Disqus - Latest Comments for Sunshinegirl

Re: Ann Coulter's 'Child Actors' Claim Called Into Question

Sunshinegirl — Tue, 19 Jun 2018 23:22:54 -0000

The sorry excuse of a human, Ann Coulter, is once again being provocative to try to stay relevant so she can continue to sell books. Yes Ann, we are on to you and your very toxic existence and we no longer care what you have to say. Besides, more often than naught, you are wrong. Burrow back into your hole now. Off with you.

Re: Product Wars: Tara Ultra

Sunshinegirl — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 17:15:38 -0000

Ooh-la-la!

Re: Seaport Village in San Diego, CA | Vote: Fall Photo Contest

Sunshinegirl — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:09:18 -0000

I vote for Jax the K-9 Cop!

Re: Seaport Village in San Diego, CA | Vote: Fall Photo Contest

Sunshinegirl — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:08:44 -0000

I vote for Jax the K-9 Cop!

Re: Senator pushes for study of e-cigarettes

Sunshinegirl — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:08:57 -0000

Thanks for your comment. I am happy to have you as a reader. As to your comment,my sentiments exactly. It could be that e-cigs are a great compromise, but they may be just as dangerous as their traditional counterparts. Without adequate research the public just doesn't know how safe--or not--these products are.

Re: It's the nicotine, stupid: FDA Regulation of Tobacco and the E-Cig Controversy

Sunshinegirl — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:32:23 -0000

Tropical Bob,
Thanks for commenting. Congratulations of quitting smoking after 50 years. That is quite an accomplishment.

I agree with you, that on the surface the e-cigarettes appear to have a far less health risk than traditional cigarettes. It's no secret that they will kill you. Heck, the tobacco companies even agree with that now they have been litigated. I posted this for discussion and I am happy you and VItiamnN jumped in with your experience. I do think it is important to tell both sides of the e-cig controversy. So far, the research isn't there to say if they are safe or produce serious side effects. When the research is done, it may be that they are considerably a safer product, maybe not. The nicotine in these product is also a concern because of its addictive qualities and we just don't know yet how the find vapor mist will affect the lungs and other sensitive organs. I also think it is important to point out that I am not calling e-cigarettes a "cessation tool" the companies selling them are marketing e-cigarettes as such. Until some of these questions are answered (to protect the health and welfare of the consumer) it may be prudent to keep caveat emptor in mind, "Let the buyer beware."

Re: Tobacco Regulation: A deal with the Devil?

Sunshinegirl — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 19:02:46 -0000

I will be out of the office starting 04/16/2009 and will not return until
04/20/2009.

Re: Tobacco Regulation: A deal with the Devil?

Sunshinegirl — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 11:45:53 -0000

Rob, Thank you for your thoughtful post. I wanted to commend you on your last statement. "There's a lot more at stake here that what can be seen on the surface." I agree 100 percent. Tobacco and its potential regulation is a complicated political, economic and social issue that couldn't be more nuanced. Given the weakening of US regulation over the past 30 years, I often wonder if the FDA--given the chance-- will be up to the task. I certainly hold that protection of the public from Big Tobacco is needed, but I worry that it will be a preceived protection rather than real protective measures to ensure health risks associated with tobacco use plummet. We don't need another Patriot Act.

By the way, congratulation on quitting smoking. That is not an easy habit to break. Millions are strugging with it right now and statiscally speaking, three-fifths will fail on this attempt.

For those who are not familiar, Snus (sounds like "snoose") is a type of moist snuff first used in Sweden. It is often flavored with spices or fruit, and is usually packaged in thin bags much like tea bags. It is also sold loose, as a moist powder. Like snuff and other spit tobaccos, snus is held between the gum and mouth tissues where the juice is absorbed into the body.

Because it is heated during processing, Swedish snus has fewer tobacco-specific nitrosamines that are known to cause cancer. Snus users in Sweden have lower rates of several types of cancer than Swedish smokers. Because of this, some people believe snus is "safe." Sadly, snus users have a higher risk of cancer of the pancreas than non-users. They also get sores or spots in the mouth (lesions) where the snus is held. Studies point that snus users may have a higher incidence of mouth cancer than non-users, though more study needs to be done to confirm this.

Since US tobacco sellers are not required to list what is in their products, it would be hard to know how the US versions of snus might compare to the Swedish versions without doing studies here. I will take you at your word that there is no comparison between its Swedish counterpart. Since snus has just been introduced in the US, it is uncertain what other problems it might cause. But, we have to disgree here. Snus is not a "safe" alternative to smoking as there are still higher than average (in the population) risks for serious illness associated with its use, although it may be safer than smoking. For this reason, I still stand by my claim that there is no safe tobacco.

Re: Tobacco Regulation: A deal with the Devil?

Sunshinegirl — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 11:50:11 -0000

Mr. Unz, very well said. Thanks for your post. Clearly the FDA regulation bill is not perfect legislation in its current form, but I do feel at least there is finally some legislative movement in the right decision.

I readily admit the tobacco is one of the most micro-nuanced issues in society today and it has many moving parts and in the end, someone is going to be unhappy. Still, one has to scratch their head and wonder why tobacco has been a government-subsidized crop for generations and at the same time, cigarettes have been acknowledged (by Big Tobacco and government alike) to be a dangerous product that if used as directed it will kill half the people who use them. Yet legislators insist that any regulation would do nothing but harm an industry that is responsible for untold human suffering and death not to mention catastrophic medical expenses (borne by us all.)

It does seem apparent that tobacco companies can read the smoke signals coming from Washington, as they move away from tobacco products that are smoked to smokeless products, so your theory is likely correct that cigarettes will vanish in the not too distant future. However, while tobacco landscape is changing here, cigarettes are still a cash cow in developing countries and we are only starting to see the health and social and economic consequences there.

There is no such thing as a safe tobacco product, but clearly there can be a less harmful (and less addictive) product and hopefully this legislation will protect what is in the best interest of all people rather than what is best for a few corporations.

Re: Smoking and Pregnancy: New study says quit by 15th Week

Sunshinegirl — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 10:52:18 -0000

Thanks for leaving a comment. I believe the experts agree with you. Anyone planning to become pregnant should quit smoking prior to becoming pregnant. It will be interesting to see if this new study will gather any steam from the medical and research communities. I think the point here is if you are in your first trimester of pregnancy and still smoking, do the right thing for yourself and your unborn baby.

Re: A first step toward tobacco regulation

Sunshinegirl — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 13:02:51 -0000

As I understand it, nonprofit 501c3 organizations can not participate in partisan political issues. They can, however, engage in policy decisions that support their mission. Lobbying is primarly done by a separate organization that operates independently under a separate tax code (501c4). Likewise, religious organizations who engage in partisan politics from the pulpit can lose their tax-exempt status (rightfully so) if they are instructing the congregation to vote for one candidate or issue over another. If a clergy urges his or her congregation to vote but doesn't indicate HOW to vote, this is considered ok and does not violate this particular tax code.

Generalsn, I commend you on quitting smoking. I am involved with a number of people who want to quit but can't seem to make it happen. They say it is the hardest thing they have ever tried to do. While I certainly acknowledge that smoking tobacco is a personal choice, it is no less a personal choice than not to smoke, or to want to breathe in the smoke of others. Each should have the right to make that choice, and alas, smokefree laws are that compromise. What I didn't know is that it is ethical for police officers to chose which laws they enforce and which laws they turn a blind eye to, on or off duty. If we are a nation of laws, as we proclaim, we should uphold all laws or work through the proper channels to change them. The one area where I think we may disagree is that smokers, when smoking, are not bothering anyone else. Ignoring smokefree laws is a kin to the person who believes a stop sign is "only a suggestion." They may disagree with where the stop sign has been placed, and they don't feel motivated to observe it, but ignoring it has the potential to not only harm themselves but also others' lives and property. There are many personal choices each of us make every day that do affect others unintentionally. I do want to thank you for weighing in on this subject. Please post any time and thank you for the great conversation.

Re: A first step toward tobacco regulation

Sunshinegirl — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:56:27 -0000

Hello Michael-- Thank you for posting this information. I have some information on Philip Morris' support of this bill and it only makes sense that if they support it, it is only for some self interest, but I have yet to see specifically what the negotiation yeilds for the company. Purportedly the compromise gives Philip Morris an edge over its competitors, but again, I have not seen specifics. Can you share details by leaving a link? I would love to have more information on this bill. I am just thrilled that something is being done to regulate tobacco products. I truly believe that is a good thing, but as they say in Washington, the devil is in the details. Thanks again for weighing in.

Re: A first step toward tobacco regulation

Sunshinegirl — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 10:33:47 -0000

Thanks for posting Generalsn. Clearly we see things differently on this issue, but I am happy to discuss it with you. I don't think that the primary roles of these non-profit groups have changed as each is educating and researching health issues. Each of these groups do have advocacy as part of their missions and this serves an important role, as I see it, in that education process. It wouldn't seem unethical to me if a group discovered something is harmful that is killing hundreds of thousands of people each year and didn't take a public stand, and more importantly, engage in the democratic government to change it. I don't believe that asking that tobacco products have the same regulatory standards as any other product that is inhaled, adsorbed or ingested into one's body amount to Gestapo tactics. That's seems a little melodramatic to me. Would you care to elaborate?

Re: Is a nonsmoking nation possible? Welcome to Bhutan

Sunshinegirl — Mon, 02 Mar 2009 17:20:25 -0000

Thank you for posting your specific question. Truely fascinating . I have posed your question to a Bhutanese journalist and will post the information as it is shared.

Prometheus huh? He caused blind hopes to live in the hearts of men.

Re: Smoking in Paradise: Hawaii's Secondhand Smoking Ban

Sunshinegirl — Sun, 01 Mar 2009 19:34:29 -0000

Bob, thanks for posting. I am happy you mentioned the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. They are doing some amazing things to help Americans live healthier lives and get the care they need. Check them out at http://www.rwjf.org/about/

Re: Global cancer burden increases as tobacco is embraced in emerging and middle income countries

Sunshinegirl — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:02:08 -0000

Herefreeman, I am afraid there is overwhelming evidence to dispute your primary claim here, "that disease has never been scientifically proven to be caused by tobacco." That is an argument that tobacco companies have used for years to avoid paying claims for people who have sued them.

However, the cat is out of the bag on this one. Tobacco companies have admitted to varying degrees that cigarette smoking CAUSES cancer. Prior to 2003 when they started to loose court case after court case, the tobacco industry used seven main arguments, which are currently housed in the Tobacco Deposition and Trial Archive (DATTA).

Tobacco Industry arguments included "absence of scientific proof that cigarette smoking causes cancer, denials that the plantiff had lung cancer, accepting the plaintiff had lung cancer, just not the variety caused by cigarettes."

In cases brought before the court, the defense also argued that the "presence of ther risk factors invalidated the claims that tobacco was solely responsible" and that the "plaintiff had exercised of free will."

In essence, the cigarette companies through their public admissions and courtroom arguments seem to be saying, "Yes, smoking causes lung cancer, but not in the people who sue us."

If the companies themselves admit that "if used as directed, their product may kill you," why is it so hard for you to accept that there is a body of evidence that proves your main argument wrong?

Would you identify your source for the $800 million spent annually to fight tobacco for me? I can't seem to find that number in the many reports I have access to.

I can tell you that according to Common Cause, the tobacco industry has made more than $1.5 million in political contributions directly to federal candidates in the 2007-2008 election cycle and $18 million was spent on professional lobbying firms (to kill FDA regulation of tobacco products).

During the 2005-2006 election cycle, the tobacco industry gave more than $2.3 million in contributions directly to federal candidates and spent $20 million on professional lobbying firms and in-house lobbyists.

Additionally, tobacco companies contributed more than $6.2 million to “527 groups” since August 2000. Sometimes referred to as “stealth PACs,” 527s are political committees formed for the purpose of influencing elections, but cannot directly contribute to federal candidates or use words that expressly advocate someone’s election or defeat.

I will give you one point. "If tobacco disappeared tomorrow, the diseases would remain." I think that is possibly true, since some of the diseases mentioned may have other risk factors associated to them, but the overall reduction in healthcare costs, human tradegy and the pain and suffering directly related to smoking would all but diminish in a nonsmoking world. Does it not make sense to use the research we have to prevent some cancer from happening in the first place?

Re: Global cancer burden increases as tobacco is embraced in emerging and middle income countries

Sunshinegirl — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 12:01:10 -0000

http://www.tobacco-facts.info/

Re: Electronic cigs safe ? It's anybody's guess

Sunshinegirl — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:48:34 -0000

Thanks for posting your comments. You make some points I see differently than you do, so we may have to agree to disagree. It is a good conversation however and I want to thank you for your engagement.

Your first point, "Why should anyone care if someone enjoys smoking if there are not health consequences?" strikes at the very point I was making here. It may be too soon to know if there are any health consequences, let alone serious health consequences. Like light cigarettes, in the 1970s these are being marketed as a safe alternative, but there is little to no proof they are actually safe.

Second, it is not immaterial to this discussion whether e-cigs help people quit since they are actively being marketed as a viable cessation tool, another point I was making here. While this may seem harmless on the surface, it is quite relevant since e-cigs can be just as addictive as regular cigarettes.

Third, while the amount of nicotine is a concern for me and others, simply put, because it is the addictive agent we are talking about here. But I have to say I am questioning as much the other unknown chemicals that are being inhaled from the cartridges as I am about the amount of nicotine. Would they be considered safe if the full ingredients were made public?

Lastly, I reject the notion that smoking is a "benefit" to any person, and that "nicotine makes their brains work a little better." I wrote about this in http://nonsmokingnation.blo....

Nicotine may FEEL like it is a benefit because after smoking, the nicotine triggers brain neurotransmitters, raising the heart rate and respiration (breathing) rate, and causing more glucose, or blood sugar, to be released into the blood. This might be why smokers feels more alert after smoking a cigarette. In reality, a smoker's brain has been altered by repeatedly introducing nicotine. I have seen the brain scans of long time smokers vs. those who have never smoked and there are real differences. Simplistically speaking, the nicotine has trained the limbic system to crave tobacco.

I believe the jury is still out on these products and it may be years before we know for sure if they are safe. It is purely one's right to use these products, but I would hope before jumping in one would get the facts. Anyone using these products should know before indulging they are the human guinea pigs for what we will discover down the road.

Re: Health organizations caution against electronic cigarettes

Sunshinegirl — Mon, 23 Feb 2009 17:49:19 -0000

Prohealth, thank you for your comments. As I understand it, when a puff is inhaled on an electronic cigarette, a fine heated mist is absorbed into the lungs and mixed with carbon dioxide, and is exhaled as a solid gas that looks like smoke. This may sound positive, but there are caveats.

First, these most of these units are manufactured in China. The nicotine is contained in a small liquid-filled cartridge with other unspecified chemicals. With the number of contaminated products coming from China recently, this is a concern. I would love to know what the unspecified chemicals actually are.

Also, the cartridges also come in a multitude of candy flavors, making them suspiciously attractive to minors.

While they are being casually sold as a smoking cessation device, e-cigs are not recognized as such by the U.S. Government or WHO. To formally market as a smoking cessation device would require FDA oversight, such as nicotine patches and gum. Would e-cigs pass FDA approval? That might improve the level of public confidence for the product.

Of course the jury is still out as to how safe these devices actually are. For the millions of smokers struggling to quit, it would be a Godsend to find a product that would produce results without health risks. There are just too many unaswered questions about these products and I fear for the human guinea pigs who buy in without know all the facts. I personally can't get past the idea that an e-cig smoker is still inhaling chemicals, which begs to question, is one chemical better than another. Time will tell.

Re: Should smokers be paid to quit?

Sunshinegirl — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 11:32:47 -0000

Herefreeman, absolutely smokers feel the tax pinch where nonsmokers do not. Health organizations stand on a large body of research that show raising the cost of smoking does deter new smokers from starting and increases the number of current smokers who stop.The research says "a 10% increase in the cost of tobacco will result in a nearly 7% decline in youth prevalence, a 2% decline in adult prevalence and a 4% decline in overall consumption." In the end, that is less smokers to pay for the SCHIP program, (your main point) but the overall result should be a healthier population. I am not sure what your point is about the lies and deception, would you care to elaborate?

Re: Who Still Smokes?

Sunshinegirl — Mon, 12 Jan 2009 17:56:44 -0000

You are absolutely right Will. To see how much is really costs to buy cigarettes, check out this cool calculator tool:
http://www.cancer.org/docro...

Re: How to Add Facebook Connect to Blogger in 12 Simple Steps

Sunshinegirl — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 12:53:17 -0000

Will, I gave it a shot and will let you know how it goes. I blog on blogger and it sounds like there are questions from others if it will work on that platform or not. In the meantime, check out the blog at http://nonsmokingnation.blo... and ost a comment so I can see if its working. Cheers!