So, Exactly When Did These Guys Lose Their Marbles?

These days, I quite often find myself thinking that some people have gone barking mad.

I had one of those moments yesterday, via Climate Depot, reading the transcript of a conversation between a US talk show host called Charlie Rose and French politician Laurent Fabius.

FABIUS: Because this question of – I don’t speak about climate change. I speak about climate disruption because it’s complete disruption. And, and every single country –

ROSE: Change is too soft a word.

Climate disruption“? And in every single country? 

That would include England, where I live. And I haven’t seen any “climate disruption.” I can’t say that I’ve seen any “climate change” over the past 50 years either. If there had been any, we English would be talking about it all the time, because the weather is a regular topic of conversation in England.

Just today I came across an acquaintance in a pub garden, who asked how things were.

“Could be a bit sunnier,” I remarked, looking up at the overcast sky.

“That’s what we were just saying,” my acquaintance replied, nodding in the direction of his companion. “When you get home, put in a word about it.”

“I most certainly will,” I replied.

Nothing about “climate change” or “climate disruption”, you’ll note. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever had anyone ever say anything about either in my entire life. Not in an English pub garden anyway.

ROSE: Take the decision to?

FABIUS: Well, to, to halt, to stop this completely –

ROSE: Carbon in the air.

FABIUS: This situation where our world, it will be impossible to live in.

What do you mean, “carbon in the air”? Particles of soot? Or carbon dioxide? Or both?

FABIUS: Last time I was in Beijing the same day in Paris we decided to have alternate traffic because the pollution was ten percent more than the average. But the same day in Beijing it was not 10 percent more. It was 18 times the norm. And, and people couldn’t breathe in the street. And, and children couldn’t go to school…

Erm, local air pollution isn’t “climate change”. It isn’t even “climate disruption” either. It’s something we had in England 200 years ago, and as recently as 50 years ago. We called it “smog”. It’s what you get when thousands of factory smokestacks and household chimneys and engines are discharging smoke into near-motionless atmospheric air, so that instead of getting blown away, it just gets thicker and thicker. It was largely fixed by the 1950s Clean Air Acts. Maybe newly-industrialised China hasn’t got round to passing any clean air acts yet.

…Therefore it’s an absolute necessity. It’s very difficult for Chinese because it’s a complete shift in their economy and they need growth. But the new element you are asking is that now people understand that it’s not only constraint, it can be an opportunity which is offered. Green growth, creation of jobs. It’s a new big thing. And particularly for, for the big business.

ROSE: Where is the resistance?! What stands in the way of something that clearly threatens the planet?

What do you mean “clearly” threatens the planet? If there’s one thing that’s certain about “climate change” and “global warming”, it is that it is not “clear” at all that either of them are happening. What planet are these guys living on?

Charlie Rose was born in 1942. Laurent Fabius was born in 1946. They’ve both been around for quite a long time. So, exactly when did these guys lose their marbles?

Because that’s all I could think had happened, after reading the transcript, and watching the relevant Charlie Rose Show. They’d both gone barking mad.

I can see pretty well, and I trust my own eyes. And as soon as I see any “climate change” or “climate disruption”, I’ll let you know.

I don’t think Charlie Rose or Laurent Fabius have seen any climate change either. But I don’t think they trust their own eyes. I think they trust “experts”. And, if someone ever tells them anything surprising or unusual, the first thing they’ll do is find some “expert” to either confirm or deny it. And they’ll entirely base their own opinion on that of the “experts”. So if “experts” tell them there’s “climate disruption” happening, they’ll believe it.

The same thing has been happening with smoking (and drinking, and eating, and any number of other things). People have been eating and drinking and smoking for centuries, and then along come a bunch of Public Health “experts” who say that this stuff is killing us. And more or less everybody believes them!

Is there anything an “expert” ever told them that they wouldn’t believe? Doesn’t seem like there is.

Anyway, I’d never heard of Charlie Rose before, but my opinion of him immediately crashed and burned, with no survivors. Same with Laurent Fabius. I wouldn’t trust either of them to run a bath, never mind run a country.

And what applies to Charlie Rose and Laurent Fabius really applies to the entire political class, and to the entire mainstream media. Because David Cameron and Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband and the BBC and all the rest of them have also collectively lost their marbles, and started believing things that they never used to believe (and which people like me still don’t believe).

And it’s why political parties like UKIP are on the rise. Because UKIP and Nigel Farage still believe what most people believe, while Labour and LibDems and Conservatives have started believing in the dangers of secondhand smoke and global warming and any number of other mad things.

The real attraction of someone like Nigel Farage is that most of what he says is plain Common Sense. He believes what most ordinary people have believed all their lives, and which they have carried on believing despite every attempt to ‘re-educate’ them. And that’s why more and more of them are voting for him and people like him. And why they’re more and more turning their backs on a political class that no longer speaks for them.

About Frank Davis

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

35 Responses to So, Exactly When Did These Guys Lose Their Marbles?

  1. harleyrider1978 says:

    Frank Charlie Rose is about as Leftist as they come with a slight touch of William f Buckleys demeanor. But as the interview shows Rose let the guy lead the talk and the subject without ever getting into the junk BS about climate change itself. Instead going str8 for the by pass on it to leave the impression that its all real and this is whats going to happen if we don’t all do it NOW…….

    Its a total regular Charlie Rose BS interview style………….make it look real and so authentic without any painful direct rebuttles to any claims made………….none nada.

    They were selling their political sides BS………….that’s all they were doing and reinforcing the BS even more like complete morons who didn’t question anything only that old styled of surrender to authority crapola they love to push…………

    They never and I mean never ever do a show on climate BS unless the talking points and everything is set up in advance so nothing is ever questioned in any form,only pushing the claims and that’s it! There is no room for denial or even a small question of any of it………just like the SHS bs…………………don’t question authority we have a concensus and the bulls hit science is in!

    The 2 biggest Lies of the 20th Century are second hand smoke and climate…….besides the direct smoking BS. Im sure we can add to the list quickly like contrails and UFO aliens………….

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Last year on KYNET TV Ken Moelman our libertarian and my friend were debating the smoking ban and they had a doctor on the Nazi side and the Westrom bytch pushing the crap. All they did was stay to the talking points and Ken kept hitting them directly with the junk science approach but in a milder form than myself would have. He literally ripped them a new one and you could see their faces turning white with horror as he exposed much of their BS claims after I had spent 2 years grooming him on the junk science and he did a superb job on live tv to boot. We who fight in a confrontational atmosphere each day could likely do better but he slammed home the run and the Nazis the next day in the Lexington and Louisville papers has the Nazis screaming don’t believe our enemies they are lying to you to destroy our much needed smoke free utopia…………..etc etc etc………..

      We had officially clobbered the enemy into submission yet they still kept spinning the BS.

      If Rose were to actually question and challenge the guy then we woulda had a real discussion one peope and ratings guys want to see. But when your a YES MAN like Rose all you get is BS…………

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        You want a man who could make em sweat and melt into oblivion if they weren’t tellin the truth and being factual…………..

        Conservative Writer, Commentator William F. Buckley Jr. Dies at 82

        NEW YORK – William F. Buckley Jr., the erudite Ivy Leaguer and conservative herald who showered huge and scornful words on liberalism as he observed, abetted and cheered on the right’s post-World War II rise from the fringes to the White House, died Wednesday. He was 82

        Editor, columnist, novelist, debater, TV talk show star of “Firing Line,” harpsichordist, trans-oceanic sailor and even a good-natured loser in a New York mayor’s race, Buckley worked at a daunting pace, taking as little as 20 minutes to write a column for his magazine, the National Review.

        Yet on the platform he was all handsome, reptilian languor, flexing his imposing vocabulary ever so slowly, accenting each point with an arched brow or rolling tongue and savoring an opponent’s discomfort with wide-eyed glee.

        “I am, I fully grant, a phenomenon, but not because of any speed in composition,” he wrote in The New York Times Book Review in 1986. “I asked myself the other day, `Who else, on so many issues, has been so right so much of the time?’ I couldn’t think of anyone.”

        Buckley had for years been withdrawing from public life, starting in 1990 when he stepped down as top editor of the National Review. In December 1999, he closed down “Firing Line” after a 23-year run, when guests ranged from Richard Nixon to Allen Ginsberg. “You’ve got to end sometime and I’d just as soon not die onstage,” he told the audience.

        “For people of my generation, Bill Buckley was pretty much the first intelligent, witty, well-educated conservative one saw on television,” fellow conservative William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard, said at the time the show ended. “He legitimized conservatism as an intellectual movement and therefore as a political movement.”

        Fifty years earlier, few could have imagined such a triumph. Conservatives had been marginalized by a generation of discredited stands — from opposing Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal to the isolationism which preceded the U.S. entry into World War II. Liberals so dominated intellectual thought that the critic Lionel Trilling claimed there were “no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation.”

        Buckley founded the biweekly magazine National Review in 1955, declaring that he proposed to stand “athwart history, yelling `Stop’ at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who urge it.” Not only did he help revive conservative ideology, especially unbending anti-Communism and free market economics, his persona was a dynamic break from such dour right-wing predecessors as Sen. Robert Taft.

        Although it perpetually lost money, the National Review built its circulation from 16,000 in 1957 to 125,000 in 1964, the year conservative Sen. Barry Goldwater was the Republican presidential candidate. The magazine claimed a circulation of 155,000 when Buckley relinquished control in 2004, citing concerns about his mortality, and over the years the National Review attracted numerous young writers, some who remained conservative (George Will, David Brooks), and some who didn’t (Joan Didion, Garry Wills).

        “I was very fond of him,” Didion said Wednesday. “Everyone was, even if they didn’t agree with him.”

        Born Nov. 24, 1925, in New York City, William Frank Buckley Jr. was the sixth of 10 children of a a multimillionaire with oil holdings in seven countries. The son spent his early childhood in France and England, in exclusive Roman Catholic schools.

        His prominent family also included his brother James, who became a one-term senator from New York in the 1970s; his socialite wife, Pat, who died in April 2007; and their son, Christopher, a noted author and satirist (“Thank You for Smoking”).

        A precocious controversialist, William was but 8 years old when he wrote to the king of England, demanding payment of the British war debt.

        After graduating with honors from Yale in 1950, Buckley married Patricia Alden Austin Taylor, spent a “hedonistic summer” and then excoriated his alma mater for what he regarded as its anti-religious and collectivist leanings in “God and Man at Yale,” published in 1951.

        Buckley spent a year as a low-level agent for the Central Intelligence Agency in Mexico, work he later dismissed as boring.

        With his brother-in-law, L. Brent Bozell, Buckley wrote a defense of Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954, “McCarthy and His Enemies.” While condemning some of the senator’s anti-communist excesses, the book praised a “movement around which men of good will and stern morality can close ranks.”

        In 1960, Buckley helped found Young Americans for Freedom, and in 1961, he was among the founders of the Conservative Party in New York. Buckley was the party’s candidate for mayor of New York in 1965, waging a campaign that was in part a lark — he proposed an elevated bikeway on Second Avenue — but that also reflected a deep distaste for the liberal Republicanism of Mayor John V. Lindsay. Asked what he would do if he won, Buckley said, “I’d demand a recount.”

        He wrote the first of his successful spy thrillers, “Saving the Queen,” in 1976, introducing Ivy League hero Blackford Oakes. Oakes was permitted a dash of sex — with the Queen of England, no less — and Buckley permitted himself to take positions at odds with conservative orthodoxy. He advocated the decriminalization of marijuana, supported the treaty ceding control of the Panama Canal and came to oppose the Iraq war.

        Buckley also took on the archconservative John Birch Society, a growing force in the 1950s and 1960s. “Buckley’s articles cost the Birchers their respectability with conservatives,” Richard Nixon once said. “I couldn’t have accomplished that. Liberals couldn’t have, either.”

        Although he boasted he would never debate a Communist “because there isn’t much to say to someone who believes the moon is made of green cheese,” Buckley got on well with political foes. His friends included such liberals as John Kenneth Galbraith and Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., who despised Buckley’s “wrathful conservatism,” but came to admire him for his “wit, his passion for the harpsichord, his human decency, even for his compulsion to epater the liberals.”

        Buckley was also capable of deep and genuine dislikes. In a 1968 television debate, when left-wing novelist and critic Gore Vidal called him a “pro-war-crypto-Nazi,” Buckley snarled an anti-gay slur and threatened to “sock you in your … face and you’ll stay plastered.” Their feud continued in print, leading to mutual libel suits that were either dismissed (Vidal’s) or settled out of court (Buckley’s).

        The National Review defended the Vietnam War, opposed civil rights legislation and once declared that “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail.” Buckley also had little use for the music of the counterculture, once calling the Beatles “so unbelievably horrible, so appallingly unmusical, so dogmatically insensitive to the magic of the art, that they qualify as crowned heads of antimusic.”

        The National Review could do little to prevent Goldwater’s landslide defeat in 1964, but as conservatives gained influence so did Buckley and his magazine. The long rise would culminate in 1980 when Buckley’s good friend, Ronald Reagan, was elected president. The outsiders were now in, a development Buckley accepted with a touch of rue.

        “It’s true. I had much more fun criticizing than praising,” he told the Washington Post in 1985. “I criticize Reagan from time to time, but it’s nothing like Carter or Johnson.”

        Buckley’s memoir about Goldwater, “Flying High,” was coming out this spring, and his son said he was working on a book about Reagan.

        Buckley so loved a good argument — especially when he won — that he compiled a book of bickering in “Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription,” published in 2007 and featuring correspondence with the famous (Nixon, Reagan) and the merely annoyed.

        “Mr. Buckley,” one non-fan wrote in 1967, “you are the mouthpiece of that evil rabble that depends on fraud, perjury, dirty tricks, anything at all that suits their purposes. I would trust a snake before I would trust you or anybody you support.”

        Responded Buckley: “What would you do if I supported the snake?”

        • waltc says:

          I don’t understand the relevance of Buckley’s obit here , esp since he’s been dead for, what?, 6 yrs? But you should know that , lifelong smoker, he died of emphysema and in his latter days quit and became a missionary aunt.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Not Buckleys death Walt but his life. The mans ability to debate and his style of interviewing besides his benevolent demeanor on Camera…………I said him because The Rose guy tries to Buckleys laid back but direct style approach but instead of coming back with a direct point against what was just said as Buckleys style would do,Rose simply plays right from the script and goes right along with whatever the game is……………Buckley always Bucked the system and stylishly played the trump card magnificently. Like I said with Buckley you were likely going to get at the facts not the agendas message…………Rose just keeps selling the message as the Band played on so to speak.

  2. Tom says:

    Charlie Rose is a communist agitator who is working from the inside, spreading propaganda, including making AGW, SHS, other green and health fascist ideologies, like there was total truth behind them in order to keep the communist party in the US in control of things. Because he is as far left as a communist and his job is to legitimize lies and an illegal control of the US by a single demented party, I simply stopped watching him altogether and never will, again. Him being on PBS is supposed to give him some air of authority and be a role model for other communist anti-smoking leftists in CA and the US to emulate, by his normalizing it all via his communist inspired program.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Good summation Tom but why stop at Communist………………theres many other creative terms such as BASTARD AND SON OF A BYTCH THAT HIT the target quite well too………

  3. Some other Tom says:

    In my estimation it’s clear where people like that ‘lose their marbles’. It is at the exact moment that an issue or ideal becomes more important than the evidence supporting it.

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      That one person steps forth and declares the Emperor wears no clothes” Then all hell should break loose as the news spreads everywhere………….That’s the type of news media Journalism we deserve. Expose Liars and deep examination of claims made and force them to back up what they claim with facts and figures to the point being made and counter points………… Once exposed as Fraud it should be over and done with forever.

      Todays media rolls pver and plays chump games and when the game is up they just make excuses an keep on playing like the band on the Titanic as it slipped under the waves never believing it was over and the end.

      • Some other Tom says:

        You would think that one person stepping forward to tell the truth about the emporers clothing would start a landslide of sorts or some massive tidal wave… The reality is, a lot of people have stood up, and more are trying to and it still isn’t enough somedays. i think that’s because there are still a lot more people who don’t know what to do with the truth. People who are far more trusting of friendly faces on TV with cozy brand names associated with them then the possibility that they’re being lied to day-in, day-out for whatever backhanded reason, or having to ever think for themselves…

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          lord knows it cant last forever. I think in the end it just falls out of favor and slowly dies until one day it comes to a head and thy just get repealed like a landslide the same as they came in…………..gone like nothing ever happened.

  4. caprizchka says:

    Charlie Rose is everything already said and one more thing, he’s so boring I can’t even bring myself to watch the clip. While boring doesn’t mean wrong it does go toward his interview style which, to me, sounds like like a child therapist.

  5. waltc says:

    No, Rose isn’t a Communist and it doesn’t help to go hyperbolic, it diminishes the meaning of Communist. He’s just a go-along liberal (and undoubtedly Obama fan) who works out of NYC for the Public Broadcasting System (our BBC) and goes along with the general liberal line. Then too, he’s never been a confrontational interviewer, no matter what nonsense his guests spout. He wants to be liked– by the guest, his liberal audience, and his bosses. Then too in NYC, almost all liberals(which is almost all of NYC) believe this global warming catastrophe as a matter of faith. No arguing with faith.

    • Tom says:

      Well I have known over the years and still do know, quite well and personally, much about them, their ideas, ideologies, wishes, desires and so forth, in San Francisco, so-called “liberals”, and trust me, many of them are not “liberals” but flat out communists. And it is of that same mindset, Charlie Rose and the ideologies he presents on TV, of which he reminds me, are those I know, in person, who are of the communist philosophy, through and through. He is also boring to watch except for those of the same mindset, who worship him the same way they worship at the altar of the Sunday New York Times. And some of these folk, if they had their way, would trust the communist political party to run this country before they would any else. Maybe he’s not specifically by name, but he surely reminds me of one, based on some of those I have observed around me.

  6. roobeedoo2 says:

    “I wouldn’t trust either of them to run a bath, never mind run a country.”.

    LOL, They’d be hysterical … “The water level is rising! The water level is rising!”

  7. prog says:

    A friend of my son has been studying in China. Half jokingly said that people in Beijing smoke to get a bit of fresh air.

  8. Jay says:

    With increasing numbers apparently willing to vote for UKIP the spin that those people are the ‘left behind’ sounds increasingly hollow. Despite the Tories’ warning that a vote for UKIP in the GE is a vote for Moribund I, for one, still intend to vote for them.

    Personally, I think the UK should be certified.

  9. harleyrider1978 says:

    I actually heard on the science channel a denial of the global warming myth as to why the great lakes were dropping in water level…………….You heard that right. The ‘NEW” cause is the earth is rising below the lakes causing the water to drain out faster into the surround rivers and streams…

    Ever so silently they drop the ball and move along with another theory………………No doubt that’s what will happen with the smoking claims too………….Keep fighting they will indeed give up.

  10. garyk30 says:

    Ahhhhh, what ‘marbles’ did they have to start with?

  11. garyk30 says:

    Name all of the things politicians say that we should be afraid of , and then, consider this:

    “In politics, what begins in fear usually ends in folly.” — Coleridge

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Gary especially when its all CREATED FEAR out of thin air. Fear is a great manipulator and a belief thru repetition to promote the fear is essential to making fear complete.

      FDR We have nothing to Fear but Fear itself……………..Now why fear something we already know was invented by well the government for all intent and purposes…….

      That’s not to say they cant create real viruses and bacterial epidemics to kill most of us if they chose to do or for that matter Big Pharma or a terrorist group with a few MicroBiologists……………Even Leggy can do it. But fear made to order just to force compliance to something we know is BS………..They can take a hike. We need real people that are trustworthy to lead and be in government,todays shitheads are all Bastards forsale to the lowest bidder………..Highest Bidder at least gets intelligence.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    How Close Is Victory In The War On Cancer?

    By Hank Campbell | September 29th 2014 01:53 PM | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    Over 40 years ago, President Richard Nixon authorized a War On Cancer, with the goal that cancer could be conquered with the right amount of money and ingenuity.

    In the last decade there began to be rumblings about the cost versus actual benefit, and the general wisdom of creating a “Manhattan Project Of…” everything the government decided to tackle. It has instead become common wisdom that more government money will not solve anything. President Bush doubled the budget for the NIH and cancer was not cured. Instead, the government-funded science community has been saying cancer can’t be cured, it can only be managed. And the National Cancer Institute had to deflect findings from U.S. General Accounting Office was manipulating cancer statistics to “artificially inflate the amount of ‘true’ progress”.

    Cancer deaths have not gone down, even with the War On Smoking, but Alex Berezow debunks the War On Cancer debunkers, noting that cancer deaths have gone up because people are living longer due to lots of other treatments – long enough that they can get cancer.

    We are winning, he notes. Slowly, and it has certainly become more manageable, and that may have to be the final goal: like diabetes, which was also once a death sentence, but is now treated quite well.

    We Are Slowly Winning the War on Cancer By Alex B. Berezow, Real Clear Science

  13. When these idiots go on about the planet being ‘in danger’ I always think that they are really trying to say that they think that humans are in danger. The planet will survive whatever changes there are as it has done for billions of years and millions of ‘climate changes’. It is humans that will be affected by these climate changes just as they have been before…They move away from the floods etc. or die off. When the sun runs out of energy this planet will die and there is not a thing that we can do about it.

  14. garyk30 says:

    These people want ‘Utopia” to live in; but, here is what happens in ‘Utopia’.

    In July 1968, ethologist John B. Calhoun built a “mouse utopia,” a metal enclosure 9 feet square with unlimited food, water, and nesting material.

    He introduced four pairs of mice, and within a year they had multiplied to 620.

    But after that the society began to fall apart — males became aggressive, females began neglecting their young, and the weaker mice were crowded to the center of the pen, where resources were scarce.

    After 600 days the females stopped reproducing and the males withdrew from them entirely, and by January 1973 the whole colony was dead.

    Even when the population had returned to its former levels, the mice’s behavior had remained permanently changed.

    • nisakiman says:

      And it is precisely that, Gary, that worries me. All this social engineering via smoking bans and global warming scare stories etc is permanently altering our lives and the way society works. When the lunacy ends, will we ever be able to recover? It’s a moot point.

      • Jay says:

        A very good point eg where I work procedures were introduced (and not so very long ago). Already people have forgotten that the procedures were not supposed to be ends in themselves and now accept – uncritically – that “it has to be done this way”. Despite the fact that I’m highly critical of the procedures (of benefit to the few, and replacing trust) I find myself reluctant to take any action which hasn’t been expresslyapproved so, despite my awareness, my behaviour has already become modified. The ‘oppression’ and constraints make me feel just that little bit more shrunken as a human being and a professional. It’s a culture that is about control and therefore stifles critical thinking, lateral thinking and initiative and there’s no reason to suppose that it couldn’t poison an entire society.

  15. waltc says:

    Goodf point. Between grade school indoctrination, cultural vacuity, a loss of analytic thinking, a sense of entitlement and the distancing from real life that comes from living by texting, I think the future may well be changed beyond our recognition.

  16. harleyrider1978 says:

    I just found out the hard way that the Nazis created a fake protest for Georgia University on facebook you should see they are using a fake protest as a means to push smoking cessastion services while claiming they are for liberty………….

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      I had gave them enuf ammo to destroy all the bs claim made. Then I found out what was actually happening………….

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        I went to their other page and made comment and they posted this:

        Matthew Tyler likes this.

        The Arch Conservative Jack,

        I’m sorry if there was any confusion. We are totally and completely against the new tobacco ban. We published the Twain article because we believe it articulates our general opinion in a way only Mark Twain can.

        about an hour ago

        They then removed a simple paragraph I typed out and posted and then they removed all commenting ability across the whole site…………

  17. harleyrider1978 says:

    Where to Snuff the Puff? Relative Effectiveness of U.S. Smoking Control Policies

    Rajeev K. Goel
    Illinois State University – Department of Economics


    Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (Formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), 44(2013C): 97-102


    This research examines the relative effectiveness of various smoking control initiatives in lowering U.S. smoking prevalence. The main contribution lies in considering alternate state-level restrictions on retailers as well as smokers. Greater restrictions on smokers lower smoking prevalence, while those directed at retailers are largely ineffective. Upon disaggregation, territorial restrictions banning smoking in restaurants are found to be effective, whereas those in workplaces and in bars do not appreciably lower smoking prevalence. We also find some gender differences in the effectiveness of smoking restrictions. These findings are generally robust to alternate model specifications.

    Keywords: Smoking; Restrictions; Retailers; Restaurants; Bars; Bans; Gender

    JEL Classification: I0, I1, H3
    Accepted Paper Series

  18. harleyrider1978 says:

    You guys would shit! I saw a black guy wearing a t-shirt at Bingo that said 2016 NOBODY FOR PRESIDENT/ VOTE FREEDOM

  19. carol2000 says:

    Our tax dollars at work, continued –
    “Launched in August 2011, CounterTobacco.Org is the first comprehensive resource for local, state, and federal organizations working to counteract tobacco product sales and marketing at the point of sale (POS). Our site offers evidence-based descriptions of the problem, policy solutions, advocacy materials, news updates, and an image gallery exposing tobacco industry tactics at the point of sale.

    CounterTobacco.Org is supported by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Office on Smoking and Health (Grant Number U48-DP001944) and the National Cancer Institute (Grant Number U01CA154281). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Insititute or National Institutes of Health or the CDC.

    Counter Tobacco was founded by Kurt M. Ribisl, PhD, Professor of Health Behavior at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health and Program Leader for Cancer Prevention and Control at the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center and Allison Myers, MPH, a doctoral student in the Health Behavior Department.

    Solving the POS problem is a fifth core strategy of tobacco control programming, together with (1) raising cigarette excise taxes, (2) implementing clean indoor air laws, (3) cessation, and (4) launching hard-hitting counter-marketing campaigns. Read more about the importance of retail tobacco control.

    [with a FaceFuck page, of course.]

    Kurt M Ribisl search results

    under “Data and Visualize” = 13 projects + 16 subprojects, total $14,227,181 under NCI (administering center)
    Project Number: 5U01CA154281-04 Contact PI / Project Leader: RIBISL, KURT M.
    Total project funding amount for 4 projects is $5,071,359* [for 2011-2014]
    * Only NIH and CDC funding data.

No need to log in

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.