Smoking is... good?

  • Thread starter Thread starter morgan
  • Start date Start date
Smoking banned in DC, but not in Congress

Christopher Buckley's movie "Thank you for smoking" is out here. Haven't watched it yet, just read the director's bio instead:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Buckley

Christopher Taylor Buckley (born 1952) is an American political satirist and author of several novels. He is the son of William F. Buckley, Jr.. His novels include God Is My Broker, Thank You For Smoking: A Novel, Little Green Men, The White House Mess, No Way to Treat A First Lady, Wet Work and, most recently, Florence of Arabia.

After a classical education at the Portsmouth Abbey School, Buckley, like his father, graduated from Yale University, as a member of Skull and Bones. He became managing editor of Esquire Magazine and later worked as the chief speechwriter for Vice President George H. W. Bush. This experience led to his novel The White House Mess, a satire on White House office politics. (The title refers to the White House lunchroom, which is known as the "mess" because the Navy operates it.)

hank You For Smoking: A Novel is another satire, its protagonist a lobbyist for the tobacco industry, Nick Naylor. He followed that with more humor about Washington in the form of Little Green Men, about the government agency investigating UFO sightings, which turns out it really is a government conspiracy led by a Strom Thurmond-like U.S. Senator. His No Way To Treat A First Lady has the president's wife on trial for assassinating her husband and Florence of Arabia is about a do-gooding State Department bureaucrat in the Middle East. His one serious novel, Wet Work, is about a father avenging his daughter's death from drugs.

Thank You for Smoking has been adapted into a movie written and directed by Jason Reitman starring Aaron Eckhart. It was released on March 17, 2006.

Buckley also wrote the non-fiction Steaming To Bamboola, about the merchant marine, and is an editor at Forbes Magazine.

He has two children from his marriage and a son with a former mistress.
Quite interesting, isn't it? And now the novel itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thank_You_For_Smoking:_A_Novel

Thank You For Smoking: A Novel is a novel by Christopher Buckley, first published in 1994, which tells the story of the life of Nick Naylor, a tobacco lobbyist during the '90s.

Naylor is the chief advocate for the Academy of Tobacco Studies, a thinly-disguised publicity firm designed to promote the benefits of cigarettes made by the tobacco companies Naylor, to all intents and purposes, represents.

He utilizes high-profile media events-including appearances on television shows that readers of this novel would immediately recognize-and intentionally provocative rhetoric in order to highlight what his clients view as an unfair crusade against tobacco and nicotine products.

The political satire is heightened by Naylor's informal association with lobbyists from other industries that are subjected to routine vilification in the media, e.g. Polly Bailey-a lobbyist for the alcohol/spirits industry-and Jay Bliss, who represents the firearms industry.

Collectively, they form what is known as the M.O.D. Squad, "MOD" in this case standing for the phrase "Merchants Of Death."

A pivotal point in the plot occurs when Naylor is kidnapped by a clandestine organization, which then proceeds to cover him in nicotine patches. It is only subsequently that we discover that this was not a rogue, anti-tobacco group, but in fact a clever plot orchestrated by higher-ups within the tobacco industry.

In this respect, the plot mirrors one of Christopher Buckley's other satirical novels, "Little Green Men."

A movie based on the novel was released in 2006. While the characters are essentially the same, the plot differs substantially.
 
is anti-smoking about to take a backseat to obesity?

I think that this will be the new obsession, what do you think?


Search: Surgeon General
The Surgeon General's Call to Action to Prevent and Decrease Overweight and Obesity
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/topics/obesity/

Sleepless Children at Higher Obesity Risk
http://news.yahoo.com/s/hsn/20061019/hl_hsn/sleeplesschildrenathigherobesityrisk;_ylt=Aiaw6NxfSUlKYf6ibJf7_FTVJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

One billion people overweight, 300 million obese worldwide
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061019/hl_afp/afplifestyleushealth;_ylt=Ap9ufPn2RR81M4aTvxNpMG_VJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

NFL joins fight against child obesity
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061019/ap_on_he_me/nfl_kids_fitness;_ylt=AmiiP7F5Btd..peSogsbidfVJRIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA0cDJlYmhvBHNlYwM-

Experts to discuss US obesity epidemic
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061019/ts_alt_afp/afplifestyleushealthobesity_061019115936

Judge stays execution for ex-cult leader who claims obesity will interfere with death
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ct/20061018/cr_ct/judgestaysexecutionforexcultleaderwhoclaimsobesitywillinterferewithdeath

Arena's New Obesity Drug Could Fatten Company's Stance in the Market
http://www.sdbj.com/article.asp?aID=39275818.3251459.1377363.6433789.3434041.716&aID2=105942

A New Breed
Of 'Diet' Pills
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115620617571041689-drduK8S5NbekLyKBDDnWZ8rINrI_20070822.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top
 
is anti-smoking about to take a backseat to obesity?

Backseat for smoking? Maybe both smoking and obesitas are sitting on the opposite seats of a seesaw.

An ever losing game ...

You keep on smoking and you stay slim. Or,
You quit smoking and you become obese.



Use the seesaw metaphorically though.
If you use it too literally you get something like this :

http://cagle.msnbc.com/artists/Lester/LesterSamples/seesaw-01.jpg
 
is anti-smoking about to take a backseat to obesity?

"The scourge of obesity"
........................all badnews??

To see the silver lining, read this.

Carbon/Satan
Harvesting the Vineyards

In Revelations there is the conclusion whereby two angels having sickles, as they are called, are sent forth to "harvest the vineyards for they are fully ripe". The meaning of this has been explained to me and can be understand when you learn more about the ripening process of carbon life forms.
When organisms reach a certain maturity, genes trigger their cells to begin to release a hormone known as ethylene. This causes their metabolism to change over from the production of structural tissues used for growth, to the production of sugars and fats for storage. This is then deposited in the organism for use during Winter here on Earth, or for the food for other species and the dispersion of seeds which can be contained within its "fruiting body".
The human species, through its industry, predictably began the production of ethylenes around WW II, the 1940s, making plastic food wraps, or polyethylene bags, films, and food storage containers. This was also a time of rapid petroleum sbsorption. Remember Tupperware? Almost everything humans eat is now filled with ethylenes and it saturates human tissue. It works well, and the result of course has prompted the organs of our food industry to produce sugars and oils, and for the public to grow increasingly fat, due to the higher hormone levels in the individuals, which also makes them each convert all their food to fats. This phenomena is not yet recognized by human scientists.
In the mid 19th century, certain whales, the Right Whale, and especially Sperm Whales, were hunted almost to extinction because of the high quality of their oils, for phamapseutacles, lubricants, skin care products, and many other uses. But human oil, cold pressed like wine, is unequaled for its rich hormone content, and its light oils which can be extracted and used for everything from rejuvenating tissues, to the production of prosthesis and complete organs. It is collected in a process similar to suction harvesting, a very selective technique, and anyone slender would not be collected having almost no economic value. The cold rendered oil, known in the trade as "Jaequer" (phonetic spelling), is highly prized. It can sell on the open market for much more than other commonly traded commodities when in season. Black market prices are higher. But I get ahead of myself.
The Earth lies in a rural area of our galaxy, out toward the rim. From the more dense urban center, it takes lots of fuel. This means that there needs to be a large enough crop for it to be economically advantageous for the hunter/farmers to "get it to market" from our region. And there is a misconception about what angels are: they are not necessarily good, or bad; but they are absolutely much larger than any human person, for sure.
Jaequer is rare in a universe where competition is strong and most life forms remain rather lean in their struggle for survival. Another major reason for limited supply is that species often suffers from injury due to a dull witted and aggressive faction seizing control of the group and waging battle, thus causing injury and depleting resources which could otherwise go into added weight gain for the heard. However, at this time portions of the Earth have been blessed with a sufficiently bountiful crop.
The current population of the USA has just turned 3 million, and conservatively speaking, 65 percent are nicely overweight or obese. This represents an attractive yield, about 6 billion pounds of Jaequer from the USA alone. One billion are overweight world wide, and 300 million are obese. This is definitely an economically viable yield.
It should be expected that the harvest of most of the Earth could begin very shortly as there seems to be a peak in rich petroleum deposits, so decline is population weight is likely soon. Typically, a farmplanet's population is reduced by about 3/4 in harvesting, and it is usually a time of great opportunity for those who remain, similar to past extinctions when larger organisms failed due to their inability to... adapt to sudden change. This failing then made way for the smaller but more agile and highly evolved animals to thrive.

* * *
Some of you have asked me about Adam Whitestone ... who he is. I do not know much about him other than we spent part of a very intense year working on his book. He taught me much. What can I say.....
He is a slender individual. I cannot tell how old he may be. He is traveling just now with business which takes him unimaginable distances, doing conservation work of some sort, or resource management, and it involves commodities trading as well.
He has been away for a couple of years but I do expect him soon, though it will probably not be this year. I expect that he may return early next year, right after the holidays.

Car..bon app
 
no surgery for smokers threat

From my persepective, if you are a smoker, check your insurance carrier
to see what their stance is. If they are against you, find a policy that will
guarantee your rights. If none, then seek a practioner who will accept your
"monthly insurance fee" so as to cut out the 'middle men'. This might restore
the power of bargaining to the people since it is the power of money that will
ensure change. Money is a bargaining tool, so use it wisely. OSIT.
 
no surgery for smokers threat

smoking is one of the things left that is both spontaneous and religious. It is a side-effect of freedom. A by-product, A perfect accessory to coffee. You say: "I want a roll-up" You reach into your pocket and you get a roll-up. It is a small divine achievment, a gratifiying construction (or requesition). It is the forger of great romances: without the timeless but soon extinguished"you got a light", where are the smoking underbelly all going to connect in a few years?
It makes you cough. It makes your skin go yellow and dry and wrinkled. It is dependance. I am confused to the changing position that the governments have on it. As the clagging phlegm greets the sink in the morning as you hack up the hideous backlash of last night's smoke-a-thon.What can we do instead?
I respect hardline tactics when it theoretically benefits us.
No Surgery for smokers--- I mean they are the surgeons, they want to work on people who care about themselves surely. I don't think it's up to the surgeons though. I care about myself even though I smoke.
Maybe they are right. We should basically all bite the bullet or the gum or the patch, convieniently passed to us over the counter, and give up. Then we can get our appendix swiped or our lungs patched or whatever.
Alternatively. I spent quite a few years smoking in secret. There is a lot of fun in that. Just lie to the ratworthy insurance companies. Give it up at your own pace, or not -Choice ( think of the kids)Lets get covert with just this one thing. Join the Secret Society who Smoke Hidden.
SSSH
 
no surgery for smokers threat

joejoeba said:
smoking is one of the things left that is both spontaneous and religious. It is a side-effect of freedom.
joejoeba said:
It makes you cough. It makes your skin go yellow and dry and wrinkled. It is dependance. I am confused to the changing position that the governments have on it.
yeah, like many people you seem unsure about the whole issue. is it dependence? or is it independence? I think that this mass-confusion is a deliberate psychological effect, created by the PTB's mixed messages over the years, regarding smoking.

Now though it is clear: many governments simultaneously across the globe are ramping up an almost hysterical witch-hunt against smokers, 'for their own good'. Isn't that enough to make one just a teensy bit sceptical as to their real motives?!

I think the movie 'Demolition Man' is a quite a good parody of what may happen when everything that is deemed dangerous (and who makes that decision anyway?) also becomes illegal - it looks like an integral part of the 'ponerisation' process.

(heh. I just realised what I typed above, a kind of freudian-typing-slip: that 'WHO' makes those decisions - ie the 'World Health Organisation' - whose website currently headlines with: 'Increased influenza vaccine production needed, says WHO'. hmmm...)

there is a trail evidence to suggest that there are other reasons for suppressing tobacco, such as its potential beneficial effects on brain activity, and that a lot of the modern 'science' on smoking is rather misleading. but we have all been so brainwashed on this issue, that it is now very difficult to discuss it (especially in public) without the emotional defense programs kicking in.
 
Anti-Smoking Guru dies of Lung Cancer

Here's the link to this news article

http://www.hc2d.co.uk/content.php?contentId=1334

Here's a snippet:

The anti-smoking guru Allen Carr has died from lung cancer.

The former 100-a-day smoker helped millions of smokers kick the habit, through his best-selling books detailing the Easyway method.


I am curious as to why is it depleted uranium and chemical additives aren't investigated with regards to lung cancer, and cancer in general. The dude quit, yet still he dies of lung cancer. So did Peter Jennings.

More fuel for the anti-smoking propagandists.

Funny how the UK newspaper versions of the story claim that his family, and friends suspect that he was killed by the second-hand smoke of the many smokers he cured.
"Friends said it seemed propable that the years he spent curing smokers in smoke-filled sessions at his clinics contributed to his illness" (London Paper, 29/11/06) www.thelondonpaper.com.

To the hard core anti-smoker, this issue is straight forward. But is it? Is the current level of anti-smoking propaganda 'fogging' peoples eyes, thus discourage any analytical or in-depth investigations as to the man's death?
 
Anti-Smoking Guru dies of Lung Cancer

Whist away at a hotel on business, a collegue and I sat down at a table to smoke in the hotels bar/pub, and were "told" by an old man sitting next to us, as we were about to light up, "you can't do that here". When we asked why, he said he has a lung condition which was caused by passive smoking, and that someone smoking next to him could cause him a lot of problems. So in order to smoke we had to go away from our table to the other side of the room. Anyhow we got talking to him and it turns out he was a mechanic for most of his life. It made us wonder if it really was passive smoking that had caused his lung condition, or if it was because he breathed in too many exhaust fumes...
 
Anti-Smoking Guru dies of Lung Cancer

wilecoyote said:
The dude quit, yet still he dies of lung cancer.
While I am not convinced myself that smoking alone causes lung cancer we must not jump to conclusions.

Just quiting will not save you from cancer.
Risk of lung cancer ( and other cnacers) is directly related to the number of years you have been smoking.

In worst cases it takse more then 20 years to diminish the risk of cancer to the same level of the one in non smokers.

Well at least this is what doctors say
 
Anti-Smoking Guru dies of Lung Cancer

His main aim was to feel happy and think positive. He's reported to be in a happy mood even after the diagnosis of the lung cancer... so, being himself the living proof that quit smoking is not the solution, neither for him nor for the thousands guys he directly or indirectly treated, I wonder what all this happiness is all about. Lack of conscience?

As Lobaczewski wrote: "It is also possible for optimism to be a pathological symptom."

Anyway, he said he was smoking 100 (!!!) cigarettes per day - 23 years ago. Just think about it, it's almost 5 times above the standard profile of the common 'heavy smoker'! Sure he had to quit smoking, that's real mental sickness and addiction dudes! Do I have to quit smoking because such man was crazy? ;-)
 
Anti-Smoking Guru dies of Lung Cancer

Russ said:
Anyhow we got talking to him and it turns out he was a mechanic for most of his life. It made us wonder if it really was passive smoking that had caused his lung condition, or if it was because he breathed in too many exhaust fumes...
Not to mention the really deadly stuff that comes out of brake assemblies... asbestos and so on.
 
The anti-tobacco campaign of the Nazis

This Article is located at:

http://www.bmj.com/archive/7070nd2.htm

Here is an excerpt from the Article byRobert N Proctor:


Historians and epidemiologists have only recently begun to explore the Nazi anti-tobacco movement. Germany
had the world's strongest anti smoking movement in the 1930s and early 1940s,encompassing bans on smoking
in public spaces, bans on advertising, restrictions on tobacco rations for women, and the world's most refined
tobacco epidemiology, linking tobacco use with the already evident epidemic of lung cancer. The anti-tobacco
campaign must be understood against the backdrop of the Nazi quest for racial and bodily purity, which also
motivated many other public health efforts of the era.


It's interesting that a lot of what the Nazis did, we are seeing a repeat in Western culture and politics, especially in the US. I wonder why the Nazis really wanted to stamp out smoking?

Here is a translated "Anti-smoking slogan from the article:


The chain smoker: 'You don't smoke it C it smokes you!" (from Reine Luft, 1941)


Where have I heard that before?

Just food for thought. Bon Appetit.
 

Trending content

Back
Top Bottom