Silly rabbit, your comments have no substance and lack the basic essence of truth. I won't waste the digital ink arguing with a troll regarding "psyop" and Iraq, but I will say I'm proud of what we and our nation's warriors have accomplished. Second, most of the folks who know me in the tech scene know enough about my background - I do not hide it and I am proud of our work. Unlike you I do not hide in the shadows. And sadly (for you) our work has been successful and effective - we now work in several continents serving this country and will continue to do so. Should you choose to come out of the shadows you can email me paigecraig at gmail dot com - and please use the subject line "Sorry I'm a D-Bag" when you reply.
that nothing we do to help fight climate change is wasted. It benefits us in other ways. If we reduce energy consumption we reduce pollution, which contributes to lung and heart disease. We reduce our dependency on foreign oil. There is more money in our pockets and less in the oil companies if we carpool, or use public trans. I believe the obesity epidemic is exaggerated by pharma's marketing departments, but I also believe exercise benefits everyone if they walk or bike instead of using their cars. Traffic congestion is also reduced. So even if the experts are wrong about global warming, which I don't believe but some people have their doubts, or even if they are right but their timetable is wrong, cutting back on energy is still the smart thing to do.
Secondhand smoke and related issues of "harm to others" are what the tobacco and drug industries spend the most time worrying about. It's an issue that also concerns the coal and petroleum industries, the agrichemical industry, and all other who emit toxins into the atmosphere, groundwater, rivers, lakes, etc - from owners of dirty diesel truck and ship fleets to cyanide-leach gold mine operators. What they don't want to see is full-cost accounting - they want to make sure that such "externalities" do not affect government tax policy, regulatory policy or their bottom lines.
This can be seen in recent academic policy as well - for example, there is an ongoing effort to ban tobacco funding in science, that had the University of California administration up in arms in 2007:
"UC Balks at Campus-Wide Ban on Tobacco Money for Research
David Grimm, Science Magazine, 26 January 2007"
"Concerned about academic freedom, the University of California (UC) has delayed voting on a plan to impose a blanket ban on research funding from tobacco companies."
Other people have argued that tobacco corporations created an illegal enterprise to defraud the public, with the funding of university research programs being the first step in that effort, the goal being the production of "independent third-party research results that cast doubt on the link between tobacco and cancer, etc." which could then be disseminated to a wider audience via the use of public relations, compliant reporters, and other co-conspirators at large media corporations, many of whom receive lucrative kickbacks for their efforts.
There has been a long-standing effort to get universities in the U.S. to reject corporate tobacco money due to conflict-of-interest issues. The proper role of academic science is that of the independent auditor - "unbiased evaluation based on real data" - and if the auditor is being paid by the auditee, that raises conflict-of-issues that are widely recognized in finance, and are subject to strict legal oversight (insider trading, etc.). In academics, the aura of Ivory Tower purity means that anything goes, even though all leading U.S. academic institutions have large public-private partnerships with large corporations - and that immediately raises conflict-of-interest issues.
If you look into why the UC is so adamant about not refusing tobacco money, you discover that what they are worried most about is if other types of corporate "gift-giving" also come under scrutiny - namely, support from the pharmaceutical, fossil fuel and military-industrial contractors. The most common internal complaint is that accepting the ban on tobacco money would tarnish their Ivory Tower image, and might lead to Pfizer getting banned as well.
Should Pfizer be banned as well as Altria? Look at the "shocking" case of Reuben, who faked data on clinical trials related to Pfizer's non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, the non-opiate NSAIDS:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/03/the_most_massive_scientific_fraud_ever.php
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2009/03/11/a-new-low-in-drug-research-21-fabricated-studies/
For every one that gets caught, there are a dozen who don't - and look how blatant Reuben's fraud was - how do you fake clinical trials with no one around you knowing about it? This was also a guy who traveled extensively on Pfizer's tab to conferences to promote NSAIDS - and that's the norm. Shocking? Not really - typical is more like it.
This larger issue - corporate PR firms using their relationships with academics to develop propaganda masquerading as independent science - is one that academic institutions are going to have to face.
The government certainly <i>does</i> have the authority to determine whether people smoke or not, just as it has the authority to determine whether they are allowed to smoke marijuana, inject heroin or consume diet pills containing ephedra. You claim to know something about the Constitution, but clearly it is you who have no idea what is actually in it. The specific Constitutional provision which gives this authority to the federal government is Article I, Section 8, which gives Congress authority "to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." This authority has been elaborated as federal law under Title 21, Chapter 9 of the United States Code, which specifies various rules regarding national drug control policy, food and product safety, controlled substances, etc.
As it happens, however, the government has not actually exercised its power to outlaw tobacco. Tobacco products are still legal, as you well know. They just cost more than you wish they cost, in part because Congress and the states have imposed taxes on tobacco products -- again, using powers that are expressly given to the government in the Constitution. If you don't think that power is in the Constitution, then either you haven't actually read the Constitution, or you don't know the meaning of plain English.
You're certainly entitled to think that taxes on cigarettes are too high (just as I'm entitled to think that they're still too low). You're even entitled to be angry and to use rude language like "fascist," "idiot" and "jerk off" when expressing your anger. I support your right to express your opinions, even when I disagree with them and even when you use this kind of rude language. However, it's nonsense for you to pretend that state and federal governments lacks authority under the Constitution to impose the taxes which they have imposed. If you don't like the laws that have been passed, you can try to elect politicians who will write different laws. That would get you further than you're going to get by making up falsehoods about the Constitution.
Or, you could try following Anne's suggestion and simply grow your own tobacco, in which case you don't even have to worry at all about what the politicians do. See how much freedom you have?
Silly rabbit, your comments have no substance and lack the basic essence of truth. I won't waste the digital ink arguing with a troll regarding "psyop" and Iraq, but I will say I'm proud of what we and our nation's warriors have accomplished. Second, most of the folks who know me in the tech scene know enough about my background - I do not hide it and I am proud of our work. Unlike you I do not hide in the shadows. And sadly (for you) our work has been successful and effective - we now work in several continents serving this country and will continue to do so. Should you choose to come out of the shadows you can email me paigecraig at gmail dot com - and please use the subject line "Sorry I'm a D-Bag" when you reply.
-Paige
that nothing we do to help fight climate change is wasted. It benefits us in other ways. If we reduce energy consumption we reduce pollution, which contributes to lung and heart disease. We reduce our dependency on foreign oil. There is more money in our pockets and less in the oil companies if we carpool, or use public trans. I believe the obesity epidemic is exaggerated by pharma's marketing departments, but I also believe exercise benefits everyone if they walk or bike instead of using their cars. Traffic congestion is also reduced. So even if the experts are wrong about global warming, which I don't believe but some people have their doubts, or even if they are right but their timetable is wrong, cutting back on energy is still the smart thing to do.
Thank God for Grassfire! Citizens take up arms NOW!
Pages