Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Tobacco ban gets lit up in House
grandforks.com ^ | 21 January 2003 | Xiao Zhang

Posted on 01/22/2003 3:56:17 AM PST by SheLion

BISMARCK - North Dakota House representatives Monday voted overwhelmingly against a bill proposing to ban tobacco sales in the state.

The measure, which would make selling or using tobacco products except for using it for relgious purposes misdemeanors, failed by an 88-4 vote.

The bill would have made it a crime to sell or use tobacco in North Dakota, with sellers facing a maximum penalty of a year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The bill labeled smoking, chewing or using smokeless tobacco as a less severe crime, punishable by 30 days in jail and a $1,000 fine.

GF sponsor

The bill's sole sponsor, Grand Forks Republican Rep. Mike Grosz, said he was disappointed by Monday's vote.

But "it did get a fair day in the sun and generated a lot of discussion," said Grosz, a member of the House Finance and Taxation Committee, which heard the bill last week.

Before the bill went to a vote on the floor, Grosz told his fellow representatives that tobacco costs the state close to 1,000 lives every year and $351 million in medical and productivity costs. Tobacco taxes are expected to bring $39.7 million to North Dakota's treasury during the state's current two-year budget period, which ends in June.

"It seems the only gainers from allowing the use of this product are the big tobacco companies and groups, such as the government and organizations, which tax the product or sue the companies," he said.

Grosz said he would vote against all other measures on tobacco, including a tax increase, because trying to reduce tobacco use through those measures is like "putting a bandage on a severed leg."

Gov. John Hoeven's proposed two-year budget for North Dakota state government includes an increase in tobacco taxes, which would increase the levy on a pack of cigarettes from 44 cents to 79 cents.

Passed committee

Rep. Wes Belter, R-Leonard, chairman of the Finance and Taxation Committee, said he decided to vote no on the floor Monday because he believe prohibition would drive smoking underground.

His committee heard the bill last week and recommended a "do pass" on the bill by a 9-4 vote. Six of the nine committee members who voted yes on the bill changed their vote on the floor Monday.

Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.

There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain funding forthese groups for tobacco control programs.

The North Dakota Grocer's Association supported the bill. Tom Woodmansee, the association's president, told lawmakers during the committee hearing that retailers have to spend too much time and money training employees on proper procedures for proof-of-age in selling tobacco products. He said retailers are subject to undercover stings by local law enforcement, fines and license suspension.

Belter did point out that legislators are "hooked on tobacco," even though not all smoke.

"It is time for us to think about just how hooked we are on tobacco, whether we smoke or not," he said.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Zhang covers the North Dakota Legislature. She can be reached at (701) 255-5520 or xzhang@gfherald.com. The Associated Press contributed to this report.


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Culture/Society; Government; US: North Dakota
KEYWORDS: antismokers; bans; butts; cigarettes; individualliberty; michaeldobbs; niconazis; prohibitionists; pufflist; smokingbans; taxes; tobacco
Grosz told his fellow representatives that tobacco costs the state close to 1,000 lives every year and $351 million in medical and productivity costs.

Pulling more figures out of da butt I see.......

Gee, one guy voted against the bill because he was worried that "prohibition would drive smoking underground." Whatever the hell that's supposed to mean. In other states it's been driven out of workplaces, parks, and "public places." The only place left IS underground. And so what? Illegal drugs are consumed "underground." I'll bet he's not for legalizing them.

The "North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association" were all afraid that prohibiting tobacco won't prevent its use (although that is exactly what they claim happens when smoking bans are imposed) and they don't want to lose their funding for tobacco control programs.

Why in the %$#^ world would anybody need tobacco control programs if there was no tobacco to control? And I don't think smoking compares with Prohibition. It isn't the same. People hole up and drink for a part of the day. Smoking is 24 hours a day minus sleep time wherever you are. It's much more visible.

And what's with The North Dakota Grocer's Association supporting the bill? Retailers "spend too much time and money training employees on proper procedures for proof-of-age in selling tobacco products."

Jeez, don't they sell alcohol in that state?

I read that Texas convenience stores average $312,000 per year in cigarette sales. I don't know how that compares to North Dakota or to grocery stores, but it would take a lot of convincing for me to believe they lose money selling cigarettes.

.......The Above Was Written by Squeezer

1 posted on 01/22/2003 3:56:18 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *puff_list; Just another Joe; Great Dane; Max McGarrity; Tumbleweed_Connection; Madame Dufarge; ...
Puff
2 posted on 01/22/2003 3:57:35 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Just 17 cents per day


Click The Logo to Donate
Click The Logo To Donate

3 posted on 01/22/2003 3:58:07 AM PST by Support Free Republic (Your support keeps Free Republic going strong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *all

4 posted on 01/22/2003 3:59:02 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
I graduated from Minot HS in 1966 at the age of 17. One day at lunch off school grounds I was arrested for smoking cigarettes and had to go to juvenille court. Seems like they are still idiots in north dakota.
5 posted on 01/22/2003 3:59:40 AM PST by RWG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Oh fer cryin' out loud! IT'S A LEGAL PRODUCT!!!

A Republican started this?!

6 posted on 01/22/2003 4:00:02 AM PST by RandallFlagg (FReepaholic Navy Vet)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
There's no evidence banning tobacco would prevent and reduce tobacco use because no such approach has been implemented, the groups argued. The ban also could take away certain funding forthese groups for tobacco control programs.

It's all about the money and not about health at all. Good to see these slime balls admit it, however inadvertantly.

The best part:

The measure, which would make selling or using tobacco products except for using it for relgious purposes misdemeanors, failed by an 88-4 vote.

Imagine if all the states were stupid enough to pass a law like this! Remember that religious sacrements are tax free!

What could they do if we all exercised our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion? Kill the cash cow.

7 posted on 01/22/2003 4:10:13 AM PST by metesky (Why kick somebody when they're still standing and can kick back?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RWG
I graduated from Minot HS in 1966 at the age of 17. One day at lunch off school grounds I was arrested for smoking cigarettes and had to go to juvenille court. Seems like they are still idiots in north dakota.

"1966??!!" Your kidding me! ugh!

8 posted on 01/22/2003 4:25:04 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
A Republican started this?!

Can we say "RINO???"

9 posted on 01/22/2003 4:25:41 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: metesky
What could they do if we all exercised our 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion? Kill the cash cow.

Which reminds me:


10 posted on 01/22/2003 4:26:52 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: metesky
"It's all about the money and not about health at all. Good to see these slime balls admit it, however inadvertantly."
Exactly. I bet the "anti-tobacco" groups about crapped their collective shorts when this bill made it out of committee. LOL
11 posted on 01/22/2003 4:34:06 AM PST by KS Flyover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
My dad graduated from Des Lacs (just outside of Minot) in 66, then went to Minot State. small world!
12 posted on 01/22/2003 4:43:07 AM PST by Docbarleypop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
It always amazes me that Americans don't seem to realize that for every law passed a new bureauracy and supporting group is born.
13 posted on 01/22/2003 4:45:53 AM PST by OBone (Support our boys in uniform)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Defeated 88-4? Who on earth were the four that are, apparently, all ate up with the goofies?
14 posted on 01/22/2003 5:01:21 AM PST by Judith Anne (This space for office use only.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: OBone
Guess they couldn't forgo their TAX MONEY in order to stop kids from having access to EVIL tobacco.
15 posted on 01/22/2003 5:02:06 AM PST by GailA (Throw Away the Keys, Tennessee Tea Party, Start a tax revolt in your state)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg; EBUCK; MrLeRoy; FreeTally; Wolfie
"Oh fer cryin' out loud! IT'S A LEGAL PRODUCT!!! "

Your just a nicotine addict dude. (Nothing personal just applying drug warrior logic here)

16 posted on 01/22/2003 5:06:22 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Damn! I wish that would have passed! I'm a smoker who is tired of the BS incrimentalizm towards this. It would have shown the end game; and it would have been fun to watch!

MARK A SITY
http://www.logic101.net/
17 posted on 01/22/2003 5:07:04 AM PST by logic101.net
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
If these clowns managed to outlaw a legal substance, what's next?

Milk?
Peanut butter?

18 posted on 01/22/2003 5:50:52 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, was legal unitl the early 1900's.
19 posted on 01/22/2003 5:56:07 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
I think we all had better get a good look at the wisdom of the Constitution.
Nothing is clearer now, than the idea that it is there to protect us from our government.
Not from each other; I can deal with that!
20 posted on 01/22/2003 5:57:23 AM PST by Publius6961
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
Belter told the House that committee members were frustrated last week with the testimony from anti-tobacco groups that testified against the tobacco ban, including the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association.

Just goes to show you that these organizations, with the possible exception of the ND Nurses Association (Most nurses are normally pretty tolerant), are NOT about stopping tobacco use. They just want the public trough to keep being filled for them and to be able to FEEL superior to a segment of society.

21 posted on 01/22/2003 6:11:44 AM PST by Just another Joe (bastiches)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Judith Anne
Defeated 88-4? Who on earth were the four that are, apparently, all ate up with the goofies?

RINO,RINO,RINO and DemocRAT

22 posted on 01/22/2003 6:15:57 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Your just a nicotine addict dude. (Nothing personal just applying drug warrior logic here)

Oh sure! Call out your personal little army. Can't stand in here like a man on your own, can you? Moron!

23 posted on 01/22/2003 6:17:21 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
If these clowns managed to outlaw a legal substance, what's next?

Hopefully, Kerberos. See post 16!


24 posted on 01/22/2003 6:19:24 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Just another Joe
Just goes to show you that these organizations, with the possible exception of the ND Nurses Association (Most nurses are normally pretty tolerant), are NOT about stopping tobacco use. They just want the public trough to keep being filled for them and to be able to FEEL superior to a segment of society.

And they zero'd in on 25-30% of the popular. I guess they think we are weaklings!

25 posted on 01/22/2003 6:20:59 AM PST by SheLion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: RandallFlagg
A Republican started this?!


You REALLY don't get it, do you???

He did this to show the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking NAZIs. You did see the part where he said he would vote against all other measures to increase tobacco taxes and further attempts to limit it's usage didn't you??

He KNEW the bill would be opposed by the Idiots clamoring for more controls, and he exposed their hypocrisy for all to see.

26 posted on 01/22/2003 6:44:08 AM PST by gratefulwharffratt (<-- Still lives on a tobacco farm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SheLion
"Oh sure! Call out your personal little army. Can't stand in here like a man on your own, can you? Moron!"

Just wanted to call it to some other peoples attention as to how good it is getting these days. Sorry that bothers you.

27 posted on 01/22/2003 7:20:00 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos; RandallFlagg
LOL, same thing happened to pot in '34. Legal substance suddenly turned illegal by way of an unattainable tax stamp. The real horror of this....cigs actually are addictive and once the escalation commences, misdemeanor to Class "b" felony to mandatory min sentances, our prisons will be full up to capacity.

Can't wait for the new gubment "Cig Madness" newsreels...

"Nicotine makes Mexican Field Workers butt-rape computer lilly-white Java programmers"
28 posted on 01/22/2003 9:25:10 AM PST by EBUCK (....reloading....praparing to FIRE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Publius6961
Pot?
29 posted on 01/22/2003 9:25:35 AM PST by EBUCK (....reloading....praparing to FIRE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: gratefulwharffratt
He KNEW the bill would be opposed by the Idiots clamoring for more controls, and he exposed their hypocrisy for all to see.

BINGO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You get the prize. This is the most delicious piece of idiocy the antis could have done for themselves.

The closest I saw them come to it personally was about 2 years ago when there was legislation in Delaware to make it illegal for the use or possession of tobacco products for those under 18 - the current law is that it is illegal for it to be sold to those under 18.

The only opposition the bill received was from the anti-smoker groups.

If I remember correctly it didn't make it as far as this bill did - it died in committee.

Hypocrites.

30 posted on 01/22/2003 9:37:54 AM PST by Gabz (Keep the servers running, become a FReeper Donor today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: EBUCK
"The real horror of this....cigs actually are addictive"

And that has always been the real kicker, of the various assorted substances that one could choose to take up, nicotine is probable the most addictive. In fact there are some studies that show it is right up there with heroin.

But I believe that the politician in the article here is the same guy I read about a few weeks back and what he is really trying to do is to point out the hypocrisy of the lefts position on cigarettes. And you have to admit he makes a good case.

If the figures he quotes are accurate, that the increased health care cost to the state from cigarette smoking is $351 million, and the increased revenue from the cigarette tax is $39.7 million every two years, then it is obvious that there is a substantial shortfall of income to cover cost. There can be only two solutions to this problem.

1.) Make cigarettes illegal, after all, we are trying to protect the health safety and welfare of the people.
2.) Increase the tax on cigarettes enough to cover the shortfall; essentially making them illegal, as only the very wealthy would be able to afford them and the black market would kick in to service the rest.

However the upside may be that this could initiate a discussion as to the validity of our other drug laws. He claims that 1000 people die every year in the state of North Dakota. Now North Dakota is not a real populous state but if we use that as a base number could we then say that if applied to the other 49 states that cigarettes are responsible for 50,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. If so then one would have to ask the question as to how many deaths are caused from smoking marijuana each year. I don’t believe it is anything close to 50,000.

At any rate this could get real humorous.

31 posted on 01/22/2003 10:08:51 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Uh, try zero, absolute zero. Now if we can try to take into account whatever related deaths could be I imagine that it would be negligable too.

The only real effect of marijuana is that black jazz musicians spontaniously metamorphasize into aging white rock stars or some such...
32 posted on 01/22/2003 10:17:45 AM PST by EBUCK (....reloading....praparing to FIRE!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
It does bother some of us. The reason being is that we are trying to keep a currently legal commodity legal and there are others who are attempting to reverse the illegality of another commodity that are opposing what we are doing.

I personally have nothing against the legalization of cannibis, for example. But I do have a personal problem with cannabis users who think I am some kind of a low-life second hand citizen because I use tobacco and wish to legally continue to do so.

In my own personal experience I have encountered entirely too many people who I know to be cannabis users speaking out vocally in favor of further restrictions upon tobacco users, up to and including removing children from their homes.

maybe if the pro-cannibis people were a bit less like the anti-(tobacco)smoker types there would be less conflict between the two groups.

33 posted on 01/22/2003 10:42:57 AM PST by Gabz (Keep the servers running, become a FReeper Donor today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: gratefulwharffratt
What about the three other Republicans who voted for it? If you are counting on the pubbies to protect tobacco or smokers' rights, you are in for a BIG surprise. Let's not forget, the entire reason cigarettes are so expensive right now is because of the settlement, which was prompted by harsh legislation written by a Republican senator. The bill didn't pass, but the settlement went ahead. And before you say that McCain is a RINO, I would like to state that ALL of them are RINOs. Not a damned one of them cares about smaller government or individual freedoms except during the campaign. They only protect the Second Amendment because it gets them elected. I used to think the way you all do, and then I woke up. The Republicans won't protect you, but I will admit, it is hilarious to watch you all become apologists for policies that you would normally hate. I hope that you will open your eyes and stop voting for redemopublicrat morons.
34 posted on 01/22/2003 10:54:39 AM PST by mysterio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
” It does bother some of us”

Well sure it does, especially if you’ re part of the group that is being targeted. The problem is the time to be concerned about that is when the people of the other groups, who you are not a part of, were being targeted. Now the machinery that was used to make criminals out of them is being turned on you and you don’t like it. But unfortunately you too are now part of a minority and there are going to be very few who are willing to speak up for your rights.

” I personally have nothing against the legalization of cannabis”

Then you are part of the minority. After all it is the heathen devil weed and we’ve got to protect the children.

” But I do have a personal problem with cannabis users who think I am some kind of a low-life second hand citizen because I use tobacco and wish to legally continue to do so.”

As do cannabis users who are stereotyped as low life stinking hippies who will never attain anything more than a job as a waiter. And keep in mind that their drug of choice was at one time legal. Personally, I am not aware of any cannabis users who are advocating further restrictions on cigarettes, but I am not going to doubt your personnel experience. However, if there are such users they are helping to slit their own throats.

” maybe if the pro-cannabis people were a bit less like the anti-(tobacco)smoker types there would be less conflict between the two groups.”

And then again maybe if a lot of people would stay out of other peoples business unless they had directly suffered harm from another’s behavior, as opposed to supposed harm, we’d all be a lot better off.

But fear not the collectivists are not going to outlaw cigarettes. The only interest they have in the matter is that it holds the potential for an increased revenue stream for them and I believe that is what the politician in the story is trying to put in plain view. Although their rhetoric sounds real good the issue is not about the health safety and welfare of the people, just as that is not what the issue is with marijuana users.

35 posted on 01/22/2003 11:30:47 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
The problem is the time to be concerned about that is when the people of the other groups, who you are not a part of, were being targeted.

I couldn't agree with you more - I seeit happening day in and day out, butin general the sheeple don't listen.

And keep in mind that their drug of choice was at one time legal.

It is something I always keep in mind, and work to keep tobacco from going that way.

Personally, I am not aware of any cannabis users who are advocating further restrictions on cigarettes, but I am not going to doubt your personnel experience. However, if there are such users they are helping to slit their own throats.

I appreciate your acceptance of my experience. And I agree with you that those who advocate the illegalization of tobacco do no good toward their goal of legalization of cannibis. Personally I think pot should be treated in a manner that would be considered a cross between tobacco and alcohol. You must be of a certain age to purchase/use and penalties for doing stupid stuff when having overindulged.

And then again maybe if a lot of people would stay out of other peoples business unless they had directly suffered harm from another’s behavior, as opposed to supposed harm, we’d all be a lot better off.

and that about sums the entire thing up - on both issues.

Although their rhetoric sounds real good the issue is not about the health safety and welfare of the people, just as that is not what the issue is with marijuana users.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

36 posted on 01/22/2003 12:49:33 PM PST by Gabz (Keep the servers running, become a FReeper Donor today)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Gabz
Seems we are on the same page. Thanks for your comments.
37 posted on 01/22/2003 12:51:39 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
And that has always been the real kicker, of the various assorted substances that one could choose to take up, nicotine is probable the most addictive. In fact there are some studies that show it is right up there with heroin.

IMO, that anti-smoking propaganda is pure bullshit. If heroin itself weren't illegal, could you imagine seeing the drug companies clamoring over themselves to put heroin in patches and telling addicts they can "wean" themselves off a "highly addictive" drug by taking diminishing doses, and making it available over the counter? Again IMO, it's the habit of the smoking ritual that's hard to break, not the physical dependence on the drug itself.

38 posted on 01/22/2003 6:51:48 PM PST by lockjaw02 (Man's capacity for self-deception is unlimited. --George H Tausch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: lockjaw02
"Again IMO, it's the habit of the smoking ritual that's hard to break, not the physical dependence on the drug itself. "

Actually it's both.

39 posted on 01/22/2003 7:01:37 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gratefulwharffratt
He did this to show the hypocrisy of the anti-smoking NAZIs. You did see the part where he said he would vote against all other measures to increase tobacco taxes and further attempts to limit it's usage didn't you??

He KNEW the bill would be opposed by the Idiots clamoring for more controls, and he exposed their hypocrisy for all to see.

Funny, isn't it. As the saying goes, "believe none of what you hear and only half of what you see". I liken the whole anti-smoking crusades to be similar to alcohol Prohibition. Back then it was Baptists and Bootleggers for the illegalization of alcohol, each for their own reasons, and now it's Crusaders and Crooks for the bans and exorbitant excise taxes on smokes. I believe that's exactly what Rep. Mike Grosz was trying to do - expose the Crooks.

40 posted on 01/22/2003 7:07:00 PM PST by lockjaw02 (Man's capacity for self-deception is unlimited. --George H Tausch)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
"Again IMO, it's the habit of the smoking ritual that's hard to break, not the physical dependence on the drug itself. " ...Actually it's both.

Actually, several recent studies have shown Lockjaw to be right (as usual). According to researchers at Duke University's Nicotine Research Program, "the urge to light a cigarette can be more compelling than the physical need for nicotine."

41 posted on 01/22/2003 7:20:02 PM PST by Max McGarrity (Anti-smokers--still the bullies in the playground they always were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
"the urge to light a cigarette can be more compelling than the physical need for nicotine."

Oh there is no doubt that the psychological addiction is quite substantial. And in all people one can be more compelling than the other.

But the physical addictive properties of nicotine, which are very substantial, have been know for well over 30 years, long before the cigarette nazi's came to power.

42 posted on 01/22/2003 7:31:50 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
But the physical addictive properties of nicotine, which are very substantial, have been know for well over 30 years, long before the cigarette nazi's came to power.

Depends on your definition of "addiction." Until anti-smoker crusader C. Everett Koop changed that definition in 1989 (it wasn't officially accepted until 1996), smoking was a "habituation." Now, of course, the term has been so corrupted it covers everything from video games to sex to chocolate--just so it could include smoking.

From the Harvard School of Medicine: "Distinctions Among Use, Abuse, Dependence, and Addiction" - "Even under most established constructions of addiction, not all drug dependent patients evidence addictive behavior. For example, in most civilized countries, under nearly all traditional circumstances, people who are nicotine dependent do not evidence addiction with its attendant anti-social behavior pattern."

And from Surgeon General Luther Terry: ""Undoubtedly, the smoking habit becomes compulsive in some heavy smokers but the drive to compulsion appears to be solely psychogenic since physical dependence does not develop to nicotine or to other constituents of tobacco, nor does tobacco, either during its use or following withdrawal, create psychotoxic effects which lead to antisocial behavior...In contrast to drugs of addiction, withdrawal from tobacco never constitutes a threat to life. These facts indicate clearly the absence of physical dependence." --'Relationship of Smoking to Use of Addicting Drugs' (Surgeon General Luther L. Terry's Report on Smoking and Health)

Ask yourself how, if smoking is so damned addictive, there are 48 million ex-smokers in this country today, and the vast majority of them quit without "smoking cessation" aids and products.

43 posted on 01/22/2003 9:42:13 PM PST by Max McGarrity (Anti-smokers--still the bullies in the playground they always were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
”Depends on your definition of "addiction." Until anti-smoker crusader C. Everett Koop changed that definition in 1989 (it wasn't officially accepted until 1996), smoking was a "habituation."”

Perhaps you should read the Surgeon Generals Report of 1988, delivered to Congress by Otis R. Bowen M.D., a Republican, who was Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, under George H.W. Bush, also a Republican, at the time. The report can be found here: Nicotine Addiction

In his transmittal letter to the House of Representatives Dr. Bowen states the following:

”"The issue of tobacco addiction has been addressed in previous Surgeon General's Reports and in the medical literature beginning in the early 1900s"

Notice that Dr. Bowen uses the phrase “tobacco addiction” and not “tobacco habituation”. That statement alone gives one cause to have to seriously consider your allegation of a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy (VLWC) occurring in 1989 and officially accepted in 1996.

But if you read through the report you will find much more useful information concerning the addictive properties of Nicotine and many references to other sources of information concerning the topic. Of particular interest to perhaps yourself and others on this thread is the following quote, which can be found on page 4 of the Introduction to the report.

1. Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting.
2. Nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction
3. The pharmacologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine.

44 posted on 01/23/2003 7:24:41 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
Oh, I've read Koop's report in its entirety and neither it nor Bowen's pronouncements change a thing I've said, particularly since Bowen is clearly wrong as I pointed out to you with the quote from Terry. Since "addiction" is a medical diagnosis, perhaps you should read the current DSM-IV or ICD 10 instead of simply accepting the hysteria the anti-smoker cartel (and yes, many of them are doctors) preaches.
45 posted on 01/23/2003 10:28:24 AM PST by Max McGarrity (Anti-smokers--still the bullies in the playground they always were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
"and neither it nor Bowen's pronouncements change a thing "

LOL

IOTW I don't care what the facts are, I am going to believe what I believe. I got to tell you that sounds like every other rational I have heard from an addict.

Is there something else at issue for you here?

46 posted on 01/23/2003 11:58:53 AM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
IOTW I don't care what the facts are, I am going to believe what I believe. I got to tell you that sounds like every other rational I have heard from an addict.

I provided you with FACTS at odds with your statements, but you--as is typical of zealots--choose to discount or ignore them. Your first sentence above describes you perfectly, and your last is proof that the hysteria has worked, at least on you.

Is there something else at issue for you here?

There certainly is. As a friend of mine wrote recently: "This is a holy war about a belief system, a religion if you will, a religion that can only see tobacco smoke as some great Satan to be exorcised. Facts don't matter in this debate nearly so much as beliefs matter. This modern-day Inquisition tolerates no opposition, no dissent. Any who question the accepted beliefs is damned. Any who doubt the message are cast out of the holy ranks. Any who voice a contrary opinion are treated as heretics (branded as "addicts").

Now, would you care to address the PROOF I posted?

47 posted on 01/23/2003 12:49:00 PM PST by Max McGarrity (Anti-smokers--still the bullies in the playground they always were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity
"Now, would you care to address the PROOF I posted? "

No. Because the issue you are trying to debate is so well established that it is now days currently beyond debate.

Sorry you can't see the truth for what it is.

48 posted on 01/23/2003 1:51:27 PM PST by Kerberos
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Kerberos
I see you're still having trouble with that "mote" in your eye.

Typical.
49 posted on 01/23/2003 6:20:17 PM PST by Max McGarrity (Anti-smokers--still the bullies in the playground they always were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Max McGarrity

BUMP


50 posted on 07/23/2007 4:02:26 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson