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 believes 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 for these 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.

   Note: As mentioned before, we used small print and will continue to do so with all of the reference articles in this section. Get your reading glasses if you must. There is so much here, that space will not permit larger type to fit efficiently. So . . .  let's analyze what you've just read. First, it seems that the anti-tobacco groups, who were highly instrumental in killing this bill, believe that tobacco bans would not be effective and at least one member felt a ban would drive tobacco use underground. Now I ask you, what is the difference in a partial ban, which is precisely what higher taxes and regulation on smoking is, and a total ban. Both would seem to have a similar effect, the partial ban (tax) perhaps less so but still an analogous effect. In other words, as far as consumption, these anti-smoking groups, all well established, self-appointed protectors of the health of everybody, made it clear that banning tobacco may not reduce its use - at all. This is a fair representation of their statements, I think, perhaps even understated. They also bemoaned that they would lose all the revenue they live on (anti-tobacco once again is a very BIG business) and all of their cessation programs would suffer. I ask simply, "If there were no tobacco to be smoked, why would their cessation programs be needed at all?" What we have here is a clear example of the dichotomy operated under by the entire anti-smoking movement, whose very existence (and paychecks) rely on tobacco taxes (and other taxpayer funded government programs), donations from dupes, and, of course, lawsuits. These organizations are clearly as "hooked on tobacco" as the members of the legislature whom the bill's sponsor admonished - for being just that.

   Grosz, the sponsor of the bill, also made reference to two other points that need examining. First, even though tobacco is "claimed" to kill 1,000 North Dakotans per year (no idea where the actual figures comes from - that's right, you've heard it above) the self proclaimed watchdogs seem ambivalent to the proportions of that presumed tragedy. More striking yet, using his figures once again, even as the state brings in $39.7 Million per year in tax revenues from tobacco, his figures show that the state purportedly loses $351 Million in medical and lost productivity costs. That's nearly ten times more than the revenue they take in. A very poor business model to anyone with a 3rd grade education or a $5 calculator. Even if they were to raise the taxes to the level the governor wants, the shortfall would still be well over $200 Million per year, again assuming any of the figures above (other than the revenue the state actually takes in) have any basis in reality whatsoever. The truth is that the figures the states throw out as far as cost related to smoking are pure BS and always have been. You can never pin any state official down to where they get their figures (they are in fact pure extrapolations) or whether they include costs paid by insurance companies for covered workers or by residents personally. In fact, were told they do, which means that in more than a majority of cases (however many that may really be), the states don't pay a thing for smokers who get sick. Nonetheless, they add the cost to the total (again that total being highly suspect to begin with) and of course they apply all illnesses to anyone who admits they smoke, regardless if smoking were a minor, major or no cause at all to the distress of the patient. We already went through this above but some things seem to need to be repeated in order to get the required attention. The other side certainly uses this tactic in compliance with the theory of "say something long enough and loud enough, and it will eventually become fact." The very idea that the vast majority of the costs that states claim are based on (as quoted above) "Indirect costs of lost productivity due to illness", and "Indirect costs due to premature deaths" is so offensive to the thinking human that only people with an intent to profit could embrace such mythology.

   This kind of sheer fiscal nonsense is being played out nationwide and frankly worldwide, from local level smoking bans to the Federal attempts at Internet Tobacco control (more on this as well). This nonsense includes statements by ACS and others that smoking bans don't hurt businesses such as bars and private clubs. In nearly every case, those who actually own these establishments disagree vigorously, to the point that the latest restrictive law passed in Washington state that would ban all tobacco use in all venues (other than "conveniently" Indian tribe lands and casinos) has already generated new proposed amended legislation that allows a business to disregard the ban if their revenue dips 10% or more. The amendment failed its first test but continues to be pursued. It is interesting to note here that while I typed the preliminary version of this, suddenly on national news appeared a piece that downsized the CDC's estimate of the impact of obesity on folks from 400,000 deaths per year (a strangely familiar number) to 120,000. Currently the estimate is now down to less than 30,000. Suddenly and recently that figure is back up. Come on America.  Wake up. None of these numbers have ANY basis in reality. They are at best, made up, non-rigorous and highly convenient extrapolations for the purpose of fund raising or lawsuits, and the time has come for those that use them, to be audited for source and accuracy and aggressively prosecuted for blatant fraud. All one has to do is look at the CDC mortality tables we keep posted on the Editorial page to realize there simply "ain't enough bodies" to go around for support of these estimates, especially for those under 65 of age.

   In fact these, along with other "facts" that have permeated the debate on tobacco (not cigarettes - again they are processed tobacco products that use some really nasty chemicals in their processing) are rampant in our society. On almost every subject there exist myths that have been propagated to not only enhance special interest agendas, but even more so to enhance their "special interest" pocket books. There are many writers and researchers out there dispelling these myths. Steve Milloy (www.junkscience.com) is frequently used here as a respected example of  such seekers of truth. There is even a Discovery Channel program "Myth Busters" that deals with some of the more innocuous myths - such as what really happens when you put metal in a microwave, but even more to the point is a new book by John Stossel of ABC News (shown above left) that really brings home the point that our entire society (and the larger world for that matter) are more susceptible to sheer superstitious myth than ever before. Why, because it is more profitable than ever before. We should all take part of the blame and shame for allowing such manipulations by special interest groups of every stripe whether it is the CDC or WHO (World Health Organization - a UN hitman). Read the book. Read all the books we recommend. You will grow a well rounded shell of skepticism that will help protect you from the sheer enormity of BS we face every day - whether it be from media or from government, and most especially from so-called health activists who could give a good damn about your health. They want your money folks and control over your life in order to keep getting it - that is the bottom line! As in the title of the above book and from the Firesign Theater's (for those old enough to remember that great wacky comic ensemble) classic album of the 70s (available on CD now) literally nearly "Everything You Know is Wrong." And as with all the books we recommend, if they are not available in paperback, don't be afraid to own a hardback copy. They are a little more expensive but trust me, you will keep these books and re-read them many times for many years to come! And share them with your friends. A great way to spread the word of healthy, intelligent, and logical skepticism.

   Next, as to the health risks of smoking, do not make the mistake that smoking will have no impact on your health: While we are once again, NOT proponents of smoking, we do feel people have the right to at least enjoy the practice privately assuming whatever risk they, after studying all of the literature out there carefully, shall deem likely, and without absurd taxation that funds everything BUT smoking related programs. We are certain the paltry existing, purported scientifically rigorous research data (sans Epidemiology which is based entirely on widely variable and suspicious statistics) has been skewed, confused, misunderstood, or down-right lied about. Further, the fact that the government (and private groups) are collecting revenue based on what they consider a poisonous substance, seems to have been missed as a clear violation of the trust we are expected to place in these entities. We've said it many times before. If tobacco is that dangerous, it should be outlawed like any other toxic substance. It should not be a source of profit for the very same folks who claim it to be a killer. Think of it this way. How would the populace react if the government allowed victims with AIDS to have unprotected sex with others as long as they paid a tax so they could? Not much different is it?

  Here's yet another link that you will find interesting. In fact, in this issue there are many and, once again, if you really want to know the depth of the scandal that is brewing you need to read everything you can. This linked page concerns the dichotomy of cigarettes versus real tobacco. It is yet another piece of the puzzle that allows certain elements in our society to confuse the real issue - that being package cigarette regulation and litigation or tobacco regulation and litigation. In fact, we'll repeat a link to an even longer dissertation by Bill Drake on the same subject. The two links are below - the first is much shorter than the second. Bookmark and read them in sections if necessary - but read them. You'd better know what you are smoking and you'd better understand that even in rolling tobaccos, cheap may not wind up being so cheap.

http://utah.indymedia.org/print.php?id=13425  

http://www.ktc.com/~bdrake/views.html#nscv016

   OK! You've heard it all here before, but let's now look at some interesting dialogue from transcripts taken from a Larry King Live show on the subject of smoking. These transcripts are available on the CNN site. We'll save you some time, but we urge you to read each related transcript in its entirety (there is an index of topics going back a number of years at the first link below). Now King is an avid anti-smoker who smoked 3 packs a day for many, many years. He's 70 now. And again he smoked manufactured cigarettes. He had a heart attack a while back and tends to completely relate his condition to smoking. The fact that he was extremely overweight (Larry used to be a really "big" guy) and the epitome of the A Type personality does not seem to figure in to his own assessments as to the cause of his prior malady. However much we respect King for some of the things he's done, he is either a dupe or corrupted. His various shows on the subject pander to the anti-tobacco activists and often result in embarrassing moments when doctors can't agree on what it is about smoking the harms some people. I clearly remember in a prior show from a couple of years ago his asking a noted cardiologist how cigarette smoke harms the heart. The cardiologist replies were nearly incoherent and wound up with "we don't really know", followed by, "well it can cause a stroke." King changed the subject immediately. I also remember (perhaps the same show) him asking actor Kirk Douglas if he thought his stroke had anything to do with smoking. Douglas replied to the red faced King that he hadn't smoked for over 20 years prior to his stroke. We choose here to use the precise words from one of his shows that should make for interesting reading, enough at least to stimulate our readers to view the entire transcript. The following are excerpts from conversation regarding smoking on one of his shows. The full transcripts of all shows from 2000 to Current are at the following link. We'll explore other pertinent ones next time:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/lkl.html

   The first show we'll look at is a fairly recent one from April 5, 2005, the day that Peter Jennings announced he had lung cancer. Jennings, a heavy smoker (several packs per day - up to five early on) for many years, quit 20 years ago and the announcement of his condition obviously prompted the subject of this particular episode of LKL. There are several panelists in whose statements we are interested. It is not our intention to defame or denigrate any of the following people. They each have their own stories, triumphs and tragedies, and other human baggage that we all carry. Their statements that follow are meant to illuminate the various factors, misconceptions, and mystery involving the tragic disease that is lung cancer. There is little doubt in our mind that cigarette smoking (especially abusive amounts) carries some serious health baggage for some. However does the risk rise to the level to justify the extortion of hundreds of billions of dollars from smokers who will see little of that money vested in any programs that will actually mitigate, to any degree, any health risks that are present? And, again, remember cigarettes are one thing and tobacco is yet another. The differences in usage behavior and dose are striking for most MYO enthusiasts. One other thing that happened not long after this show was the announcement by Christopher Reeves' (Superman) widow, Dana, that she had lung Cancer. Dana Reeves was a life-long non-smoker. The news media went crazy over this as Chris' last nine years of life as a paraplegic due to a riding accident (let's ban horseback riding) was a model of hope for many with paralyzing ailments. They also went crazy over the fact that Dana was a non-smoker - for precisely one day. Within two days, the fluffy blonde anchor (certainly no journalist by any stretch of the imagination) Paula Zahn, made the following statement in a report saying, "Dana Reeves has been diagnosed with lung cancer", followed with no pause by the statement "you can find out more about the effects of smoking and lung cancer at CNN.com."  CNN is Larry King's agenda laden launch pad as well. The point is Zahn never again mentioned that Dana was a never smoker - ever again - in any of her news reports on Dana that I saw over the next few weeks. This kind of reporting is shameless and its tendency to leave out pertinent facts is pervasive in every network or cable news broadcast system. So dialogues like the one that follows have enough time to be pretty revealing both in what is said and what King fails to ask as follow up. We do that for him in red. The link to the specific show follows but we have below laid out the pertinent dialogue below. And one last thing before we begin - both Dana and Peter died within a few weeks of undergoing chemotherapy. I will always wonder how long they may have lived with no such toxic treatment.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0504/05/lkl.01.html

   The "cast" includes, Lori, the widow of Morton Downey, Jr., (the well known talk show host who died several years ago of lung cancer and who was an avid PRO Smoker Rights Activist up until the time he got cancer and then became an avid and paid anti-smoking advocate, though, according to Lori, he continued to smoke). Next is Tammy Faye Messner (remembered forever as the former evangelical partner of Jim Baker, who went to prison for wrong doings regarding church funds - just think raccoon eye makeup - she is the most frequent guest on Kings show, a fact that completely amazes me about King's perception of who his audience is,. Following her is Alan Landers, "The (former) Winston Man", (a two time survivor of lung cancer who began smoking at age 9 and smoked 5 packs per day and who has a huge lawsuit against tobacco companies pending) and finally Dr. Ronald Natale MD, (an oncologist at Cedar Sinai Hospital in LA who heads major lung cancer research projects and testifies before various FDA drug approval hearings on behalf of Chemo and other cancer related products he's tested for Pharmaceutical companies - he's involved in a lot more than that as you'll see). We'll examine a few of each panelist's statements and make comments after each of their utterings. While these are excerpts, they are not conveniently edited to make a point. These are direct quotes, though abbreviated and are provided so that you will experience what we experienced as we watched the show. My personal comments in red, are again, the follow up questions I would have asked were I sitting next to Larry or other points I feel are cogent to the discussion that were overlooked or are important to note. Full context is available, again, at the specific transcript link above and we urge you to read the entire transcript for the appropriate date. One last thing before we start. I hate doing this. I hate calling attention to the tragedy of others. Lung Cancer is poorly understood and is a rabid killer once you get it. I have all the empathy in the world for the victims and suggest you take the possible negatives of smoking seriously, even if the true correlation between "tobacco and health" MAY be exaggerated for the benefit of the greedy. One last thing before we start: In every Larry King show I've seen on the ills of smoking, he uses the dynamic duo of Tony Randall and Jack Klugman. Though we don't use it in its entirety here, it is in the complete transcript. What we note on this is the fact these "Odd Couple" characters were/are in real life quite similar as to how they live(d). Tony was a complete health nut, practically a vegetarian who exercised daily, and took great pride in eliminating smoking from the sets on which he worked. He even claims to have perhaps been a partial founder of the non-smoking environmental movement in the oft used (by King) video clip. It goes like this - King to Randall:

KING: Because you were the most anti-smoking person that I knew.

RANDALL: I think that's true. I think I'm responsible for some of the anti-smoking laws, as a matter of fact. I didn't allow smoking on the set.

  Ok fine, I don't allow smoking in my audio or video studios. It can gum up the electronics. I don't like it anywhere indoors - that's me. Nonetheless the point is that Tony died a couple of years ago at the age of 84. He died from a respiratory infection from complications after what was essentially bypass surgery. Now how the hell does a true health advocate (in both diet, exercise, and smoking) need a bypass procedure? Today the raucous Jack Klugman is 84. That's right - the heavy drinking, fat eating, cigar and cigarette smoking, no exercise, walking health risk that was Klugman's character and nearly identical to his real life persona is still around and kicking. The point is that these two could not have had more divergent attitudes towards health and Klugman survives while Randall does not. Logically there must be more to health and longevity than the public health people will ever admit. Take the food pyramid defined horrible eating habits, little exercise, smoking, and mix it with happiness and low anxiety personality type (the type that spends little time worrying about what others may do or enjoy) and you may have a formula for longevity that works far better than the strident, missionary, evangelistic and uptight anxiety ridden prohibitionist approach. George Burns lived to be over 100 even with a steady diet of cigars and who knows what else. Again extrapolations and predictions are nearly useless when it come to human mortality. Put more directly "Everything the Public Health Community Knows May be Wrong." So now the King show transcript with again the most pertinent comments in red.

   First, Lori Downey: After a brief video clip showing Morton poignantly, and I feel honestly (in his mind) sharing his experience with tobacco and lung cancer, (remembering of course the high voltage lifestyle that Morton was famous for) Larry turns to Lori Downey and says:

KING: That was the late Morton Downey Jr., who died of lung cancer six years -- he died after battling it for six years. He died in March of 2001. His widow Lori joins us in Los Angeles. How did Mort discover he had it, Lori?

LORI DOWNEY, WIFE OF MORTON DOWNEY, JR.: We thought we were treating a cold at the time. He had a cough and he had a high fever. We went in because we thought he had bronchial pneumonia.

KING: Was he -- he smoked a long time, didn't he?

DOWNEY: He smoked many years. He said 50 years. That would make him very young, right? But he did smoke FIVE packs a day.

KING: And he used to defend it on television. Do you remember? I know you weren't married to him then, but I think you used to watch him. He defended it.

DOWNEY: I actually was married to him (wrong again Larry). He actually belonged to the National Coalition of Smokers Alliance. So he actually sat on the board and actually believed that smokers had the right to smoke wherever they wanted to -- until he got sick. (she used the word "actually" 4 times in three short sentences)

Comment: Five Packs a day? My God how can anyone smoke five pack of cigarettes a day. That's 100 cigarettes a day or one every 9.6 minutes, constantly for an assumed 16 hour day (the assumption being he got 8 hours of sleep, which given Morton's extremely high energy output that we all found edgy yet extremely compelling, is unlikely). Since it takes nearly 7 minutes at minimum to smoke most packaged cigarettes, he basically was smoking constantly during his waking periods. And if he smoked for 50 years and died in his 60's he started awfully young. No editorial here. You decide if is this a typical association with even packaged cigarettes (and again not tobacco but cigarettes). Note - By the way Downey, as mentioned by Lori, was a proponent of the right for people to smoke anywhere, indoors and even around non-smokers - I am not. As to the amount of consumption, the latest text on the American Cancer Society website draws specific attention to the fact that the more you smoke and the longer you've smoked, the more the risk. A direct quote, "The longer you smoke and the more packs per day you smoke, the greater your risk," found by clicking here. This flies directly in the face of what most of the greediest and most venomous anti-smoking groups espouse, specifically that "Dosage doesn't matter", and directly supports the logical philosophy of moderation in all things.

   Next Larry asks Dr Ronald Natale, the esteemed oncologist (cancer doctor) (I use the word esteemed as he has, in his multi-decade practice helped a lot of folks with lung cancer to ease the suffering - but cures - no) - the following question:

KING: Dr. Natale, why -- what does smoke do -- we know that it does. Do we know why it does.

NATALE: Well, not completely. We know that nicotine is one of the most addictive chemicals ever discovered. And it's the nicotine that addicts people to smoking cigarettes. And cigarettes, unfortunately, contain a large number of carcinogens, chemicals that can mutate the cells and the bronchial epitheliums and even other parts of the body. So those carcinogens cause lung cancer and a variety of other cancers.

Comment: First Larry uses the phrase "we know that it does"! By reading the entire transcript and all of the medical evidence available, he should have in all honestly said "MAY DO", not does -  even "often does" would have been more accurate. Natale's response shows worthy restraint in admitting that NO ONE really knows the complete mechanisms leading absolutely to this disease - not even close to knowing. Bear in mind however that I do believe that a great majority of the lung cancer patients he has seen were smokers. The real question is smokers of what, how long and how much, how deeply they inhale and on and on. He further uses the phrase "CAN" mutate cells rather than "DOES" mutate cells when speaking of the introduction of carcinogens (another really overly stated classification of chemicals known to create tumors - "sometimes - even sometimes often" - in lab rats (mice) when they (the mice) are exposed to extraordinarily large amounts of the chemical, most often by injecting it under the rodent's skin). There should be little doubt that some carcinogens under the right conditions and in sufficient quantity can and do cause tumors, some more frequently or easily in some people than others, as you will hear in a moment. However even rats locked in cages filled with more smoke than even the heaviest smoker would ingest in years of smoking have failed, to my knowledge, to present lung cancer tumors. Of course, you can't get a rat to smoke a packaged cigarette like a human - maybe they are smarter after all than those that do smoke pre-mades. No studies have been done with MYO cigarettes (real tobacco), and no mention was made of the FACT that everything that burns, create carcinogens and a lot of substances that are commonly burned create many more than does burning tobacco.

   A little later (King tends to ramble with his lines of questions so, though this next part occurs a bit later, we bump it up to here because it relates to the previous question. Larry asks the following:

KING: Dr. Natale, without being crass, what kills you? What happens from cancer that causes death?

NATALE: We actually don't know, Larry. Many patients with lung cancer, when they die, they have healthy-appearing lungs, or adequate amount of lungs, or their heart or other organs are still functioning pretty normally. Somehow, the total tumor mass in the body gets to a point where the body begins to shut itself down.

Comment: Jeez - this is a pretty weak response from a supposedly scientifically oriented, authoritative and absolutely convinced opponent of tobacco use.

KING: Is the body -- is it like going to war with itself, doctor?

NATALE: To some extent, it is.

KING: Like a civil war?

NATALE: Just about. There's no doubt that the body's immune system does try to fight the cancer, but obviously unsuccessfully in most people.

   We skip a bit and continue with a Caller (it's a call-in show you know):

CALLER: Hi, I wanted to ask the doctor, are there serious -- or actual data about people who smoke all their lives and never get cancer?

KING: Doctor Natale?

NATALE: Well, there are some lucky people who can smoke all their lives and not get cancer. Statistically, about one in eight cigarette smokers develops cancer, most of them lung cancer. So this is a dangerous habit.

Comment: While Natalie may have seen a preponderance of lung cancer patients who were smokers, he has NO way of knowing how many smokers get lung cancer other than by questionable statistics provided by epidemiologists and their ilk. He only knows what he has seen and that is lung cancer patients, not otherwise healthy smokers. Again, right off the bat, I'll tell you I hate generics like "people who smoke" when dealing with such a serious subject. "People who Smoke"- Smoke what, cigars, pipes, cigarettes, dope, tea, and further, Smoke how, Smoke how much of WHAT! Next the term LUCKY offends the hell out of my scientific side. It's a Vegas term and has no business being introduced into a scientific discussion. There's a hell of a lot more in evidence here than "LUCK" But again these kinds of discussions are NEVER really scientific and REALLY more about the continuance of many businesses, both medical, pharmaceutical, plus a lot of fund raising. Then of course the word Statistically ("There are Lies, Damn Lies, and then Statistics" - Mark Twain, another gifted storyteller.) This is followed by the "one in eight" quote... which I have reason to doubt as when reading statistics from all other health and anti-smoking sites, the general "statistic" found, though it varies considerably, states that roughly 150,000 people die of lung cancer per year. Natale says most of the one-in-eight smokers who get cancer, get lung cancer. Okay so far?

Many other anti-tobacco and public health sites state that roughly 170,000 are diagnosed with lung cancer per year. Now right here it is important to note that unlike other statements about smoking related deaths, there may actually be a database specific to lung cancer where victims have directly stated their smoking habits to their doctors. So taking these numbers as better than most of the more whimsical figures most groups use (like 400,000 people per year die of smoking related diseases), let's analyze: There are "roughly" 48 million smokers in the US. If you divide that number by 8, which is the One-in-8 number of smokers according to Natale's estimate who get lung cancer, you arrive at (again roughly) 6,000,000 people who smoke today are going to get lung cancer - sometime. If indeed 170,000 are diagnosed per year and 150,000 die per year, using either number, those 6,000,000 folks are going to take about 40 years to die and 33 years to develop the disease. Of course timing is everything and projections like these do not run parallel. The point is that a hell of a lot of time is going to pass before all of the 6 million current smokers can die from smoking or even be diagnosed for lung cancer. That gives them a hell of a lot of time to be exposed to a plethora of toxins, viruses and carcinogens from other sources including genetic predisposition. Nonetheless,  these numbers are tragic. However even more tragic is that possibility that many other real causes will be overlooked because of the fanatical unidirectional mindset of anti-tobacco, driven again, mostly by avarice.

Remember our Mortality statistics from last issue's charts in the Editorial Section from the CDC which showed that of the 2.4 million people total that died in 2002, 1.8 million were over 65 and 2.04 Million were over 55. We'll keep that chart at the bottom of this issue's Editorial Page as we will find it continually interesting.

KING: What about second-hand smoke?

NATALE: There's a weak association between prolonged inhalation of second-hand smoke and the development of lung cancer. A lot of those studies, I believe, are somewhat controversial. But you can develop lung cancer from inhalation or passive inhalation of cigarette smoke from others.

And finally (you had to know this was coming), King asks about the dreaded second hand smoke (ETS). Remember now, I dislike indoor smoking personally and want to enjoy my own tobacco taste and aroma, not yours. Even so, Natale admits a WEAK association. Now to be fair, the fiscally predatory nuts that are running around banning smoking in bars and other adult environments, use figures that include other smoking related diseases. Nonetheless, this weak association is attributed to more diseases than one could possibly have scientifically studied it for and the term "Prolonged" exposure is yet another undefined generic term that implies a number but offers none. He uses the word CAN when speaking, at the end, of both active and passive smoking which implies far less than a certainty. Now the groups calling for smoking bans and reaping billions don't utter the words "may" or "can", only "does" or "will". They only correctly use the word "WILL" in any true way when they use it  in conjunction with and after the term "FREE." -  a two word phrase that threatens their very philosophical existence. And yes, you probably can get lung cancer from cigarette smoke, and burning leaves, and diesel trucks, and barbecuing burgers.  

1. Alan Landers, the Winston Man" started smoking at the age of nine. Now what the hell is up with that - not to mention 5 packs per day?
2. Tammy Faye Messner (once Baker of the infamous Jim Baker) never smoked a cigarette in her life and still got lung cancer.
3. Dr. Natale's response to this is "We know that 15 percent to 20 percent of the 170,000 Americans who will be diagnosed with (lung cancer) each year have either never smoked or smoked very little. So there are other things that can cause lung cancer. Comment: You heard it here first. But he earlier said 1 out of 8 smokers get cancer (which we disputed as hearsay). Nevertheless that means that 7 out of 8 don't  which means that in fact (using the kind or circular logic so common today regarding smoking and health) that 88% of smokers don't get cancer whereas with say 20% of non-smokers getting lung cancer, only 80% don't. The case could be made that overall 8% more non-smokers get cancer than do smokers. A little like Abbot & Costello's piece above.
4. Two other things that need emphasizing here, both disturbing. First this exchange between actress Epatha Merkerson who has a Lung Cancer Awareness non-profit organization:
KING: What, Epatha, does your educational campaign, Lung Cancer Awareness, do?
MERKERSON: Well, we provide information for people who are suffering with lung cancer, for their families who care for them, people can access www.cancercare.org for any information. There's ways that they can get financial help, resources, where they should go to get help, there are online services for them to talk to people, oncology specialists and so forth.
Comment: So far so good. How could we possibly distrust an organization with such a noble agenda. And it probably does help people who have this disease a great deal. However and it is a BIG however, the next line is more frightening to me than that which generated the fright in Epatha. The underlined part is most disconcerting. She goes on: " And it really strengthened my resolve to do this when I saw those guys standing in front of Congress from the tobacco companies, with their hands raised to God saying that they -- said that cancer -- that cigarettes were not habit-forming, that nicotine did not cause cancer. That scared me. That scared me." 

Comment: Well it really scares the hell out of me that someone like Merkerson who has been involved with this for years still thinks NICOTINE causes cancer and that cigarette companies are tobacco companies. As I hope most of you know, nicotine is not a carcinogen, and can have many benefits to balance its addictiveness - which, by the way, is more than often found not to be nearly as addictive as often advertised  when obtained through natural tobacco products and in reasonable doses from reasonably moderate consumption. Sure 5 packs a day of packaged brands and you will likely have a serious chemical addiction to nicotine and many other chemicals as well. Most MYO users, with moderation, lose their addictions pretty quickly.

   Now two other links that should prove entertaining as a break before we continue. The first is a disclaimer page from LungCancer.org. This is basically a PR firm that rallies support with materials regarding smoking and lung cancer. You will see in this disclaimer that they absolve themselves of any responsibility for accuracy or to stand behind any of the so called "facts" they publish for the benefit of the public health lobbyists. The second link is to a page that discusses the strange coincidence of actors, including John Wayne who died from lung cancer (which was blamed entirely even back then on his smoking habits) after working on a film in the deserts near nuclear (not nuculear GW) test sites. Both pages are required reading as stated before to get the whole picture.

http://www.lungcancer.org/misc_pages/fs_mp_disclosure.htm

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_016.html

   Before we continue with Dr. Natale and drug companies, we thought it prudent to show you what he said to King regarding cigars"

KING: Are cigars just as bad, Dr. Natale?

NATALE: Cigars are bad because the nicotine content is enormous. So the nicotine addiction from that high dose can be really difficult to satisfy by just continuing to smoke cigars. So many cigar smokers ultimately have to turn to cigarettes.

Comment: If cigars are such an enormous source of nicotine, why would anyone need cigarettes as well. This is an entirely illogical bunch of twaddle most disturbing as it comes from the mouth of a touted "expert" on tobacco and health. The truth is people smoke cigarettes for different reasons than cigars. Inhaling tobacco smoke from a cigarette is far different from the normal practice at least of sucking on cigars and enjoying the ambient smoke without inhaling it directly.

5. I now want to explore Dr Natale's association briefly with big Pharmaceuticals. This association is often necessary for doctors like Natale to get drugs for trial that may ease the symptoms or cure people altogether of diseases (other than cancer of course). This kind of research partnering is needed and to be respected - as long as there is no financial advantage for the researcher personally to find the drug in question efficacious when reporting his/her findings to the FDA to enhance its approval. And therein lies the devilish details. Medicine is not an exact science in so far as new drugs, and less than cooperative diseases go. More dollars are needed for research but they need to be spent wisely. In the case that follows, in 2001/2002, Dr. Natale was engaged in the study of a lung cancer drug (chemotherapy) for relief of the symptoms of non-small cell lung cancer. The drug was IRESSA and for discussion, the generic name you can easily find and then instruct me on how to pronounce it. Anyway the study was conducted using IRESSA, which has far fewer side effects than heretofore other Chemo drugs, and Natale's results were very positive. Side effects of chemotherapy are often horrible, more so than the oft reported losing of one's hair. In fact, nearly all lung cancer fatalities could be ostensibly blamed on the extreme toxicity of typical Chemo drugs were one eager to skew the data - but who would do that!?

They (the drugs) hurt, they make you sick as hell, but they can relieve some the worse symptoms of the disease itself and can in some cases accomplish (or claim to) partial or even complete remission of the malignancy. A worthy endeavor to say the least. The following link points to a formal hearing and testimony before the FDA committee on such drugs regarding IRESSA (a drug from the giant international pharmaceutical company, AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP who also makes the suspiciously sexy and attractive little purple and gold pill Nexium you see advertised 75 times per day on nearly any station you choose). At this link, Natale gives glowing testimony as to the success of the drug IRESSA. Follow the link - (a new page will open, which you should close when done and after you find, about halfway down a pretty long page, Natale's testimony). The link is: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/transcripts/3894T1.htm.

I hope you actually go there and spend some time reading both Natale's results and the testimony of other witnesses (cancer survivors) to the amazing qualities and successes with this drug.

However, a subsequent trial showed absolutely NO benefit to this drug whatsoever, at least for late stage cancers it was successful on in Natale's tests. This after FDA approval. There are however mitigating circumstances, especially the fact that none of the people who testified at the first FDA hearing were smokers even though they contracted lung cancer and Natale is specific at times about the fact that this drug may not help smokers, or more likely the kinds of cancers, though oncologically similar, that are purportedly characteristic of smoking related tumors. IRESSA was dropped by AstraZeneca soon after, although it is only fair to point out that the company made a lot of money on it in the meantime and a lot of patients continued to feel it was helping them. I often wonder how much the belief a patient has in the efficacy of any drug, most especially one that has few of the horrible side effects of most chemotherapy concoctions, has to do with its success rate. Of course I also wonder about the accuracy of the initial diagnosis of such diseases as well - and I am not the only one who remembers the scandals of the 60s regarding unnecessary and massive surgeries relating to breast cancer.

Assuming you've read above the glowing recommendation of Dr. Natale in front of the FDA hearing committee regarding IRESSA, (the link is repeated here so read the damn thing) http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/02/transcripts/3894T1.htm, here is the later news on IRESSA's ultimate rejection.

http://www.cancerpage.com/news/article.asp?id=8271

And what we found even more enlightening was that Dr. Natale was and is an employee of the pharmaceutical company that produced IRESSA, AstraZeneca. Though his test results showed significantly positive results and the handpicked patient/witnesses who testified in front of the FDA, many of whom were asking for a fast track approval, all looked incredibly positive, Natale never mentioned his direct connection to the pharmaceutical giant, either at the hearings or on the King show. I suppose the members of the FDA panel board (judges if you will) knew of it as it was disclosed in the initial heading under those representing AstraZeneca but I initially read this as those representing positive results of the trials, not direct employees of the firm. It took some digging to find all the connections but eventually we found a page that pretty much sums it all up. The link to it follows and the paragraphs that follow the link are just two of several illuminating series of facts.

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-05/cmc-cpk050503.php

WHO:
Physician: Ronald Natale, M.D., the Principal Investigator on the clinical trial at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Acting Medical Director at Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center and National Program Director for Lung Cancer for Salick Health Care, Inc., is available for media interviews. A patient who participated in the study at the Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center and testified before the FDA’s Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee is also willing to be interviewed.

The Cedars-Sinai Comprehensive Cancer Center is managed by a subsidiary of Salick Health Care, Inc. Salick Health Care, Inc. is an independently operated subsidiary of AstraZeneca. A lot of stars have gone through Cedars-Sinai medical facility, and a lot of them never left. One would imagine that even the Beverly Hills crowd that patronize this facility might look elsewhere. Oh and there remains great controversy regarding the Salick Health Care facility(s) and the way AstraZeneca literally kicked out its namesake founder Bernard Salick. Search the internet for Salick Health Care and you will find this dirty little secret as well. Here's a good start on that issue.

http://www.nurseweek.com/news/zeneca.html

   We will finish this issue's cover with a couple more interesting things we uncovered during our research over the last year. To say what you've seen so far is small in comparison to the volume of material we've collected during that time is an understatement of epic proportions. The fact is there are at least 400 pages of material of this length in the can. I can only guess that it will someday be a book. Certainly all the writing and documentation is done. Time will tell. However, those most juicy tidbits that we've shared in this issue would be incomplete without this last item. It is a study in the sheer audacity of the non-profit/anti-tobacco/pharmaceutical/governmental/public health coalition. These groups, having bled hundreds of billions of dollars from smokers with little to show for it, had the added nerve to sue Philip Morris under the umbrella of the RICO statutes for another 280 Billion dollars. The document heading below can be found by searching, but it is three hundred pages of some of the most inane legal arguments I have ever seen. I would not recommend its reading to even the most bored of legal scholars. This case was thrown out on the grounds that RICO penalties did not apply, and the extravagant monetary awards were reduced to a limit of $10 Billion. However, money aside, it is the Appellees in this case that are most disturbing. The US Government teamed up with the Pharmaceutical industry, armed with reams of testimony for non-profit anti-tobacco groups and public health departments to try to get the Court of Appeals to allow the former $280 Billion amount to be used as a set sum at a lower court level decision before a verdict was even reached. When you find this document, you will see that the opinion written by the judge throwing this out was one of surprising insight and courage. Even so, the fact that the Pharmaceutical industry was suing the very companies they do business with for their nicotine replacement products is so absurd that it is difficult to write about with a straight finger. Read Forces.org's Norm Kjono's column regarding this case. The following link has both his comments and a direct link to the complete decision. Again, it is frustratingly long but if you want a detailed look at the collusion between the aforementioned groups, this really nails it. The Clinton administration started this but Bush's Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, has taken it up with full permission from his boss. For those of you who think Republicans are on the side of honesty and freedom, think again. This travesty is supported by both parties. Now do you finally believe me when I tell you it is TIME for a new party, one that respects the rights of business and individuals over incredibly powerful special interest groups. Sure Big Cigarette companies are special interest groups as well, but they didn't get that way by suing people. They produced a product that could be freely chosen to use. It is a lousy product and should not be confused with real tobacco, but the fact that these Appellees were asking for even more money, after the MSA already was shown to have been money wasted on everything but tobacco intervention, demonstrates that this coalition has gone over the edge of sanity. Again, read Norm's treatise on this and if you can stand the pain, the whole decision. This is not over yet. The parasites will never give up until they are put completely out of business. Here's the link:

http://www.forces.org/writers/kjono/files/fed-suit.htm

   And finally we again urge you to read Stephen Baxter's book, Evolution. This piece of docu-fiction has fascinating insights into those parts of each of us that have not changed since the first living creature appeared on earth. The give and take of survival and the absolute necessity of controlling one's own destiny as well as the fragility of the species and the durability of the planet. It is perhaps the most interesting piece of scientific extrapolation I've ever read. And it is a fun read as well. Do yourself a favor and explore with Baxter what has been, what might have been, and what could be. You won't be sorry. Enjoy - the Ed

   Our greatest hope at this magazine is that we will stimulate our readers, and those they come in contact with, to begin a journey that involves increased self reliance and control over every aspect of their personal lives. If you don't like taxes or the legislation your representatives are supporting, find new candidates and vote for them. If you work for someone else, start your own business on the side. Stay flexible. Eat healthy, exercise regularly, practice moderation and by all means have FUN. Exorcise the bitterness life sometimes injects and replace it with a sense of adventure. Look up once in a while and remember the dreams we had of the stars when we were kids. Begin to think of the larger universe where opportunities unimagined lie. The only limit to the achievements possible for each and every one of us are the ones that we place on ourselves or allow other to place on us. With these principles in mind let us once again state the purposes that guide the production of this publication.

   Most of the information in this magazine is directed solely at those people of legal age who already smoke, those who are trying to reduce their tobacco intake, those wishing to spend less money on tobacco, and who are interested in creating their own cigarettes using high quality tobacco products of their choosing - in general, those who wish to have, in our opinion, a far more satisfying, and economical smoking experience when compared with smoking pre-manufactured cigarettes. We, in no way, wish to encourage people to smoke. Further, we subscribe to a more sane, more logical approach for those that chose to smoke, that involves common sense as to quantity, coupled with a strong commitment to manage the habit until it becomes an occasional, freely chosen, diversion, that can be fully enjoyed without obsession, and hopefully, with minimal health risks. No sensible person should assume that the intake of smoke or other pollutants of any kind can be advantageous to your physical health, and we feel that any tobacco use implies demonstrable statistical risk of varying degrees for varying groups of people. We submit that, if you do not smoke, it would seem illogical to start. However, we are likewise extremely interested in future determinations as to the degree of risk based on dosage and smoking material and encourage much more research to be undertaken, using sound, scientific methods that can be looked at as universally credible.

Once Again - Our Position On Tobacco

   It is our position that because of the sheer enormity of money that is involved in the tobacco debate, and the fact that such vast amounts of resource can breed fraud and corruption, as evidenced by the large number of claims of violations attributed to the cigarette industry, as well as counter-claims of fraudulent research methods by those on the other side of the issue, much more needs to be done to quantify the specific elements of tobacco smoke as well as specific elements of other sources of smoke and pollution in our environment that can lead to health problems. We therefore stress as a logical and necessary step forward, in order to ameliorate the controversy and lessen the divisive nature of the subject, that any and all tax revenues that are collected on tobacco, as well as all punitive damages collected on behalf of US citizens by all local, state, and federal litigations against tobacco, other than those funds already allocated that are needed to satisfy current regulation and enforcement, be applied to five (5) areas of investigation and compensation exclusively. These areas are:

1. Scientifically rigorous, comprehensive research on tobacco and health with full public disclosure detailing the accounting for the amount of research money distributed, of how decisions are reached as to the ways and means said research money is distributed, and to whom the research money is awarded and why.
2. Full disclosure and complete public dissemination of information on experimental methodology and subsequent findings that are validated by the oversight of non-partisan, scientifically qualified panels that are accountable to the taxpayers by way of unimpeded public scrutiny and debate.
3. All revenues allocated to any of the above as well as to the subsequent health care of individuals who may be found damaged by tobacco or to education programs for tobacco intervention, must be used in a cost-efficient manner as determined by full disclosure and reasonable consensus between these scientifically qualified panels and representatives of those who bear the burden of taxation.
4. During the above research phase, should OTHER sources of polluting elements in our environment be found to be significant factors in the symptomatic expression of illnesses previously attributed solely to tobacco use, that those found culpable be held fiscally accountable, to the degree determined by the same scientifically qualified panels, with suitable restitution to the tobacco taxpayers as a consequence.
5. Additionally, be it found that institutions or individuals have purposely, for profit, or gain of status, mis-stated or over-stated the impact or role of tobacco usage in the symptomatic expression of certain illnesses, those found culpable of purposeful deception for profit be held fiscally accountable, to the degree determined by the same scientifically qualified panels, with suitable restitution to the specific taxpayers as a consequence, in conjunction with the possibility of criminal prosecution for fraud.

  The emerging Make You Own philosophy, (which is basically to regain control of our ability to chose and be proactive in our views) especially as it extends well beyond the scope of tobacco, is potentially a very powerful political force that, with enough visibility, could foreseeably change the way our government looks at the control of its population and better define the risks governments take in supporting tax-driven, social engineering schemes. We at RYO Magazine are dedicated to the prospect of accurate and fair information regardless of subject, as well as the uncompromising appreciation of quality above profit. Profit will come from quality and have more lasting benefits as well. We also believe that given complete and honest data, humans are more than capable of making wise decisions. With the recent increases in taxation on packaged cigarettes in so many states, even greater interest is being directed at this magazine and the industry as a whole - this is increasing daily. We feel an obligation to play it straight with our readers, who come from every point of view imaginable, from every continent on the planet, as they are our most valuable resource.

   As MYO becomes more well known, some will say it is just another way to encourage people to smoke. While patently untrue for now, the industry must be wise enough to never take that path regardless of the possible financial rewards. Smoking is self-indulgent, private behavior and, if conducted responsibly, in moderation, and away from those who want no part of it, it MAY one day prove to be less of a health risk. We can only go by what we hear from our readers, personal acquaintances and our own personal observations. That is, that package cigarette smokers who convert to the MYO methodology tend to smoke less, appreciate the flavor of tobacco more, and eventually gain control to the point that tobacco is a freely chosen, occasional treat and often they eventually smoke so little that their one or two cigarettes a week are quite possibly of little consequence to their overall health. Certainly less so than poor diet and lack of exercise. Providing that kind of alternative to the lifestyle of millions who may be damaging their health smoking pack after pack of manufactured cigarettes daily, we feel can only be viewed as an improvement. Smoking tobacco or breathing in any kind of smoke or other particulate matter must certainly pose some health risk. Our aim is to find the truth as to dosage and degree of risk. However, since we are convinced that the MYO method has improved the lives of many smokers already, attracting more current smokers to an environment where quitting is far easier and moderation is a fact, seems a worthy enterprise.

   .

  Since our first issue of January 2000, RYO Magazine has presented information on the very best in RYO/MYO products employing an honest, positive approach. We’ve resisted doing negative reviews as we feel that those who have the courage to create new products, sometimes need a little time to refine them. We give each of them that chance.

   The magazine has also followed the various regulatory changes and consistently commented on what we feel is a truly dangerous trend in American society, as well as in many societies worldwide. That trend is one of increasing governmental control over many of the facets of life once considered private behavior. With litigation and governmental intrusion at these already dangerous levels, it is our belief that only an aggressively motivated electorate can reverse the tide of these trends. Our lawmakers have allowed the increasing power of non-profit, pseudo scientific research, and financially motivated, public health organizations to flourish. These organizations once had perhaps a valid mission in our society, but any positives they may have initially contributed have turned to clear attempts to remake our civilization in their own narrow image. It is no longer just about tobacco. The time is fast approaching when every aspect of personal choice and behavior will be confronted by these puritanical tyrants. The critical concept of personal responsibility is being eroded by our civil justice system to a degree that will eventually lead to outright anarchy or, even worse, outright subservience.

   We urge you to read the magazine and educate yourself aggressively in the methodology of reforming both our political system and the legal system that feeds the pure avarice that drives most of these institutions. As verifiable scientific truth and honesty in reporting are the enemies of these organizations, so too is an active and focused public, one endowed with the energetic, independent, and free intellect that graced the founders of our nation. On every subject one can think of, these new dictators WILL control your lives to a degree never thought possible in a democracy.

   Organizations like NATO have a chance at intervening to some degree, but the real responsibility lies with every American to stand up, with unrivaled determination, for the rights of others. The loss of freedom for one group means the eventual loss of freedom for all. Taxation, litigation, and deception are the munitions of this new, all intrusive invader, and our best defense is common sense and our insistence in demanding accuracy and full disclosure of all aspects of the so called FACTS that influence regulatory and political actions. We wish, for each of us, the freedom to choose our own unique life path. This does not come cheap! It’s time to decide who’s to pay the price. We urge extreme activism against all present and future attacks on intellectual and personal freedoms. ~ Doug Kennedy, Editor RYO Magazine

   The world of RYO, specifically Roll Your Own has remained surprisingly consistent for many generations. Yes, there are new papers and new rolling tobaccos as well as products, once available here, that are no longer imported into the US. Still, because of the rather static nature and demographic of those who are willing to hand roll their own smokes, the other world, the world of MYO or Make Your Own, is a much more dynamic proposition. It is this sector that has experienced tremendous growth in the last decade. So in this brochure we’ll focus primarily on MYO. However, all tobaccos used in MYO are indeed rolling tobaccos so, in that context, the importance of the RYO connection to MYO cannot be overstated. These fine 100% pure tobaccos are an integral part of the foundation of MYO. Many packaged smokers have never tasted real leaf tobacco. Chemically enhanced reconstituted tobacco by-products from which commercial cigarettes are made are NOT tobacco.

  In addition, the philosophy behind the acronym RYO is one of personal choice. As compelling as any other do-it-yourself activity, there is great reward in deciding which tobacco you want to smoke and in that larger sense, RYO defines what most Americans feel about their right and obligation to freely choose what they consume as well as what they do with their lives. The term RYO is used as a preface in as diverse endeavors as people who hand load their own ammunition, or make their own candles, build their own furniture, or make their own clothing or beer. All of these activities at times now use the acronym RYO, and its use grows daily.

   That said, any discussion of the future of MYO must begin with a few premises/perceptions that are in serious need of correcting. First and foremost . .

Cheap

   While it is true that many people do come to MYO from packaged brands because of cost, this has little to do with why they stay there. Moreover, the cost issue will not remain a primary factor in the future. Anyone who has tried the glorious tobaccos available and the highly efficient crankstyle machines to inject these great tobaccos into high quality filtered cigarette tubes, soon realizes they will never return to packaged smokes, no matter the price differential. In the future, this industry must abstain from cost related promotion. First as its popularity grows, MYO may not always be less expensive than cheap manufactured brands and secondly, the very premise of the methodology is the more intelligent and respectful use of tobacco.

   As a packaged smoker migrates to MYO, the first thing that becomes clear is the exceptional difference in quality of the smoking experience, soon followed by the realization that this activity need not be a subservient one of mass consumption. It is about flavor, leaf quality, and elegance far more than simply a cheaper way to smoke more cigarettes. This single premise is one that can have far reaching effects on the politics of tobacco, while providing those who choose to smoke an approach that can lead to freely chosen enjoyment rather than a highly touted addiction. For tobacco users, this is truly a win-win situation, regardless of price.

Packaged Cigarettes - versus - MYO

   For quite some time, those who really understand the MYO concept reject its association with Big Cigarette companies. For too long, the terms "Cigarette Companies" and "Tobacco Companies" have been used interchangeably by the media, the government, and by anti-smoking factions to demonize tobacco itself. When figures are given for the harm "tobacco" causes, they are really related to the damage manufactured Cigarettes reportedly cause. Though this junk-science data is likely wildly inflated for purposes of huge monetary gain, there still is no doubt that a significant difference exists in the contents of a manufactured cigarette and a pure 100% real tobacco MYO stick. It is a difference as great as that which exists between natural home cooked cuisine and highly processed foods. And it is essential that these differences are highlighted in every way possible to those who choose to smoke.

   No scientifically rigorous health data has been gathered regarding MYO users. That will come and we envision a future where clear differences can be demonstrated between the effects on humans of "real" tobacco use when compared with premade cigarette consumption. Therefore the time has not yet arrived when claims of a healthier smoking experience are responsible or wise. Nonetheless, we have countless thousands of readers who have experienced a dramatic change in their smoking behavior, most especially lowered consumption, and in their assessment of any negative impact smoking is having on their lives. I guess the simplest way to put it is that even with all the extra chemicals found in packaged cigarettes (many of which are directly related to the use of reconstituted tobacco), no one single element has ever been identified as THE specific culprit in those smokers who have health problems related to cigarette smoking. As you will read in other parts of this magazine, when we discuss medical issues, it is a fact that a large portion of people who are diagnosed with lung cancer for instance, are smokers. However turning to the other side of the coin of these statistics, only about one in eight people who smoke get sick. There are many ways to look at statistics and the tragedy of so called scientific research on smoking and health is that it involves mostly suspect accounting procedures rather than any strenuous truly scientific medical research. The reasons for this is simple. The bad news generates billions of dollars, any honest, balanced, or truly revealing answers would leave the non-profit and government agencies without the funding they are so addicted to. More on that later here and on the cover of this issue.

The Changes Coming

   A lot more detail on all of the innovations already being introduced into this industry will be put here (on this page) after the 2006 NATO show. For those details, we suggest you return to and read this section of RYO Magazine, after April 10th, 2006. We CAN say with great confidence that in no time in history have so many outstanding tobaccos existed such as those produced by Peter Stokkebye, D&R Tobacco, and many others. Again we are talking about "real" 100% tobacco not cigarettes with "recon". In the same way, serious injectors like the Supermatic and Excel, are now joined by Republic’s Top-O-Matic to provide the consumer with an ease of making their own smokes never possible before. New, even more dynamic, efficient, and less industrial looking injectors are already at the final design stage and will be available as soon as late this year. However no matter how easy the injection process continues to be, just because you can make 'em fast does not mean you should ever smoke 'em fast, or in great quantities. As we've stated throughout this publication, those who would come to MYO in order to "afford" to be able to smoke four packs a day, are fools. Consumption is directly related to risk and a great many of those who have celebrity status who suffer from lung cancer that we hear about so often as "poster children" for anti-smoking, were HEAVY smokers. Four or Five packs per day of manufactured cigarettes. So even with improved injectors, sip your fine tobaccos - don't gulp them. For Christ's sake, use your head.

   Perhaps the single most innovative changes will come in tube design. The VeraCruz® Nocturne started the ball rolling with its luxurious design and natural brown cigarette paper elegance. A new manufacturer has emerged, StVincentUSA, headed by Mike Ang here in the US, which is dedicated to exceptional custom private label, designer quality tubes, that push the envelope in both materials and design innovation. These innovations include longer 20mm filter elements, higher density filters, and custom appointments that take them beyond the realm of the often too generic look of many MYO tubes. D&R Tobacco and HBI have already pulled the trigger on these upgraded offerings in their product lines and many more are waiting to do so. StVincent is also gearing up for longer, slimmer 100+mms, more colors, and even flavored tubes. Republic Tobacco has created an impressive new plant in Canada, the TOP Tube Company, with the venerable Stephane David (of CTC fame) returning to this industry as its president. The future is bright indeed with all the components falling in place to significantly increase and enhance the footprint and image of MYO for a world still dominated by packaged brands. Very good news indeed - for all. However you must do your part as both outlined at the beginning of this article, and by following sensible usage behavior, just like one must do with certain foods. I love hamburgers. A great burger is perhaps my single most favorite entree. But a good burger to me is one that has a lot of lettuce and tomato on it, onions and other things that are basically the components of a good salad. And I don't eat burgers for ever meal or even one every day. As the Moody Blues once wrote, its a "Question of Balance."

More Things To Come

   There is so much change going on politically regarding tobacco that one must read newspapers and use other sources of information daily to keep up. Our cover page is already to some degree outdated politically but the sense of the direction things are going is still very clear. Internet sales of tobacco continue to be attacked. The primary reason for this is the states getting their money which they are entitled to because you voted for those that pass the tax laws. You can discount the issue of underaged people getting rolling tobacco - it is pure fantasy. MYO has no attraction to young people. Their very act of rebellion for smoking illegally necessitates their having a brand named cigarette pack to flaunt. To them its a badge of honor, or as noted, a symbol of rebellion. That is why the current effort to "scare" kids from smoking appears to be backfiring. Tell a young person that something is dangerous and many of them will be enticed to try it. We've seen it with such stupidly outrageous behavior such as inhaling bug spray and paint fumes. The growth of the X-Games and other extremely high risk behavior/sports should make it clear that young people fear almost nothing - except perhaps being viewed by the peers as being "chicken." Fortunately the generality does not apply to all youth. There are a lot of smart ones out there who have a bit longer view of their existence. Nonetheless scare tactics don't work. Good science will, but it has to be of the order of respect that fosters serious attention, not shrill threats.  

The fact is the problem with Internet sales of tobacco (again not cigarettes which are stamped and easily identified as contraband) truly lies in the fact the states have trouble collecting their revenue. This is not the fault of the Internet seller in most cases. It is the fault of the states whose bureaucracy  is so inefficient that a simple plan to collect tobacco revenue from Internet sellers is still unworkable. For the same reason that the Internet sales tax is still, for all intents and purposes, languishing in the "moratorium" status, the states and the federal government are simply not good at simple logical strategies or solutions. While certain credit card companies and shipping companies have put restrictions on participating in tobacco sales and distribution, the US mail is still available. All the states would have to do is create a reporting scenario that retailers could easily abide by and participate in. The states have a constitutional right to levy taxes as does the federal government. However the framers of the constitution seemed to emphasize that such taxes be fair and equitable, which should imply a certain uniformity and certainly easy compliance.

   The Internet sales tax is stalled until such a uniform tax can be agreed upon. Similarly a uniform tax on tobacco products (other than cigarettes) should be quite easy to implement. This would avoid all the accounting nightmares encountered by both legal/licensed distributors that vary wildly from state to state, and those who wish to participate but simply cannot cope with the plethora of variations on what should be a simple theme. If tobacco is to remain legal for sale on the internet (or by mail order) directly to consumers, retailers basically would need a system of reporting and collecting a uniform tax based on their customer's location. And then periodically (quarterly - certainly not monthly) pay each state the revenue due using simple forms and a transparent communication pipeline with each state. It is not hard to envision this, and even with states having insanely different tax structures, online retailers could have a separate shopping cart checkout page for each state. The customer starts by logging in with their zip code. Basically opening an account like this would make it quite easy to verify age as well.

   Now some online retailers will say that this won't work as it will raise their prices so that they cannot compete with local brick and mortar stores. While this may be true in a few cases, the overall picture is much more revealing. That is that most people buy online because of variety not price. Too few local tobacco stores, and especially those entities who are self described as Tobacco Outlets (a glorified name for a discount packaged cigarette store that may have a few RYO/MYO items), carry a decent variety of RYO/MYO products. Online stores usually have huge selections of brands. This scenario will have the effect of making the online retailer legal, getting the states their revenues (until a wiser voting population realizes that the dangers in discriminatory taxation schemes for one product will eventually spill over to all product sectors), and at the same time encourage local shops to carry a broader selection of products in this category. Another win-win solution for everyone, especially the consumer which is what free trade should be about. Again the states have the right to do a lot of things but in reality, the whim of the people is who they serve. And when your favorite coffee place or favorite liquor store, your favorite automobile, or your favorite burger joint begins to see the taxation nanny that results from the social engineering goals of the prohibitionists among us, all Hell is going to break loose.

   We mention on the Cover page a situation in North Dakota where the legislature tried to make tobacco illegal to possess and found itself confronted aggressively by the entire anti-tobacco establishment. Read it. It is not surprising to me at all. More recently Utah has undertaken to make tobacco a illegal substance. There is little if any chance of it working even in that "as-weird-as-South Park" state. Government, public health departments, pharmaceutical companies, and anti-tobacco non-profits are far more hooked on tobacco than even the most dastardly of cigarette abusers. Our country is currently experiencing an onslaught of government excesses. Even during the Prohibitionist movement of the early 1900s which led to Prohibition (the 18th Amendment 1919) any real fiscal profit motive of the prohibitionist was absent. This was a moral thing and though as unctuous to a democracy as any attempts to constrain the personal and private behavior of the individual are, greed had little to do with it. The subsequent criminal behavior caused by Prohibition (Al Capone and Organized Crime as big business in general) was definitely about money. Thirteen years later (1933) the 18th Amendment was repealed by the 21st Amendment, leaving it to the discretion of each state how to handle alcohol delivery and consumption. Now many people think that Prohibition's end meant liquor was no longer prohibited. However the fact is, Section II of the 21st Amendment makes it clear repeal only returned power over alcohol to an individual state level decision. While no states stuck with complete prohibition, some did become "dry" states of varying degrees where alcohol is limited to state owned stores or other such nuances. Buying hard liquor (other than beer or wine) in some of these states at least is not possible in general merchandise stores. The point of all of this history is that our constitution is not as enabling a document as some may assume. It give a LOT of power to the states and basically is as concerned about infringements on each state's authority as it is about individual freedom. As far as I am concerned, the Declaration of Independence is a far more powerful statement of the right (no obligation) of redress by individuals against either the state or the federal government. They serve at our pleasure and we best not forget that.

   So today we have laws like the recent Eminent Domain law upheld by the Supreme Court on behalf of local jurisdiction's rights. In other words the Supreme Court allowed these local governments to decide the particulars of eminent domain, which of course they took to the extreme. The decision basically gave a victory for cities, when a divided Supreme Court concluded that local governments have the authority to seize private land and turn the property over to private developers for economic development. ... officials can use their "eminent domain" power to condemn homes and declare Eminent Domain for not just the public welfare petitioned by government agencies but allowed property to by taken (with compensation which is a very wiggly exercise in creative accounting) even for the benefit of private companies. In response, in the good old American tradition, a group filed an eminent domain litigation against Justice David Souter's farm. In fact this group has been getting traction. The Supreme court decision is really unpopular with a lot of elected representatives who fear their re-election success. Many states have already passed laws countering the Supreme Court ruling's effect. Basically in the decision, KELO v New London CT, said that New London, Conn., could seize homeowners' property to develop a hotel, convention center, office space and condominiums next to Pfizer Inc.'s new research headquarters. Pfizer hmmm. Big Pharma strikes again. Now the city argued that tax revenues and new jobs from the development would benefit the public. The Pfizer complex was built, but seven homeowners challenged the rest of the development in court. The Supreme Court's ruling against them prompted many states, including New Hampshire, to examine their eminent domain laws. This battle is just beginning with some elected officials who have vested interests in these confiscations pushing the limit of the Court ruling. Again many of the states are backing down with legislation to counteract the ruling. One quote from a local New Hampshire Rep is particularly amusing. He states in defense of the Souter property "reclamation" that "this as an act of revenge and an improper attack on the judicial system,"  "You don't go after a judge personally because you disagree with his judgments." Frankly, I personally think that is exactly what a citizen's obligations is to do. If a watch dog don't watch, get one that will. Unfortunately, many judges are there for a long time but recalls and impeachments are always possible at all levels. The people must obey the law until they can change it using the accepted process and the voting booth. Anything else is anarchy, however constituents are rarely the cause of anarchy, and in history one man's anarchist, is another man's freedom fighter. There are simple ways to fix many problems and simplification should be the goal in all endeavors.

  If you think I'm being an alarmist, here's another recent one: from AP - "When President Bush renewed the revised USA Patriot Act on March 9, Congress added oversight measures intended to keep the federal government from abusing the special terrorism-related powers to search homes and secretly seize documents. The additional provisions require law enforcement officials to safeguard all Americans' civil liberties and mandate that the Justice Department keep closer track of how often and in what situations the FBI could use the new powers, and that the administration regularly provide the information to Congress. However, it was not known at the time that the White House added an addendum stating that the president didn't need to adhere to requirements that he inform members of Congress about how the FBI was using the Patriot Act's expanded police powers. After the bill-signing ceremony, the White House discretely issued a ''signing statement," an official document in which a president lays out his interpretation of a new law. In the statement, Bush said he did not consider himself bound to tell Congress how the Patriot Act's powers were being used and that, despite the law's requirements, he could withhold the information if he decided that disclosure would ''impair foreign relations, national security, the deliberative process of the executive, or the performance of the executive's constitutional duties." In doing so, it appears the president once again cited his constitutional authority to bypass the law under certain circumstances. "

   This kind of behavior is becoming all too commonplace at every level of government. Once a freedom is lost it is almost never regained. Even with terrorism a primary factor in some of this, I trust neither political party to give a damn about my rights or yours. They will get away with whatever we let them. The same situation exists with anti-tobacco legislation. It is simply one of many precursors to rule by tyrant. Here's a line from the Declaration of Independence. In its 18th century verbiage it has to do with King George (no not Bush) but I think you will get the analogy. Hancock speaks to us from long ago, a past that is increasingly less dim.

"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security"

  For the future, just remember that we do have control over our immediate world. The loss of freedom of one group or even one innocent individual is the loss of freedom for all, even if it is just a little piece at a time. We encourage the states to simplify their taxation strategies such that compliance will be accomplished and we further encourage even the most strident anti-smoker to realize that while I firmly believe that they have no obligation to breathe cigarette smoke silently, and smokers have no right to expose them to it, there are principals that can be set forth to allow each to have their own space. In the longer  view of things, both groups will be better served by exercising both respect and tolerance for others and creating solutions that are fair to both.

   One last thing I want to mention before we're off to NATO is that those who are looking for alternatives to tobacco are in for a treat. We've looked before at herbal blends and for the most part found them lacking. A new company (to us) approached us recently on an entirely different issue and after solving the details of their initial inquiry, we found they produced herbal blends. They sent me some. This is some special stuff. The packaging is really beautiful and the herbs inside are far more satisfying than any of the herbals we've tried before. You'll hear a lot more about his company in the future and when we get back we'll show you some close-ups. Their banner is below so click on it and enjoy the adventure.

   We leave the last two issues Editorials in place below for the time being until we return. Please look at the mortality tables again. They tell an important story. It has a chilly kind of relevance for today.

   The coming national election of 2004 is being touted by some as the most important decision we will have to make in our lifetime. Rubbish. No matter who wins, little of true importance will change. Large multinational corporations will continue to be the true base of power. Most people will remain at the mercy of their employers who too often have no interest in them other than as a commodity, to be courted or dumped depending on momentary financial turns. Young men and women will continue to die in wars that old men and women continue to justify and propagate. You know, it is a long repeated diatribe that "if those who encouraged and caused wars were the very ones who had to fight them, war would have been obsolete for a very long time." Well the world has changed somewhat but not all that much. Religious and political fundamentalism has been the foundation of many a bloody undertaking. True we are now fighting individuals, not states, so we have a much harder to hit target, but the operating fact is that fundamentalists of any stripe by nature, are not happy folks. Their desires for narrow, unidirectional thinking and edifices constructed to that end, will never be satisfied because humans disagree and humans as a successful species, thrive on diversity.

   The fact is, fundamentalist doctrine is as alive and destructively well in the U.S as it is an any other part of the world. It takes many forms but at its core is the same inability to let others live and believe as they will. Both Bush and Kerry are of the same brotherhood. They are politicians. As far as I can extrapolate from history, any one who WANTS to be President of the United States should be let nowhere near the White House. That applies to the thousands of lesser entities who inhabit State Houses, Legislatures, and any other organizational body that wants to control the way others enjoy the life experience. It is a further fact that, while most people strongly desire control over their own destiny, most of us want no, or marginal at best, control over our neighbors. And that one fact is likely the greatest qualification for office I can think of. We should draft our representative - kicking and screaming all the way. They would know that soon, after a single brief term, they would have to return to face us, their constituents, and they will be held accountable directly by those that sent them to job they never wanted. Having true control over our own lives implies insulation from the annoying behavior of others. In other words, rules set by the few will never provide the safety, comfort, or well being that most long for. Franklin said "Love thy neighbor but build a good fence." And that is the quandry that drives the human race to conflict.

   There never will be a perfect society. No matter who you vote for, most will see little difference in day to day living that you can accurately attribute to your ultimate choice. Certainly, like the young mentioned above, some may be more strongly affected than others, but in general, the rest of us will continue to struggle, succeed and fail, just as all of those who came before. The only true measure of success is that we look forward to getting out of bed each day, that we go the extra mile to make our work and our enjoyment a challenge of ultimate quality. And if any personal behavior that has no impact on others can make that possible, it seems logical that we cherish the right to engage in that behavior above all others. Happiness should not be the goal nor should be satisfaction as these are fleetingly definitive and subjective terms. Excitement for the challenge of living is a concept with far more palpable rewards and the stuff that true freedom thrives on. People who are excited by being alive don't blow themselves and others up. Sure they'll fight for a cause they believe in and will defend themselves and those they care about, be it family, friend, or country, with great alacrity, but few are truly motivated to sacrifice for causes that affect them not, especially when they see those that have sent them into conflict risking nothing. So vote for who you will. More importantly, armed with judiciously acquired personal knowledge, hold those you elect accountable for their subsequent actions. I'm sure those on both sides of the current national political contest, in fact, see flaws in the character of both candidates. You wouldn't know it from watching the conventions, where so much partisan back slapping occurs that one would think these two men are, to each of their constituents, unrivaled examples of higher beings. Rubbish - again. They are politicians. It is irrelevant who they are when compared with what they do. And that pertains to all levels of those you elect to represent your best wishes. Let them know when they over-reach and step on your toes. Let them know, even when they step on the toes of those you disagree with. Let them know that they have specific duties to satisfy you, the voter - to protect your borders, your civilization, even your homes. They are not there to make decisions in those matters that you can handle personally and privately. You have hired them to do things you cannot by yourself accomplish. In all other matters, they (any of them) have no business in your affairs. Happiness, cooperation, getting along with all others - yes, perhaps these concepts are simply not part of the human animal - it does not seem be in our nature. However making one's own life as full and exciting as is possible is contagious and is the kind of pandemic the world desperately needs.  

   My personal perspective:  I strongly resent the way tobacco, a substance that has given pleasure to many hundreds of millions of humans throughout history, is being treated. That's one of the main reasons I toil over this magazine. I resent those that over-indulge in this amazing pleasure and cause themselves ill health and cause the rest of us, who can enjoy it in moderation, to face the threat of its extinction. I resent the cigarette companies who for a time promoted just this kind of mass consumption and in some cases still do. I resent the efforts of those that do not enjoy tobacco, to prevent me from my enjoyment. I like high performance automobiles. I've almost always had at least one. I've never had a speeding ticket. I resent those that drive with no regard for the safety of others and those who are unaware of their limitations in controlling their vehicles at any speed. I resent Volvo's. Not the car but the mentality behind it. To me the best strategy for auto safety is not in surviving crashes but avoiding them altogether, with skill and vehicle handling capabilities to match and by paying attention when driving. I resent kids who drive up and down my street at high speeds. There are plenty of opportunities to briefly enjoy vehicle performance, when highways are deserted, often late at night. There are tracks you can rent if you want to really put the pedal to the metal - if you want to see the scenery really blur. Acting with a mandate of personal responsibility, whether it is picking up your trash or confining your smoke to your self alone, is paramount to a society that will need fewer regulatory intrusions on personal behavior. It is our fault as humans that we have such regulation. We've ostensibly shown the powers that be that we can't do without it and reinforced that belief by failing to put a halt to regulation of things which concern no one but ourselves.. So how do we put it all together and make the puzzle of human cooperation a working proposition. My opinion is simply take full responsibility for your actions, viscerally and with dedication.Respect the rights and safety of others, and, only call the police after there is a body. Relax - its a metaphor - of sorts.

   There is more to add in the way of prefacing the following section. Quotations from well thought out prose, especially from long past eras, often give insight to the human condition and, more to the point, humanity's ability to assimilate and dissect the meanings behind day to day occurrences, especially when they involve the control over one group by yet another. The human condition perhaps was never meant to be "happy". It is well accepted by creative people that "satisfaction" is a death sentence to the very inspiration that results in great works of art and great social improvements. Will we ever really get along? Probably not. However it is important to understand that the very evolution of our species was successful because of rocky roads and rough seas not smooth, fertile, unchallenging vistas. Take the stairs or the long way around next time and mull over the following:

   "Water does nothing -  but penetrates everything. There is a music which underlies all things. We dance to the tunes all our lives, though our living ears never hear the music which guides and moves us. Happiness can kill people as softly as shadows seen in dreams. We must be people (sic humans) first and happy later, lest we live and die in vain." - Cordwainer Smith

   "It is a law of nature we overlook, that intellectual versatility is the compensation for change, danger, and trouble. An animal perfectly in harmony with its environment is a perfect mechanism. Nature never appeals to intelligence until habit and instinct are useless. There is no intelligence where there is no change and no need of change. Only those animals partake of intelligence that have to meet a huge variety of needs and dangers." -H.G. Wells

  And finally a personal favorite that lends itself well to the kind of epidemiological extrapolations used by supposed health groups that can find no real world human data to support their claims regarding tobacco and health. "It is alarming that the increase in ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) in the US precisely matches the increase of youth participation in the third world sport referred to as Soccer" - The Euripides Center for Understanding Everything

  The fact that no matter how intricate and well planned our attempts at sane self regulation are, of everything from questionable business practices to overt criminal behavior, we still seem to be having little luck in devising strategies that work for more than a short specific time, or individual situation. Why is there no "Unified Field Theory" as posed (though not yet proven) by Einstein, but applied to the far less complex social sciences (science of society) as a whole? Why are so many humans content to let others control them, seldom to the benefit of anyone but the controllers (even though the controllees vastly outnumber the controllers)? Why can't we keep our relatively small planetary house clean and orderly, AND progressive? Is it possible that we are all still basically savages whose sole motivations are greed and domination over others. Are we too angry of a species, or have we gotten mad enough? An interesting point of view lies in the following passage regarding the human species.

   "Filtered through the slushy fishbowls of their eyes, muffled by the imperfect receptors of their nerves, clouded by the static of their prejudices, the human dimly sees the universe. With meat-ego arrogance, they believe that what they notice through their clogged senses is the only reality. Humans represent a species which now engulfs the Earth in its numbers, from hot jungles to frozen wastelands. The ants have overrun the picnic and, having feasted on the leavings, now eat the table itself. Belching happily on their crumbling plateau, they toast one another for wisdom, restraint, and nobility."

  The preceding pejorative is an excerpt from the novel by DA Smith, "Rendezvous", and is related to the reader from the point of view of a near perfect being, endowed with the "advantage" of machine intelligence. Though a work of fiction, this novel deals with the conflict that all of us face when it comes to solutions that address long term challenges. In the machine world, solutions tend to be fixed points which can become the basis for linear improvement of the overall design with little or no chance of regression. As each part is improved, however, the connected parts in line subsequently face the threat of over work. In other words, when within a machine, you strengthen one part, the other parts may not stand up well to the added stress imposed on them by the increased efficiency of the new part. In human terms and looking at civilization as the ultimate human mechanism, new parts are much harder to come by, and even when they are ultimately available, these innovations are lobbied against most stringently by the powers that be - those that most fear change. Our civilization would not exist as such, nor would we as a species ever have left the caves, were it not for machines and continual improvements to them. And improvements mean change. It would seem we have learned little from the elegant designs we humans imparted to the non-sentient tools we've created to ease our path and increase our power. While we have no problem installing a new and perhaps improved part to one of our machines, we have not learned yet how to incorporate truly new ideas quickly and efficiently into the mechanisms of society, even though these ideas are often obvious (to some) solutions that could actually cure existing problems rather than simply prolonging the negative deteriorations our "system" seems to suffer symptomatically.

   The tables below are a study in the uniquely human ability for the rationalization of statistical analysis, which we as a "civilized" species too often use to make far reaching decisions. Those that published this table were attempting to show the current level of regulation (taxes) and the statistical use of cigarettes broken down by state, and then figured into a some kind of national average cause and effect relationship. Their agenda was obviously aimed at showing that the more taxes one imposes on tobacco, the less its use. Even a quick glance comparing the ranking of states as to how high their taxes are compared to their ranking, as to percentages of smokers, often shows quite the opposite. Further, the tables cover statistics from 2001 and 2002 so you can compare where states have raised taxes during that period and look at the resulting use, especially among young/underage smokers, who are routinely advertised as the true benefactors of higher revenue schemes. Rather than go into each state, one at a time, I leave it to you to do the comparisons. I'm not a cruel person, but spoon feeding people opinion and pseudo facts is one of the problems this piece deals with. It is what the controllers attempt to do. We desire the control of no human.

   Obviously, one of the purposes of this publication is to encourage each of you to become more proactive in the battle against sanctions on increasingly moderate tobacco use. Though nearly the entire case against tobacco, and the subsequent legal issues, regulation, and revenue confiscation, has focused on the big cigarette companies, even moderate, hobbyist enthusiasts of tobacco are affected. Moreover, organizations involved in these battles against individual rights and responsibility have had their way, impeded only by the logic and good sense of SOME legislators and judges who recognize the, at times, very weak sources of information and distortions of many of the so called facts. These organizations are well funded (by your tax dollars in most cases) and their officers are very well compensated. There's is a massive industry that will attack anything with deep pockets regardless of the harm it may cause to innocent bystanders. They are terrorists in the true sense of the word, no different than the eco-terrorist who destroys the private property of companies they see as a threat to the environment, or the terrorist who takes innocent human life for no other reason than they have a different concept of Divinity. We welcome a debate on tobacco under the piercing glare of fact, not innuendo. However, this debate may never happen as so many are afraid to cross these extremely aggressive organizations. Their power MUST be limited by regulation and by litigation. They, and the so called facts they arm themselves with, must be exposed to the transparent light of truth. Let the chips then, fall where they may. All of us will be better for the knowing.

   However, if the population of smokers does not become extremely active very soon, a great opportunity to alter or at least steady the course of personal human rights in vast areas yet unimaginable, may be lost, possibly for a very long time. Some of what they (these offenders of individual choice) proselytize, we actually agree with. We believe non-smokers should not be exposed to our smoke, if that be their choice. We also feel that children especially should be protected from ALL forms of pollution, both physical and intellectual, as they have less ability to voice and enforce their defenses. On the cover of this issue remains a scenario for determining the facts on tobacco use and, with minor variations, all other future issues that involve regulation of personal behavior that may have risk. Click here if you wish to review it. But for now . . .

   There is a lot to digest in the tables below and thus make some kind of decision based on what you see. We can't do it all for you and you shouldn't want us to anyway. That would put us in the same category as those who create such statistical presumptions. You should look at all the data and decide the intrinsic meaning for yourself.. However, we will look at a few states as an example to get you started.

   Update 2/03/04

   The recent seven state Democratic primaries, as well as the recent Oregon state referendum on taxes, gives us an interesting perspective, as an addition to what follows, regarding the voter's power to change just about anything they set their minds to. Let's take a look at three states that are a typical example of how this process may be used by tobacco users to regain control of a revenue and regulatory process gone insane. We'll start with the Oklahoma primary and simply throw some real numbers at you based on election results. There are approximately 1,099,000 registered Democrats in Oklahoma which is a state with a Democratic majority, but elects a lot of Republicans. That strange fact alone, we will let you make of what you will. Here's the interesting part. Of those nearly 1.1 million voters who as Democrats were eligible to vote in this primary, only 300,000 actually voted or about 27.3%. Now the state, according to the tables below, has about 737,000 adult smokers. The winner, Clark got only 30% of the vote that was cast or about 90,000 votes, Edwards had nearly the same amount with Kerry placing third with about 81,000. The point is even if you total the top three candidates, the number of votes cast for them is only about 260,000. Now think about it. With 737,000 smokers in the state, it is obvious that a concerted effort to vote for someone who was much more supportive of those who are being robbed by taxation because they smoke, could win any election for any candidate they chose. The numbers are staggering when you look at the power smokers have to influence their own destiny, if only they can be organized to vote in a block.

   The second example is the Arizona primary, with 788,000 eligible Democratic voters, only 220,000 actually voted. In both cases (OK and AZ), only about 27% of those eligible to vote in the primary actually showed up to do so. There are 809,000 smokers in this mostly Republican state. Again a voting block of smokers alone could elect any candidate for any local, state or federal office. Now we are not suggesting that this be the only criteria for voting for politicians. However, we think the qualifications of most elected leaders are no better overall than most citizens. In most cases, some of the dumbest sounding people I have ever been exposed to, are politicians. I watch CSPAN a lot and am constantly amazed at the lack of knowledge about a wide range of issues that our elected officials exhibit.

  The fact is, even career politicians glean most of their knowledge about issues as diverse as health care, social security, the war on terror, education, budget deficits and international affairs, including trade, from their staff anyway. Staffers are professional coaches, basically, who remain in their consultant-like positions throughout changing administrations and officials. They would always be there to help in getting a newly elected Representative or Senator up to speed with information that person needed on affairs that perhaps were not the freshman politician's forte to start with. That's what they do and current politicians in office are no less dependent on these staff resources than would be a new face. Now many people simply don't want the hassle of a political candidacy, or are not attractive/charismatic enough, have neither the money, nor the oratory skills to make a bid for office. However, it only takes one in every precinct (with your support) who both has a committedly reasonable attitude about tobacco taxation and regulation, and has those skills mentioned above to make a 180 degree difference when it comes to unfair and inefficient tobacco regulation. The are many in every state, at all levels, who could well fit the requirements and who certainly are bright and articulate enough to represent you at all levels of government. This is how the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) was passed and, in the same way later repealed. Folks whose beliefs were representative of their electors were sought out and supported. It can be done.

   Finally, for this update, let me share with you details of a local vote on a referendum that was put before the voters of Oregon this week. It was basically a ballot measure to increase our income tax to help the state deal with the typical budgetary crisis that most states are experiencing today. The voters, 58% to 42%, voted this measure down, but that is not the point, although it is interesting to note that few tax increase measures pass when they are put to a vote of the taxpayer. What is more interesting here is that Oregon makes it easy to vote. It is all done by mail. You don't have to go anywhere. You only need provide a minimal postage fee (thirty seven cents). The state mails you a ballot and you send it back in, or you can drop it off at a ballot box on election day if you don't want to mail it. Even with this mind numbing simplicity on a measure that would directly and immediately affect every wage earner in the state, only 53% actually sent in their ballots. An interesting set of numbers appears here as does the two percentages noted above in the state primaries where almost EXACTLY the same percentage of registered voters actually voted. Though the response of the voters of Oregon was nearly twice the 27% of the OK and AZ primaries, it is interesting to note that the number of smokers in Oregon is precisely 53% of those that voted. This doesn't mean 53% of Oregonians are smokers. It simply means that 986,000 folks voted out of a possible 1.8 million AND that, according to the tables below 528,000 people here smoke. So the ratio of voters eligible to vote and those that actually voted as well as ratio of the total number of smokers in the state to the number of people who actually voted were both 53%. The final kicker in this proposed income tax hike is that the group of legislators and special interest groups that put it together threw in a 10 cent per pack cigarette tax hike for good measure. It is interesting to note that in the voter pamphlet each registered voter receives that explain the proposed measure, the "in favor of" section where supporters of the Bill have the opportunity to give their reasons for support, dealt, to a very disproportionate degree, with this cigarette tax increase as the main reason for supporting this bill. Groups like the American Cancer Society, Lung Association and several other such organizations who are not supposed to be involved in the legislative process due to their non-profit status were all over the ballot info booklet. The measure was voted down, but it was obvious that this part was thrown in as a rider to garner support from more people, as our legislators seem to think that the mere mention of a cigarette tax will cause a bill to pass. I guess they were wrong in this case, but often this ploy works.

  I'm not sure what can be made of the percentage-based coincidence of 53%, but it is interesting, especially if you like to play games with numbers like the statisticians do concerning smoking and health. More of that follows, but what is pertinent here is that, once again, adult, voting age smokers, as a voting block, could have passed or killed this bill at their whim. People who use tobacco have an incredible amount of power if motivated into becoming a voting block. Everyone who smokes HAS to be and  frankly, IS seriously upset at the level of taxation on tobacco and the ultimate waste of that revenue on projects that have nothing to do with smoking. As you read what follows, keep this in mind and contemplate the possibilities. And keep this also in mind. There is great power in numbers. I have always been amazed how one gunman can hold 40 people hostage. Sure, everyone has to stick their neck out to some degree in such a situation, but, as with the incident of the hijacked aircraft on 911 that was retaken by the passengers and subsequently crashed into a Pennsylvania field, it is time for people to realize that taking NO action can often result in far worse consequences for everyone. The folks on that plane were hero's, not fools, and I would hope that all Americans, tobacco enthusiasts included, are made of that same admirable stuff. Again to paraphrase Franklin, "those that sacrifice liberty for safety, DESERVE NEITHER."  And now . . .

The Original Article Continues . . .

   The State of Washington, as shown in the tables has a tax ranking of 4th in the 2001 table and 6th in the 2002 table. This ranking is from one to fifty and represents comparatively the amount of tax on cigarette packs. (The higher the number, the less the tax so Washington state has a very high tax when compared with other states at $1.425 per pack). Now look at the state's ranking as far as percentage of smokers. In 2001, they ranked eleventh and with no tax increase ranked 25th (even worse) in 2002. The smoking percentage rankings at the far left of each table are from one to fifty as well, with the higher number representing the more smokers per capita. As you can see the percentage of smokers went up significantly only a couple of years AFTER the tax was instituted. Their ranking in 2002 as far as taxes was 6th highest and their per capita rating was 25. Now, of course, the figures change each year relatively - as one state's consumption or taxes changes, so does the relative position of other states. Nonetheless, the number of smokers in the state went up by over 100,000 people after people quickly got used to the higher tax. This is hardly a good example of a tax actually cutting consumption. Check out all of the states as each are unique in their reaction to tax changes. Some are in line with the "hoped for" results of the CDC, but many are not.

   Looking at the national averages is equally interesting. The 2001 statistics show the overall average state tax on cigarettes at 60 cents per pack with 47 million folks smoking (this and all the numbers we will discuss in a moment). The newer 2002 tables (the bottom set) shows an average of 70 cents per pack tax and the total smoking population as 48 million. To summarize then, by increasing the average tax nationwide by ten cents per pack, another million people started smoking. Hardly a reasonable outcome considering the cost and the waste of revenue. We will at this point leave it to you to speculate what the real agenda is of taxation schemes to limit behavior, but even given this data, provided by anti-tobacco advocates, shows clearly the extra money must be going somewhere besides effective smoking cessation programs.

  Two more States of interest: Let's look at Virginia and West Virginia. The latest figures in the table show the tax on cigarettes in Virginia (a tobacco producing state) to be the lowest in the nation at a mere 2.5 cents per pack. West Virginia has a tax twenty+ times that (55 cents). If the theory of taxes decreasing consumption were correct you would think that folks in Virginia would smoke at a greater rate per capita than those in West Virginia. The opposite is the case. West Virginia has a smoking rate of 28.2% while low tax Virginia has a lower usage rate of 22.5%. The year 2001 shows slightly different rates but in the same direction with a similar spread. Now some anti-smoking groups might try to sell you on the idea that the smokers of West Virginia are crossing the border to Virginia to get cheap cigarettes. However, since these data sets, as we will discuss below, are most likely estimates that could only be based on packs sold, there would be no record of sales in West Virginia from cigarettes brought privately across the border. There are so many weaknesses in this kind of data that I am truly surprised that any rational human being could give any credence to it. Still many do and, though it is obvious that there are many hidden and fiscal agendas at work here to do as much as possible to extract extra money from smokers, one would think it should be relatively easy to make the case for a new look at regulation by taxation. However, since the numbers are suspect anyway, the following may be more pertinent than the numbers alone. You see . . . . .

  The preceding was an exercise in the pseudo-science of epidemiology and you followed right along believing, (to the benefit of any anti-tax advocate or anti-tobacco advocate as well), the numbers supplied. And they were the actual numbers supplied by the CDC. However, do you remember being asked if you were a smoker by the CDC in the last few years. I sure as Hell don't. These numbers are based on estimates that no one outside of the CDC has any clue as to upon what they were based. How do they know 48 million people smoke cigarettes? Do they include those that roll or make their own, or are they simply allocating so many cigarettes per person and basing their estimates according to number of packs sold as we suspected above. This is a clear example of the overwhelming weakness in statistical analysis whether it regards how many smoke, what may cause them to smoke less or quit, OR, most importantly, how many are actually damaged by smoking to the exclusion of all other factors. And . . . smoking what???

   Now statistical analysis has long been used for everything from advertising, which TV shows stay on the air, and political prediction (polls). Groups that use this kind of information gathering, sample VERY small groups of people, average it out and apply it to an overall targeted population segment. Especially of concern are the number of underage smokers, as the tables' authors even admit that the YRBS (Youth Risk Behavioral Survey) is based on surveys over many years and therefore cannot provide a state's ranking accurately. If that be the case, then the percentages are likely highly speculative as well. The truth of this whole mess is found in the last sentence of each year's table. "Cigarette tax increases can restore state tobacco tax revenues to historic levels" (certainly true) - "while also reducing state smoking levels and related costs" (certainly not true according to their own figures). Further, the state's estimates as to the health costs of smoking are highly suspicious as well as they offer no clear definition on how they arrived at the figures or how doctors decide that smoking is the primary cause of someone's illness.

   It is for reasons of balance, which we try always to achieve, to note that the CDC is not an organization staffed only with power hungry monsters. I have no doubt there are some truly talented and ostensibly altruistic folks working there. Oh, to be sure their funding is heavily weighted towards anti-tobacco generated revenue, but there are scientists of significant repute inhabiting the labs and conference rooms of the CDC. However, these scientists, even the best ones, are often looking at data supplied to them with little or no context. Sure any fool knows that smoking carries risk. So does sex and eating. So does getting out of bed every morning . . . or staying in bed every morning. What the CDC SHOULD be looking at is WHAT people smoke, how OFTEN and how MUCH, as well as the other environmental and lifestyle factors that may dramatically affect their fiscally outrageous experiments. They should know, as most of our readers must, that smoking packaged cigarettes in large quantities increases risk. Why this is so, however, may involve many factors other than the tobacco itself. For instance, what kind of person smokes four packs a day or even three or two? Why do they need so much of the substance? What is their personality type that they would need so much stimulation, or more likely anxiety relief, that they feel the need to spend the time (and money) involved in order to smoke so copiously. Is it, in fact, the pack mentality at work? It is interesting to note that humans, being the diverse creatures we are, are likewise extremely diverse in the ways they approach smoking. Many statistically heavy consumers let cigarettes burn up in the ashtray after only a few puffs. Others, who demonstrate less consumption, puff like the devil, never losing their grip on the stick until it is gone. Certainly no one could logically contend that the impact of these different methods of using tobacco create similar results physiologically, and further that they speak not of differences in personality. There is so much interesting research that COULD be done regarding smoking habits that go well beyond simply the numbers. I would venture to guess that we at RYO Magazine have data that is at least as useful, as to why people smoke the way they do, than does the CDC. Our budget is a bit smaller as well.

  I recently saw a short piece on one of the cable news stations on cancer. The participants (some from the CDC) were discussing ways to reduce cancer risk (mostly it involved more and more MONEY for research, bad habit intervention and education all of which are big time, heavily financed - by you - cottage industries). They were showing various activities (or lack thereof in the case of exercise) and their relationship to cancer rates. Of course smoking was at the top of the list, but there were no figures provided as to dosage, lumping all smokers into one single group. They did however, as is beginning to happen a bit more often, include other lifestyle and environmental factors such as diet, exercise, etc. The problem was the cancers they were talking about were very general in nature and the end result was basically a plea for more regulation, taxation, (including new ones on fast foods), and more ostentatious groveling for copious financial support by governmental agencies (again, you the taxpayer). Nothing was accomplished in this segment - just more of the same innuendo and wool gathering. It is no wonder we have had so little success in finding causes and cures for cancer other than early detection which obviously works well with nearly any disease. Surgical removal of tumors and irradiation as well as extremely toxic drug treatments have mitigated cancers impact somewhat, but no one really understands the real cellular reasoning mechanisms behind this disease, nor is anyone much closer to a preventative cure. Bluntly, they focused little on things we should do and concentrated rather on all of the things we shouldn't.

  The tables at the bottom of the page show mortality rates. We have discussed this before but I think it bears looking at again. It is the result of yet further opinion/survey-based science but shows some definite patterns. Out of the 2.4 million people that die each year in the US, around 1.8 million are over 65 with the next group (my age group) adding another 250,000 which leaves roughly 400,000 deaths of those under the age of 55. These numbers should give one pause as to what is really causing human death (mostly age) but now many of the anti-smoking groups are linking smoking to every disease imaginable. What convenient and potentially lucrative new field will emerge to harvest when tobacco has lost its right to exist. The new thrust currently is fast food as there are a lot of deep pockets there as well. If you go to the cover page, towards the bottom, I outline a sensible approach to the issue of finally assessing the risk of tobacco usage. And there is risk, certainly, but the numbers are so skewed with weak science, and with extremely vested interests in negative outcomes of the research, that only when we can reach a point where those who publish false information (or interpret falsely and knowingly publish inaccuracies) can be prosecuted, and attorneys who represent the ones who are getting rich off regulation of our personal choices can be held fiscally accountable as well, will we restore the science of medical research to the high standards from which it should never have deviated.

   Please look at the tables that are here. Think for yourself. Analyze what is there and make your own conclusions, keeping in mind that many of these numbers are simply estimates, or who knows, even plain fiction. Statistical analysis does have a place in our decision-making process but only when the parameters are clearly defined and the results are accurate. And once you are convinced of the veracity of the data, only then, become proactive. Now I know that a statistical look at our readership might well show a preponderance of gay cowboys who ride black and white Pinto ponies - given the right polling location, of course. One can make numbers show anything they want, especially when there is no obligation to show the details of how the data was gathered and from whom. Until we, as a civilization, began to think for ourselves and hold those who make recommendations about anything, especially involving our personal choices, to a very high standard, we should not wonder that we have failed to solve other larger problems.

   So why can't we keep our own little house in order. Now I am no Pollyanna and have no doubt there will always be some people I simply can't stand. The fact, however, may be that our uncanny dependence on statistics makes it impossible to form even a simple rationale for cooperation. With all of the theocratic/theological based animosity in the world, all based on opinion by the way, or FAITH, which is the ultimate form of opinion, we have a very long way to go before we have enough real facts to find common ground with anyone, especially if we need an empirical excuse. Open minds are not getting easier to find and returning to the analogy we started with - that of the machine -  perhaps it really is time for a superior form of intelligence to take over our decision making processes for our own good. I resist that notion but if people like you and I do not begin to seriously campaign for drastic changes in who controls the rulebook, perhaps we deserve no better master.

   I know I tend to harp on the subject of individual responsibility a lot in this publication, but frankly, though we receive a lot of mail about the subjects we write about, I still see little movement in our ability to control the forces who are bent on controlling us. We have so many more important things to consider on this planet than whether some of us smoke or not, that the huge waste of time and revenue can simply no longer be justified. Even as I write this piece, there is legislation before Congress to force carriers who deliver tobacco products to private residences to disclose that information to the government. Both the seller and buyer will be under unimpeded scrutiny by our Big Brother and I tell you, if we don't stop this kind of intrusion, how can we expect to stop even more intrusive regulation in the future, involving even our most private moments.

   The time has come that even single issue candidates, who are enthusiastic supporters of individual rights, should be encouraged to run for office at all levels of government. And once elected, they must begin to get rid of those career bureaucrats, whose continued support of organizations that are raping our treasuries with the excuse that it somehow is in our best interest. These parasites should perhaps be prosecuted along with the lawyers who encourage them. We really do live in a rather small and manageable house if only we redefine what a representative is and firmly control the manner in which they represent us. There are more than 70 million adults in the US who use tobacco in one form or another. I can't remember when any successful Presidential candidate got more than 50 million votes and a potential strategy, based on this fact, could extend all the way down to the lowliest city council member.

  I will leave you at peace now to digest all of the above and all of that which follows. AGAIN, please study the tables below and start thinking of ways you can become more proactive in the necessary battles that surely lie ahead in all areas of tax-based social engineering. Enjoy the new year and, please, take a serious look around you and see what you can do to regain, each day, just a little more of self. Here are the tables:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/corporate.taxes.ap/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,125635,00.html

   Until next time, enjoy - life is tenuous and should be enjoyed aggressively without regret - without fear - be just selfish enough to do simply that. - the ed.