The FAIR Report On Limbaugh
Timothy Bowden
report I read is just released on the lies and distortions of one Rush
Limbaugh and compiled by Fairness and Accurace in Reporting? I have fun
seeing some dear ones don't become too comfortable in their views.
Where can I retrieve a copy? is the question. I'll take my answer
offline, Rush....
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=-.
tcbo...@clovis.felton.ca.us - |
"Only three things have ever astonished me: a dream |
within a dream, voices in an empty room, and fire |
the color of ice" - Silvina Ocampo |
=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+'
ste...@cruzio.com
> Briefly, and in order to tweak in-laws, could somebody direct me to the
> report I read is just released on the lies and distortions of one Rush
> Limbaugh and compiled by Fairness and Accurace in Reporting? I have fun
> seeing some dear ones don't become too comfortable in their views.
I don't know about that "report", but I can post you some of the lies and
distortions of one Bill Clinton (and cohorts) as presented by Rush Limbaugh.
And for additional source information, get the book _The Agenda_ by Bob
Woodward (Simon & Schuster, 1994).
--
Steve Koterski
ste...@cruzio.com
"Red necks, white socks, and Blue Ribbon beer."
David Lyall
>I don't know about that "report", but I can post you some of the lies and
>distortions of one Bill Clinton (and cohorts) as presented by Rush Limbaugh.
duh duh ditto head
--
// David Lyall > dev...@netcom.com
\X/
Don Fong
>Briefly, and in order to tweak in-laws, could somebody direct me to the
>report I read is just released on the lies and distortions of one Rush
>Limbaugh and compiled by Fairness and Accurace in Reporting?
There are actually 2 posts: one an excerpt from the FAIR article,
and one a followup to RL's response.
--- Don Fong
gst...@cruzio.com
>Briefly, and in order to tweak in-laws, could somebody direct me to the
>report I read is just released on the lies and distortions of one Rush
>Limbaugh and compiled by Fairness and Accurace in Reporting?
I do not know where to get the report but the Sunday SJ Mercury has an essay by
Donald Kaul re the FAIR report. The Merc is on-line at AOL and commonly has
background material not included in the article.
BTW: The FAIR report has been in various media lately - it is fairly tame stuff
Anyone who has listened or watched Mr. Limbaugh is probably aware that given a
choice between excellent bombast and accuracy, he'll choose the bombast every
time. No harm is done except that there are people who listen to him and think
taht they are getting the straight poop. Of course the same could be said for
some Howard Stern listeners or any other public figure with an attitude. The
fault lies with the listener it seems, for being lazy or ignorant or both.
Gary Starkweather
ste...@cruzio.com
Wow. I bet it took you four years of college to dream up such a snappy reply.
William F. Tell
the first person on the radio to present lies and distortions. I don't
listen to Limbaugh, but it seems to me that by jumping on the FAIR
bandwagon, the media is giving free publicity to Limbaugh's show.
There is no way Congress will pass a law outlawing his show and if the
FCC hasn't been successful in getting Howard Stern off the air, it's
doubtful Limbaugh will be brought down by the fairness doctrine.
If you want a liberal commentator, listen to Jim Hightower or Jerry Brown.
Or better yet turn off your televisions and radios and read a book.
--WFT
Tracy Galloway
>Briefly, and in order to tweak in-laws, could somebody direct me to the
>report I read is just released on the lies and distortions of one Rush
>Limbaugh and compiled by Fairness and Accurace in Reporting? I have fun
>seeing some dear ones don't become too comfortable in their views.
I don't know about a copy of the entire report, but I can
produce the samples as posted by Newsweek (which you probably
already have). For the benefit of those who haven't seen
the previews...
From Newsweek, July 11, 1994 (Reprinted without permission)
Bill Clinton recently charged that there are no
truth-checks on Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing
critics. Limbaugh replied, "*I* am the truth
detector." But a new study by the media-watchdog
group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting shows that
in his broadcasts and books, Limbaugh often
disdains facts.
Limbaugh: "[If] 4,000 votes... had gone another
way in Chicago - Richard Nixon would have been
elected in 1960."
FAIR: Kennedy won 303 electoral votes, Nixon won
219. Illinois's 27 votes weren't decisive.
Limbaugh: "It has not been proven that nicotine
is addictive."
FAIR: Medical reports of its addictiveness
dating to the turn of the century were confirmed
in the 1988 surgeon general's study.
Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better
off than mainstream families of Europe."
FAIR: Average income of the poorest 20% of Americans:
$5,226; average income in four major European nations:
$19,708.
Limbaugh: "Everybody in the world [except] the United
States Congress supported the gulf war."
FAIR: Both houses of Congress authorized the Gulf war.
Limbaugh: "When the [black] illegitimacy rate is
raised, Rev. Jackson and other black leaders
immediately change the subject."
FAIR: For years, Jesse Jackson and others have
decried "children having children."
King of Beasts
In article <CsrGs...@cruzio.com> gst...@cruzio.com writes:
No harm is done except that there are people who listen to him and think
>taht they are getting the straight poop. Of course the same could be said for
>some Howard Stern listeners or any other public figure with an attitude. The
>fault lies with the listener it seems, for being lazy or ignorant or both.
to realize that these folks are entertainers with a bent toward
agitating. To say that RL distorts facts any more than the ad-
ministration does is only fooling themselves.
Limbaugh has made himself rich and famous by yanking your chains,
and he's good at it. Stern isn't a serious candidate, and he knows
it and suspects his audience does, too. They get exactly what they
want; a chance to be outrageous, have fun and make money all at once.
Not many have that luxury......
*******************************************************************************
Vinnie Jordan vin...@sco.COM
"I've never met a Phi Beta Kappa, a Magna cum Laude or a Most Likely to
Succeed who really made it in life. Sure, they made it in some corporate
level or in advertising, but they just bit for the old USA oakey-doke
and remained oblivious to the realities of what life is really all about."
*Albie Baker, Ringolevio*
*******************************************************************************
Max Perez
as a longtime listener of howard stern, i have observed that while his
fanbase is pretty rabid, its more of a cult of personality than any
quest for accurate information... actually, it would be missing the
humor pretty badly to take stern seriously.
he would make at least as good a mayor as julianni tho.
===========================================
\\\/// ma...@sco.com diver [\]
//@@\\
// \ \ dod 234: yet another nude biker.
// - \
""" fender thrashing guitar monkey.
===========================================
Brian K. Stickler
Newsgroups: scruz.general,scruz.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics
Path: news.dfrf.nasa.gov!ames!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!olivea!uunet!hobbes!vinniej
From: vin...@sco.COM (King of Beasts)
Subject: Re: The FAIR Report On Limbaugh
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 12:55:50 GMT
Message-ID: <1994Jul14....@sco.com>
References: <Z6q0oc...@clovis.felton.ca.us> <2vqilk$7...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <CsrGs...@cruzio.com>
Sender: ne...@sco.com (News admin)
Lines: 29
In article <CsrGs...@cruzio.com> gst...@cruzio.com writes:
No harm is done except that there are people who listen to him and think
>taht they are getting the straight poop. Of course the same could be said for
>some Howard Stern listeners or any other public figure with an attitude. The
>fault lies with the listener it seems, for being lazy or ignorant or both.
That's partially true. Part of the problem is that folks fail
to realize that these folks are entertainers with a bent toward
agitating. To say that RL distorts facts any more than the ad-
ministration does is only fooling themselves.
Limbaugh has made himself rich and famous by yanking your chains,
and he's good at it. Stern isn't a serious candidate, and he knows
it and suspects his audience does, too. They get exactly what they
want; a chance to be outrageous, have fun and make money all at once.
Not many have that luxury......
It always seems to be people on the "left" who have such low opinions
of people, in general. If a person listens to R. Limbaugh as entertainment,
it is assummed that this is there only source of news, and that they are
getting "mislead". Only those who "See this hate monger for what he really
is" are capable of discerning the truth! Pleaseee! I like to listen to
Limbaugh, and being a conservative, I agree with a lot of what he says.
But I don't take everything he says as gospel, and neither do most people.
I also read newspapers, Time and Newsweek, and waht plenty of news and
newsmagazines on TV. Give people credit! Conservatives don't call people
who listen to Larry King or Al Gore "mindless robots".
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ Brian K. Stickler
_/ _/ _/ Computer Sciences Corporation
_/ _/_/ _/ NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility
_/ _/ _/ Edwards, CA. 93523-0387
_/_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ Tel: (805)258-3035 Fax: (805)258-3462
N A S A - D R Y D E N stic...@pasha.dfrf.nasa.gov
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
David Casseres
stic...@cs1.dfrf.nasa.gov writes:
> It always seems to be people on the "left" who have such low opinions
> of people, in general. If a person listens to R. Limbaugh as
entertainment,
> it is assummed that this is there only source of news, and that they
are
> getting "mislead". Only those who "See this hate monger for what he
really
> is" are capable of discerning the truth! Pleaseee! I like to listen to
> Limbaugh, and being a conservative, I agree with a lot of what he
says.
> But I don't take everything he says as gospel, and neither do most
people.
> I also read newspapers, Time and Newsweek, and waht plenty of news and
> newsmagazines on TV. Give people credit! Conservatives don't call
people
> who listen to Larry King or Al Gore "mindless robots".
I think this says it all. A conservative is a person who thinks Rush
Limbaugh is entertaining, and apparently gets most of his "news" from
Time, Newsweek, and plenty of TV.
-------------
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
Brian K. Stickler
Path: news.dfrf.nasa.gov!ames!lll-winken.llnl.gov!apple.com!mac279.kip.apple.com!casseres
From: David Casseres <cass...@apple.com>
Newsgroups: scruz.general,scruz.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics
Subject: Re: The FAIR Report On Limbaugh
Date: 14 Jul 1994 18:11:27 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer, Inc.
Lines: 27
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <303v4f$b...@apple.com>
References: <Z6q0oc...@clovis.felton.ca.us> <1994Jul14....@sco.com> <1994Jul14....@sco.com> <STICKLER.94...@cs1.dfrf.nasa.gov>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac279.kip.apple.com
X-UserAgent: Version 1.1.3
X-XXMessage-ID: <AA4ACDAD...@mac279.kip.apple.com>
X-XXDate: Thu, 14 Jul 94 18:10:37 GMT
Now THAT was a "mindless" retort. Limbaugh IS an entertainer. He has
never claimed to be anything but. You, on the other hand have some better
way of getting national and local news besides newspapers, news magazines,
and TV news. Would you mind sharing how you do that with the rest of us?
-------------
David Casseres
Exclaimer: Hey!
David Casseres
[I wrote]
> I think this says it all. A conservative is a person who thinks Rush
> Limbaugh is entertaining, and apparently gets most of his "news" from
> Time, Newsweek, and plenty of TV.
>
> Now THAT was a "mindless" retort. Limbaugh IS an entertainer. He has
>never claimed to be anything but. You, on the other hand have some better
>way of getting national and local news besides newspapers, news
magazines,
>and TV news. Would you mind sharing how you do that with the rest of us?
Read more carefully. Of course he's an entertainer, I just question
whether he's *entertaining.*
As for where to get news, it ain't easy. Newspapers are basic. News
magazines are too, but *not* Time and Newsweek, forgodssake. And anyone
who thinks TV "news" and "newsmagazines" have anything to do with actual
news is, well, probably a conservative.
nme...@cruzio.com
The point of the FAIR article is not to get anybody to censor Rush. Most of us who disagree with Rush and find him dispicable also find censorship even more dispicable. The purpose is to educate people about the accuracy of the
information that they are recieving. That is why is(sic) it is called
Fairness and Accuracy. the difference (of a difference) between someone like Al
Gore and Ruxh (sic) is that Rush claims that things are true for which
there is little or no logic or evidence to bakc up his claims.
Al Gore on the other hand uses extensive logic and evidence to bolster his
opinions and claims. Neither is perfect, not all in one direction. The difference is in degree, and the difference is very very large.
The other difference is what t do their commentary lead to. Rush's commentary
are more likely to lead to an increase in hatred and intolerence toward the least powerful people in our society.
The ideas and comments of Al Gore are more likely to lead to an increase
in tolerence and understanding among different groups and races and classes.
Plesase excuse the typing. I am new at this and I neither know how to
upload nor can I use the editor in this program. Hopefully I will learn
these soon.
ste...@cruzio.com
>
>
> The point of the FAIR article is not to get anybody to censor Rush. Most of us who disagree with Rush and find him dispicable also find censorship even more dispicable. The purpose is to educate people about the accuracy of the
> information that they are recieving. That is why is(sic) it is called
> Fairness and Accuracy. the difference (of a difference) between someone like Al
> Gore and Ruxh (sic) is that Rush claims that things are true for which
Yes. Little things like supplying reputable sources for the information
disseminated, like quoting inconsequential periodicals such as the _New York
Times_ and the _Washington Post_, and actual news clips of Clintonistas in
action do little to bolster what he says.
> there is little or no logic or evidence to bakc up his claims.
> Al Gore on the other hand uses extensive logic and evidence to bolster his
> opinions and claims. Neither is perfect, not all in one direction. The difference is in degree, and the difference is very very large.
> The other difference is what t do their commentary lead to. Rush's commentary
> are more likely to lead to an increase in hatred and intolerence toward the least powerful people in our society.
> The ideas and comments of Al Gore are more likely to lead to an increase
> in tolerence and understanding among different groups and races and classes.
>
Yes, Algore uses impeccable logic and reason in presenting his case. Why,
just last week, he was speaking to a convention of the American Federation of
State, County, and Municipal Workers (all on the public dole, anyway), and
was discussing the passage of Clinton's health care scam. He blamed the
Republicans in the Congress and Senate for it being likely not to pass this
year. He called it "an affront to democracy" that they oppose Clinton's plan.
Unfortunately, the facts do not back him up. There are 56 Democrats in the
Senate versus 44 Republicans. In the Congress, there are 256 Democrats as
opposed to 178 Republicans. Now, last time I looked at the definition of
democracy, it meant majority vote ruled. So if the Democrats so outnumber
the Republicans, how are the Republicans successfully opposing this plan?
Unless a good number of legislators just aren't behind ol' Bubba...
RL is just a face on the boob tube. Algore is second in command of the
greatest and most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. So who poses the
greatest danger when little, inconsequential things like facts are bandied
about so arbitrarily? You do the math.
Algore's commentary is more likely to lead to an INCREASE in tolerance?
Algore of the political party that depends so pathetically on class envy for
attracting followers? A member of the party whose power base can only be
maintained if they sustain today's legions of the poor, or increase them?
The agenda he and Bubba work from have as its basis the socialist ideals
of forced redistribution of wealth. Does that mean taking from the rich to
make life better for the less fortunate? Nope. It means taking a lot from
the rich and some from the middle class to give to the government. The poor
don't stand to have a better existence out of all this. As more revenue pours
in to the government coffers, that is just a signal that it's time for more
spending. Unfortunately, the spending that goes to those who really need it
is token, at best.
> Plesase excuse the typing. I am new at this and I neither know how to
> upload nor can I use the editor in this program. Hopefully I will learn
> these soon.
Agreed! The editing and navigating through the vi editor clone my connection
to the 'Net uses is so arcane, I usually wind up deleting a whole line when
all I really needed to do was delete one or two characters.
--
Steve Koterski ********************************************** ste...@cruzio.com
"We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the
American people." - Senator Jay Rockefeller, representing you in Washington.
ste...@cruzio.com
[...]
> As for where to get news, it ain't easy. Newspapers are basic. News
> magazines are too, but *not* Time and Newsweek, forgodssake. And anyone
> who thinks TV "news" and "newsmagazines" have anything to do with actual
> news is, well, probably a conservative.
And, IMO, one of the best ways to keep informed is to not limit one's self
to only a single or a couple sources of information. And one shouldn't just
stick with sources that simply echo one's political orientation. At the
risk of jabs from other Conservatives out there, I've even reserved a copy
of _Putting People First_, by (gack!) Bubba and Algore. I may not agree
with what I read, but I will at least be better exposed to the other side
of the story.
gst...@cruzio.com
In article <STICKLER.94...@cs1.dfrf.nasa.gov>, stic...@cs1.dfrf.nasa.gov (Brian K. Stickler) writes:
Stuff cut here......
>
> It always seems to be people on the "left" who have such low opinions
> of people, in general. If a person listens to R. Limbaugh as entertainment,
> it is assummed that this is there only source of news, and that they are
> getting "mislead". Only those who "See this hate monger for what he really
> is" are capable of discerning the truth! Pleaseee! I like to listen to
> Limbaugh, and being a conservative, I agree with a lot of what he says.
> But I don't take everything he says as gospel, and neither do most people.
> I also read newspapers, Time and Newsweek, and waht plenty of news and
> newsmagazines on TV. Give people credit! Conservatives don't call people
> who listen to Larry King or Al Gore "mindless robots".
>
Gosh Brian, I can't imagine why you thought I was talking about you, or anyone
else in particular for that matter. I said the only harm it that *some* people
think that they are getting the news. I have good friends and relatives who
are *very* conservative and who think that the guy is a boob. That does not
mean that there is no value for you in what he does. After all in his book I am
a boob or a ditto-head or something and I sometimes listen for a laugh.
I am impressed though that you have King and Gore in the same set.
Take Care
Gary Starkweather
gst...@cruzio.com
>
> And, IMO, one of the best ways to keep informed is to not limit one's self
> to only a single or a couple sources of information. And one shouldn't just
> stick with sources that simply echo one's political orientation. At the
> risk of jabs from other Conservatives out there, I've even reserved a copy
> of _Putting People First_, by (gack!) Bubba and Algore. I may not agree
> with what I read, but I will at least be better exposed to the other side
> of the story.
>
I agree wholeheartedly. Even emphatically!
That is why I try, for instance, to watch the 700 Club every once in a while.
That is some scary politics and they *are* the voice of the Republican Party
at the moment. There are times when their adgenda is so blatant that it makes
you wonder. After all my conservative friends say that conservatism means
a strict interpretation of the Founder's will. Read some Rhode Island or
Pennsylvania history to see why the Founder's separated the pulpit and the
poll.
The best defense against tyranny is a well educated involved citizenry.
\--/
Here is to being well informed \/ Cheers!
----
Gary Starkweather
gst...@cruzio.com
Well Steve I guess I'll have to forget the notion of meaningful discussion with
you. It is too bad when an obviously literate thinking individual flips his or
her political auto-pilot on. It takes all the fun out of it. Further it
replaces *dialog* with *diatrabe* - a game that I don't enjoy.
Nice Talking With You,
Gary Starkweather
mi...@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com
From Newsweek, July 11, 1994 (Reprinted without permission)
> Bill Clinton recently charged that there are no
> truth-checks on Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing
> critics. Limbaugh replied, "*I* am the truth
> detector." But a new study by the media-watchdog
> group Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting shows that
> in his broadcasts and books, Limbaugh often
> disdains facts.
Not the entire statement Limbo said WE are the truth detectors
> Limbaugh: "[If] 4,000 votes... had gone another
> way in Chicago - Richard Nixon would have been
> elected in 1960."
> FAIR: Kennedy won 303 electoral votes, Nixon won
> 219. Illinois's 27 votes weren't decisive.
Did not hear this one
> Limbaugh: "It has not been proven that nicotine
> is addictive."
> FAIR: Medical reports of its addictiveness
> dating to the turn of the century were confirmed
> in the 1988 surgeon general's study.
did not hear this one either
> Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better
> off than mainstream families of Europe."
> FAIR: Average income of the poorest 20% of Americans:
> $5,226; average income in four major European nations:
> $19,708.
Quality of life not income per capita
> Limbaugh: "Everybody in the world [except] the United
> States Congress supported the gulf war."
> FAIR: Both houses of Congress authorized the Gulf war.
after much debate and public attention was given to congress for
dragging it's heels about what to do , as usual whats in it for them.
> Limbaugh: "When the [black] illegitimacy rate is
> raised, Rev. Jackson and other black leaders
> immediately change the subject."
> FAIR: For years, Jesse Jackson and others have
> decried "children having children."
When ever the audience wants to hear it , the real question here should be
what did they do to improve the situation
>
It seems to me that limbo did not lie but may have a different viewpoint
from those that judged and the examples given were tainted and intended
to be out of context to skew the report in a certain direction .
=============================================================================
the opinions expressed
Amitava Biswas
>as a longtime listener of howard stern, i have observed that while his
>fanbase is pretty rabid, its more of a cult of personality than any
>quest for accurate information... actually, it would be missing the
>humor pretty badly to take stern seriously.
I too am a longtime listener and fan of Stern, I think he's hilarious and
you're correct that tuning into Stern for news would be like grocery shopping
at Baskin Robbins. Same for Limbaugh, although I simply don't find him
to be amusing or entertaining in any other way.
I do think, however, that there are a not insignificant number of people who
really do take them seriously and are guided by their messages (or perhaps
it's better to say that their own biases are reinforced by the distortions
that Stern or Limbaugh make). I think this is more true for Limbaugh fans
than Stern fans since he is a self-styled political-type and Stern makes
no secret of being a goof.
It's easy to say that the whole issue is really a matter of the listener
informing herself better, but I don't think that the question of broadcast
responsibility is so clear. The best way to counteract appealing
yet misinformative speech is clearly MORE speech which is informative and
MORE appealing, but all too often there seems to be less direct profit
made from this kind of enterprise.
Ami
mla...@sco.com
In article <1994Jul14....@sco.com> ma...@sco.COM (Max Perez) writes:
>
>In article <CsrGs...@cruzio.com> gst...@cruzio.com writes:
>>> In article <Z6q0oc...@clovis.felton.ca.us> tcbo...@clovis.felton.ca.us (Timothy Bowden) writes:
>>time. No harm is done except that there are people who listen to him and think
>>taht they are getting the straight poop. Of course the same could be said for
>>some Howard Stern listeners or any other public figure with an attitude. The
>>fault lies with the listener it seems, for being lazy or ignorant or both.
>
>as a longtime listener of howard stern, i have observed that while his
>fanbase is pretty rabid, its more of a cult of personality than any
>quest for accurate information... actually, it would be missing the
>humor pretty badly to take stern seriously.
>
Why do people insist on grouping Rush Limbo and Howard Stern together?
It's true that they both are on the radio and have strong opinions,
but Limbo has the same predictable stuff, Clinton is bad, etc, and his
version of "reality" is just typical Republican stuff, in fact his show
is largely financed by many of Bush's re-election people. He picks on
the same people, womens rights groups, environmentalists, etc.
Howard, on the hand, picks on anybody equally, so I feel that his view
is more balanced. Some things fit Republican views, some are Democratic.
His main purpose is to entertain, and while it takes a while to get used
to him, (my wife has been a big fan forever, and converted me), he is
very funny, but sometimes tasteless. At least you don't know what to
expect any day on his show. While Limbo will give his daily Republican
public-service message.
--
Mike (aka Lew) Lamar I compute for SCO,
Phone: (408) 427-7381 I speak for myself.
Email: mla...@sco.com
Mike Friedman
>In article <tracyCs...@netcom.com> tr...@netcom.com (Tracy Galloway) writes:
>> Limbaugh: "It has not been proven that nicotine
>> is addictive."
>> FAIR: Medical reports of its addictiveness
>> dating to the turn of the century were confirmed
>> in the 1988 surgeon general's study.
Thanks for catching this one. Did anyone else notice how FAIR
switched from the question of whether or not nicotine had been proven
to be addictive to the question of whether various studies had
indicated it was addictive?
And to think, this come from a group that claims to be an accuracy watchdog.
ban...@cruzio.com
In article <CsyM8...@cruzio.com>, ste...@cruzio.com writes:
> In article <CsyFt...@cruzio.com>, nme...@cruzio.com writes:
> >
> >
> > Rush claims that things are true for which [are not].
>
> Yes. Little things like supplying reputable sources for the information
> disseminated, like quoting inconsequential periodicals such as the _New York
> Times_ and the _Washington Post_, and actual news clips of Clintonistas in
> action do little to bolster what he says.
C'mon - Rush has been caught enough times *I'm not making this up*
when the fact is - he IS making it up.
> > [cut]
>
> [Al Gore] blamed the
> Republicans in the Congress and Senate for it being likely not to pass this
> year. He called it "an affront to democracy" that they oppose Clinton's plan.
>
> Unfortunately, the facts do not back him up. There are 56 Democrats in the
> Senate versus 44 Republicans. In the Congress, there are 256 Democrats as
> opposed to 178 Republicans. Now, last time I looked at the definition of
> democracy, it meant majority vote ruled. So if the Democrats so outnumber
> the Republicans, how are the Republicans successfully opposing this plan?
> Unless a good number of legislators just aren't behind ol' Bubba...
Both Bob Dole and Knut Gingridge (sp) have publicly and privately,
for quite some time, have announced and told the other republican senators/
representatives to OPPOSE ANYTHING THE DEMOCRATS DO.
It doesn't matter if the democrates' plan is good or bad - they are
against it because of the source.
In my mind, both Dole and Gingridge have VIOLATED their oath to
uphold the constitution and work for the greater good.
Their stated policy is self-serving and does nothing to help the country.
Are there democrats with problems about Clinton's plan - sure..
(I an for single-payer myself, as a publicly-controlled monopoly
comprised of one company created out of the current insurance companies.)
HOWEVER, with the republicans opposed to ANYTHING, there is much less chance
of any reasonable bill being created in the first place.
To Dole, et. al.: GET OUT OF THE WAY.
>
> RL is just a face on the boob tube. Algore is second in command of the
> greatest and most powerful nation on the face of the Earth. So who poses the
> greatest danger when little, inconsequential things like facts are bandied
> about so arbitrarily? You do the math.
>
> Algore's commentary is more likely to lead to an INCREASE in tolerance?
> Algore of the political party that depends so pathetically on class envy for
> attracting followers? A member of the party whose power base can only be
> maintained if they sustain today's legions of the poor, or increase them?
> [Diatribe against clinton/gore socialist ideals].
I am not necessarally happy with all of the clinton/gore stances (eg. clipper)
BUT The republicans have been driving this country to ruin and intolerance
for quite some time.
The democrats power base was created because of the republican intolerance
in the first place.
If clinton had not won, I was giving serious consideration to moving
out of the country with my family, because I was seriously concerned
with the US becomming a police state.
Frankly, I am still concerned about it.
The *conservatives* who want to *preserve the original intent of the
founding fathers* are few and far between right now.
None seem to be at the top of the republican food chain.
>
--
bandit systems and embedded engineering
topdown design associates "Waltzing where mere mortals fear to look"
ban...@cruzio.com
(408) 458-9228
Brian K. Stickler
Newsgroups: scruz.general,scruz.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics
Path: news.dfrf.nasa.gov!ames!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!nic.scruz.net!cruzio!gstark
From: gst...@cruzio.com
Subject: Re: The FAIR Report On Limbaugh
Reply-To: gst...@cruzio.com
Organization: Cruzio Community Networking System, Santa Cruz, CA
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 1994 06:50:09 GMT
Message-ID: <Csyyz...@cruzio.com>
References: <Z6q0oc...@clovis.felton.ca.us> <304ft9$f...@apple.com> <CsyMH...@cruzio.com>
Sender: gst...@cruzio.com (Gary Starkweather)
Lines: 28
I agree with the above. As many sources as you can (or have time for). As
I stated before, I read newspapers (3 in fact, The LA Times, The Daily News,
and the Antelope Valley press - all of which have AP and other news wires).
I watch CNN and Meet the Nation. I read Time and Newsweek (hardly Conservative
bastions) and I like Prime Time Live, 48 Hours, and several other newsmagazines.
I consider that a pretty good variety, and no, I don't believe everything I
hear and read. But if you read enough accounts of the same news event, the
truth starts to show itself.
People who make light of what other people read seem to think that they are
the only ones who recognize truth when they see it.
Brian K. Stickler
Newsgroups: scruz.general,scruz.politics,ca.politics,ba.politics
Path: news.dfrf.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell.com!lll-winken.llnl.gov!overload.lbl.gov!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!nic.scruz.net!cruzio!nmeier
From: nme...@cruzio.com
Subject: Re: The FAIR Report On Limbaugh
Reply-To: nme...@cruzio.com
Organization: Cruzio Community Networking System, Santa Cruz, CA
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 1994 23:55:58 GMT
Message-ID: <CsyFt...@cruzio.com>
References: <Z6q0oc...@clovis.felton.ca.us> <2vqilk$7...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> <STICKLER.94...@cs1.dfrf.nasa.gov>
Sender: nme...@cruzio.com (Nicholas Meier)
Lines: 17
I don't agree with your ascertion that Al Gore always speaks out of logic and
evidence. (The combustion engine will destroy America). And Limbaugh often
uses the proof of history to backup his logic. (Enviromentalists said the
fishing in Prince Albert Sound would be destroyed for 10 years by the Exon
Valdez incident, and yet a year later, the fish were thriving). He says the
earth is amazingly resilient, and history proves he is right every time).
There are those who are quick to panic over anything, and those who look at
things logically, and make resonable projections. Rush is in the later group.
Timothy Bowden
From: John Patterson <j...@frame.com>
You can e-mal Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting.
They can tell you how to receive a copy.
..which I did, and received from them:
From: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting <fa...@igc.apc.org>
To: tcbo...@clovis.felton.ca.us
Subject: Re: the FAIR report on Limbaugh
To obtain a copy of FAIR's report on "Limbaugh's Reign of Error"
included in the current issue of FAIR's magazine EXTRA!, send $3
to:
FAIR
Attn: Sales Dept.
130 West 25th Street
New York, NY 10001
Or, you can obtain a copy by subscribing to EXTRA! by calling
800-847-3993. The cost is $25 for six issues of EXTRA! and six
issues of FAIR's newsletter, EXTRA! Update.
Best, Sam Husseini
Anyone want to look at my copy before I send it to my loving
in-laws?
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=tcbo...@clovis.felton.ca.us+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
"Sex without class consciousness cannot give satisfaction, even if
it is repeated until infinity." - Aldo Brandiradi, Italian
Marxist-Lenninist Party, 1973
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
ste...@cruzio.com
>
> Well Steve I guess I'll have to forget the notion of meaningful discussion with
> you. It is too bad when an obviously literate thinking individual flips his or
> her political auto-pilot on. It takes all the fun out of it. Further it
Yeah, yeah, I know. Sometimes the temptation to climb up on the ol' soap box
with a megaphone is just too much for me. Well, take it lightly, and DON'T
take it personal. I was gettin' a bit preachy, wasn't I?
Max Perez
yeah, anyone who believes that nicotine is addictive is just st00pit
(not).
hey, if you believe that any amount of handwaving is going to make
anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the limits of the
word "proved" when used in this context not recognize the addictive
history and potential of nicotine, then you are watching too much tv.
Mike Friedman
Max, your brand of distortion works well when you are dealing with the
random public. In a group like the net, it falls flat on its face.
Are you claiming that nicotine has been proven to be addictive? If
so, you are wrong. There is strong, perhaps even overwhelming,
evidence that it is addictive, but no proof.
FAIR ignores this distinction in order to slam Limbaugh. This
indicates that they have as little interest in fairness and accuracy
as you.
ga...@sco.com
I will be flying to San Diego from SJ on Friday nite (7/29 9:50pm)
and returning Monday (8/1 at 11:30am) morning under the Friends
Fly Free Deal. Unfortunately, my friend rather not go down
because of personal problems (with the friend in SD :( ).
So, does anyone want to fly with (a cool dude like) me to SD? :)
We have to fly down and back up together (that's the only
restriction). You share of the round trip ticket is just $69
($73 w/ airport tax).
Please let me know by tommorrow, else I'll just cancel the ticket
and get a regular tix.
Thanks,
Gary
Brian Rice
entire damned articles in their one-line responses? Jesus, I feel like
an idiot for spending bandwidth complaining about this but sometimes, like
now, I feel like a note such as this one is helpful.
Ah, phooie.
--
Bri
will
lawyers and wannabe politicians changes it's meaning. Come on folks,
the bottom line is Limbaugh went along with those perjurying buffons
who lied in front of congress and to the American people about their
believe that 'nicotine is not addictive. It's this exact mentality of
where truth is twisted to mean someones political or legal objectives
that is disintegrating the very foundation of our society.
By the way, I read that of the $8 billion spent for Superfund toxic
cleanup, 80% went to lawyers. These lawyers were probably busy looking
for 'proof' that there was actually something to be cleaned up and in
the meantime there are still many toxic disasters left untouched.
Pete Zakel
> Now THAT was a "mindless" retort. Limbaugh IS an entertainer. He has
>never claimed to be anything but. You, on the other hand have some better
>way of getting national and local news besides newspapers, news magazines,
>and TV news. Would you mind sharing how you do that with the rest of us?
Actually, Limbaugh has claimed to be lots of things, many of them
contradictory. People who listen to and adore him, for the most part,
think what he says is gospel. Anyone who can listen critically gets sick
of him after a while (like me).
And believe me I've listened to him enough to know exactly where he is coming
from. I still listen to him occasionally, but much prefer Radio Free DC by
G. Gordon Liddy (even though I disagree with much of his politics, I don't
get the impression that he talks out of both sides of his mouth).
As far as Limbaugh goes, I much prefer many of his guest hosts -- but I love
the satirical songs about the Clintons, et. al.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
"FLASH! Intelligence of mankind decreasing. Details at ... uh, when
the little hand is on the ...."
Pete Zakel
>> Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better
>> off than mainstream families of Europe."
>> FAIR: Average income of the poorest 20% of Americans:
>> $5,226; average income in four major European nations:
>> $19,708.
>
>Quality of life not income per capita
Don't know much about most of Europe, but I have many relatives who are
"mainstream families of" Germany, and I can tell you they are FAR better off
than the poorest people in the US of good ole A.
The other criticisms of Limbaugh are also spot on.
Limbaugh says whatever he thinks fits the Republican and right-wing agenda,
and I think he believes much of it too. It doesn't matter if he does or
doesn't believe it, though, because the majority of his dittohead listeners
believe *him*.
But I don't consider Limbaugh particularly dangerous. I also don't think he
is the only right-wing voice on the radio (as he often claims).
-Pete Zakel
(p...@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
"No one is fit to be trusted with power. ... No one. ... Any man who has lived
at all knows the follies and wickedness he's capable of. ... And if he does
know it, he knows also that neither he nor any man ought to be allowed to
decide a single human fate."
-C. P. Snow, The Light and the Dark
Pete Zakel
>switched from the question of whether or not nicotine had been proven
>to be addictive to the question of whether various studies had
>indicated it was addictive?
Eh?
Nicotine has been proven to be addictive just as well as heroin has been
proven to be addictive -- the evidence and standards of proof are exactly
the same.
So would you also agree that heroin has not been proven to be addictive?
If so, than the word "addictive" has absolutely no meaning, and nothing can
be proven to be addictive.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
Death is God's way of telling you not to be such a wise guy.
Mike Friedman
>In article <306jla$5...@dcsun4.us.oracle.com> mfri...@oracle.uucp (Mike Friedman) writes:
>>Thanks for catching this one. Did anyone else notice how FAIR
>>switched from the question of whether or not nicotine had been proven
>>to be addictive to the question of whether various studies had
>>indicated it was addictive?
>Eh?
>Nicotine has been proven to be addictive just as well as heroin has been
>proven to be addictive -- the evidence and standards of proof are exactly
>the same.
I find this claim very interesting.
People who are withdrawing from heroin suffer severe physical
reactions that often require medical intervention. People withdrawing
from nicotine do not.
Moreover, many of the techniques used to ween people off of cigarettes
and some of the side effects seem to be more related to having
something to do with your fingers and to put in your mouth than to do
with nicotine. For example, note the reliance on chewing gum and
playing with pencils and the way people who quit smoking tend to eat
more and gain weight.
There is certainly strong evidence that nicotine is addictive, but
this is the first time I have heard the claim that the evidence is as
strong with nicotine as it is with heroin. Could you please document
this claim?
Thanks.
>So would you also agree that heroin has not been proven to be addictive?
>If so, than the word "addictive" has absolutely no meaning, and nothing can
>be proven to be addictive.
I don't know very much about heroin, beyond what the average Joe does,
so I won't take any position at all on whether or not it has been
proven to be addictive. Unlike so many of the people on this group, I
try not to make factual claims unless I know the facts.
Don Fong
>In article <CtA2L...@Cadence.COM> p...@cadence.com (Pete Zakel) writes:
>>Nicotine has been proven to be addictive just as well as heroin has been
>>proven to be addictive -- the evidence and standards of proof are exactly
>>the same.
>There is certainly strong evidence that nicotine is addictive, but
>this is the first time I have heard the claim that the evidence is as
>strong with nicotine as it is with heroin. Could you please document
>this claim?
_Science News_ (7, 14, and 21 may 94). Here's an excerpt (SN 14may94).
``...
THE GREAT NICOTINE DEBATE by Janet Raloff
[...]
Even after surgery for lung cancer, nearly 50 percent of smokers return
to cigarettes. Some 38 percent of smokers will light up even before they
leave the hospital following a heart attack. And among smokers who have
had a cancerous larynx removed, 40 percent will attempt to smoke again,
reported [FDA commissioner David Kessler].
...
Ironically, some of the first really strong evidence [for addictiveness]
emerged in Philip Morris research conducted during the early 1980s. Two
company papers --- ultimately withdrawn from the journals to which they
were submitted for publication --- showed that rats will self-administer
nicotine.
While declining to explain why his firm had the papers pulled --- or why
in 1984 it shut down the research on which they had been based (SN: 5/7/94,
p.294) --- Philip Morris President William I. Campbell said it was not
because they showed nicotine is additive. The studies' lead author,
Victor J. DeNoble, eventually concluded that nicotine is weakly reinforcing
and "in the same class of nonaddictive chemical compounds such as saccharin
and water," Campbell testified.
But at the March 25 [House Subcommittee on Health and Environment]
hearing, Henningfield described talking to DeNoble shortly after the papers
had been pulled. And he recalled DeNoble saying that Philip Morris
officials had rightly interpreted the suppressed studies as showing that,
in terms of potential addictiveness, "nicotine looked like heroin."
The subcommittee decided that the only way to resolve the contradictory
testimony was to question DeNoble directly. However, a "confidentiality
agreement" between Philip Morris and DeNoble and his coworkers forbade the
behavioral psychologist from discussing any of his nicotine research.
So at the April 14 hearing, [Rep. Mike Synar] asked Campbell to release
DeNoble from this gag order. After more than a little hesitation, the
Philip Morris president agreed.
Two weeks later, DeNoble and Paul Mele, a coinvestigator at Philip
Morris' short-lived behavioral pharmacology laboratory in Richmond, Va.,
appeared before the subcommittee to discuss their nicotine studies. [...]
"When you talk about addiction, you're talking about a human condition,"
DeNoble says. Animal studies, especially the preliminary ones his lab
conducted in the early 1980s, could not establish whether a substance would
prove addictive, he says. Indeed, his lab was unable to establish that
discontinuing nicotine could induce withdrawal symptoms. Those findings
would come later, DeNoble testified, from labs that used more sensitive
screening techniques.
However, he pointed out, his lab's groundbreaking work on
self-adminsitration by rodents "clearly shows that nicotine is an
intravenously delivered reinforcer." And that, he emphasized, "is a
characteristic of a drug of abuse." As such, his work indicated the
potential for nicotine to be addictive in humans. And work since 1984,
DeNoble said, has established "an overwhelming body of evidence that
nicotine does produce an addiction in the human." [...]
But were they [Philip Morris mgmt] specifically told about nicotine's
potential addictiveness, the subcommittee asked? Yes, DeNoble and Mele
said --- and that appeared to be why the company asked them to pull two
manuscripts and a poster paper that had been approved for publication.
"It had to do with the fact that this would not look good in current
litigation," DeNoble recalled [...]
Indeed, DeNoble and Mele recalled that at least three attorneys descended
on their lab for days [...] Two months later --- in Novermber 1983 ---
the company's president-CEO and a lawyer from its New York office visited
their lab. [...] At about this time, officials at the company's Richmond
research facility began talking about shutting down the nicotine
pharmacology lab it had asked DeNoble to establish only 3 years earlier.
...''
Phil Ronzone
>I highly recommend a series of articles that appeared
>recently in _Science News_ (7, 14, and 21 may 94). Here's an
>excerpt (SN 14may94).
>
>``... THE GREAT NICOTINE DEBATE by Janet Raloff [...] Even
>after surgery for lung cancer, nearly 50 percent of smokers
>return to cigarettes. Some 38 percent of smokers will light
>up even before they leave the hospital following a heart
>attack. And among smokers who have had a cancerous larynx
>removed, 40 percent will attempt to smoke again, reported
>[FDA commissioner David Kessler]. ...
So? Look at all the bypass patients (etc.) who resume their unhealthy
diets and lack of exercise lifestyles.
Do we call "eating fatty food" or "lack of exercise" addictive?
--
"I didn't do it, nobody saw me, and you can't prove it!" - B. Simpson
These opinions are MINE, and you can't have 'em! (But I'll rent 'em cheap ...)
Don Fong
>In article <30nhkk$c...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> >I highly recommend a series of articles that appeared
> >recently in _Science News_ (7, 14, and 21 may 94). Here's an
> >excerpt (SN 14may94).
> >
> >``... THE GREAT NICOTINE DEBATE by Janet Raloff [...] Even
> >after surgery for lung cancer, nearly 50 percent of smokers
> >return to cigarettes. Some 38 percent of smokers will light
> >up even before they leave the hospital following a heart
> >attack. And among smokers who have had a cancerous larynx
> >removed, 40 percent will attempt to smoke again, reported
> >[FDA commissioner David Kessler]. ...
>
>So? Look at all the bypass patients (etc.) who resume their unhealthy
>diets and lack of exercise lifestyles.
10% as inconclusive. Or perhaps you simply didn't comprehend the deleted
paragraphs? which related among other things how Philip Morris tried to
suppress scientific research showing nicotine's addictiveness.
There was more supporting information in the complete article, and yet
more in the whole series. Why don't you look it up?
--- Don Fong
Phil Ronzone
>Brilliant: delete 90% of someone's argument then ridicule the
>remaining 10% as inconclusive. Or perhaps you simply didn't
>comprehend the deleted paragraphs? which related among other
>things how Philip Morris tried to suppress scientific
>research showing nicotine's addictiveness. There was more
>supporting information in the complete article, and yet more
>in the whole series. Why don't you look it up?
I'm sorry - obviosuly you are rationally impaired.
There is *no proof* that nicotine is addictive.
Your attempt to make a claim based on the irrational behaviour of
patients that have undergone surgery for problems likely caused
by *tobacco* use (surgery for lung cancer for example) is no
claim for addiction -- people with surgery for medical problems
such as severe obesity go right back (often) to over eating.
A person with heart disease may also go right back to non-exercise.
And so on. Irrational behaviour is not proof of addiction.
I *have* read the literature quite well, and you obviously haven't.
Whereas both rats and humans develop addiction to heroin after extensive
use, there is no such proof for humans, and there is *definite*
"anti-proof" for rats.
Try reading the papers you mention -- you'll learn things.
ko...@cruzio.com
+ In article <30pfuj$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
[Some amount of squawking deleted]
+ There is *no proof* that nicotine is addictive.
+
+ Your attempt to make a claim based on the irrational behaviour of
+ patients that have undergone surgery for problems likely caused
+ by *tobacco* use (surgery for lung cancer for example) is no
+ claim for addiction -- people with surgery for medical problems
+ such as severe obesity go right back (often) to over eating.
+
+ A person with heart disease may also go right back to non-exercise.
+
+ And so on. Irrational behaviour is not proof of addiction.
Let's approach this from the other side:
What would it take to prove that a substance is addictive?
--
ko...@cruzio.com, a.k.a. Marty Stevens
"I get anxious waiting 3 minutes for my popcorn."
-- Jeff Liebermann (je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us)
gst...@cruzio.com
properties of nicotine, you said:
In article <30pfuj$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU>, df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> There was more supporting information in the complete article, and yet
> more in the whole series. Why don't you look it up?
>
I think that we need hard sources here. The Raloff article(s?) sound good, but
there must be some further evidence. It is commonly said, these days, that
nicotine is THE most addictive substance that one can easily obtain.
Certainly my life experience, and the anecdotal experiences of those I know
support this statement. (I must admit though, that I have not tried many of
the newer drugs.... ).
But there must be writings (maybe by Andrew Weil) by researchers who study
addiction.
Maybe this should be a Hunt question.
It would be nice to drive a steak (sick) through this discussion's heart.
Gary
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Gary Starkweather | Providing PC / Windows service and support |
| SGO Ltd. | for the San Lorenzo Valley. |
| Boulder Creek, CA | Systems/support/training/DTP/DB.... and more. |
ch...@cruzio.com
>
> Whereas both rats and humans develop addiction to heroin after extensive
> use, there is no such proof for humans, and there is *definite*
> "anti-proof" for rats.
>
> Try reading the papers you mention -- you'll learn things.
>
Interesting how much we take from given authorities as "written in stone".
For instance, as another person who heard the Surgeon General say so,
I was/am prepared to believe. However, the gov't is also the source of so
much mis - and - disinformation on the subject of drugs, etc, that one
should be more discriminating...
Could you cite the papers you've read, Phil, and any specific critiques
you have against the "evidence" presented in them or the conclusions that
are drawn from them?
Is there an online source for any of these studies (full source, not just
abstracts?)
And I would like to echo kozmo's question, what would constitute "proof"?
Finally, it would seem that one way the tobacco/cigarette companies could
defeat the whole "nicotine is addictive" thrust of the anti-smoking interests
is to develop tobacco or cigarettes that were nicotine free, but still maintain
the taste. It would render all attempts to regulate tobacco moot, and would
be a most bodacious coup.
--
not_a_smoker
>
> Finally, it would seem that one way the tobacco/cigarette companies could
> defeat the whole "nicotine is addictive" thrust of the anti-smoking interests
> is to develop tobacco or cigarettes that were nicotine free, but still mainta
> in
> the taste. It would render all attempts to regulate tobacco moot, and would
> be a most bodacious coup.
>
True enough. It would also help if the tobacco companies would stop adding
all of those other additives to their product, too. Smokers in Silicon Valley
get enough benzene from the water; they don't need it in their cigarettes, too.
-- Dean
Jeff Liebermann
: Let's approach this from the other side:
: --
: ko...@cruzio.com, a.k.a. Marty Stevens
: "I get anxious waiting 3 minutes for my popcorn."
: -- Jeff Liebermann (je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us)
Far out. I'm famous. Popcorn today, tomorrow the world.
I define addiction as something that requires a 12 step like
program to stop indulging. I seem to be surrounded by
tobacco incinerators. None of them have ever successfully
kicked the habit. The only truely former-smokers I've met
had recently survived a heart attack or worse. I know of
several heart bypass survivors that still sneak in a smoke.
To twist the question slightly, if you can effectively kick the
habit without a 12 step program, then it's not addictive.
Proof would be simply the ratio of the successful withdrawl
survivors to those that couldn't stop smoking.
Drivel: My mother died from angina agrivated by chronic smoking.
She couldn't stop even though she knew it would kill her some day.
If that's not addiction, I don't know what is.
I have a simple answer to the problem of smoking. Let the smokers
kill themselves but don't pay their bills. If someone wants to
smoke, that's fine. No insurance, no Medi-care, no Medi-Cal,
no Medi-Cruz, no public assistance. IMHO, all self induced
ailments should not be publicly subsidized. This may also go
a long way to solving the so-called drug problem. If you get
dragged to a hospital after driving you car while drugged, be
prepared to pay your own way. Think of this as the incentive
plan.
--
# Jeff Liebermann Box 272 1540 Jackson Ave Ben Lomond CA 95005
# 408.336.2558 voice wb6ssy@ki6eh.#nocal.ca.usa wb6ssy.ampr.org [44.4.18.10]
# 408.699.0483 digital_pager 73557,2074 cis [don't]
# je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us scruz.ucsc.edu!comix!jeffl
Curt Howland
|> So? Look at all the bypass patients (etc.) who resume their unhealthy
|> diets and lack of exercise lifestyles.
|>
|> Do we call "eating fatty food" or "lack of exercise" addictive?
Someone will, when health-care is socialized and
such things will be covered under "cost to society"
and legislated by congress.
Curt-
joe di lellio
[munchia]
>I have a simple answer to the problem of smoking. Let the smokers
>kill themselves but don't pay their bills. If someone wants to
>smoke, that's fine. No insurance, no Medi-care, no Medi-Cal,
>no Medi-Cruz, no public assistance. IMHO, all self induced
>ailments should not be publicly subsidized. This may also go
>a long way to solving the so-called drug problem. If you get
>dragged to a hospital after driving you car while drugged, be
>prepared to pay your own way. Think of this as the incentive
>plan.
a problem i would have with this plan: say i am in an accident with
my motorcycle ("ok, you're in an accident with your motorcycle").
lets say that i am hit by someone. it is pointed out that i wouldn't
have suffered injuries (or at least as severe) if i was in a car, so...
i admit, this is a stretch. something like this _hopefully_ wouldn't
happen. still, it sometimes takes an exaggeration like this to point
out possible problems.
also, if a person smoking really is addicted, this might be able to
provide incentive to quit, but still may not be enough. personally,
i just want to see no more subsidizing of that industry.
joe
--
inews: Error code 552: .signature
joke too stupid: Not included
Steve Koterski
[...]
: I have a simple answer to the problem of smoking. Let the smokers
: kill themselves but don't pay their bills. If someone wants to
: smoke, that's fine. No insurance, no Medi-care, no Medi-Cal,
: no Medi-Cruz, no public assistance. IMHO, all self induced
: ailments should not be publicly subsidized. This may also go
: a long way to solving the so-called drug problem. If you get
: dragged to a hospital after driving you car while drugged, be
: prepared to pay your own way. Think of this as the incentive
: plan.
OK. So as an insuranceless-person-because-I-smoke, what happens if I
break my leg? Totally unrelated to smoking. Or what if I get hit by
one of the many non-drivers who seem to comprise the greater part of
the Santa Cruz area population (who got their drivers licenses at
K-Mart)?
But let's not just stop at smokers and druggies. Let's take this line
of thinking to its logical conclusion. Let's not let anyone engaging
in behavior known to be bad for your health:
1. People that eat too much salt in their diet.
2. People who go out in the sunlight.
3. People that drink coffee.
4. People who insist on breathing smog (oops, there goes all of L.A.)
5. Heck, driving on Highway 17 has been pretty much proven to be
hazardous, so...
Personally, I'm insulted by being included in the generalizations made
by these statistics that say I cost America extra because I smoke.
Bull-dookey. I miss less work days and work many more hours per week
than most non-smokers I work around. I have not needed medical
assistance in the past that has been directly or indirectly attributable
to my smoking. I strive to pay my own way through life, so to have a
bunch of self-righteous, holier-than-thou zealots trying to criminalize
my behavior when my behavior is otherwise without crime really gets my
shakles up. This is not about concern for the health of others, this is
about control, politics and control.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Steve Koterski _/ The opinions expressed here are _/
_/ kote...@borland.com _/ exclusively my own _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Max Perez
In article <30hm1o$g...@dcsun4.us.oracle.com> mfri...@oracle.uucp (Mike Friedman) writes:
>
>Max, your brand of distortion works well when you are dealing with the
>random public. In a group like the net, it falls flat on its face.
keep waving your hands. no one is fooled. it is nice to know that i
have a brand of distortion. i suppose you have a level of acceptable
proof that you would like to share with us.
>Are you claiming that nicotine has been proven to be addictive? If
>so, you are wrong. There is strong, perhaps even overwhelming,
>evidence that it is addictive, but no proof.
>
>FAIR ignores this distinction in order to slam Limbaugh. This
>indicates that they have as little interest in fairness and accuracy
>as you.
i suggest that this distinction does not exist. i would welcome your
explanation of absolute proof when used in this context, but you dont
have one.
Don Fong
>Personally, I'm insulted by being included in the generalizations made
>by these statistics that say I cost America extra because I smoke.
>Bull-dookey. I miss less work days and work many more hours per week
>than most non-smokers I work around. I have not needed medical
>assistance in the past that has been directly or indirectly attributable
>to my smoking. I strive to pay my own way through life, so to have a
>bunch of self-righteous, holier-than-thou zealots trying to criminalize
>my behavior when my behavior is otherwise without crime really gets my
>shakles up. This is not about concern for the health of others, this is
>about control, politics and control.
There is a growing body of scientific evidence about the health effects of
2nd hand smoke. Just because it's caused by individuals instead of by big
co's doesn't make it OK.
FWIW, i read somewhere (sorry, forgot where) a poll showed a majority of
adult smokers wish they could quit. Since i can't produce a reference,
i'll just pass this on as anecdotal food for thought. How many smokers
do YOU know who have tried to quit or are trying to quit?
--- Don Fong
Don Fong
>In article <30pfuj$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> >Brilliant: delete 90% of someone's argument then ridicule the
> >remaining 10% as inconclusive. Or perhaps you simply didn't
> >comprehend the deleted paragraphs? which related among other
> >things how Philip Morris tried to suppress scientific
> >research showing nicotine's addictiveness. There was more
> >supporting information in the complete article, and yet more
> >in the whole series. Why don't you look it up?
>
>I'm sorry - obviosuly you are rationally impaired.
>
>There is *no proof* that nicotine is addictive.
lisp program that deletes 90% of its input and generates annoying
gibberish based on the rest?
>Your attempt to make a claim based on the irrational behaviour of
>patients that have undergone surgery for problems likely caused
>by *tobacco* use (surgery for lung cancer for example) is no
>claim for addiction -- people with surgery for medical problems
>such as severe obesity go right back (often) to over eating.
OTOH, comparing to another instance of irrational behavior
doesn't prove your claim of *no proof* either. You are still
ducking the other 90% of what i posted, plus the additional info
in the whole series of articles.
[...]
>I *have* read the literature quite well, and you obviously haven't.
>
>Whereas both rats and humans develop addiction to heroin after extensive
>use, there is no such proof for humans, and there is *definite*
>"anti-proof" for rats.
Getting a little confused? (:-) You really shouldn't try to post until
your mouth stops foaming. (:-)
>Try reading the papers you mention -- you'll learn things.
Will i learn that DeNoble and Mele --- scientists hired by the tobacco
co --- are wrong? and that Phil Ronzone --- an unpublished crackpot
providing no references --- is right? If you have references, don't
be coy. Post em and let everyone judge their quality.
As another netter pointed out, the debate may have a lot to do
with the semantics of the word "proof". I'd like to know, according
to Phil Ronzone's personal definition of "proof", has anyone ever been
*proven* guilty of murder?
--- Don Fong
Michael Zimmers
>Personally, I'm insulted by being included in the generalizations made
>by these statistics that say I cost America extra because I smoke.
>Bull-dookey. I miss less work days and work many more hours per week
>than most non-smokers I work around. I have not needed medical
>assistance in the past that has been directly or indirectly attributable
>to my smoking. I strive to pay my own way through life, so to have a
>bunch of self-righteous, holier-than-thou zealots trying to criminalize
>my behavior when my behavior is otherwise without crime really gets my
>shakles up. This is not about concern for the health of others, this is
>about control, politics and control.
1. I'm happy for you being so healthy despite smoking. Pray you
remain that way.
2. As they say in rec.sport.baseball, the plural of "anecdote" is not
"data." YOU might not cost America extra, but smokers in general
do, through an array of channels including subsidized health care,
federally-funded research to find cures for smoking-related disease,
and even the additional damage done from cigarette-started fires.
Not to mention the collateral damage caused by breathing second-
hand smoke.
3. I wouldn't dream of criminalizing tobacco, but I strongly support
people's rights to forbid you to smoke in/on their property. And
I support your being forbidden to smoke in a public place.
4. And while we're debunking generalizations, me feelings have *nothing*
to do with politics and control, merely health and vanity.
--
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Michael Zimmers | Voice: 408 996 1965 |
| SoftHelp -- Suppliers to Software Developers | Data: 408 996 1974 |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------|
ste...@cruzio.com
> >about control, politics and control.
> IMO it's about pollution. Smoking is a form of air pollution.
> There is a growing body of scientific evidence about the health effects of
> 2nd hand smoke. Just because it's caused by individuals instead of by big
> co's doesn't make it OK.
Even before militant anti-smoking/smoker became fashionable, I tried to be
as courteous as possible about my smoking. I refrained when in close
contact with those who didn't, I didn't smoke in restaurants (even if they
had a smoking section), and I didn't smoke in enclosed public areas. I
can deal with that, then and now. What I cannot condone are those who are
trying to ban my behavior, right or wrong, even in my own home. Even where
there may not be a non-smoker to endanger within shouting distance.
> FWIW, i read somewhere (sorry, forgot where) a poll showed a majority of
> adult smokers wish they could quit. Since i can't produce a reference,
I'll vouch for that poll being publicly available (though I cannot vouch for
either its accuracy or integrity). I have seen it numerous times, and
believe it's more than likely true.
--
Steve Koterski ********************************************** ste...@cruzio.com
"We're going to push through health care reform regardless of the views of the
American people." - Senator Jay Rockefeller, representing you in Washington.
ste...@orchid.ucsc.edu
>In article <philCtE...@netcom.com>, ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>+ In article <30pfuj$l...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>[Some amount of squawking deleted]
>+ There is *no proof* that nicotine is addictive.
>+
>+ Your attempt to make a claim based on the irrational behaviour of
>+ patients that have undergone surgery for problems likely caused
>+ by *tobacco* use (surgery for lung cancer for example) is no
>+ claim for addiction -- people with surgery for medical problems
>+ such as severe obesity go right back (often) to over eating.
>+
>+ A person with heart disease may also go right back to non-exercise.
>+
>+ And so on. Irrational behaviour is not proof of addiction.
>
>Let's approach this from the other side:
>What would it take to prove that a substance is addictive?
There are quite a few journal articles on the effects of smoking and
therefore its apparent addictive quality: The following is one such
article, and though they use the idea that one is addicted to nicotine
when one smokes, the article makes it clear in one sentence that nicotine
is implicated as the source of addiction to tabacco.
--------
14. Benowitz NL.
Cigarette smoking and nicotine addiction.
Medical Clinics of North America, 1992 Mar, 76(2):415-37.
(UI: 92194874)
Pub type: Journal Article; Review; Review, Academic.
Abstract: Smokers smoke in large part because of the addictive effects of
nicotine. Nicotine affects mood and performance and has been clearly
implicated as the source of addiction to tobacco. People smoke to deliver
desired doses of nicotine to their bodies, with certain rates of delivery
and intervals between doses; these behaviors tend to be consistent for a
person from day to day. Rational treatment of the pharmacologic aspects of
tobacco addiction includes nicotine substitution therapy. New formulations
of nicotine substitutes will provide more options to the physician for
tailoring treatment to the needs of individual smokers. Other
pharmacotherapies, particularly antidepressant drugs, hold promise for
certain smokers.
----------
So the problem really is- what do we define as being addictive, and how do
we prove it conclusively.
From what I have read- I would say that nicotine is a very good candidate for
being addictive, but it has not been clearly and precisely proved to be so.
ste...@orchid.ucsc.edu
>program to stop indulging. I seem to be surrounded by
>tobacco incinerators. None of them have ever successfully
>kicked the habit. The only truely former-smokers I've met
>had recently survived a heart attack or worse. I know of
Well I have an exception. My mother.
She smoked for 15 years, then one day said it was enough and
I believe I was 12 or 13 years old.
She has not since then for 18 years and has no desire to, and
like me hates in the smoke and associated odors.
>several heart bypass survivors that still sneak in a smoke.
>To twist the question slightly, if you can effectively kick the
>habit without a 12 step program, then it's not addictive.
>Proof would be simply the ratio of the successful withdrawl
>survivors to those that couldn't stop smoking.
So with your argument and my (one case exception) can we or do
we conclude that smoking (ie nicotine) is non-addictive?
IMHO I purport from the evidence so far, that nicotine probably
plays a strong role in apparent addiction to cigarette smoking.
But I think there is whole range of factors involved in the process
of smoking and much of it may be psychological.
Jeff Dauber
writes:
|> So with your argument and my (one case exception) can we or do
|> we conclude that smoking (ie nicotine) is non-addictive?
I know someone who did the same thing with speed. Me. Are
amphetamines addictive?
FWA
Phil Ronzone
>to prove that a substance is addictive?
Measurable physiological changes, such changes being considered as
potential life threatening, upon withdrawal. Disruption of
cognitive facilities to the point where normal everyday activities
are affected.
A craving or desired is not a symptom of addiction.
Convulsions, inability to concentrate to the point that one can't
drive a car or eat, 8 degree swings in body temperatures, life
threatening changes in blood pressure, ... those are symptoms
of withdrawal from addictive drugs.
Eric Mankin
addicting is being debated. In 1988, the Surgeon General, as
part of a continuing study of "The Health Consequences of Smoking"
produced a heavily documented 638-page report entitled "Nicotine
Addiction." The conclusions of the report include:
"Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting. Patterns of
tobacco use are regular and compulsive, and a withdrawal syndrome usually
accompanies tobacco abstinence."
"Nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction. Specifically,
nicotine is psychoactive ("mood altering"). ... Nicotine also causes
physical dependence characterized by a withdrawal syndrome that usually
accompanies nicotine abstinence."
"The pharmocologic and behavioral processes that determine tobacco
addiction are similar to those that determine addiction to drugs such
as heroin and cocaine."
These are just the conclusions. The evidence is in the footnotes,
which are reviewed in the text of the report, which was, incidentally,
specifically mentioned by FAIR in criticising Limbaugh's statement.
If anyone seriously wants to argue that nicotine has not been
"proven" to be addictive, they should get a copy of this report (available
in most libraries, or from the Superintendent of Documents, US Govern
ment Printing Office, Washington D.C. 20402, and review the report's
findings and extensive documentation, which says what FAIR says
it says, and take their argument from there. If they're not willing to
do this, they deserve to be ignored.
Eric Mankin
jpa...@cruzio.com
I submit that a craving or desire that compulses one to self
destructive action IS an addiction. This is the heart of the
issue to me. Nicotine causes a "craving" that makes one
indulge in smoking/chewing tobacco to sait the craving. If
these actions were safe, I would have no problem with the tobacco
industry selling products in grade schools. Unfortunately, the
delivery vehicle is deadly.
--
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X X
X This message has been brought to you by X
X jpa...@cruzio.com X
Lefty
> In article <CtF70...@cruzio.com> ko...@cruzio.com writes:
> >Let's approach this from the other side: What would it take
> >to prove that a substance is addictive?
>
> Measurable physiological changes, such changes being considered as
> potential life threatening, upon withdrawal. Disruption of
> cognitive facilities to the point where normal everyday activities
> are affected.
>
> A craving or desired is not a symptom of addiction.
>
> Convulsions, inability to concentrate to the point that one can't
> drive a car or eat, 8 degree swings in body temperatures, life
> threatening changes in blood pressure, ... those are symptoms
> of withdrawal from addictive drugs.
An interesting, but _extremely_ restrictive definition. By these lights,
most substances commonly considered to be addictive wouldn't qualify,
including cocaine, amphetamines, etc.
Where precisely did this definition come from?
--
Lefty [gYon-Pa] (le...@apple.com)
C:.M:.C:., D:.O:.D:.
ste...@orchid.ucsc.edu
Where is the part for psychological addiction? We can become addicted to
something in the pyschological sense, for instance, sex or shopping.
Phil Ronzone
>It is surprising that the question of whether nicotine is
>physically addicting is being debated. In 1988, the Surgeon
>General, as part of a continuing study of "The Health
>Consequences of Smoking" produced a heavily documented
>638-page report entitled "Nicotine Addiction." The
>conclusions of the report include:
>
>"Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting.
>Patterns of tobacco use are regular and compulsive, and a
>withdrawal syndrome usually accompanies tobacco abstinence."
Gee, eating and exercise can also be regular and compulsive.
*What* withdrawal syndrom? Sorry, but the desire for another
cigarette is NOT a withdrawal syndrome.
>"Nicotine is the drug in tobacco that causes addiction.
>Specifically, nicotine is psychoactive ("mood altering"). ...
>Nicotine also causes physical dependence characterized by a
>withdrawal syndrome that usually accompanies nicotine
>abstinence."
Usually? Hmmm, again, desire for another cigarette is NOT a symptom of
addiction.
>"The pharmocologic and behavioral processes that determine
>tobacco addiction are similar to those that determine
>addiction to drugs such as heroin and cocaine."
Similar? yeah right -- BUT, it is admitted that it is NOT the same.
>These are just the conclusions. The evidence is in the
>footnotes, which are reviewed in the text of the report,
>which was, incidentally, specifically mentioned by FAIR in
>criticising Limbaugh's statement.
Let's see, how many mother have sold their babies for another
carton of cigarettes? How many smokers have experienced the
severe physical symptons that accompany heroin withdrawal?
How many smokers, on their second day of withdrawl, are considered
incompetent to drive a car?
How many have convulsions, rapid body temperature changes, sharp
drops/rises in body temperatures?
Don't confuse physical addictions with the inability to defer gratification.
And, wasn't this the same time frame that labelled obesity a "disease"?
Eric Mankin
>In article <314421$n...@mizar.usc.edu> man...@mizar.usc.edu (Eric Mankin) writes:
# #It is surprising that the question of whether nicotine is
# #physically addicting is being debated. In 1988, the Surgeon
# #General, as part of a continuing study of "The Health
# #Consequences of Smoking" produced a heavily documented
# #638-page report entitled "Nicotine Addiction." The
# #conclusions of the report include:
# #
# #"Cigarettes and other forms of tobacco are addicting.
# #Patterns of tobacco use are regular and compulsive, and a
# #withdrawal syndrome usually accompanies tobacco abstinence."
#
#Gee, eating and exercise can also be regular and compulsive.
#*What* withdrawal syndrom? Sorry, but the desire for another
#cigarette is NOT a withdrawal syndrome.
[more in the same vein deleted]
Gee, placing repetitive, mindless and masturbatory
posts without documentation or substantiation to
USENET newsgroups clearly *is* regular and compulsive in your
case.
I frankly don't know what the force is that brings
your index finger down on the shift-F key so much.
But the SG report does have an extensive section differentiating
tobacco addiction from food, etc. addictions. Read it
yourself, and if you find a mistake, notify the Surgeon
General.
Eric Mankin
King of Beasts
In article <CtFy0...@cruzio.com> ch...@cruzio.com writes:
>Finally, it would seem that one way the tobacco/cigarette companies could
>defeat the whole "nicotine is addictive" thrust of the anti-smoking interests
>is to develop tobacco or cigarettes that were nicotine free, but still maintain
>the taste. It would render all attempts to regulate tobacco moot, and would
>be a most bodacious coup.
Been done, Chris. Back in the 60's, an experiment was done with a
tar and nicotine free cigarette made from cabbage leaves, and which
tasted like smoking compost.
How do I know? As a 30 year smoker, I tried 'em back then.
As to the argument of whether nicotine is addictive, in my
case I'd have to say yes. I've watched other long-term smokers
attempt to quit with little success. As with most addictions,
the pull toward them never really leaves you.
Although this hardly constitutes an analytical study, until
you've seen a man have a lung cut out, only to resume smoking
upon release from the hospital until the day he died from a
relapse of the cancer, you don't really understand true addiction.
And if you're one who only will accept a bonafide scientific
investigation to realize this, you might not accept this as a
fact. But it's got to do with the makeup of the individual, and
some people are addiction prone, and in their case nicotine is
addictive.
*******************************************************************************
Vinnie Jordan vin...@sco.COM
"I've never met a Phi Beta Kappa, a Magna cum Laude or a Most Likely to
Succeed who really made it in life. Sure, they made it in some corporate
level or in advertising, but they just bit for the old USA oakey-doke
and remained oblivious to the realities of what life is really all about."
*Albie Baker, Ringolevio*
*******************************************************************************
ch...@cruzio.com
> In article <314421$n...@mizar.usc.edu> man...@mizar.usc.edu (Eric Mankin) writes:
When were you going to cite the literature you've read on the
subject, (c.f. previous followup to Don Fong in which you state
that you are up on the studies and literature asserting nicotine
addiction, and finding them lacking) Phil, along with the critiques?
--
Phil Ronzone
>>An interesting, but _extremely_ restrictive definition. By
>>these lights, most substances commonly considered to be
>>addictive wouldn't qualify, including cocaine, amphetamines,
>>etc.
>>
>>Where precisely did this definition come from?
>>
>>
>Where is the part for psychological addiction? We can become
>addicted to something in the pyschological sense, for
>instance, sex or shopping.
Bingo - you got the point. Maybe. Nowadays, it is Politically Correct
to hold the individual "not responsible" for his or her choices.
Can't delay that self gratification? Why, no, you're not a low will
power little shit, you're just addicted to {insert description here}.
After all, you don't have to take any responsibilty for your actions.
Noooooo, the world owes ya' Bubba ....
What's next? Internet addiction?
Phil Ronzone
>Gee, placing repetitive, mindless and masturbatory
Gee Eric, that's the fourth time lately you've used a word with sexual
meaning -- have you seen a mental health worker for this?
King of Beasts
In article <mzimmersC...@netcom.com> mzim...@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>3. I wouldn't dream of criminalizing tobacco, but I strongly support
> people's rights to forbid you to smoke in/on their property. And
> I support your being forbidden to smoke in a public place.
As a smoker, I am still conscious of the comfort of others, and if they
asked me not to smoke on their property, I would not do it. Nevertheless,
many business owners are not asking me not to smoke on their premises.
The city government is telling them not to allow me to smoke in their
establishments, and if that ain't about politics and control, I'll eat
your baseball cap.
You wouldn't dream of criminalizing tobacco? Then why do you support an action
that levies a fine of $100 for *both* the owner of the establishment and the
violator of the infraction? The very word infraction, in my opinion, equates
with criminalization.
Eric Mankin
>In article <317e0r$p...@mizar.usc.edu> man...@mizar.usc.edu (Eric Mankin) writes:
# #Gee, placing repetitive, mindless and masturbatory
#
#Gee Eric, that's the fourth time lately you've used a word with sexual
#meaning -- have you seen a mental health worker for this?
#
******************************************************************
PHIL RONZONE NEEDS YOUR HELP
YOU CAN SIGN UP TO HELP A VETERAN USENET CONTRIBUTOR --
OR YOU CAN HIT THE "n" KEY
That's right. Phil Ronzone, longtime profuse commentator on numerous
USENET newsgroups, recently suffered a grievous loss. His beloved
inflatable companion "Emily" came too close to an open gas flame
and has been scorched beyond repair. Ronzone, "Mr. Logic Chopper
Himself," as many usenet aficionados refer to him, is disconsolate
and without a sexual outlet. It is starting to interfere with his
perceptions, and he is now seeing sexual references everywhere. He
would like to replace "Emily" but needs your help.
Send your contributions to:
A NEW EMILY FOR PHIL
ro...@frustrated.com
Lefty
wrote:
> In article <317e0r$p...@mizar.usc.edu> man...@mizar.usc.edu (Eric Mankin) writes:
> >Gee, placing repetitive, mindless and masturbatory
>
> Gee Eric, that's the fourth time lately you've used a word with sexual
> meaning -- have you seen a mental health worker for this?
So, Phil, no word on where that "definition" of addiction came from? I'll
assume that you simply manufactured it, then, shall I?
Phil Ronzone
>When were you going to cite the literature you've read on the
>subject, (c.f. previous followup to Don Fong in which you
>state that you are up on the studies and literature asserting
>nicotine addiction, and finding them lacking) Phil, along
>with the critiques?
Right after I see same.
Michael Zimmers
King of Beasts <vin...@sco.COM> wrote:
>In article <mzimmersC...@netcom.com> mzim...@netcom.com (Michael Zimmers) writes:
>>3. I wouldn't dream of criminalizing tobacco, but I strongly support
>> people's rights to forbid you to smoke in/on their property. And
>> I support your being forbidden to smoke in a public place.
>As a smoker, I am still conscious of the comfort of others, and if they
>asked me not to smoke on their property, I would not do it. Nevertheless,
>many business owners are not asking me not to smoke on their premises.
>The city government is telling them not to allow me to smoke in their
>establishments, and if that ain't about politics and control, I'll eat
>your baseball cap.
That won't be necessary -- we don't have a disagreement here. In fact,
I frequent one of the smokiest places in the universe (the Garden City
cardroom) even though I dislike smoke. And as much as I'd enjoy that
place being non-smoking, I don't want the government forcing it upon
them.
>You wouldn't dream of criminalizing tobacco? Then why do you support an action
>that levies a fine of $100 for *both* the owner of the establishment and the
>violator of the infraction? The very word infraction, in my opinion, equates
>with criminalization.
Technically, no, since the government has conveniently distinguished
between the two (so they can charge you with things that aren't crimes
and legally abridge your criminal rights), but this is irrelevant --
I never claimed to be in favor of such a law. I think you've got me
confused with someone else, or you misunderstood my original post on
this subject.
ch...@cruzio.com
*> In article <Cto59...@cruzio.com> ch...@cruzio.com writes:
*> >When were you going to cite the literature you've read on the
*> >subject, (c.f. previous followup to Don Fong in which you
*> >state that you are up on the studies and literature asserting
*> >nicotine addiction, and finding them lacking) Phil, along
*> >with the critiques?
*>
*> Right after I see same.
Don cited his source.
It's in the original article he posted.
I'd like to see the citations, as well as the critiques.
The critiques especially will help (me, at least) understand
the kinds of games scientists play in these studies to support
the conclusions they draw. Not having a science background,
I welcome the chance to add a couple of grains of salt to my
set of "news reading" tools.
--
Phil Ronzone
>In article <philCto...@netcom.com> ph...@netcom.com (Phil
>Ronzone) writes:
>>In article <317e0r$p...@mizar.usc.edu> man...@mizar.usc.edu
>>(Eric Mankin) writes:
>`
>>
>>for this?
>>
>>
>******************************************************************
>PHIL RONZONE NEEDS YOUR HELP YOU CAN SIGN UP TO HELP A
>VETERAN USENET CONTRIBUTOR -- OR YOU CAN HIT THE "n" KEY
>
>That's right. Phil Ronzone, longtime profuse commentator on
>numerous USENET newsgroups, recently suffered a grievous
>loss. His beloved inflatable companion "Emily" came too close
>to an open gas flame and has been scorched beyond repair.
This is fun. After getting battered in the usual series of posts,
Manking always resorts to some type of sexual innuendo.
The fun part is after calling him on it (Gee Eric, *why* do you
bring up sex so often), Eric posts his usual flame-o-gram, full
of bigger, better, stronger, and above all, self revealing
sexual commentary.
Sorry Eric, I have an electric stove. You obviously, from personal
experience, have a gas stove.
But I would recomment a different newsgroup for your relation of your
sexual "experiences". Perhaps, from what you post, I'd suggest
alt.onan.
Eric Mankin
>In article <31bls7$b...@mizar.usc.edu> man...@mizar.usc.edu (Eric Mankin) writes:
* *In article <philCto...@netcom.com* ph...@netcom.com (Phil
* *Ronzone) writes:
* **In article <317e0r$p...@mizar.usc.edu* man...@mizar.usc.edu
* **(Eric Mankin) writes:
* *`
* ***Gee, placing repetitive, mindless and masturbatory
* **
* **Gee Eric, that's the fourth time lately you've used a word
* **with sexual meaning -- have you seen a mental health worker
* **for this?
* **
* **
* *******************************************************************
* *PHIL RONZONE NEEDS YOUR HELP YOU CAN SIGN UP TO HELP A
* *VETERAN USENET CONTRIBUTOR -- OR YOU CAN HIT THE "n" KEY
* *
* *That's right. Phil Ronzone, longtime profuse commentator on
* *numerous USENET newsgroups, recently suffered a grievous
* *loss. His beloved inflatable companion "Emily" came too close
* *to an open gas flame and has been scorched beyond repair.
*
*Sorry Eric, I have an electric stove.
I stand corrected: the line should have read:
"His beloved inflatable companion "Emily" came too close
to a hot electric burner and has been scorched beyond repair..."
I regret the error, but do hope you will be able to replace "Emily."
Eric Mankin
Don Fong
>In article <philCtq...@netcom.com>, ph...@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>*> In article <Cto59...@cruzio.com> ch...@cruzio.com writes:
>*> >When were you going to cite the literature you've read on the
>*> >subject, (c.f. previous followup to Don Fong in which you
>*> >state that you are up on the studies and literature asserting
>*> >nicotine addiction, and finding them lacking) Phil, along
>*> >with the critiques?
>*>
>*> Right after I see same.
>
>Don cited his source.
>It's in the original article he posted.
>
>I'd like to see the citations, as well as the critiques.
He ain't fooling nobody but himself anyway.
--- Don Fong
Phil Ronzone
>>I'd like to see the citations, as well as the critiques.
>Aww, stop picking on the pathetic little cretin... (:-) He
>ain't fooling nobody but himself anyway.
>
Aww, wrong so early?
As my doctor, Dr. Thomas, who is head of several substance abuse programs
at Los Gatos Community hospital, has told me, nicotine is not proven
to be addictive. Because, it isn't.
I was on morphine once for almost 10 days (for kidney stones), and in
conversation when stoppint it (I felt nothing in stopping morphine),
Dr. Thomas pointed out that if used those levels for a year, I
would experience severe and major life threatening problems if I
withdraw all at once. If I used at those levels for 5 years, I'd need
several weeks of hospital stay to safey withdraw.
My mother and father were/are cigarette smokes. My father stopped his
2-pack a day habit of 35 years just like that -- he just stopped.
No problems, nothing.
My mother, who has not stopped, is now dying from emphysemia and spends
half of her awake time and all of her asleep time in an oxygen tent.
My daughter recently visted my mother for the first time in 3 years.
s part of the condition of the visit, my mother had to not smoke.
For ten days, my mother who refuses to stop smoking even as she
is dying from it, stopped ALL smoking for 11 days.
She promptly resumed after my daughter left -- even though she commented
on how much her breathing improved.
A heroin, morphine, opium addict could NOT do that - they would be
physically incapacitated in 24 hours.
For that matter, there are very few reports of long term opiate addicts
just stopping use in a day and never looking back and never having
any withdrawal problems, yet, we have many ex-smokers that have done
just that.
That's why medical professionals that specialize in substance abuse
do not consider (for the most part) nicotine to be addictive.
Mike Inglis
> In article <31hjnk$a...@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
> >>I'd like to see the citations, as well as the critiques.
> >Aww, stop picking on the pathetic little cretin... (:-) He
> >ain't fooling nobody but himself anyway.
> >
> Aww, wrong so early?
> As my doctor, Dr. Thomas, who is head of several substance abuse programs
> at Los Gatos Community hospital, has told me, nicotine is not proven
> to be addictive. Because, it isn't.
> I was on morphine once for almost 10 days (for kidney stones), and in
> conversation when stoppint it (I felt nothing in stopping morphine),
> Dr. Thomas pointed out that if used those levels for a year, I
> would experience severe and major life threatening problems if I
> withdraw all at once. If I used at those levels for 5 years, I'd need
> several weeks of hospital stay to safey withdraw.
Ah, so because nicotine is not as addictive as morphine, or not addictive
in the same way as morphine, then nicotine is not at all addictive?
Firstly, I assume your doctor explained that Morphine is biochemically
different from nicotine and therefore there wouldn't necessarily be any
correlations between how the two operate.
Secondly, a purely physical definition of addiction is far too narrow.
To quote from Webster's:
addict:
1. to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually
or obsessively <addicted to gambling>
2. to cause to become physiologically dependent upon a drug
As you can see, you are limiting yourself to the second definition, while
others are including both definitions.
--
Mike "Mikey" Inglis (Opinions expressed here are probably bizarre)
I like my stupid life, just the way it is
And I wouldn't even change it for a thousand flying pigs
-- Danny Elfman, "Change"
Phil Ronzone
>Ah, so because nicotine is not as addictive as morphine, or
>not addictive in the same way as morphine, then nicotine is
>not at all addictive?
>
>Firstly, I assume your doctor explained that Morphine is
>biochemically different from nicotine and therefore there
>wouldn't necessarily be any correlations between how the two
>operate.
>
>Secondly, a purely physical definition of addiction is far
>too narrow.
>
>To quote from Webster's: addict: 1. to devote or surrender
>(oneself) to something habitually or obsessively <addicted to
>gambling>
>
>2. to cause to become physiologically dependent upon a drug
>
>As you can see, you are limiting yourself to the second
>definition, while others are including both definitions.
Ah so. Well, I made the assumption that it would be de riguere to,
when talking about a medical issue, to use the medical definition of
addiction.
With your definitions, we've descended to the level of "shopping as
an addiction".
In short, very short - I think we should use addiction to cover
those substance that actually cause a physical addiction in
the body (i.e., the substance did it), and leave out the others
(my own weak will power did it and I had nothing to blame).
ban...@cruzio.com
In article <CtI83...@borland.com>, koterski@genghis (Steve Koterski) writes:
>
> Personally, I'm insulted by being included in the generalizations made
> by these statistics that say I cost America extra because I smoke.
> Bull-dookey. I miss less work days and work many more hours per week
> than most non-smokers I work around. I have not needed medical
> assistance in the past that has been directly or indirectly attributable
> to my smoking. I strive to pay my own way through life, so to have a
> bunch of self-righteous, holier-than-thou zealots trying to criminalize
> my behavior when my behavior is otherwise without crime really gets my
> shakles up. This is not about concern for the health of others, this is
> about control, politics and control.
>
1 in 6 federal prisoners are in because of pot.
Many are in for minimum sentences of 10 years, or life.
(Source: Aug 1994 Atlantic Monthly - get && read)
I have a bunch of holier-than-thou zealots having already criminalized
a behavoiur I find enjoyable.
Are your shakles up because of the situation on pot?
The "Partnership for a Drug-Free America" is not stopping at pot, cocaine,
meth. Tobacco is the current, next biggy.
Alchohol is next (despite the Constitution and history).
Chocolate, tea and coffee are down the path.
C'mon - where do you stand on pot?
Are you consistent?
.. bandit
--
bandit systems and embedded engineering
topdown design associates "Waltzing where mere mortals fear to look"
ban...@cruzio.com
(408) 458-9228
Amitava Biswas
>Ah so. Well, I made the assumption that it would be de riguere to,
>when talking about a medical issue, to use the medical definition of
>addiction.
The "medical definition of addiction", eh? OK:
Addiction, as defined by the World Health Organization
is a "behavioral pattern of drug use characterized
by overwhelming involvement witht he use of a drug,
compulsive drug seeking behavior,and a high tendency
to relapse after withdrawal'. The WHO stresses that
"addiction should be viewed on a continuum relative
to the degree where drug use affects the total life
quality of the drug user and to the range of circumstances
in which it controls his behavior.
Psychoactive substance use disorders, in
Review of Gen. Psychiatry (Lange, 1988)
>In short, very short - I think we should use addiction to cover
>those substance that actually cause a physical addiction in
>the body (i.e., the substance did it), and leave out the others
>(my own weak will power did it and I had nothing to blame).
You're entitled to your own loopy opinions, Phil, but don't go around
claiming that your inventions have anything to do with medical definitions
or any professional consensus. In case the WHO and psychiatric texts
don't appeal to you:
...the term addiction cannot be used interchangably
with physical dependence as that term is used here
It is possible to be physically dependent of drugs
without being addicted, and in some special circumstances
to be addicted without being physically dependent.
Drug Addiction and Drug Abuse, in
Goodman & Gilman's Pharmacological
Basis of Therapeutics (Pergamon, 1990)
As for physical dependence to nicotine:
The most consistent symptoms [of nicotine withdrawal] are
irritability, impatience, anxiety, restlessness, and
difficulty in concentrating. Drowsiness, headaches, increased
apetite, and sleep disturbances (insomnia) are also
common...
Among the objective findings that quickly follow cessation
of smoking are changes in the EEG, with a decrease in high-
frequency activity characteristic of arousal and an increase
in low-frequency activity characteristic of drwsiness and
hypoarousal. Decreases in performance on tests of vigilance
and psychomotor performance and increases in hostility are
detectable within hours. There is a decreased heart rate
blood pressure, and plasma epinephrine, while skin temperature
and peripheral blood flow increase.
Goodman and Gilman (ibid)
There are certainly reasons to distinguish nicotine from narcotics, stimulants,
and other drugs of abuse, but Phil's self proclaimed "medical definition
of addiction" is not one of them.
Ami
Phil Ronzone
>In article <philCtv...@netcom.com>, Phil Ronzone
><ph...@netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>Ah so. Well, I made the assumption that it would be de
>>riguere to, when talking about a medical issue, to use the
>>medical definition of addiction.
>>
>The "medical definition of addiction", eh? OK:
>
>Addiction, as defined by the World Health Organization is a
>"behavioral pattern of drug use characterized by overwhelming
>involvement witht he use of a drug, compulsive drug seeking
>behavior,and a high tendency to relapse after withdrawal'.
>The WHO stresses that "addiction should be viewed on a
>continuum relative to the degree where drug use affects the
>total life quality of the drug user and to the range of
>circumstances in which it controls his behavior. Psychoactive
>substance use disorders, in Review of Gen. Psychiatry (Lange,
>1988)
WOW! Sounds like an insulin addiction to me.
But of course, anyone would categorize the use of insulin as anything
but an adiction.
And, would seek a medical dictionary defintion rather than a politicized
body.
gst...@cruzio.com
various arguments offered as proof that nicotine is addcitive cut here....
> There are certainly reasons to distinguish nicotine from narcotics, stimulants,
> and other drugs of abuse, but Phil's self proclaimed "medical definition
> of addiction" is not one of them.
> Ami
Hunh? what reasons? why would you want to do that?
The relative legality of addictive substances is political in nature, not
medical. Although there many physiological differences between the effects
of addiction to various compounds, there is no rational relationship between
those differences and society's treatment of the several compounds.
Gary Starkweather
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Gary Starkweather | Providing PC / Windows service and support |
| SGO Ltd. | for the San Lorenzo Valley. |
| Boulder Creek, CA | Systems/support/training/DTP/DB.... and more. |
Amitava Biswas
>WOW! Sounds like an insulin addiction to me.
>
>But of course, anyone would categorize the use of insulin as anything
>but an adiction.
If you must play your games, then you can play with yourself. Addiction
terminology is generally applied to substances which are not deemed
medically therapeutic. If you want to say that IDDM sufferrers are addicted
to insulin, it is a valid but meaningless statement, which would necessitate
a further delineation between "medically indicated" vs. "non-medically
indicated" addiction.
>And, would seek a medical dictionary defintion rather than a politicized
>body.
No you wouldn't, because you didn't. You simply made up a definition that
appeals to you and which is at odds with the WHO, and textbooks of both
psychiatry and pharmacology.
But fine, you want a Medical Dictionary:
addiction: the state of being habituated to a drug
habituation: acquired tolerance of, or addiction to, as with a
narcotic drug,
New American Medical Dictionary (Signet, 1988)
So, is there acquired tolerance of nicotine?
Tolerance develops to some of the effects of nicotine.
Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (Pergamon, 1990)
give it up, Phil.
Oh, and thanks for this one:
From ph...@netcom.com Wed Aug 3 23:29:06 PDT 1994
I speak English very well.
From ph...@netcom.com Wed Aug 3 23:29:16 PDT 1994
You have made an allegation that there were (are?) places
in America that people where not allowed to leave from.
It apparently took you ten seconds to forget how well your English is (was?)!
Thanks for the laughs,
Ami
Amitava Biswas
>In article <31pgnp$9...@nntp2.Stanford.EDU>, a...@leland.Stanford.EDU (Amitava Biswas) writes:
>> There are certainly reasons to distinguish nicotine from narcotics,
>> stimulants, and other drugs of abuse,
>Hunh? what reasons? why would you want to do that?
>
>The relative legality of addictive substances is political in nature, not
>medical.
I apologize for being vague. I did not say that there are reasons to
distinguish these substances legally
rather I meant that these substances have profoundly
different biochemical, physiological, and social dimensions to their respective
abuse patterns and by extension, to the treatment thereof. Therefore, for the
purposes of at least understanding addictions and treating them, it makes
sense to separate out various classes of addictive substances. These
are certainly medical issues.
And i do think that medical criteria ought to play a role in relative
legality of addictive substances, although at present I agree that they
do not. I think that drug use should be regulated based on potential harm
to others - a lone person smoking cigarettes in her car is not endangering
anyone else, but a lone person driving on alcohol or heroin poses a danger.
I am not against these sorts of distinctions.
Ami
gst...@cruzio.com
>
> As my doctor, Dr. Thomas, who is head of several substance abuse programs
> at Los Gatos Community hospital, has told me, nicotine is not proven
> to be addictive. Because, it isn't.
In an effort to clear this inane dicussion from my mailbox, I have the
following request:
Would some kind AOL'er please go to the Mercury Center and forward a copy of
Tuesday the 2nd's front page coverage of the FDA hearings to Mr. Ronzone?
A sidebar in the article contains a table which shows the results of two
studies. One was done by Dr. Jack Henningfield at the National Institute on
Drug Abuse, and the other at UCSF by Dr. Neal Borowitz.
Both ranked several commonly used drugs in 5 areas: withdrawal (severity of
symptoms), reinforcement (will the rat push this button before food, h2o, etc.),
tolerance (does it always take a little more?), dependence (how hard is it to
quit), and intoxication (how messed up do you get).
In both studies nicotine was 3rd in withdrawal severity (alcohol was worst,
heroin 2nd), and tied or beat coke, followed by caffine, and (last) pot.
In both studies, nicotine came in 4th on the reinforcement scale (coke=1,
junk=2, booze=3, and pot and caffeine were variously 5 and 6)
The tolerance studies were less uniform. The NIDA ranked Nicotine 2nd after
junk and before (in order) booze, coke, caffe, and pot. The UCSF study ranked
it 1=coke, 2=junk, 3=caffe, 4=nicotine, and alcohol (tied), and pot came in
last.
In terms of dependence, both studies said nicotine was harder to quit than (in
order again) junk, coke, booze, caffe, and lastly pot.
Finally, relative intoxication levels acheived by use were (decending order):
NIDA booze, junk, coke, pot, nicotine, caffe
UCSF booze, junk, coke, pot, caffe, nicotine
The Mercury Center usually has background material and often bibliographical
material which is related to but not part of the article. I syuspect that the
citations and references for the above studies would be found there.
Now, can we please drop this topic, accept as given that nicotine is
addictive, and move on to the much more politically interesting question of
what society's role reagrging addictive substances ought to be?
That's where the action is folks, if Mr Ronzone persists, fine - let him.
But we (society) are in the process of demonizing smoking. It was tried before
with booze, junk, and coke. All it did was create a huge and powerful criminal
element in each case which was/is possibly more destructive than the addictions.
IMHO *that* is the political question that we ought to be discussing in this
forum not the nature of addiction or whether this or that is addictive.
Pete Zakel
>There is *no proof* that nicotine is addictive.
There is also *no proof* that if you hold an apple in your hand tomorrow
at 10:00 AM at arm's length and release it that it will fall on the floor.
There *is*, however, LOTS of evidence and past experience to indicate that
it will (absent you holding your hand below rather than above it, or gluing
it to your hand, or otherwise play with the rules a bit).
What we in the vernacular refer to as "proof" isn't normally mathematically
bulletproof.
As a matter of fact, there is *no proof* that a person whose name is
Phil Ronzone has ever existed, or will ever exist.
Basically, anyone who claims that there is *no proof* for nicotine's
addictiveness, must also grant that by exactly the same standard there is
no proof that alcohol, heroin, or cocaine are addictive either.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it
seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the
fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving
after rational knowledge."
-Albert Einstein
Pete Zakel
>People who are withdrawing from heroin suffer severe physical
>reactions that often require medical intervention. People withdrawing
>from nicotine do not.
I did not say that withdrawal symptoms for nicotine were the same as for
heroin, I said that the evidence for addiction is the same for both. I.E.,
both cause habituation, both cause physical withdrawal symptoms, etc., etc.
Note, also, that heroin withdrawal rarely requires medical intervention.
Alcohol and barbiturate withdrawal, however, do require medical intervention
as sudden withdrawal can result in death.
>Moreover, many of the techniques used to ween people off of cigarettes
>and some of the side effects seem to be more related to having
>something to do with your fingers and to put in your mouth than to do
>with nicotine. For example, note the reliance on chewing gum and
>playing with pencils and the way people who quit smoking tend to eat
>more and gain weight.
The chewing gum and playing with pencils is in order to break *habits*, not
addiction. Habitual use of *anything*, including both addictive and non-
addictive substances, involves "set and setting" cues that are associated
with the activity. Simply breaking a physical addiction does not break
habituation. Alcoholics frequently go back to alcohol if they don't also
stop engaging in behaviors that they associate with drinking. The same is
true of breaking habitual cigarette use. One needs to divert the ingrained,
habitual actions associated with the behavior one is trying to avoid.
>There is certainly strong evidence that nicotine is addictive, but
>this is the first time I have heard the claim that the evidence is as
>strong with nicotine as it is with heroin. Could you please document
>this claim?
Please refer to C. Everett Koop, and many medical studies. Nicotine
is considered AT LEAST AS physically addictive as heroin, if not MORE
ADDICTIVE than heroin. Nicotine has the highest recidivism rate for
addicts, as well as the highest failure rate for those trying to quit.
Many of the studies have been reported on in Science News, a weekly
publication with an index published every six months (in the last June
and December editions). You should be able to find Science News at most
large libraries.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
"If God lived on Earth, people would knock out all His windows."
-- Yiddish saying
Pete Zakel
>IMHO I purport from the evidence so far, that nicotine probably
>plays a strong role in apparent addiction to cigarette smoking.
>But I think there is whole range of factors involved in the process
>of smoking and much of it may be psychological.
Note that the majority of servicemen who regularly consumed heroin while
on duty in Viet Nam also quit without problems upon return to the states.
This does no make heroin non-addictive. There is more to habitual use than
the physical addictiveness of a substance.
Heroin, caffeine, alcohol and nicotine all produce physical withdrawal
symptoms when regular use of sufficient quantities are stopped. Therefore
all of these substances are physically addictive.
However, the quality of the addiction, and the specific action of the
addictive substance varies which each substance. Also, various people
react differently to various substance, and have various degrees of
resistance to habituation (the established habitual use of a substance,
whether or not it is physically addictive).
The combination of physical addiction with length of action and specific
physical effects, combines with the actions taken to partake of the substance
to cause habitual behavior. In the case of cigarettes, the combination is
ESPECIALLY insidious (sp?), and results in behavior patterns that are
EXTREMELY difficult to break.
-Pete Zakel
(p...@cadence.com or ..!uunet!cadence!phz)
Laetrile is the pits
ban...@cruzio.com
In article <Cu0wF...@cruzio.com>, gst...@cruzio.com writes:
> In article <philCtu...@netcom.com>, ph...@netcom.com
(Phil Ronzone) writes:
> >
> > As my doctor, Dr. Thomas, who is head of several substance abuse programs
> > at Los Gatos Community hospital, has told me, nicotine is not proven
> > to be addictive. Because, it isn't.
>
> In an effort to clear this inane dicussion from my mailbox, I have the
> following request:
>
> Would some kind AOL'er please go to the Mercury Center and forward a copy of
> Tuesday the 2nd's front page coverage of the FDA hearings to Mr. Ronzone?
>
> A sidebar in the article contains a table which shows the results of two
> studies. One was done by Dr. Jack Henningfield at the National Institute on
> Drug Abuse, and the other at UCSF by Dr. Neal Borowitz.
>
> Both ranked several commonly used drugs in 5 areas: withdrawal (severity of
> symptoms), reinforcement
> (will the rat push this button before food, h2o, etc.),
> tolerance (does it always take a little more?), dependence
> (how hard is it to
> quit), and intoxication (how messed up do you get).
>
> [cut, showing pot was at the bottom of the list for bad effects]
>
> Now, can we please drop this topic, accept as given that nicotine is
> addictive, and move on to the much more politically interesting question of
> what society's role reagrging addictive substances ought to be?
>
> That's where the action is folks, if Mr Ronzone persists, fine - let him.
>
> But we (society) are in the process of demonizing smoking.
> It was tried before
> with booze, junk, and coke. All it did was create a huge and
> powerful criminal
> element in each case which was/is possibly more destructive
> than the addictions.
>
> IMHO *that* is the political question that we ought to be discussing in this
> forum not the nature of addiction or whether this or that is addictive.
Here, here.
1 in 6 federal prisoners are in for pot,
most for 10 years minimum or LIFE (best guess is .gt. 15,000).
One guy is in for LIFE for 0.16 GRAMS !!!!
Estimates at the state and county level is 20,000 to 30,000.
(My sources for these numbers are in the
Aug 1994 issue of the Atlantic Monthly.
Pot is now the nations #1 cash crop.
Anything that generates that much money is bound to bring in the big boys.
Street price of pot is the same as GOLD.
Given that pot is more harmless than smoking or alchohol,
WHY ARE WE DOING THIS???
The only real reason I can see for this is:
It's easier for cops to bust folks for pot,
and the judicial system to prosicute and incarcerate,
thus claiming _we are doing something_,
that actually GOING AFTER THE BAD FOLKS WHO MIGHT SHOOT BACK.
Of course, this assumes the cops are not trying to start a police state..
(In California, prisons are the only line item to get increases,
all other programs are down, in Pete Wilson's budget.
How do you define a police state??
My hat is off to the 50 (of 250) federal judges that have refused
to handle drug cases.
At this time, according to federal sources, about 1/2 of all federal cases
are drug cases.
It is time we get rid of this travisty of justice
(in Amerika)
increasing waste of lives due to BAD LAWS,
increasing waste of tax dollars (each prisoner is $30,000 per YEAR)
and get some sanity into the process.
Read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
Then THINK.
... bandit
Phil Ronzone
>Would some kind AOL'er please go to the Mercury Center and
>forward a copy of Tuesday the 2nd's front page coverage of
>the FDA hearings to Mr. Ronzone?
Why, I'd recommend that you READ that article. I did. As it states,
the FDA "wants more budget for yet another drug to control" and the
tobacco companies "scientists" disagree, but, so do indpendent
scientists that get no funding from either side.
In short, there is NO consenus. So of course, the politically correct
thing is getting done, which is a democratic vote on whether or
not nicotine is addictive.
Of course, by most of the ad hoc definitions of addiction floating
around on the net, everybody seems to have missed the most potent,
the most widespread addictive "thing". One which, if it was removed
tonight from "circulation" by the State, you'd have immediate rioting.
Not to mention severe social side effects from the withdrawal.
This same "addictive thing" has been blamed for many of our social ills,
including violence, teen age pregnancy, and the growth of illiteracy.
It's called "television".
Addiction? What do *you* think would happen if all TV stations went
off the air NOW by State fiat?
Tell me again about addicition.
Phil Ronzone
>Basically, anyone who claims that there is *no proof* for
>nicotine's addictiveness, must also grant that by exactly the
>same standard there is no proof that alcohol, heroin, or
>cocaine are addictive either.
But, is alcohol addictive? For every worst case wino, how many people
drink once in a while with no problems?
See the point? I restrict addiction (for political reasons) to
substance that would physically habituate a majority of the
people that use it.
So far, the only "thing" I see that fits that is TV.
gst...@cruzio.com
>
> But, is alcohol addictive? For every worst case wino, how many people
> drink once in a while with no problems?
>
> See the point? I restrict addiction (for political reasons) to
> substance that would physically habituate a majority of the
> people that use it.
>
> So far, the only "thing" I see that fits that is TV.
I think that I am going to use a 'kill file' for the first time in a year.
This is fatuous crap (he said nicely).
Mr. Ronzone chooses to ignore the realities of addiction, to hold up a self
derived *definition* of addiction, and to turn discussions of the law and
addictive substances to his own (seemingly pro-smoking) ends.
I have nothing against tobacco or nicotine. I think that some people (Adrian
i.e.) are bothered by smoke, and should be free from that sort of intrusion.
But, if Mr. Ronzone or anyone else for that matter, chooses to insert tobacco
in any oriface, it is 'nobody's business but his own'.
I feel that we (society) are on the verge of creating yet another prohibition.
As the old saying goes, when trying to figure out what's going on 'follow the
money'. The anti drug machine is huge and creaking at the seams. The mob
controlled (I don't mean just the Mafia but all mobs/cartels) drugs like coke
and junk have hit saturation; where is growth for these businesses gonna come
from? As Huey Lewis and the news said 'I need a new drug', and for the anti
drug machine (which oddly enough includes the various mobs) tobacco is a 'buy'.
Yesserie Bob, step right up and breathe into that tube. Hmmmm. Been using a
controlled substance.... where's yer presrption, Son? Awwww... Ain't that too
bad. Looks like we got another one boys. Put him in the tank with those Rastus
reggay bozos - put all the smokers together. Book'em DannO
Science fiction? Bad Fiction?
Today, maybe.... but, I think we are well down the same sleazy path our
society has trod over and over again since the turn of the 20th century.
Sheesh, you'd think we'd get a clue, or a vowel, or a grip, or someting other
than the stupid laws that drain society's resources to protect it from itself.
Talk about nowhere-man.... Mr. Ronzone give it up. Smoke all you want. I don't
care. Believe as you like about nicotine, I don't care.
Ppppphhht*
Flame off.
Gary Starkweather
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Gary Starkweather | SGO ltd. 408.338.2945 |
| Boulder Creek, CA | |
| gst...@cruzio.com | Systems.... Solutions! |
Eric Mankin
#the FDA "wants more budget for yet another drug to control" and the
#tobacco companies "scientists" disagree, but, so do indpendent
#scientists that get no funding from either side.
You have yet to cite one. You have yet, in fact, to offer a single
fact other than your reminiscence of what your doctor. Your earlier
promises of citations of studies ("on rats") vanished into hot air.
#In short, there is NO consenus. So of course, the politically correct
As numerous posters have pointed out, there in fact *is* a scientific
concensus, as shown in the literature and standard text and reference
books. Either deal with this, or shut up and save bandwidth.
Eric Mankin
Steve Koterski
I don't dispute that nicotine is addictive, but your use of a comparison
with heroin use as the justification for outlawing cigarettes is patently
irrelevant. Heroin and other illegal narcotics are illegal for more
reasons than just their addictive natures.
How many crazed nicotine users have you seen or heard of compared to PCP
users? How many nicotine users have you seen that were so impaired that
they couldn't drive (but were) as compared to the level of impairment of
heroin or even pot? How many nicotine addicts have you seen who were
reduced to a life of crime solely to support their habits as is the case
with heroin addicts? How many nicotine users have you seen fired because
their addiction prevented them from performing their jobs, as compared to
heroin addicts?
There is already more than enough government infringement in our personal
lives. I cannot believe there are people like you asking -- nay, begging --
for more. Or is your feeling of freedom to advocate this just due to it
not directly affecting something you do? What if the government decided
that the radiation of computer monitors was too much harm for it to "allow"
and banned you from using a computer?
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
_/ Steve Koterski _/ The opinions expressed here are _/
_/ kote...@borland.com _/ exclusively my own _/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
Phil Ronzone
>Mr. Ronzone chooses to ignore the realities of addiction, to
>hold up a self derived *definition* of addiction, and to turn
>discussions of the law and addictive substances to his own
>(seemingly pro-smoking) ends.
>
>I have nothing against tobacco or nicotine. I think that some
>people (Adrian i.e.) are bothered by smoke, and should be
>free from that sort of intrusion. But, if Mr. Ronzone or
>anyone else for that matter, chooses to insert tobacco in any
>oriface, it is 'nobody's business but his own'.
Hmm, again, try the facts before inserting feet into mouth.
At the personal choice level, NOT at the legislative level, I am
extremely anti-smoking. I can't stand it, it disgusts me, and I
don't let even my mother smoke in my house.
And it IS about the definition -- note the political changes when
the winos/lazy bums/mentally ill began to all be called the "homeless".
Phil Ronzone
>As numerous posters have pointed out, there in fact *is* a
>scientific concensus, as shown in the literature and standard
>text and reference books. Either deal with this, or shut up
>and save bandwidth. Eric Mankin
Hmm, perhaps you missed what several posters have called for -- for
me to read the SJMN articles on this very issue last week. No matter
what side you're on, the articles were quite clear on one thing --
a several conferences being called or in progress that week were
being called for a primary reason - to see IF a consensus COULD
be reached, as one does not exist.
So far, one conference has produced a non-scientific but political
"position" (not a consensus) that tobacco is addictive.
Perhaps you should have gone -- your "fact" that a consensus does
exist might have been the hit of the conferences.
Art Isbell
writes:
> There is already more than enough government infringement in our
personal
> lives. I cannot believe there are people like you asking -- nay, begging
--
> for more.
Until individuals become more responsible for their own actions,
*somebody* has to deal with the problems this irresponsibility is causing
or this country will continue its long downhill slide. It's not
government intervention that's the problem. The best way to get the
government out of our lives is to not give them any reason to regulate
what we do.
But Americans in particular believe that individual rights are more
sacred that societal rights which didn't cause serious problems years ago
when there were far fewer of us. As we continue overpopulating, the
rights of society will *have* to become more important than those of the
individual as is already the case in very crowded Asian countries. If
not, then the country will continue sliding downhill with more and more
crime, more and more unsuccessful repressive measures to try to stem the
crime, etc., etc.
What if the government decided
> that the radiation of computer monitors was too much harm for it to
"allow"
> and banned you from using a computer?
>
I'd be glad they protected me from something which I really have no way
to determine for myself. I'm sure capitalistic forces would devise a
safer approach when faced with the loss of computer business. If CRT
radiation is harmful, by the time individual users suffer the
consequences, the damage will have been done. Is this what you prefer?
But that points out an inherent fatal weakness of capitalism in today's
world. Because "consumers" (gotta love that description of us :-( can't
possibly understand what's happening around us, how our actions affect the
big picture, how things really work, etc., we can't make good decisions on
purchasing the best products for the lowest prices (isn't that what
capitalism is supposed to guarantee?) So purchase decisions are based on
who is the superior marketer, not who makes the best product (Microsoft
has certainly been superior at marketing its inferior product, Windows).
So it really doesn't matter much in the capitalistic world that Freon
from air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. is depleting the ozone layer.
It takes 10 years on average for a Freon molecule released at ground level
to reach the ozone layer, and then it takes several more years for enough
ozone destruction to start causing an increase in skin cancer (among many
other adverse effects). And how can Joe Sixpack make the connection
between his insistence on buying air-conditioned cars, a large freezer in
addition to his refrigerator, etc. and the fact that he's contracted skin
cancer? He can't; no one really can. So we can't make wise purchase
decisions based solely on our own knowledge. But will Dupont or General
Motors tell us that Freon is the culprit? Hell, no!! In fact, they're
likely to cover up any such knowledge to protect the bottom line. Without
government research and the resulting regulation, we'd be heading even
faster downhill than we are now.
Sure, the government is far from perfect. Its laws are written by
folks who represent the wealthiest class of our society, the very folks
that own stock in Dupont and G.M. So until we base elections on the
qualifications of candidates and not on how much money they've been able
to raise (and thus, how well they've been able to market themselves),
we're still doomed.
So we need to be spending our efforts on making government work as it
*must* if we're going to survive and not take all living things down with
us rather than trying to get government out of our lives as so many
misguided folks seem to be doing. More government is the only solution
that *can* work which is certainly distasteful with government as it
exists today. Individuals have demonstrated throughout history that they
are just too greedy, too selfish, and too violent to be trusted to make
their own decisions without the intervention of society, whose
representative is the government.
Putting on my flack jacket, I wish you all a wonderful future. If we
don't get to work soon making the very difficult decisions necessary,
things are going to get a lot worse FAST.
---
Art Isbell Cubic Solutions
NeXT Registered Consultant NEXTSTEP software development and consulting
NeXTmail: a...@cubicsol.com Voice: +1 408 335 1154
USmail: 95018-9442 Fax: +1 408 335 2515