Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

rofgile (94.13)

Executive from Altria Group was on NPR today / Please think and don't invest in MO.

Recs

9

June 20, 2009 – Comments (43) | RELATED TICKERS: MO

Smoking tobacco kills.  This blog is in response to an interview on NPR this morning with a former executive Steve Parish of Phillip Morris (Now Altria).  

 

In this interview with Mr. Parish, he talked about how Phillip Morris went from fighting the FDA, to supporting moving American tobacco industries under FDA regulation.  Stating that its been an increasingly difficult environment for the companies to fight regulation, the most important thing to him and Phillip Morris was reducing the damage and deaths caused by smoking.

The interviewer failed to call him out on this statement, which is nothing but falsehoods.

If the tobacco companies really wanted to reduce deaths by smoking, they wouldn't go for incremental and slow regulations - they would simply close down their businesses.  Their product causes cancer and death.  They promote the use of this product which causes cancer and death.  They directly are a cause of 400,000 deaths due to smoking.  If I believed in heaven and hell, then I would believe that all tobacco executives would end up in hell for what the deaths which they have perpetuated.  

Instead, these executives lie to the public and probably to themselves while receiving very nice compensations.  In 2007, Mr. Parish received over $900,000 for salary and 2 million in stock options, with additional incentives and pension resulting in a yearly total over 12 million.  This is on par with what the other senior executives make, though the CEO made nearly 25 million total.  I guess at this level of compensation, it becomes easier to overlook all the death, damage, and pain that their leadership causes in the world.

The truth about the FDA bill which recently passed is that it also directly limits market competition in the US from tobacco companies.  While current tobacco companies that sell in the US are grandfathered in, no new tobacco companies will be allowed to sell in the US.  Further, by reducing advertising from these companies, those that currently lead have a great advantage over smaller companies.  Guess who leads the pack?  Altria/Phillip Morris.  While they play up the benevolent actions of their corporation in supporting this law, less publicized is the tremendous advantages this law will place their corporation in, effective building a moat that protects their market share forever in the US.  There was no good will in the corporation's decision to support this bill. 

CAPS blogs in general are very lacking in questioning what effects the corporations have in the world.  It should be very clear that Altria/Phillip Morris is a company that has very detrimental effects on the world and society.  Back when the recession started, many Fool members up-thumbed this corporation as a recession proof industry that is a great safe haven.  I found this both disturbing and sad.  These are not corporations that people should support, rather we should be working to end corporations such as this.  When you or a family member dies of a smoking related disease - don't look back and have regrets that your money helped support this corporation.

-Rof 

43 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 20, 2009 at 11:16 AM, NoMoeMoney (< 20) wrote:

 Whats the news? The fool has cooked his own horse. They have agreed to FDA regulation of tobacco. How long do you believe before the FDA limits nicotine levels in cigs down to nothing? They can't ban nicotine outright but they can sure regulate it to very low levels. Noone will pay outrageous prices for cigs that do not give you a good nicotine fix. FDA regulation dooms these companies.

Report this comment
#2) On June 20, 2009 at 11:32 AM, caltex1nomad (< 20) wrote:

Smoking Bad, Drinking Bad, Driving Bad,Gambling Bad, Genetically Altered Food Bad, Global Warming Bad, Wal-Mart Bad.............Might as well stop buying stocks.

Report this comment
#3) On June 20, 2009 at 11:33 AM, soycapital (89.70) wrote:

Look at the nice pressed suit and little smile, and meanwhile selling death! You are right, these are not companies we should buy and support. There are plenty of good companies out there that we can buy.

 If you have been telling yourself a little story that it is okay to put your money in this crap you are dead wrong! Don't let greed cloud your thinking. Sell it and buy something else! This is NOT a good place for your money!

Report this comment
#4) On June 20, 2009 at 11:44 AM, gne1963 (69.55) wrote:

Very Nice Post Rof...

It's just amazing that MO continues to survive.

gne

 

 

Report this comment
#5) On June 20, 2009 at 12:41 PM, kaskoosek (99.80) wrote:

I hope everyone sells philipmorris stock, so I can buy on the cheap.

Report this comment
#6) On June 20, 2009 at 1:30 PM, JibJabs (56.54) wrote:

Individuals have the right to choose for themselves. Ignorance is rarely an excuse any more. Alcohol is the same- it is detrimental to health, people know it, they still use it.

Report this comment
#7) On June 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM, mas113m (89.01) wrote:

that's why the bill was nicknamed "the Phillip Morris Protection Act".

 To me, it makes a compelling case for being long MO, but I like PM better anyway.

Report this comment
#8) On June 20, 2009 at 1:39 PM, FreeTruth (< 20) wrote:

I am so tired of diatribes such as this against MO and other companies like them. Why should they stop selling tobacco? Because it kills people? So does driving a car or drinking a glass of winer. Ford can no longer sell cars and Lindeman's can no longer grow and sell wine. Did you know the sun causes cancer? Thus, I implore all of you, do not go outside nor invest in any company that is under the sun. Evil sun!

Life is about choices and personal responsibility and unfortunately, we are quickly giving all of our choices and freedom away. If a person wants to smoke, let them. Whoa, I better go, the "Two Minutes Hate" is about to begin...

 

Report this comment
#9) On June 20, 2009 at 2:15 PM, soycapital (89.70) wrote:

Life is about choices and personal responsibility and unfortunately, we are quickly giving all of our choices and freedom away. If a person wants to smoke, let them. Whoa, I better go, the "Two Minutes Hate" is about to begin...

Folks we are talking about tobacco companies not driving fast or Walmart.........It's my personal choice not to support tobacco companies and it's also my right to voice my choice not to. If you want to support them that is your decision I did not suggest a law against that. Consider however what your choices mean for the future of your children and grandchildren.....of all children everywhere for that matter.

Report this comment
#10) On June 20, 2009 at 2:42 PM, FreeTruth (< 20) wrote:

Notice that I did say that I felt you should stop or not write your thoughts. Personally Soy, I hate smoking and I don't like being around it at all.

Now then, statements like, "They promote the use of this product which causes cancer and death." I have a problem with. They promote them because it is their business and their business is providing a product that clearly people want. That product has shown that it causes cancer, but people know this when they make a purchase. 

It is a personal choice to do so.

Should Hawaii stop promoting itself as a vacation destination because of all of the sun there? The sun has been shown to cause cancer.

Should Los Angeles stop promoting itself as a vacation destination? They have horrible pollution and this has been shown to cause breathing problems.

Should The Netherlands stop growing tulips? Flowers give off pollen which has been shown to cause allergies.

We could spin on this for hours if you would like. In the end, people should make choices and understand they are responsible. If you want to see MO and PM go out of business, encourage people to respond with their wallets. That's what works in a free market. Well, then again, not THIS free market. That is another discussion though friend!

 

Report this comment
#11) On June 20, 2009 at 3:00 PM, rofgile (94.13) wrote:

I'm glad this blog is getting responses (for and against).  At least that is making people think a bit about a subject tangental to normal investing thoughts.

When you invest - you are not just growing money, you are making a vote - what activities and dreams of mankind to support and fund.  I just can't see the encouragement of tobacco smoking as one of these activities.

I think it is incredibly cynical to invest in an activity that you don't support, which is why I don't invest in tobacco, weapons, oil production, and mining companies.  I recognize that my investment is a vote for an activity - it enables that activity.  I find all those activities listed above to be negative - they may be profitable, but they are not what I would like to see as an end product of mankind's dreams.

There are many other profitable companies to choose from - these could be technologies that are amazing and wonderful - flat screen tv's (GLW), internet (GOOG), telephones (VOD), organic food and local food (WFMI), wind power (FPL, OTTR), drugs to treat HIV and cystic fibrosis (GILD) -

All of these and thousands more are ways you can invest your money that is not just profitable, but supports a good dream of mankind.  

As for freedom of choice - that is fine if we have tobacco companies - all I am arguing is that if you don't like the fact that tobacco kills hundreds of thousands that you don't invest in those companies.  If you don't like that some mining company just trashed New Guinea and got off without having to clean up its mess - don't invest in it.  If you don't know what your companies that you are invested in do - well why are you invested in them???  There's no way you can make good investments if you don't even know what those companies are up to.  And with the internet it is very easy to do the research, more than ever before.

As to the idea that a free market should address this: I would argue that you choices in what companies to invest in that are publicly traded is part of the free market system in modern capitalism.  It is up to you to make the choice not to go for profits solely (this could also be cheap food, cheap shoes, etc)  but to think about what you are buying into.

 -Rof 

Report this comment
#12) On June 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM, FreeTruth (< 20) wrote:

Rof, I understand where you are coming from, but your logic made me laugh. Especially, "All of these and thousands more are ways you can invest your money that is not just profitable, but supports a good dream of mankind." Here's why, there are consequences to ever decision, purchase, investment that we make and these positive and negative consequences will always exist. Using you logic, how could you possible invest in GLW when they provide the parts to make those TV's over in third world countries. Those sweat shops where the employees work 18 hours a day for 16 cents and a bottle cap. What about the testing that drug companies complete on animals before bringing their products to market.

As altruistic as you believe that you are, your purchases, even the very smallest, have positive and negative consequences. To believe that you can obsolve yourself of this is not living in the real world.

Report this comment
#13) On June 20, 2009 at 3:26 PM, AnAmateur (< 20) wrote:

Do you honestly think the local, state and federal governments will allow Altria to 'just' shut-down?

Do you realize that they rely on BILLIONS from the cigarrette and tobacco taxes?

Report this comment
#14) On June 20, 2009 at 3:35 PM, AnAmateur (< 20) wrote:

Also - I worked in a grocery store while I was younger and many people on food stamps would always have money for cigarettes (funny how that works).

I view my investment in Altria as getting some of my tax dollars back.

Report this comment
#15) On June 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM, soycapital (89.70) wrote:

Should Hawaii stop promoting itself as a vacation destination because of all of the sun there? The sun has been shown to cause cancer.

Should Los Angeles stop promoting itself as a vacation destination? They have horrible pollution and this has been shown to cause breathing problems.

Should The Netherlands stop growing tulips? Flowers give off pollen which has been shown to cause allergies.

You know free, I get some of your points but to compare tobacco to tulips or sunshine just don't get it.

In the end, people should make choices and understand they are responsible.

I wish life was this simple. Kids and some adults in other countries are not educated enough to make the correct decisiion concerning tobacco. Tobacco companies target this market.

I view my investment in Altria as getting some of my tax dollars back

Have you any idea sir how many of your tax dollars go to battle smoking and the health issues from it? This makes absolutly no sense whatsoever..........

Report this comment
#16) On June 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM, rofgile (94.13) wrote:

FreeTruth:

 I think you make excellent points.  Truly, it is not possible to account for every moral aspect of a corporation - and it would be more true to say that every corporation has good and negative effects.

 GLW might make a mostly environmentally friendly product - glass, and employ lots of Americans.  GLW also has 8 manufacturing plants in China.  Do these plants pay their workers well or poorly?  Do all the plants production much pollution from material and energy waste?  These are not just grey questions - they start to become difficult to even answer.

 

 MO can have pluses and minuses as well.  Its product kill people, no doubt about that.  It also provides American jobs, and supports tobacco farmers.  Some tobacco companies fund research on treating cancer through investments in drug companies (though the cynical among us could see this as a way to profit not just from giving people cancer, but also from treating the cancer with drugs later on).  

 I would argue though, that actual confirmable deaths from cigarettes is something that most corporations do not cause.  How many companies out there can you do the numbers and say X company is making a product that results in Y deaths a year?  We have clear evidence that MO fits this example.  

 

AnAmateur:  if MO went bankrupt, I don't think the US government would give it a bailout, that's for sure.  At least not with the current administration.

Report this comment
#17) On June 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM, FollyFullFool (< 20) wrote:

Go to a public place...count how many obese people you see.

Heart disease is the number one killer in America, most of these are related to poor diet. Oh uh, let's outlaw burgers. Or let's grow wealthy off people's ignorance by investing in great companies like McDonalds. 

If not, then i agree! we should hold everyone's hand and make sure they can't think for themselves.  I think we should begin stigmatizing fat people like we stigmatize smokers. Corral all the fat people into a little section of the food court. They are costing me thousands of dollars in heallth care costs, right? That offends me more  then the smell of cigarette smoke. 

Report this comment
#18) On June 20, 2009 at 4:07 PM, wuff3t (92.75) wrote:

rogfile,

I admire that you are trying to remain true to your principles, but I think you'll find that oil production - which you say you refuse to invest in - is necessary before you can produce some of the other products you say you are happy to invest in. Oil is almost everywhere in our developed world, eg I'm pretty sure it is used to make petrochemicals used in the plastic casing of TV's and telephones. I'm by no means en expert in this area, just seem to recall bits and pieces from my reading, but oil is used in heating and lighting, in white goods, to fuel your car, and also in some foods and medicines.

Do you have a refrigerator? Drive a car? Take medicine? Own a TV and mobile phone? Heat your home and switch the lights on when it gets dark? By using all these products you are supporting the oil industry. I know that may seem like stretching a point, and I do not mean to criticise your good intentions, I'm just trying to point out that investing ethically is a minefield. No reason you shouldn't try, but you might find yourself doing so much research that you never get round to slapping down any cash!

If anyone wishes to contradict me on any of the above, feel free. As I say I'm no expert, just regurgitating things I've read.

Report this comment
#19) On June 20, 2009 at 4:15 PM, NOTvuffett (96.19) wrote:

Smoking wasn't the best decision I ever made-it is more addicitive than heroin-but without its calming effects I would probably be on some drug.  Do you think that drugs approved by the FDA are totally safe and efficacious?  Irony alert...look up CHANTIX, smoking cessation drug with bad side effects, I saw this first hand.

The argument that cigarettes cause hundreds of thousands of deaths is stupid.  If they didn't take one puff off a cigarette they would be immortal?  Maybe it can cause you to die sooner, but I worked in a nursing home one summer and it is not pretty.  It would be better to die at home with your loved ones.

I can hardly wait until the health nazis come after your personal vice with confiscatory taxes- salt, sugar, calories, saturated fats, etc.

Report this comment
#20) On June 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, FreeTruth (< 20) wrote:

Wait a minute Soy, how is sunshine any less dangerous than tobacco? If consumed in mass quanities, they both result in potentially getting sick.

To be clear, I do not like tobacco. But, I believe that others should have the right to sell it and we should have to purchase it if we choose.

Report this comment
#21) On June 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM, rofgile (94.13) wrote:

I think any moral issue, when seriously addressed in the real world is very complex.  The world is a complex place - its not black and white. 

Everything right now is fueled by cheap petroleum, and coal.  This is a fact, and you can't argue that if you are an American or any any western nation that you use these resources.  I think I looked it up once, and 1 kilowatt of power here would be the equivalent of 8 chunks of coal, so I can't even imagine the mountain of coal I use for just living here as an American.

Still, why do we need to keep going in those directions?  We consume those things because we are all part of a system, you can't avoid the overall culture that you live in without becoming a hermit - and that doesn't change the overall world at all.  Still, why not provide your money for companies that are coming up with better technologies to move us away from oil and coal?  Many of these companies may not be perfect, but that's life.  There is no such thing as a perfect person or a perfect corporation.  And I am not going to get into oil/coal - that's my judgement, but I am sure there are people on CAPS who would feel that using oil and coal is not a bad thing - that there is no global warming, etc.  I'm really focused here on the tobacco companies...

I would argue that a company that makes a product that directly results in hundreds of thousands of death, of what is a preventable disease - that is not a grey area - that should be a strong negative. 

Report this comment
#22) On June 20, 2009 at 4:27 PM, FreeTruth (< 20) wrote:

Notvuffett, that is why I so vehemently take the side that I do. It won't be long until they come after every "vice" that we have.

Who is the government or some "czar" to determine what a "vice" is? Is driving a big car a vice, what about drinking coffee, eating Cadbury Cream Eggs at Easter, flying over to Europe for a fun long weekend, going hunting or fishing, taking a 4 wheeler through my OWN land, building a big house, spending time on the internet, having that 2nd or 3rd child...shall I go on?

Report this comment
#23) On June 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM, NOTvuffett (96.19) wrote:

no, don't go on Feetruth, that was about as eloquent as it could be, freedom is evaporating in the name of 'good'

Report this comment
#24) On June 20, 2009 at 4:42 PM, soycapital (89.70) wrote:

Wait a minute Soy, how is sunshine any less dangerous than tobacco? If consumed in mass quanities, they both result in potentially getting sick

Many things cause death if consumed in mass quantities including water. Tobacco does not really require mass quantities. Tobacco and sunshine are not a close to an equal comparison.

Report this comment
#25) On June 20, 2009 at 4:48 PM, NOTvuffett (96.19) wrote:

it is the few stray UV photons that causes a mutation that disables contact inhibition between cells and hence melanoma.

Report this comment
#26) On June 20, 2009 at 4:51 PM, hondo928 (99.75) wrote:

The CEO of MO's job is to sell tobacco products, whether it is moral or not that is his job, are you really stupid enough to suggest they should close their doors?  That would be awesome for stockholders! and the American economy in general too.  Maybe you wouldl like to explain to their 5,400 workers in Richmond why they are losing their jbos too?  They are acting legally if you really have a problem with cigs being legal then maybe you can get your senator to help make this police state.

 We are humans and we have free-will sure it can be influenced but I can probably count on one hand the number of cigarettes I've smoked in my life.  If I want to go grow some weed in my back yard and kill my lungs that way why should I be stopped, it's my property, my lungs and my brain?  If I want to buy a 250 empty-calorie Pepsi why should I be taxed?  Americans love to shift the blame the truth is you can choose for yourself, do we really want the government telling us what to do because that's what you sound like.  Maybe Budweiser should close doors too I mean afterall if no one has alcohol no one can drunk drive.  Perhaps we can put speed limits in cars at 55 mph.  Would that be cool with you?

Report this comment
#27) On June 20, 2009 at 5:15 PM, soycapital (89.70) wrote:

The CEO of MO's job is to sell tobacco products, whether it is moral or not that is his job, are you really stupid enough to suggest they should close their doors?  That would be awesome for stockholders! and the American economy in general too.  Maybe you wouldl like to explain to their 5,400 workers in Richmond why they are losing their jbos too?  They are acting legally if you really have a problem with cigs being legal then maybe you can get your senator to help make this police state.

Way off subject, the question is not to shut them down or the role of the CEO, the question was do YOU support them by investing in their company? Do you vote yes for their activities by investing in their company?

If so, I would urge to invest your dollars somewhere else since there are plenty of companies that want and need your support that offer you and your neighbors and the world a much more positive service or product! Again, we are discussing tobacco here not Budweiser or Pepsi or hamburgers for that matter.

Report this comment
#28) On June 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM, hondo928 (99.75) wrote:

Well actually buyinh altria stock does not support the company, in reality your purchase or mine will not even affect the stock price.  If your talking about a primary offering then I can see where you coming from but in the secondary markets, I'm actually not investing in the company at all, no additional capital is going in or out, in reality at most your buying the right to share in profits and vote on a proxy.  Thus yes I would buy Altria stock regardless if they sold cigs, soda or alcoho if I thought the company was going to return me.

If the tobacco companies really wanted to reduce deaths by smoking, they wouldn't go for incremental and slow regulations - they would simply close down their businesses.

 

Is what I was intiaially responding to that and him saying the CEO deserves to burn in hell for working for Altria

Report this comment
#29) On June 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM, NOTvuffett (96.19) wrote:

Fantastic, I will invest with companies that make hocky helmets and nerf products, a nascent growth industry, lol.  The nanny state will make me rich if they don't tax me to death, lol.

Report this comment
#30) On June 20, 2009 at 6:09 PM, AnAmateur (< 20) wrote:

soycapital: "Kids and some adults in other countries are not educated enough to make the correct decisiion concerning tobacco."

This is the same kind of mentality that is wrong with the United States and the people who voted for Obama. It's basically "I'm not responsible for my own actions."

It's sad and ridiculous how blameless the American people have become.

Report this comment
#31) On June 20, 2009 at 6:37 PM, nottheSEC (74.22) wrote:

ROFGILE great post .One can protect themself from the sun, can drink socially, or eat poorly on ocassion. One can choose to live in near an enviromental  mess. MOST cigarrette smokers are drug addicts and I am a former one. Smoking cigarettes kills absolutely

People choose to do many things they must  smoke

 I blogged about Loews corp , the makers of Newport cigarettes, owning both Broadway pipeline and  Diamond Offshore. Had I known about that I would never have invested. To each his or her own just how I feel.

Report this comment
#32) On June 20, 2009 at 6:46 PM, nottheSEC (74.22) wrote:

Here is my blog on not investing in the loews corp. Not investing in cigarette companies is for me a matter of conscious as stock is ownership in a company. I am by no means a moral man but there are some things I would not do for any amount of money.

Again cigarette  smokers are addicts as I was. Incidentally the Loews corp inho tried to conceal they owned Lorillard by spinning it off. So perhaps not investing in tobacco is not just me.

 http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=215548&t=01003160625517763486 

 Rofgile I am sorry I am taking up so much space 
it is a passionate subject with me.

Report this comment
#33) On June 20, 2009 at 7:28 PM, rofgile (94.13) wrote:

nottheSEC:

 Thats's fantastic add-in to this post.  Thanks for pointing out your blog! 

Report this comment
#34) On June 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM, FreeTruth (< 20) wrote:

No, you cannot say that people must smoke. Then I can say that the over weight person must drive thru Burger King and get a superduper upsize meal. That a Mom must make herself throw-up and be anorexic and waste away. That a Dad must look at pornongraphy on the internet and drive a wedge thru their family.

There is no doubt that there are addictions, should everything that is addictive be eliminated or have the company voluntarily go out of business?

Where do you stop?

Report this comment
#35) On June 20, 2009 at 7:59 PM, FreeTruth (< 20) wrote:

I hate all of those things I just mentioned!

Report this comment
#36) On June 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, harleyrider1978 (< 20) wrote:

The blackmarket that comes with schip taxes and higher state taxes will ensure a steady supply of cigarettes in america.No need to worry about FDA regulations or there nicotine watering down abuse......All this anti-smoking liberal progressive war on tobacco is a scaled back total prohibition.It failed before and its failing now....All over a lie that second hand smoke harms people...........SHS/ETS is 98% water vapor and OSHA even says it harms nobody............

 

 

 

 

 

THE AIR ACCORDING TO OSHA

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke." 

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the  measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke.  PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky.  Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens. 
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting  Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would. 

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be. 

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of  everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances.  The results are actually quite amusing.  In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."

Chart (Table 1)

-"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes.  He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces. 

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them.  Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough. 

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace. 

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels?  No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case.  Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.
 

 

Report this comment
#37) On June 21, 2009 at 8:50 AM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

The truth is, our society is self destructive.  Investing in most industries is a catalyst for this destruction.  Long ago, I realized, there is no saving this system by fixing it, or making it a little better.  The best thing you could do to create positive change is keep going down the same path!  Do it a little faster.  The sooner this collapses, the sooner we will be able to rebuild something efficient, and sustainable.  The math is really quite simple.

Too many people = Earth problems, no upward evolutionary improvement (consciousness)

Less people = good thing

therefore, 

cigarettes = good thing

 

Things are going to get much worse before they get better.  I know of no one more against oil, petrochemicals, and corporate influence than myself.  I see no reason why I shouldn't profit from the dying world to be able to buy real estate at an opportune time, so that I may have the resources at my disposal should I survive the (inevitable) fall of this system.  This corporate plutocracy has created so much strife for so many, I am delighted to see a very real chance to profit from it's demise.  If that means betting on oil, on smokes and alcohol, or against banks, or on food during a shortage, I'm all over it!  

If you identify with this system, you might be upset by my view.  I personally don't.  

Darwinism, although I don't fully agree, states that the strong survive.  What happens to our species when we legislate safety for the idiots who are supposed to die?  Does anyone see the potential of this plus the fact that stupid people generally produce more offspring?  that's right, reverse evolution!  It has certainly already taken hold of this country.

A benevolent society is within our grasp.  We just need to eliminate the corporogovernment crooks who run it.  

Report this comment
#38) On June 21, 2009 at 9:07 AM, ralphmachio (< 20) wrote:

oh, and harley rider, how much toluene would you like to ingest at work?  How much should I have to be subjected to just because of someone else's habit that I don't partake in?  How did it ever end up in cigarettes anyway?  How much time should you spend writing something based on the data supplied by the worker protection arm of a system that profits off the labor of those unfortunate enough to happen to be born within it's borders, and indoctrinated into it's false beliefs?  (Yes, I realize there isn't much better currently available anywhere else, that has nothing to do with it.)  I have had the opportunity to hear the excuses of an addict, and they are weak, often insane.  You should be free to smoke wherever you want, outdoors.  No one should have to work under poor air quality conditions.    

Report this comment
#39) On June 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM, spbigger1 (< 20) wrote:

Seems to me that regulating nicotine down to a much less amount would only help the cigarette companies. Folks would simply smoke even more.

Report this comment
#40) On June 22, 2009 at 11:45 AM, nottheSEC (74.22) wrote:

On June 20, 2009 at 7:58 PM, FreeTruth (58.93) wrote No, you cannot say that people must smoke.

Yes I can addicts must satisfy their addiction or else they have withdrawals.Cigarette addiction kills and most people who smoke are addicted. Most people that drink beer,eat cheeseburgers, or watch porn are NOT addicted.  

Report this comment
#41) On June 22, 2009 at 12:02 PM, caltex1nomad (< 20) wrote:

Smokers die sooner....That helps with keeping the population in check. Since they don't live as long, we as Taxpayers don't have to cough-up the dough to keep them in Nursing Homes. Smoking is a Filthy disgusting habit, but people know what they are getting into when they start and there are lots of ways to quit now days. They even have Anti-Smoking campaigns in 3rd world countries.

Report this comment
#42) On June 22, 2009 at 12:30 PM, BigOlDave (48.86) wrote:

Rant on, fools!  MO continues to outpace the S&P, plus it shovels out 7% yields.  The company management is stellar.  If anyone smokes, they will benefit from the deep research being done at MO's Richmond labs.  And there will always be folks who will smoke because their parents forebade it.

Big down day for stock market today, but Altria (MO) plugs along in positive territory.

Owning MO isn't a vote in favor of smoking.  It's a bet that MO will prosper in a business under seige.  Doesn't TMF encourage investments in companies that have a dominant position and set the pace for the competition?

Think about it.  Invest in stocks like MO !!

Dave

Report this comment
#43) On June 22, 2009 at 10:37 PM, lucas1985 (< 20) wrote:

@ralphmachio;

"Darwinism, although I don't fully agree, states that the strong survive."

What's Darwinism? I only know about evolution. Also, natural selection doesn't mean survival of the fittest.

"What happens to our species when we legislate safety for the idiots who are supposed to die?  Does anyone see the potential of this plus the fact that stupid people generally produce more offspring?  that's right, reverse evolution!"

Evolution means change, not progress.

Please, take a college-level biology class.

On topic:

http://tobaccodocuments.org/

http://www.defendingscience.org/Doubt_is_Their_Product.cfm

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners