Today Harris Interactive, one of the respected names in market research, published their annual report into public attitudes towards twenty key industries. http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/template.NDM/news/more/?javax.portlet.tpst=0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_viewID=news_view_popup&javax.portlet.prp_0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_newsLang=en&javax.portlet.prp_0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_ndmHsc=v2*A1216119600000*B1218747956000*DgroupByDate*J2*L1*N1000837*ZBIG%20CHANGES%20IN%20PUBLIC%20ATTITUDES%20TOWARD%20DIFFERENT%20INDUSTRIES%20SINCE%20LAST%20YEAR&javax.portlet.prp_0b2c9a4dd5f89b80977dd367cc87b42f_newsId=20080807005140&beanID=202776713&viewID=news_view_popup&javax.portlet.begCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken&javax.portlet.endCacheTok=com.vignette.cachetoken
The table is topped by supermarkets, online search engines, computer harware companies, software companies, hospitals and Internet Service Providers.
And the industries at the bottom of the table? Only four industries had a negative score (meaning that more people had negative views of the industry than neutral or positive views) and it is the usual suspects: managed care, health insurance and oil companies, but one industry is far below the others. With a score so stunningly bad (-43) the tobacco industry truly owns the title of America's most hated and least respected industry. They have done so much to earn this award. Parents of tobacco company executives must feel so proud of their children...not.
To see the tobacco industry for what it really is, visit us at www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com
To download Allen Carr's expose of the tobacco industry visit www.allencarr.com and download his book Scandal for free.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
This is what tobacco lobbying money buys...
Every year, tobacco companies spend millions of dollars lobbying various state and federal bodies. This is an example of what that money buys.
Congressman Richard Burr is a Republican representing North Carolina's 5th District. He is also Congress's biggest recipient of money from Big Tobacco. RJ Reynolds and its law firm are Burr's biggest contributors while collectively U.S. tobacco manufacturers have given Burr more money than any other member of the House of Representatives, according the the non-partisan watchdog the Center for Responsive Politics.
Surprise, surprise, Mr. Burr opposes the bill passed last week in the House that gives the FDA regulatory authority over the tobacco industry which, unbelievably, currently escapes any kind of federal oversight and is essentially an unregulated product.
Mr. Burr's opposition is based on two factors: firstly, he argues that far from improving public health, FDA oversight of tobacco "could do more harm than good". His basis for this truly astonishing claim is that the legislation would require tobacco companies to do what everyone else in the food and drug business does - test their products for safety and efficacy before launching them. His argument is that this might prevent tobacco companies from bringing reduced-harm products to market.
The fact is that it is the tobacco companies themselves that have not been particularly interested in developing such products, because a reduced-harm cigarette might imply that the original product was unsafe. This would effectively constitute an admission that smoking was inherently dangerous - something the tobacco industry could never afford to do because it would expose them to substantial liability. This point is discussed at length in Richard Kluger's Pulitzer-prize winning expose of the US tobacco industry, Ashes to Ashes.
In 1964 the Surgeon General first linked smoking with lung cancer and heart disease. Since then, the industry has had over 40 years to create a reduced-harm product in a market free from any regulation but has failed to do so. In that time an estimated 20m Americans have died from smoking-related diseases. Enough. The tobacco industry is NOT in the business of saving smokers, and it is self-serving and egregiously disrespectful to try to pretend it is.
Mr. Burr's second concern is that gaining oversight over tobacco would 'severely impede the FDA's core mission'. According to the FDA website, their core mission is described thus: "The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of...drugs, biological products,...(and) our nation’s food supply. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."
It is difficult to see how gaining regulatory oversight for a product that kills 400,000 Americans annually is 'severely impeding' the FDA's protection of the public health. Quite the opposite actually - it is exactly what the FDA was set up to do.
Mr. Burr argues that the FDA is a busy agency and that taking responsiblity for tobacco products would stretch their resources too much. But this is like cutting your head off to cure a headache. If the FDA needs a bigger budget to handle this extended remit, then rather than allow a business that kills nearly half-a-million Americans a year to continue to escape Federal oversight, let's get a bigger budget. So here's an idea: implement a $1 federal tax on a pack of smokes to fund the FDA's work in overseeing tobacco. The US has (by far) the lowest tobacco tax rate of any developed nation. The current tax on a pack of smokes is 39 cents. To put this into perspective the tax rates in Europe and Canada vary between $2 and $10 per pack. A $1 increase in Federal tobacco tax would still leave the US with the cheapest cigarettes in the Western world, and also create an estimated $9 billion in additional revenue - more than enough to fund FDA oversight of tobacco, in fact nearly enough to fund the whole agency!
In advancing Big Tobacco's interests over those of American consumers, Mr. Burr is choosing money over humanity - a campaign contribution over the lives of the 400,000 Americans killed by this awful drug every year. I have never seen a stronger argument for campaign finance reform and for getting business out of politics.
Congressman Richard Burr is a Republican representing North Carolina's 5th District. He is also Congress's biggest recipient of money from Big Tobacco. RJ Reynolds and its law firm are Burr's biggest contributors while collectively U.S. tobacco manufacturers have given Burr more money than any other member of the House of Representatives, according the the non-partisan watchdog the Center for Responsive Politics.
Surprise, surprise, Mr. Burr opposes the bill passed last week in the House that gives the FDA regulatory authority over the tobacco industry which, unbelievably, currently escapes any kind of federal oversight and is essentially an unregulated product.
Mr. Burr's opposition is based on two factors: firstly, he argues that far from improving public health, FDA oversight of tobacco "could do more harm than good". His basis for this truly astonishing claim is that the legislation would require tobacco companies to do what everyone else in the food and drug business does - test their products for safety and efficacy before launching them. His argument is that this might prevent tobacco companies from bringing reduced-harm products to market.
The fact is that it is the tobacco companies themselves that have not been particularly interested in developing such products, because a reduced-harm cigarette might imply that the original product was unsafe. This would effectively constitute an admission that smoking was inherently dangerous - something the tobacco industry could never afford to do because it would expose them to substantial liability. This point is discussed at length in Richard Kluger's Pulitzer-prize winning expose of the US tobacco industry, Ashes to Ashes.
In 1964 the Surgeon General first linked smoking with lung cancer and heart disease. Since then, the industry has had over 40 years to create a reduced-harm product in a market free from any regulation but has failed to do so. In that time an estimated 20m Americans have died from smoking-related diseases. Enough. The tobacco industry is NOT in the business of saving smokers, and it is self-serving and egregiously disrespectful to try to pretend it is.
Mr. Burr's second concern is that gaining oversight over tobacco would 'severely impede the FDA's core mission'. According to the FDA website, their core mission is described thus: "The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of...drugs, biological products,...(and) our nation’s food supply. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health."
It is difficult to see how gaining regulatory oversight for a product that kills 400,000 Americans annually is 'severely impeding' the FDA's protection of the public health. Quite the opposite actually - it is exactly what the FDA was set up to do.
Mr. Burr argues that the FDA is a busy agency and that taking responsiblity for tobacco products would stretch their resources too much. But this is like cutting your head off to cure a headache. If the FDA needs a bigger budget to handle this extended remit, then rather than allow a business that kills nearly half-a-million Americans a year to continue to escape Federal oversight, let's get a bigger budget. So here's an idea: implement a $1 federal tax on a pack of smokes to fund the FDA's work in overseeing tobacco. The US has (by far) the lowest tobacco tax rate of any developed nation. The current tax on a pack of smokes is 39 cents. To put this into perspective the tax rates in Europe and Canada vary between $2 and $10 per pack. A $1 increase in Federal tobacco tax would still leave the US with the cheapest cigarettes in the Western world, and also create an estimated $9 billion in additional revenue - more than enough to fund FDA oversight of tobacco, in fact nearly enough to fund the whole agency!
In advancing Big Tobacco's interests over those of American consumers, Mr. Burr is choosing money over humanity - a campaign contribution over the lives of the 400,000 Americans killed by this awful drug every year. I have never seen a stronger argument for campaign finance reform and for getting business out of politics.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Freedom = drug addiction? I don't think so...
Today, a newly-formed 'smoker's rights' group - Cigar Rights of America - announced its four day "Freedom Tour" starting next week in NYC.
What is especially interesting is that this smoker's right group has not been set up by smokers and nor does not have any regular, man-in-the-street smokers as members. Does it not seem odd that a smoker's rights group doesn't actually feature any smokers?
The group, which has been established and funded by - yep, you guessed it - cigar manufacturers, is attempting to teach smokers how to protest against the implementation of smoke-free legislation across the US under the guise of protecting freedom.
Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. Trying to reposition drug addiction as 'freedom' is shameful and, I think, extremely distasteful and disrespectful to the 45m Americans addicted to this awful drug. Especially to the estimated 450,000 Americans that will die of smoking this year and the further 8m Americans living with a smoking-related condition, or their families
Smoking is not a game, or a pleasure or a 'freedom', and it sickens me that people within the tobacco industry continue to see fit to ignore the shocking price American society pays to this terrible addiction, just to make a buck.
To break free from the slavery of smoking visit www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com
What is especially interesting is that this smoker's right group has not been set up by smokers and nor does not have any regular, man-in-the-street smokers as members. Does it not seem odd that a smoker's rights group doesn't actually feature any smokers?
The group, which has been established and funded by - yep, you guessed it - cigar manufacturers, is attempting to teach smokers how to protest against the implementation of smoke-free legislation across the US under the guise of protecting freedom.
Nicotine is the most addictive substance known to man. Trying to reposition drug addiction as 'freedom' is shameful and, I think, extremely distasteful and disrespectful to the 45m Americans addicted to this awful drug. Especially to the estimated 450,000 Americans that will die of smoking this year and the further 8m Americans living with a smoking-related condition, or their families
Smoking is not a game, or a pleasure or a 'freedom', and it sickens me that people within the tobacco industry continue to see fit to ignore the shocking price American society pays to this terrible addiction, just to make a buck.
To break free from the slavery of smoking visit www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com
Friday, August 8, 2008
The true cost of smoke breaks
Smokers are under pressure at work. Today smoke breaks, once an accepted part of the work day are frowned upon and in some cases, even banned altogether - as Karen Krindle of Rochester, NY found to her cost.
Ms. Krindle, a paralegal, was terminated by her employer because she failed to comply with a written policy banning smoke breaks. She applied for unemployment benefits and was awarded $3,000. However the state Labour Department challenged this, claiming that Ms. Krindle had misrepresented the reasons for her dismissal. They argued that she was dismissed for misconduct - in which case she has no right to any benefits. The Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court agrees, and Ms. Krindle may be forced to pay back the $3,000 she received in benefits.
Her appeal is based on the argument that banning smoke breaks is unfair to smokers, who use them to "Re-energize and become less crabby".
But as Allen Carr pointed out, why don't non-smokers need to take breaks to make them less "crabby"? And if smoking "re-energizes" then why don't smokers have more energy than non-smokers?
Do you think that Ms. Krindle will get a sympathetic hearing in her appeal? I don't. Smokers are detested by today's society, but I have always felt this to unfair. Allen Carr once said "Smoking is the problem, not smokers", and how true that is. Most smokers got addicted to nicotine as children or young adults. How can we blame them for a mistake they made as a child?
Smokers: if you are looking for a way to quit smoking where you are not judged to be weak, selfish and stupid, but are instead treated with intelligence, dignity and respect then we'll see you at www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com
Ms. Krindle, a paralegal, was terminated by her employer because she failed to comply with a written policy banning smoke breaks. She applied for unemployment benefits and was awarded $3,000. However the state Labour Department challenged this, claiming that Ms. Krindle had misrepresented the reasons for her dismissal. They argued that she was dismissed for misconduct - in which case she has no right to any benefits. The Appellate Division of the state Supreme Court agrees, and Ms. Krindle may be forced to pay back the $3,000 she received in benefits.
Her appeal is based on the argument that banning smoke breaks is unfair to smokers, who use them to "Re-energize and become less crabby".
But as Allen Carr pointed out, why don't non-smokers need to take breaks to make them less "crabby"? And if smoking "re-energizes" then why don't smokers have more energy than non-smokers?
Do you think that Ms. Krindle will get a sympathetic hearing in her appeal? I don't. Smokers are detested by today's society, but I have always felt this to unfair. Allen Carr once said "Smoking is the problem, not smokers", and how true that is. Most smokers got addicted to nicotine as children or young adults. How can we blame them for a mistake they made as a child?
Smokers: if you are looking for a way to quit smoking where you are not judged to be weak, selfish and stupid, but are instead treated with intelligence, dignity and respect then we'll see you at www.theeasywaytostopsmoking.com
Thursday, August 7, 2008
She said it with a straight face...
Commenting on the $1.15bn fine levied on Canada's two largest tobacco companies for smuggling cigarettes Imperial Tobacco spokesperson Catherine Doyle said "We realize...we are going to take a hit to our reputation because of this."
What 'reputation' would that be? When your company is part of an industry that makes a product that kills 4 million people every year, I wouldn't have thought that there was much of a reputation to protect.
What 'reputation' would that be? When your company is part of an industry that makes a product that kills 4 million people every year, I wouldn't have thought that there was much of a reputation to protect.
Monday, August 4, 2008
You've got to be kidding me...
In the week when it is announced that after years of escaping oversight by any federal body, the tobacco industry is finally going to be regulated by the FDA, the LA Times has seen fit to publish an article about athletes who smoke. This is a link to the article: http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-he-smoking4-2008aug04,0,4646024.story
As you can imagine, it's a fairly short article.
It features five athletes: Rob McCool who after less than ten years of intermittent smoking notices diminished lung capacity, despite a gruelling training regime; Jeff Myers, who sees himself as a casual smoker, despite having smoked half-a-pack a day every single day for the past 13 years and who promised himself he would stop on his thirtieth birthday - five years ago; Simi Singer, who has smoked on and off for twenty-five years and is clearly desperate to quit. She seems embarrased by her smoking working, as she does, at Mt. Sinai; Jon Delaney, a self-described recovering addict for who intends to quit as soon as possible and Nicole Fitzpatrick, who wants to be a non-smoker but feels that she would be missing out on something so cannot quit and smokes 5 to 10 cigarettes a week.
The final sentence of the article reads "But for now, smoking and exercise continue to run in sync" but this doesn't make sense. 94% of the runners polled in the survey the author quotes do not smoke and one-third of those that do are so ashamed of it that they only smoke in secret. A detailed analysis of the five athletes mentioned indicates that four actively want to quit and the other wants to cut down dramatically.
The point of all this is simple. There are a very few athletes who smoke, but only because they don't know how to quit. Every single one of them would rather be a non-smoker.
Reading through the stories of these athletes is heartbreaking. They want to quit, but believe that smoking gives them some comfort or pleasure, or that it helps them manage their weight. So long as they believe these things they will have desire to smoke, and if they try to quit, they'll need to use willpower to overcome that desire to smoke. This is what makes quitting difficult using the willpower path.
Allen Carr's Easyway to Stop Smoking makes it easy to quit smoking by challenging the beliefs upon which the desire to smoke is based. By exposing these beliefs as illusory it is possible to completely change the way the smoker sees smoking and remove the desire to smoke. With no desire to smoke, it's easy not to.
If any of the athletes featured in this article want to quit smoking, they would be welcome to attend our next LA seminar free of charge.
As you can imagine, it's a fairly short article.
It features five athletes: Rob McCool who after less than ten years of intermittent smoking notices diminished lung capacity, despite a gruelling training regime; Jeff Myers, who sees himself as a casual smoker, despite having smoked half-a-pack a day every single day for the past 13 years and who promised himself he would stop on his thirtieth birthday - five years ago; Simi Singer, who has smoked on and off for twenty-five years and is clearly desperate to quit. She seems embarrased by her smoking working, as she does, at Mt. Sinai; Jon Delaney, a self-described recovering addict for who intends to quit as soon as possible and Nicole Fitzpatrick, who wants to be a non-smoker but feels that she would be missing out on something so cannot quit and smokes 5 to 10 cigarettes a week.
The final sentence of the article reads "But for now, smoking and exercise continue to run in sync" but this doesn't make sense. 94% of the runners polled in the survey the author quotes do not smoke and one-third of those that do are so ashamed of it that they only smoke in secret. A detailed analysis of the five athletes mentioned indicates that four actively want to quit and the other wants to cut down dramatically.
The point of all this is simple. There are a very few athletes who smoke, but only because they don't know how to quit. Every single one of them would rather be a non-smoker.
Reading through the stories of these athletes is heartbreaking. They want to quit, but believe that smoking gives them some comfort or pleasure, or that it helps them manage their weight. So long as they believe these things they will have desire to smoke, and if they try to quit, they'll need to use willpower to overcome that desire to smoke. This is what makes quitting difficult using the willpower path.
Allen Carr's Easyway to Stop Smoking makes it easy to quit smoking by challenging the beliefs upon which the desire to smoke is based. By exposing these beliefs as illusory it is possible to completely change the way the smoker sees smoking and remove the desire to smoke. With no desire to smoke, it's easy not to.
If any of the athletes featured in this article want to quit smoking, they would be welcome to attend our next LA seminar free of charge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
