress passes a pork-laden bailout plan with sweetheart line items (like wooden arrows for children) that does nothing to unfreeze the credit market or stabilize the stock market.  Hmmm.  Typical lack of leadership.  I say vote anti-incumbant on November 4.  If he (or she) is in there now, vote them out.  Let's start with a fresh slate.

Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, two leaders on financial committees in Congress have some shady ties to Countrywide (Dodd) and Freddie Mac (Frank).  Did favorable rates for personal mortgages (Dodd) and relationships with high ranking officers (Frank) lead to turning the other way while certain possible unethical things were happening?  Here's a prediction:  if O gets in - no investigation.  If M gets in - investigation.

Gas at a local Chevron near my house dropped from 3.71 in the morning to 3.51 in the afternoon.  A rare sight.  Gas falling as rapidly as it rose a couple of weeks ago.  And now, some people are saying ti could be below $3 by Thanksgiving.  Let's go lower!  I promised Sperm a second weekday dinner night if gas fell below $3.

And the best for last - Cobb Commissioner Kesting (allegedly) hires a voodoo priestess to curse the other candidate if her district's election.  Of course, she denies it.  You cannot make shit like this up!  Maybe she should join the Cynthia Moobat ticket over in the Green Party.

I have always strongly opposed smoking. Keep bugging my friends who smoke to quit (well made P quit...despite the "great" relationship we have, I should commend him for not smoking. It has been close to 8 years!)

Please quit smoking. There has been enough research and publications to show how harmful it is. I will keep to my way of asking my friends to quit, like a friend of mine said to me; you are doing your job which is to keep telling me to quit. Hope he quits sometime and soon. :)

Before I was always lame and wished for world peace but now I have a new wish, to make smoking ILLEGAL. If the government is willing to spend millions of dollars on anti-smoking advertisements, they may as well save that cash and invest in actually BANNING the cigarettes. Those ads are not effective for at least 80% of the smokers out there because even the ones living here are ignoring it. Smoking does not benefit society in any way. It wastes people's money, it pollutes the environment and most importantly it gives you fucking lung cancer and it's not normally the one's who smoke that get it. The PASSIVE smokers have a higher chance of getting it than the actual smokers. I often ask, why do people smoke? I just don't get it. I understand why people drink, I understand why people smoke weed and I even understand why people do drugs but why do people smoke cigarettes? It doesn't make you feel good, it doesn't make you happy, IT.DOES.NOTHING!

I feel disgusting living here. I originally wanted to tell my friend to come over so we could study together but how am I suppose to invite someone over when the house smells like this! Why do I have to live with this? Why ruin a perfectly fine house? I'm going to have to sleep outside with my dogs soon if this continues. A few smokes a day, I can hack as long as it doesn't enter my areas but about 1 cigarette every 30 minutes? That's just fucking ridiculous.

Someone go bomb every single cigarette factory that is present on this planet, I'm THAT close to doing it myself.

To add to this, what can be worse than seeing a FEMALE smoking? I'm not a guy but I still get put off when I see a woman smoking. Not a nice sight at all.

I HATE smoking with a FUCKING passion!

end rant.

It's been a while since I've last been this angry...
I think I have every right to be angry this time.

If any smokers are reading, please tell me: WHY DO YOU SMOKE???

This post deserves to be posted in all my blogs.

I really didn't want to say all this about them but it just needed to be let out.

But, ridiculous laws are a part of worldly culture. From a law in Denver that forbids people from loaning vacuum cleaners to other residences, to a law in Wyoming that prohibits people from taking photographs of rabbits during the month of June, many rules and regulations simply make no sense. There is even a law in Champaign, Illinois that makes it illegal for someone to pee in the mouth of their next door neighbor, undoubtedly ruining the weekend plans of innumerable Midwest citizens.

It was only a matter of time before this law lunacy filtered into the tobacco industry. Recently, they've become more obvious, branding our world with a "No Smoking" sign. Not limited to any one state, or any one country, strange smoking laws can be found almost anywhere.

Australia: Australia has a law that bans children from purchasing cigars or cigarettes. This isn't particularly strange as many countries have similar regulations. However, Australia stands out because children, though they can't purchase tobacco, are legally allowed to consume it. As long as they get an adult to buy it for them, Australian children are freely allowed to smoke a cigar in front of a policeman, a parent, a teacher, or even a kangaroo.

New Orleans, Louisiana: In a city known for guilty pleasures - home to everything from Mardi Gras to extravagant casinos - cigar and cigarette smoking are a bit tamed. New Orleans possesses a law that prohibits anyone participating in a carnival or parade to use tobacco products while doing so. In addition to this, a "No Smoking" sign must be visibly attached to all parade floats, not that any onlookers, with troves of nearby women attempting to get beads, are really paying attention.

Zion, Illinois: Just when you think you've heard it all in regards to rules, there is a law in Zion that prohibits owners from giving a lit cigar to any of their domesticated animals. While the law specifically names dogs and cats, it surely applies to any kind of pet: hamster, gerbil, and goldfish. None of these pets are allowed to smoke cigars, no matter how much they beg and plead.

France: Colonel Mustard, in the Boiler Room, with an ashtray. That's right, an ashtray. In France, ashtrays are considered deadly weapons. Perhaps this is because people can use ashtrays to hit others, or perhaps it's because ashtrays are known to prey on unsuspecting victims, jumping them in alleys and blinding them with a cloud of dust. But the most likely reason is simply because it's France. A nation reputed for passivity, some people may think the citizens of France are homicidally threatened by the cast from The Brady Bunch. We do hear that Marcia's packing.

New Jersey: While a sign reading "Do Not Feed the Animals" is common in many zoos, New Jersey takes this notion one step further. Passing a law that prohibits people from giving local zoo animals cigars or whiskey, the creatures in this captivity obviously have no fun. But, being that whiskey is the only liquor specifically named, it leads one to wonder if providing the animals with a cold beer would be equally frowned upon. If not, perhaps the animals would be able to smoke a cigar on occasion. Ya know, socially.

South Bend, Indiana: Keeping with the animal kingdom theme, in South Bend it is illegal to make a monkey smoke a cigarette. This law goes back to 1924 when a monkey was found guilty of the crime of smoking a cigarette and forced to pay a fine of 25 dollars, as well as trial costs. We're not sure what happened when the monkey, recently out of work, wasn't able to come up with the money. Perhaps, he was prohibited from partaking in any form of Evolution.

Newport, Rhode Island: Resting on the East Coast, Newport has a law that prohibits people from smoking a pipe after sunset. Any other time is fine, but once the sun sets, this is one law the avid tobacco lover can not put in his pipe and smoke.

Marceline, Missouri: In this Missouri town, minors are allowed to purchase rolling papers and tobacco, but they aren't allowed to purchase lighters. If only, if only, there was a way to get matches easily, perhaps from a local restaurant or café. Maybe in a perfect world, the ability to find matches would appear.

Obviously, this world contains a great number of laws that are founded with about as much reason as turning down a million dollars or volunteering to stay on the Titanic. But, the cigar smoker can rest assured that it's not just their luxury that falls victim to this madness. These kinds of laws are everywhere, from prohibiting humming to saying its illegal to drive in a housecoat, these kind of rules put the word "awful" in the word "lawful." And, they make one wonder if more laws can be passed, perhaps a rule that replaces every cigarette with its superior: a cigar.

ft island anti-smoking campaign CF. thats right, smoking IS gross. SAY NO.

vid credit: xHarudo

and for those of you that smoke, its hard to quit i bet, but dont give up quitting!! be the right kind of quitter!

Vă mulţumesc pentru comentarii, în special pentru faptul că v-aţi prins că sînt ambiţios. Sînt dezamăgit, însă, că nu reuşiţi să depăşiţi nişte clişee care nu îi caracterizează pe oamenii inteligenţi. Întîi de toate, nu există ambiţie prostească atunci cînd ai dreptate, în special dacă dreptatea ta este împotriva unei majorităţi îndoielnice. Şi majoritatea, apropo, e relativă... În România, de exemplu, majoritatatea o reprezintă fumătorii şi nu cred că v-ar conveni să fiţi obligaţi prin lege să aprindeţi o cartonată la micul dejun dacă nu vă face plăcere.

Majoritatea de aici, din UK, e nefumătoare, dar asta nu înseamnă că deţine adevărul absolut. Majoritatea a mai comis nedreptăţi de-a lungul istoriei - să ne amintim că, nu cu mult timp în urmă, majoritatea considera că femeile sau negrii nu au dreptul să voteze, că ţiganii trebuie ţinuţi la marginea societăţii, că homosexualitatea este o boală psihică de natură să fie tratată cu şocuri electrice sau cu ani de puşcărie, că femeile cu apetit sexual ceva mai mare sînt nimfomane pentru care nu există decît o soluţie - extirparea clitorisului, că pămîntul este plat, că omul nu poate să zboare cu mijloace mai grele decît aerul şi aşa mai departe. Să nu uităm că tot majoritatea l-a ales pe Adolf Hitler, în mod democratic, cancelar al Germaniei.

Nu e deloc întîmplător faptul că eu compar campaniile de demonizare a fumătorilor cu propaganda celui de-al Treilea Reich. Adolf Hitler a fost unul dintre cei care au prigonit tutunul, dar nu a fost primul. Imperiul Otoman şi cel Ţarist au avut grijă să pedepsească fumătorii cu moartea, iar americanii au încercat să interzică tutunul înaintea sceleratului nefumător şi vegetarian Adolf Hitler. Expresia "fumat pasiv" este, de altfel, un copyright al savanţilor Reichului. Aş putea spune, în plus, că Hitler poate că ar fi fost mai calm şi mai relaxat dacă îşi permitea bucuria unei ţigări şi poate - cine ştie - îl omora cancerul înainte să pornească grozăvia aia de război. Apropo, nazistul şef, campionul luptei cu tutunul era dependent de amfetamină, copii, un drog sintetic care te face hiperactiv în primă fază, apoi schizofrenic şi paranoic, oricît ai fi fost cîndva de normal... Cine ştie cîte ordine care au curmat mii de vieţi au fost date de Hitler sub influenţa amfetaminei? Să îi mulţumim Fuhrerului că nu a pus gura pe tutun şi s-a apucat, în schimb, de porcăria aia?

Altfel spus, nu există ambiţie prostească decît din partea majorităţii celor care cred că au găsit soluţia perfectă pentru toată lumea. Nu există aroganţă mai mare decît să îi impui unui om liber ce să facă şi ce să nu cu viaţa lui. Dacă eu vreau să fumez, este alegerea mea, cum este alegerea altuia să mănînce colesterol sau să facă sporturi extreme. Toate astea au un grad de pericol, cum are şi condusul unei maşini sau făcutul unei cafele. Ultimul lucru de care am nevoie la 30 de ani este o dădacă îmbrăcată în haina statului care să îmi impună ce să fac, doar pentru că s-ar putea să îmi dăuneze. Au fost oameni care au murit de prea multă muncă, şi tot mergem la serviciu...

Următorul pas poate este ca statul să vină să ne spună ce să avem în frigider. Ceauşescu aproape că reuşise să pună la punct un program de "alimentaţie raţională", pe care sînt convins că majoritatea nutriţioniştilor l-ar lăuda. Şi, cine ştie, multă vreme nu va trece şi statul ne va interzice să citim cărţi depresive, care ne-ar putea duce la sinucidere sau ne-ar diminua eficienţa muncii. Sau să gîndim gînduri interzise, pentru care să ne ducă la Ministerul Iubirii băieţii în uniformă de la Poliţia Minţii...

Sînt, de asemenea, dezamăgit că vă găsiţi argumente ieftine din categoria "erai nervos, poate din cauză că nu ai fumat". Prieteni, sînteţi la fel de haioşi ca ăia care le spun femeilor "pari nervoasă, eşti cumva la ciclu?" sau "ce draci ai, de cînd nu ţi-ai mai pus-o?". Vă asigur că m-am apucat de fumat pentru că am vrut, pot să stau zile întregi fără să fumez şi fără să simt nevoia, dar, atunci cînd am chef de o ţigară, nu am nevoie de moralist, ci de un loc comod. Nu sînt un dependent de nicotină care tremură după următoarea doză, aşa cum vă face propaganda să credeţi, sînt om matur şi ţin totul sub control. Poate din cauză că voi vă temeţi de propriile slăbiciuni, că voi ştiţi că nu aţi putea să vă stăpîniţi, aveţi nevoie de legi care să vă interzică fumatul. Eu nu am.

Puteţi recunoaşte cinstit, măcar o dată, că îi persecutaţi pe fumători pur şi simplu pentru că nu vă place mirosul de fum. Am şi eu momente în care nu îl suport. Dar de ce vreţi să ne izgoniţi în stradă? Nu vrem să fumăm în creşa cu copii sugari, nu vrem să fumăm în spitalele de pneumologie sau în sfînta biserică. Vrem să fumăm la bar, acolo unde fumatului îi este locul. E treaba voastră dacă voi vreţi ca în bar să miroase ca la cofetărie, puteţi să vă faceţi baruri de nefumători. Şi nu călcăm în ele. Aveţi ceva împotrivă dacă eu îmi deschid un bar special dedicat fumătorilor, unde nu ai voie să intri decît dacă de declari fumător? Vi s-ar părea echitabil să vă ţinem în stradă, în ploaie, dacă nu aveţi o ţigară în gură?

E treaba voastră dacă vreţi să vă refuzaţi o voluptate care are şi o trăsătură de eleganţă. Nu vă obligăm să staţi în preajma noastră cînd fumăm, din contră, vrem să vă ştim cît mai departe, să dormiţi liniştiţi că nu vă îmbolnăvim. Mergeţi şi mîncaţi hrană organică recoltată de pe fermele unde lucrează muncitori angajaţi la negru, plătiţi cu ziua la jumătate din salariul minim. Luaţi şi parfumaţi-vă cu santal maşinile care poluează, distrug stratul de ozon şi echilibrul planetar. Daţi preţul unei beri pe apă de robinet botezată de şnapani "apă plată" şi încărcaţi-vă cu energie. Îmbrăcaţi-vă femeile cu haine de blană smulsă de pe animale chinuite fără altă vină decît că Dumnezeu le-a făcut frumoase, spre deosebire de femeile cu care voi umblaţi. Simţiţi-vă curaţi şi plăcut uscaţi în barurile voastre aseptice, unde vă serveşte cel mai bun personal plătit cu salariul minim pe economie. Consideraţi-vă superiori şi bîrfiţi-ne, e dreptul vostru să vă exprimaţi liber. Dar să nu cumva să vă luaţi de dreptul nostru de a alege liber felul în care vrem să trăim! Pentru că asta vă califică pentru diploma de inchizitori ai vremurilor moderne, iar nouă nu ne plac deţinătorii de adevăruri absolute.

That’s exactly what is happening every time you light up a cigarette. 

QUITING isn’t easy, but nothing worthwhile ever is.

So why not make the decision to choose……. but this time as an adult.

(And face it, you’re much smarter today then you were back then!)

The 1^st step is to realize that you don’t smoke by choice. 

You smoke because you are addicted to the chemicals in your cigarettes.  Period.

  This time choose to break the addition to cigarettes and give yourself (and your family) the gift of an improved, longer health AND extra money and the end of month!

·         You’ll end your addition to a controlled substance.

·         Food will taste better. 

·         You can smell better. (Your nose, your sense of smell)

·         You will smell better. (Other people’s noses) 

·         You will have the ability to be more active with friends/family.

·         You’ll have fewer wrinkles.

·         You will save lots of money.

o   About $1500 a year on average if you smoke 1 pack/day. 

That could be a really nice vacation!

·         Your time/social decisions will NOT revolve around if/when/where you can have your next cigarette.

·         You will have whiter teeth.

·         You may have a sunnier disposition (smoking may trigger depression)

·         Your body will begin to heal itself.

Come on.  Think about it…  You can do it.     

What do you have to lose? 

(Bad breath, coughing, cancer, stinky clothes, heart disease?)

YOU CAN DO IT!

Anmerkung: Dies ist eine Replik auf eine Sendung in Bayern 2, die vor einigen Monaten augestrahlt wurde: (RadioWissen)

Heute wurde in der Sendung über Simone de Beauvoir und Sartre (sinngemäß) behauptet, „Sartre habe das Glück gehabt, im verrauchten 20. Jahrhundert zu leben", denn jetzt, wo auch in Frankreich  strenge Rauchverbote in der Gastronomie gelten, könnte er nicht mehr in seinen geliebten Cafés sitzen und dem Tabakrauch frönen. Diese „Gesundheitsdiktatur" hätte sich wohl sehr negativ auf sein künstlerisches Schaffen ausgewirkt. (!!!)

Wenn jemand in einer Debatte seine Meinung äußert, ist das natürlich OK. aber in einem Wissensmagazin hat subjektive Polemik gegen ein Schutzgesetz, die nur dazu dient, Stimmungen im Sinne der Tabaklobby zu schüren, nichts zu suchen. Was hier transportiert wird, ist die PR-Strategie der Tabakkonzerne, die natürlich mit allen Mitteln umfassende Rauchverbote verhindern will, weil damit die Umsätze gefährdet werden.

Dass man hier im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes über Leichen geht, um seine Profite zu sichern, scheint der Redaktion dieser Sendung nicht klar zu sein. Die Zahlen sind ja bekannt: laut WHO sterben weltweit 5.000.000 Menschen an dem krebserregenden, hoch toxischen Giftcocktail, aus dem Tabakrauch besteht.

Seit den 1980er Jahren verdichteten sich auch die wissenschaftlichen Ergebnisse über die Schädlichkeit des Passivrauchens, ironischerweise waren es gerade die eigenen, geheimen Forschungsergebnisse (z.B. des INBIFO in Köln, das von Philip Morris bezahlt wurde) der Tabakindustrie, die erste Hinweise auf die Giftigkeit des ETS (Nebenstromrauch + ausgeatmeter Hauptstromrauch) lieferten und die betroffenen Wissenschaftler waren entsetzt, als sie erkannten, dass bei gewissen Stoffen, ETS noch gefährlicher ist, als der inhalierte Rauch (das hängt mit der niedrigeren Verbrennungs-temperatur einer glimmenden Zigarette zusammen, wodurch noch mehr giftige Verbindungen entstehen).

Außerdem hat die Tabakindustrie eine Vielzahl von Chemikalien zugesetzt, deren Verbrennungsprodukte die Toxizität noch erhöhen. Woher man das weiß? Durch die Schadenersatzprozesse in den USA, die öffentlich dokumentiert und online zugänglich sind. Kürzlich wurden die Prozessakten erstmals in Deutsch publiziert, von Prof. Dr. Michael Adams. Vom Anfang des "Endes der Tabakindustrie" kann natürlich keine Rede sein, hier war Herr Adams viel zu optimistisch...

Die gesundheitliche Debatte ist abgeschlossen: die Schädlichkeit von Rauch und Passivrauch ist nicht von der Hand zu weisen (das hat selbst die Tabaklobby weitgehend aufgegeben). Man musste vom Gesundheitsthema ablenken und stattdessen die Debatte auf eine ganz andere Ebene verlagern: Die persönliche Freiheit, die Toleranz, die Esskultur, die Gemütlichkeit, etc. Diese PR-Strategie war sehr effektiv und ist es - z.B. hier in Österreich und natürlich in der PR- „Hochburg" der Tabakindustrie, Deutschland noch heute.

Die Zigarette wird als untrennbarer Bestandteil der „Wirtshauskultur" verkauft, als Ausdruck von Genuss und Lebensfreude, ohne die die Gastronomie pleite gehen würde und unser gesellschaftliches Leben trostlos wäre. Die Befürworter von Rauchverboten werden als intolerante, genussfeindliche Fanatiker diffamiert, die die „persönliche Freiheit" der Raucher untergraben und als „Gesundheitsfaschisten" eine Diktatur der Vernunft errichten wollen, in der bald alles, was nicht gesund ist verboten werden soll.

Das grauenhafte Bild links ist ein Kehlkopfkarzinom im fortgeschrittenen Stadium.  Natürlich kann man niemand verbieten, sich selbst zu vergiften, aber dass die anderen unfreiwillig mitrauchen müssen, den Giftcocktail und den ekligen Gestank einfach hinnehmen sollen, ist ein Diktat der Tabakindustrie, das völlig inakzeptabel ist. Dass Raucher auch noch dafür zahlen, dass man sie langsam vergiftet, soll hier nicht weiter kommentiert werden.....

DAS IST NATÜRLICH ALLES BLÖDSINN. Diese Polarisierung hat nur einen Zweck: die Debatte in eine bestimmte Richtung zu lenken und die Rauchgegner in die Defensive zu treiben. Nicht die Giftigkeit des Tabakrauches, der Ekel erregende Gestank, die (gerichtlich bewiesene) gezielte Verstärkung der Suchtwirkung des Nikotins durch die Zigarettenhersteller sind das Thema, nicht die tausenden Krebserkrankungen, nicht das erhöhte Krankheitsrisiko bei Kindern, sondern die Toleranz und Freiheit?!

Freiheit endet dort, wo man anderen Menschen schadet, das ist die Säule unseres Strafrechts. Selbst wenn man den Nikotinsklaven (sprich: Rauchern) das Recht einräumt, sich selbst langsam zu vergiften, kann die Gefährdung anderer Menschen niemals als Freiheit, etwas zu tun, also als „Recht" akzeptiert werden. Zitat aus dem Buch "Schwarzbuch Zigarette": (ehem. Leitung von RJ Reynolds)

"Wir rauchen den Scheiß nicht, wir verkaufen ihn nur. Das Recht zu rauchen behalten wir den Jungen, den Armen, den Schwarzen und den Dummen vor."

Liebe Raucher, merkt ihr denn nicht wie man euch benutzt, um Millionen mit einem "Drogenbehälter" zu verdienen, der Zigarette heißt?  "Think of the cigarette as a dispenser for a dose-unit of nicotine. We´re in the nicotine delivery business".

Das Bild oben ist Teil einer Kampagne in Australien und der Text lautet: Zigaretten bringen jedes Jahr 17.500 mehr Australier um, als Heroin. Warum ist dann Heroin verboten und Nikotin nicht? Das Suchtpotential von Nikotin ist größer als das von Kokain oder Heroin, trotzdem wird so getan, als handle es ich hier um ein "Lifestyle" Produkt, nicht eine süchtig machende Droge.

Warum gibt es Alkohollimits beim Lenken eines Fahrzeuges? Um die Menschen vor dem höheren Unfallrisiko zu schützen. Auch das ist ein Eingriff in die „persönliche Freiheit", aber jedes Schutzgesetz muss Freiheiten beschneiden, wie z.B. die Straßenverkehrsordnung. `Der Unterschied ist nur, dass die entsetzlichen Folgen des Rauchens / Passivrauchens oft erst Jahre später sichtbar werden und deshalb kaum abschreckende Wirkung haben. (Zelluläre Schäden z.B. am Endothelium treten bereits nach kurzer Rauchexposition auf)

Wie die WHO richtig feststellt, gibt es kein Recht in der Öffentlichkeit zu rauchen. Rauchen ist ein krankhaftes, rücksichtsloses, destruktives Verhalten, das ebensoviel mit Genusskultur zu tun hat, wie der Konsum anderer Drogen (z.B. Kokain), nämlich gar nichts. Nur weil der Drogenbehälter Zigarette legal verkauft werden darf und man mit einem milliardenschweren PR-Budget den Menschen seit mehr als 5 Jahrzehnten eingeredet hat, Rauchen sei normaler Bestandteil des Lebens und so natürlich wie Essen und Trinken. Das führte dazu, dass man die Möglichkeit,  überall rauchen zu können, als eine Art Dienstleistung ansah, die man den Gästen / Kunden / Mitarbeitern schuldig sei. Selbst auf öffentlichen Klosetts wurden Aschenbecher bereitgestellt!

Diese umfassendste Orwellsche Manipulation der Öffentlichkeit  ist einzigartig in der Zivilisations-geschichte und zeigt in erschreckender Weise wie sehr Menschen von PR-Strategien manipuliert werden können. Dass man den freiwilligen Konsum von krebserregenden, toxischen Substanzen in Gegenwart anderer auch noch als Freiheit verteidigt, während die Freiheit der Menschen, die ohne giftigen Rauch - also GANZ NORMAL - ihr Essen genießen möchten, jahrzehntelang untergraben wurde, ist so absurd, dass man nur den Kopf schütteln kann.

Dass das Suchtgift  Nikotin auch die Gehirnzellen schädigt , ist kaum bekannt, sollte aber auch einmal erwähnt werden. Da Nikotin die Blut-Hirnschranke in Sekunden überwindet, ist die schädliche Wirkung garantiert. Es gibt Studien, die nahelegen, dass Rauchen Demenzerkrankungen fördert (Rauchen fördert auch die Entstehung von Diabetes und Knochenschwund und ist ein Dauerstress für das Immunsystem)

Was Sartre und andere Intellektuelle betrifft: Ohne Zigaretten hätte er wahrscheinlich noch besser geschrieben, weil seine Gehirnzellen ihre volle Kapazität behalten hätten und sein Blut mehr Sauerstoff transportiert hätte, anstatt sich mit dem Kohlenmonoxid der Zigaretten herumzuschlagen.....

Menschen gehen schon seit Jahrhunderten in Gaststätten, lange bevor es Tabak überhaupt gab und sie werden es auch weiterhin tun. Es gibt überwiegende Zustimmung zur rauchfreien Gastronomie in allen Ländern, die sie umgesetzt haben und die Schauermärchen der Tabaklobby über dramatische Umsatzrückgänge haben sich auch als unhaltbar erwiesen. Übrigens, die Nichtraucher  sind eindeutig  in der Mehrheit in der EU - wo ist hier die Demokratie?

Raucher werden nicht „diskriminiert", sie werden nur gezwungen zu erkennen, was Rauchen in Wahrheit ist: ein asoziales Verhalten, ein Produkt, das Menschen süchtig macht, damit die Tabakindustrie riesige Gewinne ausschütten kann. Jugendliche müssen über Marketing (vor allem Erhaltung der sozialen Akzeptanz, die künstlich geschaffen wurde) als „replacement smokers" rekrutiert werden, damit die toten Raucher kompensiert werden.

Wer raucht, hat seine Freiheit (selbstbestimmt zu handeln) bereits verspielt.

As a young journalist, fresh out of college in the days before blogs and 24-hour rolling texts and emails, I learned the art of the vox pop.

It's one of easiest ways to fill column inches. The recipe for the news editor is simple:

1. Take the hot topic of the day - say, the invasion of Iraq, or Victoria Beckham's new hairdo - whatever, really, so long as people can have an opinion.
2. Dispatch the nearest junior reporter or work placement student to a public place where they might find people who have an opinion. (It helps if the place they go is in some way related to the story - if it's health service cutbacks, it could be the local hospital - but this is optional.)
3. Don't allow them back in from the cold until they've gathered half a dozen usable quotes.

The joy of working with print as opposed to audio or video is that if your subject turns out to be opinionated but incoherent you can help them along a bit. For example:

Work experience student: "Would you say this makes a mockery of the government's manifesto promise?"
Unwitting interview subject: "Uh, yeah."
Resulting copy: "Mrs Smith said, 'It makes a mockery of the government's manifesto promise.'"

This entirely unscientific survey instantly transforms even the driest downpage story into an appetising page lead that shows just how in touch your publication is with its readers. For superlative examples of the art, look no further than America's Finest News Source.

The trouble in my day as a reporter was that you always needed to conduct the vox pop when the gainfully employed were safely ensconced in their factories and offices.

We tried to get a cross-section of the community but often ended up exclusively soliciting the views of senior citizens ("Hanging never did me any harm when I was a nipper!"), stay-at-home parents ("Sorry I'm not making much sense, I only got two hours' sleep last night."), and the long-term sick ("I wrote to that Tony Blair. 27 times...").

Maybe the absence of the full-time employed from our vox pop demographic was a symptom of a bigger issue. These people weren't in our surveys because they weren't in the public realm.

Today it struck me that times have changed, and for once the Internet and social media have nothing to do with it.

The giveaway is in the first paragraph of this Guardian article, "City Voices: 'I'm just happy if I can keep my job, to be honest'":

In the City yesterday, those who stepped out for a much-needed smoke stared moodily into space, while others avoided the television cameras that had been set up outside the Royal Exchange.

The unlikely huddles that form on chilly street corners may be the result of our nation's enlightened smoking ban, but the unintended consequence is a myriad of Cluetrain-esque breaches in the boundaries that organisations create within and around themselves.

Inside corporations, employees slowly killing themselves together form relationships that transcend the org chart. Serendipitous conversations occur in those five-minute fag breaks. It's a secret society that we non-smokers can never hope to penetrate.

And outside? Well now they're outside, the smokers are fair game for the vox popping reporter. That long exhale you can hear is the intern's sigh of relief: here's someone in a suit who I can question. Even better, he's relaxed, and isn't going anywhere for a few minutes. "Excuse me, do you mind telling me how the financial crisis is affecting you?"

So what I'm wondering is, what proportion of vox pop participants are people who popped out for a cigarette? How much more likely are you to be vox popped if you're a smoker? And what greater influence might this give you in the national debate? I think the media needs to cough up some answers.