NEW FEATURE: VOTE & EARN NEATOPOINTS!
Submit your own Neatorama post and vote for others' posts to earn NeatoPoints that you can redeem for T-shirts, hoodies and more over at the NeatoShop!


The Russian Economic Stimulus: Cigarettes and Vodka

While Obama laments the slow economic recovery here in the United States, Russian's finance minister has got his own idea on the perfect stimulus deal:

Russia's finance minister has urged his countrymen and women to support the country - by drinking and smoking more.

Alexei Kudrin called for increased consumption of tobacco and alcohol in a bid to boost the state's revenues, reports Metro.

"If you smoke a pack of cigarettes, that means you are giving more to help solve social problems," commented Kudrin.

"People should understand: Those who drink, those who smoke are doing more to help the state."

Link


His lack of foresight and dismal logic falls apart when you look at the long picture -- ie. significantly increased healthcare costs that are generated by smokers and drinkers in their old age.

I'm assuming that Russia has national healthcare... if not, then I suppose it makes a twisted sort of sense.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The new Tobacco Prohibition

I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood......

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED'S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth......

A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA'S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :

JUNK SCIENCE

''EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.''

The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds, ignoring the multitude of facts in the decision. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen's court did not have jurisdiction. In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism in the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

Although the anti-smoker movement was already established, this report was used, and continues to be used, to bolster their claim that SHS is a killer.
http://knol.google.com/k/second-hand-smoke #

So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA'S stand that global warming was real.

The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them....Osha has whats called PEL'S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments...[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

The actual standard to use is OSHA'S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air.....now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.

Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ''EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen''......milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren't determined to be a carcinogen....The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0....Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim.....thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree's claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ''laugh'' thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
If you’re afraid of second-hand smoke, you should also avoid cars, restaurants…and don’t even think of barbecuing.

here are just some of the chemicals present in tobacco smoke and what else contains them:

Arsenic, Benzine, Formaldehyde.

Arsenic- 8 glasses of water = 200 cigarettes worth of arsenic

Benzine- Grilling of one burger = 250 cigarettes

Formaldehyde – cooking a vegetarian meal = 100 cigarettes

And so on. You can stay at home all day long if you don’t want all those “deadly” chemicals around you, but in fact, those alleged 4000 chemicals in cigarettes are present in many foods, paints etc. in much larger quantities. And as they are present in cigarettes in very small doses, they are harmless. Sorry, no matter how much you like the notion of harmful ETS, it’s a myth.

What would you call a law based upon lies, deceit and total fabrication? You'd call it a smoking ban!
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
New St. Louis AQ study published by Washington University proves once again shs is not a workplace health hazard
The test results prove second-hand smoke levels in St. Louis MO. establishments tested are 110 to 877 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality requirements.

rest of the story here:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-st-louis-aq-study-published-by.html

Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN. 55388
Industrial air quality engineer

http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/21102.aspx

Our analysis of your results compared to OSHA permissible exposure limits (PEL)

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2010/09/new-st-louis-aq-study-published-by.html
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
You can claim all you want that people are twisting the facts, but that's all you are doing here - twisting statistics to your benefit. The chemicals you list are indeed common in a lot of things, but they are a) not the primary concern of smoke hazards, and b) are being delivered into the body in different methods, which affects buildup and absorption. It is no myth that first and second hand smoke causes a buildup of material in the lungs... yes, just like any form of smoke, but compounded by constant exposure and the presence of heavy tars. That alone is a serious health risk which demonstratively leads to major problems, early death, and is a risk to small children.

Then, once you have that build-up in your lungs, it increases your retention of more harmful chemicals, even ones not included in the smoke itself, and allows them to be absorbed directly into the bloodstream.

Two of my grandparents died of lung cancer directly attributed to smoking, and one spent years on an oxygen tank due to emphysema which is an absolutely undeniable effect of constant smoking and the resultant damage to the lungs. Constant heavy exposure to second hand smoke carries the same risks.

Even disregarding all of that smoke is a strong trigger for millions of people with asthma. Don't be an inconsiderate jerk to those around you. If you want to smoke, do it on your own time somewhere else.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@Colt Seaver; most people know that quite well at this point. A large portion of the US grew up on tobacco production. It is part of our history. I've never met anyone too smug to say that.

The change may be slow, but despite that government bodies have still been restricting smoking further despite the negative impact on tax income and the economy. Many of our top politicians are bankrolled by tobacco companies, and yet change still happens. Slowly, but it does change, and no one is telling people to go out and smoke to boost economy even though it is one of our largest domestic products.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
The Myth of Second Hand Smoke (ETS)

http://www.sexcigarsbooze.com/2010/04/the-myth-of-second-hand-smoke-ets/

BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax

http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/bs-alert-the-third-h...

The thirdhand smoke scam

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/thirdhand-smoke-scam.html
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
@harleyrider1978

I'm not exposed to so much second-hand smoke that I'd be concerned for my health.

However, anybody who smokes smells bad. The smoke they generate around themselves reeks horribly. It gets in their hair, skin, and clothes. If they smoke in their homes, everything in their home eventually gets coevered in smoke and yellow crap. Clean a smoker's windows, and you'll notice the yellow sludge.

Plenty of nice-looking people have bad breath and smell disgusting after they have a cigarette, and they don't even realize it, since they're exposed to it so much.

Defend how healthy you think smoking is, but you can't be proud of your smoking habit, unless you're the sort of person who never bathes or doesn't mind living in filth.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Ted has hit the nail on the head about all the "second hand smoke" panic. It's not the chemicals that worry people. They don't like the odor. That's the big issue.

If only some company would crank out cigarettes that smell like chocolate. Or bacon.
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Kudrin not a very advised man or perhaps hired someone like harleyrider. Tobacco industry takes the money and the countries pay the bill for healthcare cost...
Hey harleyrider1978 how much did the tobacco industry payed you? lets face it people smoke because they want to get their fix of nicotine, nicotine is adictive as heroin and those who dont smoke are not obliged to inhale not even a nanogram of nicotine because if it gets to the brain will produce dependence. If only you nicotine-addicts could only suck up all the cigarette's smoke and leave the rest of the world alone... or try the nicotine chewing gum, oh i forgot tobacco leaves have specific nitrosamines (NNK).
As one of your sugar daddies said back in the 60's "due to the vast organic material carcinogens produced during the pirolisys process is very unlikely to develop a safe way to smoke tobacco" (British American Tobacco - 1965).
And by the way if the World Health Organization - WHO lies about Second Hand Smoke and the scientists who study it I hope you didn't vaccinated your children or
accept a common surgery procedure or your doctors prescription because is the WHO who regulates that too!
Or do we only accept what is convenient to us?
Abusive comment hidden. (Show it anyway.)
Login to comment.
Click here to access all of this post's 20 comments
Email This Post to a Friend
"The Russian Economic Stimulus: Cigarettes and Vodka"

Separate multiple emails with a comma. Limit 5.

 

Success! Your email has been sent!

close window

This website uses cookies.

This website uses cookies to improve user experience. By using this website you consent to all cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy.

I agree
 
Learn More