Get Rid Of The Chiiiildren

The Hill:

“Even smokers don’t want to see their kids, nieces and nephews smoking.”

Chris Snowdon:

It is obviously troubling that any child of this age is smoking, but we are talking about less than 0.8 per cent of the sample.

This sort of thing increasingly gets me these days. I’ve half a mind to go stand outside schools and hand out free cigarettes to children. If kids want to smoke, then let them smoke.

All I can remember is that back when I was a kid, I didn’t want to smoke at all. And I didn’t want to drink alcohol. And I didn’t much like girls either. Smoking and drinking and girls were tastes I acquired in adolescence. We kids enjoyed different things than grown-ups. We liked different food, different drinks, different games, different movies, different books, and in fact pretty much different everything.

I think that my whole body chemistry changed at adolescence. Up until then I’d liked sweet foods and sweet drinks. After then I liked salty or spicy or sour food and drink. Quite apart from all the hormonal changes, maybe that’s something to do with stopping growing. Before adolescence, I was always getting bigger. Ever since, I’ve very slowly been growing smaller and weaker. Adolescence was like reaching the top of a hill: it’s been downhill ever since.

Another thing that gets me is the idea that adults are tough and resilient, and children are fragile creatures that need to be protected from everything. When I was a kid, I was forever falling out of trees. Or coming off roller-skates. I almost always had a remarkable set of self-inflicted cuts and bruises. It’s the other way round: Kids are much tougher than adults. Their legs don’t break so easily. Their injuries heal more quickly. And so on. If I fell out of a tree at my age, I’d break a leg for sure. But new-born babies get pulled out of collapsed buildings a week or 10 days after the earthquake that levelled them.

Childhood in the modern sense is a new invention anyway. For the bulk of human history, most children had no “childhood” to speak of. For as soon as they could walk and talk, they were set to work gathering crops, preparing meals, performing chores. Because their parents only really wanted children to share the burden of their work, and not as status symbols to show off to their friends.

I occasionally see photos of boys aged 5 smoking, but they’re almost always from third world  countries where boys of that age are working hard, and have effectively joined the adult population. Maybe if at that age I’d had to pick rice all day, or carry bamboo staves on my back, I would’ve wanted a calming cigarette at the end of the working day. So why shouldn’t they?

I think that one of the big problems of our modern world is that children are kept outside adult life in ways they never used to be. They inhabit a world which is devoid of all responsibility, and in which they are entitled to everything. Is it very surprising if they grow up to simply not understand the adult world at all, because they were never part of it, and reject when they eventually meet up with it?

A lot of today’s noisy protesters (particularly in the wake of last week’s election) seem to be overgrown children. e.g. Russell Brand. They feel entitled to everything, and they all seem to live in a make-believe world, a fairyland, where anything can be had if they only demand it loudly enough.

The best thing that could happen to children is to be introduced and integrated into adult life as early as possible. Children love it. I can still remember being introduced, aged 7 or 8, to some old sea dog on a passenger liner crossing the Atlantic, and being astonished and gratified when he spoke to me as if I were a man like him, rather than a child of seven. Nobody had ever done that before. It was like being accepted into the adult world, and treated as an equal. He didn’t tell me stories. He just talked about himself and his life as if it were perfectly natural to tell a seven-year-old about it.

When children are integrated into adult life, we’ll at last be rid of the chiiiiildren.

Advertisements

About Frank Davis

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

38 Responses to Get Rid Of The Chiiiildren

  1. cherie79 says:

    I loved adults who treated me like one and I treat all children like that and they seem to like me, rather surprising as I am not particularly fond of kids in general. Now they seem to grow old instead of growing up as we did. Middle aged ‘demonstrators’ sulking because they lost an election are a sad example.

    • Reinhold says:

      I loved adults who treated me like one and I treat all children like that and they seem to like me, rather surprising as I am not particularly fond of kids in general.

      Same here.
      I have often wondered why kids seem to like me, until someone finally told me: it’s because you do not talk childish to them.

      Incidentally, great post again Frank.

  2. harleyrider1978 says:

    This sort of thing increasingly gets me these days. I’ve half a mind to go stand outside schools and hand out free cigarettes to children. If kids want to smoke, then let them smoke.

    Damn Frank You saw me doing that didn’t ya…………………

  3. Lepercolonist says:

    In our neighborhood tree house, we had hidden cigarettes, Playboy centerfolds hanging, hunting knives, BB guns,baseballs, etc. Boys aged 8 to 14 going through a rite of passage into adulthood.
    We had no juvenile delinquents, respected our parents and teachers and all became respectable adults. I remember at age 9 handing our pharmacist a handwritten note signed by my mother : “Please sell my son 3 packs of Pall Mall Reds.” No problem. They would arrest that pharmacist today.

    • Furor Teutonicus says:

      I remember at the age of ten, being sent by my Great Grandmother, to get her whiskey from the chemist. (Johnny Walkers red label)

      Note…! Yes! CHEMIST!

      Whether it was on perscription, I do not know. But it was my job to go and collect it.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        FT I can actually remember the Pharmacist actually was a Chemist. He would literally mix from raw drugs my grandmothers meds. Then slowly thru the 60s all those drugs started becoming outlawed without special liscences as Big Pharma started taking over the whole Industry. Opiates they had them on the shelves ready to cut to the docs orders mixed with whatever else he said. Of course back then scripts were written in latin at least that was grandmas Doctors way. Id jaunt down on my bike or grandpas pony and pick up her meds.

        Ya Evansville still had hitchin posts back in the 60s and grandma had her milk cow out behind the house in the carriage house where we also kept the pony……….

        You didn’t have trash service you burned your trash on Mondays and Tuesdays then City finally got a trash service to come retrieve the burned mass from burn barrels. Before that everyone hired a man with a truck to haul their cans to the county dump. Or do it yourself.

        When you burned your trash figure out how much less mass that is to be hauled off. It reduces trash by probably 90%. I know we could burn in 4 barrels and make a trip once every couple of months to dump it. Here in Kentucky we still burn trash as the local pickup is 60 bucks a month and Burn day is Tuesdays. Then we can dump the cans on the farm in sink holes. My brother the who has the money bought a half dumpster and pays a 100 a month for it……..they pick up once a week. I use it but still keep a burn barrel for other stuff.

        Now if you use the county so called trash drop off dumpsters or transfer station they call it they charge 2 dollars per 30 gallon BAG!

        You can see why everyone still burns!

        • Frank Davis says:

          It’s amazing how much can be burned. Back when I was living in Devon, and the council started to get people to be unpaid garbage-sorters with different coloured bins, I stopped using the collections, and burnt everything. I burnt food scraps and I even burnt teabags. I used to put used teabags in the conservatory to dry. All I was left with was a few bones and tins. If there was anything I couldn’t burn, I’d find a public litter bin to put it in.

          I can’t do that now, because I don’t have a garden. But if I had one, I’d still do it (although I think that if you live in a town you may not be allowed to).

          And there were no “burn days” in Devon. Out in the country people lit bonfires whenever they liked.

          The other good thing about burning garbage was that not only was it one in the eye for the bossy Devon council, but it also released lots of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which was one in the eye for the global warming alarmists.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          I like getting out tires and making names out of them to burm at nite on earth day.

          Back in the 90s when the space shuttle was up orbiting I lit up GORE SUX with tires………I only hope they saw it since I only lived about 18 miles then from the Gore tobacco farm in Carthage tenn. They still grow about 25,000 pounds of tobacco a year could be more as I know ne time they grew near 100,000 pounds planted all around the house they lived in.

          Then old gore back in the 1980s running for senate singing his usual BS Ive hoed the baccy topped and hung it…………….was on of his reelection commercials……

  4. Pat Nurse says:

    As a former child smoker, now healthy into older age grannyhood, who began smoking in the 1960s aged 8, I feel sorry for these kids – not because they smoke, although that’s not a great idea at that age – but because if they refuse to do as they’re told by the anti-smoker industry , that pretends to care so much about their health, they’ll be the first generation in 700 years to be criminalised, abused, humiliated, and socially excluded as adults for no other reason than, like me, they’re not dead and they won’t quit. This is not progressive but backwardly regressive with a capital R.

    The anti-smoker industry is dishonest. It couldn’t care less about the “chiiiiiiildren”. It cares only about how easy it is to exploit and groom other people’s children to push forward their very expensive hate campaign. #ShameOnThem

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      Something along the lines of the Hitler Youf:
      Proctor (1997) continues that “throughout this period, magazines like Genussgifte (Poisons of taste or habit), Auf der Wacht (On Guard), and Reine Luft (Pure air) published a regular drumbeat against this ‘insidious poison’ [tobacco], along with articles charting the unhealthful effects of alcohol, teenage dancing, cocaine, and other vices. Dozens of books and pamphlets denounced the ‘smoking slavery’ or ‘cultural degeneration’ feared from the growth of tobacco use. Tobacco was branded ‘the enemy of world peace’, and there was even talk of ‘tobacco terror’ and ‘tobacco capitalism’ …. The Hitler Youth and the League of German Girls both published antismoking propaganda, and the Association for the Struggle against the Tobacco Danger organized counseling centers where the ‘tobacco ill’ could seek help” (p.456-457); “Hitler Youth had anti-smoking patrols all over Germany, outside movie houses and in entertainment areas, sports fields etc., and smoking was strictly forbidden to these millions of German youth growing up under Hitler.” (www.zundelsite – January 27, 1998.htm)

    • Frank Davis says:

      Pat, were you the only 8-year-old smoker? Or did your 8-year-old friends smoke too?

      • nisakiman says:

        I started smoking when I was eight or nine, and I think I was the youngest of ‘the smoking crowd’. But I always tended to hang out with kids older than myself. By the time I was eleven, quite a few of my peers used to sneak off with me to the metaphorical bike sheds to share a crafty snout. And when I went to grammar school, there was a ‘smoker’s corner’ in the playground, out of sight of the staff room where all us smokers would gather at break times for a puff. We would station two ‘screws’ to keep an eye out for teachers and share the ciggies, just like passing a joint. Lord knows how we never got caught, as the smoke must have billowed out and round the corner into the line of vision of the staff room.

        But of course the staff room was itself a fug of tobacco smoke. I think most of the teachers smoked, and the headmaster (who I unfortunately had occasion to visit on a regular basis due to my somewhat rebellious nature) would always chain smoke (Player’s Navy Cut) throughout the interview, only resting it in the ashtray when it was time to deliver the traditional ‘six-of-the-best’. The head of the French department (Mr Fletcher, a truly terrifying man who had been in SOE in France during the war) used to sweep down the corridors, black robe flowing behind him and leaving a trail of pungent pipe smoke in his wake. His irascible reputation preceded him, and the crowded passageways would part like the Red Sea on his approach.

        Yes, there was a very different attitude to smoking back in the early sixties.

      • Pat Nurse says:

        Sorry for the late reply Frank. This is the first chance I’ve had to come back here for a few days. I used to smoke with my friend who was also 8 and friends who were a couple years older than me. I got fed up with smoking and quit when I was about 10. I began again a year later aged 11 when I bumped into my older friends one day and they offered me a smoke, which I happily accepted.

        My 8 year old friend who smoked with me quit about about 4 years ago. Of the older friends, I know only of one who quit in the 80s but I don’t know about the others.

        My big brother smoked from a young age too – I think about 12 – and he is still alive, healthy and fit for a man in his 60s. The only non smoker in my family was my older sister who was the only one to get cancer – breast cancer – which she put down to her heavy and regular drinking of diet coke over a period of 20 years.

  5. harleyrider1978 says:

    Is the pharmaceutical industry like the mafia? British Medical Journal

    By Richard Smith – editor of the BMJ until 2004 Sept…
    http://therefusers.com/refusers-newsroom/is-the-pharmaceutical-industry-like-the-mafia-british-medical-journal/#.VVSKcrlVikp

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The piece that follows is my foreword to a new and fascinating book by Peter Gøtzsche, the head of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, entitled Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare …

      The characteristics of organised crime, racketeering, is defined in US law as the act of engaging repeatedly in certain types of offence, including extortion, fraud, federal drug offences, bribery, embezzlement, obstruction of justice, obstruction of law enforcement, tampering with witnesses, and political corruption. Peter produces evidence, most of it detailed, to support his case that pharmaceutical companies are guilty of most of these offences.

      And he is not the first to compare the industry with the Mafia or mob. He quotes a former vice-president of Pfizer, who has said: “It is scary how many similarities there are between this industry and the mob. The mob makes obscene amounts of money, as does this industry. The side effects of organized crime are killings and deaths, and the side effects are the same in this industry. The mob bribes politicians and others, and so does the drug industry …”

      Systematic corruption
      Most of Peter’s book is devoted to building up the case that the drug industry has systematically corrupted science to play up the benefits and play down the harms of their drugs. As an epidemiologist with very high numerical literacy and a passion for detail, so that he is a world leader in critiquing clinical studies, Peter is here on very solid ground. He joins many others, including former editors of the New England Journal of Medicine, in showing this corruption. He shows too how the industry has bought doctors, academics, journals, professional and patient organisations, university departments, journalists, regulators, and politicians. These are the methods of the mob …

      Laws that are requiring companies to declare payments to doctors are showing that very high proportions of doctors are beholden to the drug industry and that many are being paid six figures sums for advising companies or giving talks on their behalf. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that these “key opinion leaders” are being bought. They are the “hired guns” of the industry

      the public, despite its enthusiasm for taking drugs, is sceptical about the drug industry. In a poll in Denmark the public ranked the drug industry second bottom of those in which they had confidence, and a US poll ranked the industry bottom with tobacco and oil companies …

      At the moment the public tends to trust doctors and distrust drug companies, but the trust could be rapidly lost …

      Critics of the drug industry have been increasing in number, respectability, and vehemence, and Peter has surpassed them all in comparing the industry with organised crime. I hope that nobody will be put off reading this book by the boldness of his comparison, and perhaps the bluntness of the message will lead to valuable reform.

      Richard Smith was the editor of the BMJ until 2004 and is director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative
      Read the article

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Vince Harden

        May 12 at 8:19am ·

        .

        More from DR. Richard Smith (past editor of the BMJ).I posted his views on peer review a short time ago.

        BMJ Blogs: The BMJ » Blog Archive » Richard Smith: Medical research—still a scandal

        Twenty years ago this week the statistician Doug Altman published an editorial in the BMJ arguing…

        http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2014/01/31/richard-smith-medical-research-still-a-scandal/

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Twenty years ago this week the statistician Doug Altman published an editorial in the BMJ arguing that much medical research was of poor quality and misleading. In his editorial entitled, “The Scandal of Poor Medical Research,” Altman wrote that much research was “seriously flawed through the use of inappropriate designs, unrepresentative samples, small samples, incorrect methods of analysis, and faulty interpretation.” Twenty years later I fear that things are not better but worse.

          Most editorials like most of everything, including people, disappear into obscurity very fast, but Altman’s editorial is one that has lasted. I was the editor of the BMJ when we published the editorial, and I have cited Altman’s editorial many times, including recently. The editorial was published in the dawn of evidence based medicine as an increasing number of people realised how much of medical practice lacked evidence of effectiveness and how much research was poor. Altman’s editorial with its concise argument and blunt, provocative title crystallised the scandal.

          Why, asked Altman, is so much research poor? Because “researchers feel compelled for career reasons to carry out research that they are ill equipped to perform, and nobody stops them.” In other words, too much medical research was conducted by amateurs who were required to do some research in order to progress in their medical careers.
          Ethics committees, who had to approve research, were ill equipped to detect scientific flaws, and the flaws were eventually detected by statisticians, like Altman, working as firefighters. Quality assurance should be built in at the beginning of research not the end, particularly as many journals lacked statistical skills and simply went ahead and published misleading research.

          “The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged,” wrote Altman, “yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.”

          Altman’s conclusion was: “We need less research, better research, and research done for the right reasons. Abandoning using the number of publications as a measure of ability would be a start.”

          Sadly, the BMJ could publish this editorial almost unchanged again this week. Small changes might be that ethics committees are now better equipped to detect scientific weakness and more journals employ statisticians. These quality assurance methods don’t, however, seem to be working as much of what is published continues to be misleading and of low quality. Indeed, we now understand that the problem doesn’t arise from amateurs dabbling in research but rather from career researchers.

          The Lancet has this month published an important collection of articles on waste in medical research. The collection has grown from an article by Iain Chalmers and Paul Glasziou in which they argued that 85% of expenditure on medical research ($240 billion in 2010) is wasted. In a very powerful talk at last year’s peer review congress John Ioannidis showed that almost none of thousands of research reports linking foods to conditions are correct and how around only 1% of thousands of studies linking genes with diseases are reporting linkages that are real. His famous paper “Why most published research findings are false” continues to be the most cited paper of PLoS Medicine.

          Ioannidis’s conclusion as to why so much research is poor is similar to that of Altman’s: “Most scientific studies are wrong, and they are wrong because scientists are interested in funding and careers rather than truth.” Researchers are publishing studies that are too small, conducted over too short a time, and too full of bias in order to get promoted and secure future funding. An editorial in the Lancet collection on waste in research quotes 2013 Nobel Laureate Peter Higgs describing how he was an embarrassment to his Edinburgh University department because he published so little. “Today,” he said, “I wouldn’t get an academic job. It’s as simple as that. I don’t think I would be regarded as productive enough.” Producing lots of flawed research trumps a few studies that change our understanding of the world, as Higgs’s paper did.

          Chalmers, Glasziou, and others identify five steps that lead to 85% of biomedical research being wasted. Firstly, much research fails to address questions that matter. For example, new drugs are tested against placebo rather than against usual treatments. Or the question may already have been answered, but the researchers haven’t undertaken a systematic review that would have told them the research was not needed. Or the research may use outcomes, perhaps surrogate measures, that are not useful.

          Secondly, the methods of the studies may be inadequate. Many studies are too small, and more than half fail to deal adequately with bias. Studies are not replicated, and when people have tried to replicate studies they find that most do not have reproducible results.

          Thirdly, research is not efficiently regulated and managed. Quality assurance systems fail to pick up the flaws in the research proposals. Or the bureaucracy involved in having research funded and approved may encourage researchers to conduct studies that are too small or too short term.

          Fourthly, the research that is completed is not made fully accessible. Half of studies are never published at all, and there is a bias in what is published, meaning that treatments may seem to be more effective and safer than they actually are. Then not all outcome measures are reported, again with a bias towards those are positive.

          Fifthly, published reports of research are often biased and unusable. In trials about a third of interventions are inadequately described meaning they cannot be implemented. Half of study outcomes are not reported.

          The articles in the Lancet collection concentrate constructively on how wastage in research might be reduced and the quality and dissemination of research improved. But it wouldn’t be unfair simply to repeat Altman’s statement of 20 years ago that: “The poor quality of much medical research is widely acknowledged, yet disturbingly the leaders of the medical profession seem only minimally concerned about the problem and make no apparent efforts to find a solution.”

          I reflect on all this in a very personal way. I wasn’t shocked when we published Altman’s editorial because I’d begun to understand about five years’ before that much research was poor. Like Altman I thought that that was mainly because too much medical research was conducted by amateurs. It took me a while to understand that the reasons were deeper. In January 1994 at age 41, when we published Altman’s editorial, I had confidence that things would improve. In 2002 I spent eight marvellous weeks in a 15th century palazzo in Venice writing a book on medical journals, the major outlets for medical research, and reached the dismal conclusion that things were badly wrong with journals and the research they published. I wondered after the book was published if I’d struck too sour a note, but now I think it could have been sourer. My confidence that “things can only get better” has largely drained away, but I’m not a miserable old man. Rather I’ve come to enjoy observing and cataloguing human imperfections, which is why I read novels and history rather than medical journals.

          Competing interest: RS was the editor of the BMJ when it published Altman’s article. Doug Altman and Iain Chalmers he counts as friends (they might even make his funeral), and he admires Paul Glasziou and John Ioannidis (to the extent that he can now spell both of their names without having to look them up.) He’d like to think of them as friends as well but worries he would being to forward as he doesn’t know them so well.

          Richard Smith was the editor of the BMJ until 2004 and is director of the United Health Group’s chronic disease initiative.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          He isn’t the only one who noticed

          Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

          Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

          An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
          Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

          Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
          proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
          placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

          Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
          relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
          different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
          perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
          one risk factor, including social factors.

          Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

          But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
          epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
          to epidemiology.”

          But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
          it was public health that mattered!

          we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
          Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
          see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
          the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
          would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

          Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
          after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Sl-utz and Nutz Implant
          Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
          other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
          of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

          The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
          back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
          corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
          Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
          lives that selective blindness has caused!

        • Rose says:

          Harley, in the Telegraph only the other day.

          NHS tests and drugs ‘do more harm than good’

          “Senior doctors have warned that patients are given drugs and tests they may not need because GPs and hospitals are paid for the quantity of treatment”

          “The Academy of Medical Royal Colleges said patients should be encouraged to ask if their medical procedures were really necessary, in a bid to halt over-diagnosis and needless treatment of swathes of the population.

          In an unprecedented intervention, the medics – who represent all 21 medical royal colleges in the UK – said too many patients were being forced to endure tests and treatments which could do more harm than good”

          ” They said the payments system in the NHS, which means hospitals are paid according to the number of procedures they perform, and GP pay linked to diagnosis and treatment, could act against patients’ interests.

          The senior doctors said it was time to “wind back the harms of too much medicine” and replace a culture of “more is better” with balanced decision making.

          Patients should be encouraged to ask questions such as, ‘Do I really need this test or procedure? What are the risks? Are there simpler safer options? What happens if I do nothing,’ the doctors say.”

          ” They said family doctors were “increasingly pressured to focus less on open dialogue with patients and treatment options and more on fulfilling the demands of the Quality and Outcome Framework,” a system which pays GPs for performance.

          Under the scheme, GP pay is linked to prescription of certain drugs, such as statins to protect against heart disease, and participation in checks for conditions such as diabetes, and screening programmes against cancer.

          Hospitals are paid for the number of patients they treat, with a tariff of prices for each operation and test, prompting the concerns that NHS trusts end up being paid for the amount of activity they carry out, rather than the outcomes for their patients.

          The Royal Colleges will launch a new campaign – Choosing Wisely – which calls on each medical speciality to come up with a list of common practices which should be stopped altogether, because they do more harm than good.”
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11601032/NHS-tests-and-drugs-do-more-harm-than-good.html

  6. harleyrider1978 says:

    Capitalism’s Defenders Take On The Plain Packaging Zealots – Breitbart

    The International Trademark Association (INTA) has joined the legal battle against plain packaging for tobacco products in order to champion property rights. In…

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/13/capitalisms-defenders-take-on-the-plain-packaging-zealots/

    • harleyrider1978 says:

      The International Trademark Association (INTA) has joined the legal battle against plain packaging for tobacco products in order to champion property rights. In doing so it stands alongside the governments of the Dominican Republic, Honduras, Indonesia and Ukraine.

      Those countries assert that the measures enacted in Australia harm trademark rights and violate international trade agreements relating to intellectual property. Ironically, given the defence of capitalist property rights involved, the government of Cuba is also a party to the case against Australia being heard by the World Trade Organisation.

      In the UK Jane Ellison MP , the recently reappointed Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, will be watching the case with interest. Having faced a revolt from her own Conservative Party colleagues when she introduced plain packaging regulations earlier this year, she will not relish an international challenge to her pet legislation.

      The INTA believes that plain packaging proposals should be rejected or repealed because they violate various international treaties and national laws on trademark protection which protect the long-established principle that intellectual property rights are private rights. Instead it proposes that “less drastic measures” such as public health campaigns and tax increases should be used as an alternative to the expropriation of tobacco trademarks.

      In fact the INTA goes further than just defending the private property rights of the trademark owners and aims to show that standardised packaging rules produce unintended consequencesdetrimental to both the consumers whom governments intend to protect and competition. The amicus brief filed by the INTA submits that consumers may become confused and unable to rely on the quality expected of familiar brands, new brands will be barred from entering the market, counterfeiting will be simplified and the cost of the product will likely decrease as it becomes the only differentiating factor.

      INTA’ Chief Executive Officer, Etienne Sanz de Acedo, has voiced concern that plain packaging could be extended from tobacco to alcohol and confectionery in the near future, increasing the risk of counterfeiting and harming consumers in those markets saying:

      “The issue is not about specific products, what is a concern is where are we going? Today it is tobacco. Tomorrow it could be alcoholic beverages or confectionery.”

      Events would appear to be running ahead of him. Alcohol in Indonesia, infant formula in South Africa and fatty foods in Chile are already targets in the crosshairs of big government interventionists.

  7. harleyrider1978 says:

    Towns near NOLA

    Terrebonne, Lafourche leaders don’t see need for smoking ban

    Updated 4:21 am, Thursday, May 14, 2015

    http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Terrebonne-Lafourche-leaders-don-t-see-need-for-6262929.php

    • Smoking Lamp says:

      Good news, hopefully the smoking ban movement is beginning to run out of steam!

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Or somebody got told something is coming up in the state legislature……………that isn’t good for the Nazis.

  8. harleyrider1978 says:

    Higher Cigarette Taxes = More People on Food Stamps?

    A new study finds that poor smokers compensate for higher cigarette taxes by going on SNAP

    Progressive environmental activists are fond of observing that “everything is connected to everything else.” But when it comes to economics, progressives utterly ignore this lesson, e.g., hiking minimum wages. Two Cornell University economists have just published a working paper, Behavioral Responses to Taxation: Cigarette Taxes and Food Stamp Take-Up” that finds that many poor cigarette smokers compensate for cigarette tax hikes by applying for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. In other words, they often offset the higher costs for their cigarettes by resorting to government food subsidies. From the study

    http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/12/higher-cigarette-taxes-more-people-on-fo

  9. mntvernon says:

    Frank, you’ll find the nut-case lunatic fringe using the ‘for the chilllllll-dren’ to advance their half-wit hatred of smokers and smoking. Here’s an “ask dofus” article claiming a theme park is UN-family friendly since it allows outdoor designated smoking areas:
    http://www.news-leader.com/story/news/local/ozarks/2015/05/10/can-silver-dollar-city-family-friendly-allow-smoking/27086761/

    • beobrigitte says:

      Thanks Harley, interesting link! (Please refer to my post below)

      According to Horovitz, “It’s time for people to acknowledge smoking as the number one health hazard worldwide, not just in the South.”

  10. beobrigitte says:

    We kids enjoyed different things than grown-ups. We liked different food, different drinks, different games, different movies, different books, and in fact pretty much different everything.

    That sums it up nicely! As a kid I pretty much liked it most when adults ignored me. At least they did not want me to do some chores e.g. dry the dishes (which to 99.9% I managed to evade by climbing out the toilet window) or go shopping for my dad’s beer and cigarettes.
    I also liked it when I was treated as a person (not as an adult!) and was being talked to normally. I HATED the child-talk some adults at the time began to adopt when talking to us kids. Adults didn’t tell us everything as much as we kids didn’t tell adults everything.
    Everything was set until the hormones kicked in.
    Very slowly things began to change. Where I was a couple of years earlier a member of our street kids’ football team, or in volved in some fisticuffs, all of a sudden I was ‘just-a-girl’ who was somehow ‘weaker’.
    I still do remember the day when we all nicked a cigarette from our parents/family friend/older sibling etc. to “prove” we could smoke without ‘filling our pants’.
    I was a little more unfortunate than the lads; my dad smoked a brand called “Reval” which has NO filter.
    Apart from spitting a bit of tobacco I did manage to finish my cigarette – and straight away called the lads to have a game of football. Although none of them filled their pants, a few of them felt sick and didn’t want to play. I got my street cred back!!!
    A few years later I was still active in various sports but our street ‘gang’ had dissolved. If we met up it was mainly about music. Deep Purple ‘in Rock’ was definitely the most scratched record we all had!!!

    And we were still YEARS away from being a fully fledged adult!!!

    Childhood in the modern sense is a new invention anyway. For the bulk of human history, most children had no “childhood” to speak of. For as soon as they could walk and talk, they were set to work gathering crops, preparing meals, performing chores. Because their parents only really wanted children to share the burden of their work, and not as status symbols to show off to their friends.
    Parents also had their old age sorted – usually one of the children ended up sharing a house with their elderly parents!
    I actually feel sorry for the children nowadays. They are missing out on a children-community; ALL activities are designed (and accompanied) by adults who either live out their own unfullfilled ambitions through their offspring or abuse them to outcompete friends and neighbours.
    Call this childhood?
    Worse even; children are being told to be competitive at all times, regardless what it takes!!!! I doubt many of the kids nowadays understand the concept of REAL friendship.
    Tobacco control quickly cottoned on to using this to their advantage – and chiiiiildren are chiiiildren (brain needs to mature; at ca. 21 years of age this point is supposed to be reached!) – not yet capable to understand that they are pawns in a game of ideologists.

  11. beobrigitte says:

    Off Topic.

    There have been some interesting news today. No, I don’t mean the UKIP squabble; I don’t trust the BBC to produce anything about UKIP impartially.

    For some reason or the other the BBC stumbled across the fact that there are precious few antibiotics left (?for how long) effective for treating so called (and rapidly in number increasing) ‘super-bugs’.
    All of a sudden a financial incentive (>£1bn) for pharmaceutical companies developing new antibiotics is on offer.
    It’s too late for that. It takes a long time to develop and test a new antibiotic for e.g. toxicity – that if the new antibiotic works effectively in the first place!!!
    Congrats, BBC folk – years too late for the news!!!

    Since the WHO deems tobacco and vape liquid as far more dangerous than e.g. the last strain of Ebola there won’t be any help from them when more previously ‘mostly harmless’ bugs (e.g.Staph. aureus which became the killer MRSA when it became resistant to Methicillin) – Mrs. Chan will be calling for yet another secret ‘conference’ in some exotic location to decide what to do next to smokers and vapers…..

    There won’t be a nuclear war, localised squabbles and new + previously ‘relatively harmless’ “bugs” will decimate the human race. Tobacco? Sugar? Salt? Who cares!!!

    • Rose says:

      Brigitte, what I have never understood is why governments didn’t fund medical research themselves, being dependent on the drug companies to supply the NHS, over which they have no control and who can charge whatever they like, puts the country in a vulnerable position.

      • harleyrider1978 says:

        Theres so called shortages in the US also for all types of drugs. And it appears Pharma in the US is raising prices by up to 50% on certain drugs like pain killers. Even antibiotics like pentac/penicillin has increased in charged cost by 150% in one month. I kid you not I just bought one last month for 6 bucks and this month it was 18 bucks for the same exact thing and amount………the druggist literally went Its pharma jacking prices due to obamacare………seems the governments getting cheap drugs at the expence of everyone else.

        • harleyrider1978 says:

          Drug co-pays are fixing to go thru the roof too here in the states……….

      • beobrigitte says:

        The answer is cost and return. REAL research is VERY expensive – with no guarantee of success.
        For Labour (at the time) it seems the solution to the problem was to: feed e.g. the Ashites et al a bit of taxpayers’ cash and create new, irrational, fears, one substantiated by a ban (smoking) in order to divert from the real problem. For the pharmaceutical companies (useless + DANGEROUS) smoking cessation products are much income for little effort. Wasn’t it Champix (?or Zyban) that were invented for something else originally? Just as Viagra:
        http://mentalfloss.com/article/29840/6-hugely-successful-products-originally-invented-something-else
        Viagra, or Sildenafil, as it’s officially known, was originally conceived as a treatment for hypertension, angina, and other symptoms of heart disease. But Phase I clinical trials revealed that while the drug wasn’t great at treating what it was supposed to treat, male test subjects were experiencing a rather unexpected side effect: erections. A few years later, in 1998, the drug took U.S. markets by storm as a treatment for penile dysfunction and became an overnight success. It now rakes in an estimated $1.9 billion dollars a year.

        For the NHS Labour started to destroy the “lean principle” by creating a lot of bullshit jobs.

        The public will not even think of what e.g. MRSA, when first emerged, told us all.

  12. harleyrider1978 says:

    I myself believe pharma is causing artificial shortages as I heard they’ve gotton to where they aren’t even making shipments to a lot of states especially floriduh and other southern states.

    • beobrigitte says:

      This might apply to a number of drugs – antimicrobials are not amongst them. There was more than just ‘a lot’ of money to be made from them when MRSA hit.
      The truth is – there are less than a handfull of such drugs left (most of them are also highly toxic!) and no new ones in sight. REAL research = cost with no guarantee of success.

  13. harleyrider1978 says:

    Big Pharma Buys Rivals to Gouge Patients – The Daily Beast

    The Daily Beast

    Apr 27, 2015 – Fivefold increases for same drug. … New ownership can mean big price jumps for important prescription drugs—even when the drugs are not …

    WSJ’s Jonathan Rockoff has exclusive details on drug prices that skyrocket once the drug undergoes new ownership.
    .

    By
    Jonathan D. Rockoff
    April 26, 2015 9:00 p.m. ET

    239 COMMENTS

    On Feb. 10, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International Inc. bought the rights to a pair of life-saving heart drugs. The same day, their list prices rose by 525% and 212%.

    Neither of the drugs, Nitropress or Isuprel, was improved as a result of costly investment in lab work and human testing, Valeant said. Nor was manufacture of the medicines shifted to an expensive new plant. The big change: the drugs’ ownership.

    “Our duty is to our shareholders and to maximize the value” of the products that Valeant sells, said Laurie Little, a company spokeswoman. “Sometimes pricing comes into it, sometimes volume comes into it.”

    More pharmaceutical companies are buying drugs that they see as undervalued, then raising the prices. It is one of a number of industry tactics, along with companies regularly upping the prices of their own older medicines and launching new treatments at once unheard of sums, driving up the cost of drugs.

    Since 2008, branded-drug prices have increased 127%, compared with an 11% rise in the consumer price index, according to drug-benefits manager Express Scripts Holding Co. Needham & Co. said in a June 2014 research note there were as many as 50% drug-price increases during the previous 2½ years as there were in the prior decade.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/pharmaceutical-companies-buy-rivals-drugs-then-jack-up-the-prices-1430096431

No need to log in

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s