I will take the high road thank you.

If you smoke you are not allied with the Healthcare sociopath radicals or with the Tobacco industries selling you products you have not been allowed to investigate. An investigation was never provided through a simple ingredients list. A list if not regulated, as it currently is not, could show them both for the criminals they are. You stand-alone and have rights which are not being protected as both camps seek to profit from your misfortune. Not having the resources to make your voice heard is the disadvantage allowing this to happen. As with all wars you are the innocent civilian population being decimated as casualties of the warring factions being deprived of your international rights to security of the person. The combatants fail to honor the rules of engagement or those rights set out in the Geneva Convention or reinforced in Nuremberg. Civilian casualties have been excessive slated as preventable deaths by both sides yet no human civility has been demonstrated or any effort to prevent them. Rather war cries in the media have increased the effect in the planned violence in our streets. The casualties are thought to be necessary in order to contrast the extremes in media spin. How many have died already and how many more before we force them to listen and end the carnage being created for our own protection.

Smokers hold the high ground yet we believe they should be the ones to bear the shame. Smokers have for years through media presentations been taught to believe they should be ashamed of their personal choice to use a legal product. Governments have capitalized on that shame through the invention of what they call a sin tax. A sin not based in moral or ethical and in the wider view legal grounds. This tax is to compensate Government failures to act and prevent the so-called preventable deaths. I cite articles in the BMJ Tobacco control publication. By understanding the ethical perspective we can see the war on tobacco is largely based in low road positioning promoting hatred in society and can, if rights are demanded, be easily shamed and defeated. A jury trial should be unanimous in their decision when the facts are presented. Smokers are enduring an attack on their rights to the person. Misinformation of the Tobacco control movement violates international laws consistent with the laws, which resulted in the hanging of doctors in Nuremberg. Their own assessments of what they are engaged in are ignored by their fellows. When you examine the efforts of ASH and others without shame openly promoting the hatred of others. You have no need to walk in shame when the criminals are purchasing the media presentations, which made you feel you should. It is not as if their advisers had not warned them alas they fell to the wishes of the radicals now they will all be painted with the wide brush of their own choosing as stakeholders in the Great Healthcare Gold rush.

This is a quote describing how the anti smokers have failed to respect the rules of engagement in the war they declared on you. Stakeholders should now bear the shame. They indeed walk the low road in every perspective of ethical behavior.

“WHY IS ETHICS IMPORTANT IN TOBACCO

CONTROL?�

“The tobacco control community lacks a comprehensive understanding of ethics.⁶ The closest that exists is the 1989 book, No smoking: the ethical issues, in which Robert Goodin explores the ethical underpinnings of tobacco control policies and examines whether they are morally sound.⁷ Although it is somewhat dated and presents a rather formulaic response, it is still the most comprehensive identification of the ethical issues in tobacco control to date. Unfortunately, the book has fallen out of print and has not played a significant role in the tobacco control debate. Thus, despite Goodin’s assertion that "moral philosophy is an indispensable first step in [the] larger political campaign", little follow up work has been done.

In turn, this has allowed the tobacco control community to be defined by its desire to defeat the tobacco industry, at the expense of its desire to protect the public. This conclusion can be drawn from an examination of the metaphors used by the tobacco control community. One of the most common is the epidemiologic model in which the industry is characterised as a disease vector—that is, a flea or tick that should be controlled.⁸ Alternatively, the imagery has been that of armed conflict. Dr David Kessler referred to the efforts to pass Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulation as "A Great American Battle"⁹ and other tobacco researchers have referred to tobacco control policy debates as "war".^10,11 No less an authority than former Surgeon General C Everett Koop resorted to a pugilistic metaphor in his keynote address to the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco in 2003. When discussing if the public health community should enter into conversations with the tobacco industry, he advised that:â€�

“An industry that has delivered so many punches below the

belt and kills a half million of its most loyal customers each

year just to make money has no right to ask for Marquis of

Queensbury rules.�12

“The power of the tobacco industry and its aggressive

opposition to tobacco control programmes may mean that

these metaphors are apt, but they are risky. For example,

within Dr Koop’s statement one could read a subtle

implication that the public health community would be

justified in not following rules of engagement. Right or

wrong, the implication of these metaphors is that the public

health community will operate outside of the rules to do

whatever it takes to win—hardly a moral foundation for

resonating with the public.�

In a war, we have to learn to expect casualties. Both factions are to avoid civilian targets. We do not have to accept casualties from friendly fire especially if casualties are the result of government incompetence or a plan designed to increase the profits of industry.

The articles listed here are highly important and should be understood in order to understand your rights as an individual. Currently those rights are being ignored knowingly and many do not realize it because ad agency spin has lead many of us to believe no such rights exist.

Scientific buffoonery

Kevin M. Mulvina, et al.

Tobacco Control Online, 15 Mar 2006 [Full text]

Individual rights advocacy in tobacco control policies: an assessment and recommendation

"Not safe" is not enough: smokers have a right to know more than there is no safe tobacco product

RWJF proves my point for me here. With the research in hand, they continued to fund unethical lobbyists ignoring their own research in the process. Industry and the health advocates deliberately funded violence and misinformation in our communities. Casualties are to all of community not only smokers as the non-smoking community is affected as well victims of unnecessary violence. Ignorance of the law can be no defense here, these research studies should prove, as the Tobacco papers did in the past the best practices in their own research has been ignored to the peril of others. The same accusations they leveled against the tobacco industries permanently vilifying the industry a perspective they can now share. Demonstrated here the ethical considerations were discussed and largely ignorred.

Framing tobacco control efforts within an ethical context

The source of funding, a shoot yourself in the foot perspective resonates well here. No cloak and dagger delivering of boxes to a garbage bin, but real research openly accessible and in their own words.

“Funding for this research is from a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The author also wishes to thank Amy Williamson, Joanna Cohen, James Katz, Stella Bialous, and Ken Warner for their helpful assistance on this work.�

Johnson and Johnson the family company?

1. Poirier M. "Ethics vs. Activists: The Tobacco Experience, Notes for a Presentation to The Canadian Club." 16 Oct. 2002. http://www.tobacco.org/resources/Documents/021016poirier.html (Accessed 17 Mar 2004).

2. Cohen JE. Universities and tobacco money. BMJ 2001;323:1–2.[Free Full Text]

3. Jacobson PD, Soliman S. Co-opting the health and human rights movement. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:705–15.[Medline]

4. RJ Reynolds. "Partisan Project." 14 Nov, 1986. Bates No. 505467389/7392. http://tobaccodocuments.org/landman/505467389-7392.html (Accessed 15 Mar 2004).

5. Fiore MC, Bailey WC, Cohen SJ, et al. Treating tobacco use and dependence. Clinical Practice Guideline. Rockville, Maryland: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services, June, 2000.

6. Mann JM. Medicine and public health, ethics and human rights. In: Beauchamp DE, Steinbock B, eds. New ethics for the public’s health. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999:83–93.

7. Goodin RE. No smoking: the ethical issues. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1989.

8. In: Orleans C, Slade J, eds. Nicotine addiction: principles and management. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

9. Kessler D. A question of intent: a great American battle with a deadly industry. New York: Public Affairs, 2001.

10. Glantz SA, Balbach ED. Tobacco war: inside the California battles. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

11. Pertschuk M. Smoke in their eyes: lessons in movement leadership from the tobacco wars. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2001.

12. Koop CE. Keynote address to the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco 9^th Annual Meeting, New Orleans, February 20, 2003.

13. Fox B, Cohen JE. Tobacco harm reduction: a call to address the ethical dilemmas. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4 (suppl 2) :S81–7.[CrossRef][Medline]

14. Annas GJ. Questing for grails: duplicity, betrayal, and self-deception in postmodern medical research. In: Mann JM, Gruskin S, Grodin MA, Annas GJ, eds. Health and human rights: a reader. New York: Routledge, 1999:312–35.

15. Lakoff G. Moral politics: how liberals and conservatives think. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002.

16. Upshur REG. Principles for the justification of public health intervention. Can J Public Health 2002;93:101–3.[Medline]

17. Jacobson PD, Soliman S. Co-opting the health and human rights movement. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:705–15.[Medline]

18. Warner KE. Tobacco harm reduction: promise and perils. Nicotine Tob Res 2002;4:S61–71.[CrossRef][Medline]

19. Fox BJ. The ethics of tobacco taxation. Poster presented at SRNT Conference, Scottsdale, Arizona, February 2004.

20. Mills SL. Tobacco and health disparities. Am J Public Health 2004;94:173.[Free Full Text]

21.Kozlowski LT. First, tell the truth: a dialogue on human rights, deception, and the use of smokeless tobacco as a substitute for cigarettes. Tobacco Control 2003;12:34–6.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

22. Thoms JC, Sage M, Dillenberg J, et al. A code of ethics for public health [editorial]. Am J Public Health 2002;92:1057–9.[Free Full Text]

23. Katz J. Individual rights advocacy in tobacco control policies: an assessment and recommendation. Tobacco Control 2005;14 (suppl II) :ii31–7.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

24. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. On being a scientist. Washington DC: National Academy Press, 1995.

25. Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society. Honor in science. New Haven, Connecticut: Sigma Xi, 1986.

26.Childress JF, Faden RR, Gaare RD, et al. Public health ethics: mapping the terrain. J Law Med Ethics 2002;30:170–8.[Medline]

27. Butler K. The moral status of smoking. Social Theory & Practice 1993;19:1–26.

28. Chapman S. Banning smoking outdoors is seldom ethically justifiable. Tobacco Control 2000;9:95–7.[Free Full Text]

29.Chapman S, Liberman J. Ensuring smokers are adequately informed: reflections on consumer rights, manufacturer responsibilities, and policy implications. Tobacco Control 2005;14 (suppl II) :ii8–13.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

30.Chapman S. The ethics of tobacco advertising and advertising bans. Br Med Bull 1996;52:121–31.[Abstract]

31. Weinstein ND. Accuracy of smokers’ risk perceptions. Ann Behav Med 1998;20:135–40.[Medline]

32. Weinstein ND, Marcos SE, Moser RP. Smokers’ unrealistic optimism about their risk. Tobacco Control 2005;14:55–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

33. Centers for Disease Control. Cigarette smoking among adults—United States, 2000. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2000;51:642–5.

34. Batra V, Patkar AA, Berrettini WH, et al. The genetic determinants of smoking. Chest 2003;123:1730–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

35. Marks JL, Hill EM, Pomerleau CS, et al. Nicotine dependence and withdrawal in alcoholic and nonalcoholic ever-smokers. J Substance Abuse Treatment 1997;14:521–7.[CrossRef][Medline]

36. Lasser K, Boyd JW, Woolhandler S, et al. Smoking and mental illness: a population-based prevalence study. JAMA 2000;284:2606–10.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

37. Giovino GA. Epidemiology of tobacco use in the United States. Oncogene 2002;21:7326–40.[CrossRef][Medline]

38. Remier DK. Poor smokers, poor quitters, and cigarette tax regressivity. Am J Public Health 2004;94:225–9.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

39.Beauchamp DE. Public health as social justice. Inquiry 1976;13:3–14.[Medline]

40. Healton C, Nelson K. Reversal of misfortune: viewing tobacco as a social justice issue. Am J Public Health 2004;94:186–91.[Free Full Text]

41. Churchill LR. What ethics can contribute to health policy. In: Danis R, Clancy C, Churchill LR, eds. Ethical dimensions of health policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002:51–64.