[Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with facts."

[Joe Campbell]

Again it's not my argument but the argment is based on an appeal to  
Ockham's razor: don't needlessly multiply entities. If the body is  
essential for eternal life, why think that the soul is anything other  
than a set of bodily manifestations? The way I explain it to my  
students is: if you can explain the missing carrots from your garden  
with the hypothesis that they were eaten by a single rabbit, why  
suppose instead that it was 2 or 3 or 10 rabbits that ate them? All  
other things being equal accept the simplest theory available, which  
suggests one kind of thing (body) instead of two (body and soul).

On Jul 27, 2009, at 12:43 PM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com> wrote:

> I don't doubt for a moment the reality of the bodily (physical,  
> corporeal) resurrection -- I've staked my eternal soul on it -- but  
> don't see how that's an argument that strikes at my view that  
> humankind is made with a soul, in the image of God.
>
> ?????????????????????????
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people  
> with facts."
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:13:24 -0400
> CC: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Keely,
>
> My views on the mind-body problem are like my views on in-door  
> smoking in that I don't have any strong opinions either way. I am  
> unhappy with the details of this particular law -- the 20 foot rule  
> is just one example. That strikes me as unnecessary overkill. And it  
> is always a bad idea to pass a law that cannot be enforced.
>
> As for mind-body issues, I'm a true skeptic believing that knowledge  
> one way or the other is not possible. Nor do I think that anything  
> of importance rides on it. You might think that the immaterial soul  
> is essential to your Christian beliefs but many would disagree.  
> Aquinas, Leibniz, and Kant, for instance, believed in bodily  
> resurrection. Aquinas and Kant were dualists (I think) but Leibniz  
> was an idealist believing that everything was made up of immaterial  
> 'atoms' he called monads. All point point to biblical support for  
> bodily resurrection, like the fact the main indicator that Jesus  
> rose from the dead was that his body was missing from the cave that  
> it was placed in after his death. Again I'm no expert on this matter  
> (I hope I'm reporting the view correctly) but one of my colleagues  
> is working on this very issue from a Kantian perspective. If you  
> contact me offlist, I'd be happy to send you his email address.
>
> Following this lead, there are many contemporary Christian  
> philosophers who are materialists, such as Peter van Inwagen (Notre  
> Dame) and Hud Hudson (Western Washington), who are two of the most  
> brilliant and passionate Christians that I have met.
>
> Frankfurt gave a talk at WSU a few years back and I had the honor of  
> introducing him.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 26, 2009, at 11:25 AM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>  
> wrote:
>
> Interestingly enough, my son and I were just discussing Frankfurt  
> and Singer and he's reading your response right now.  (We were  
> discussing Frankfurt and Singer, by the way, with great charity and  
> patience on his part, given that I knew a little of Singer but was  
> in over my head after about three minutes).  I realize that much of  
> what I contend about the Imago Dei and the soul is the prerogative  
> of the religious person; I think I'm correct in believing this way,  
> I've staked my own soul on it, but the materialist will be  
> unconvinced until . . . well, until whatever proof would convince  
> him appears).
>
> Fascinating stuff, and I appreciate your response . . . a wealth of  
> info to digest.
>
> As for the smoking ban -- sorry!  I'm opposed.  I believe that bar  
> owners get to decide, and bar employees have decided.  As for the 20- 
> foot limit outside of even the One World or Mikey's -- way wrong,  
> and I'm not sure it's enforceable anyway.  On this one, I'm a  
> Libertarian.
>
> Which is the only time you're likely to ever hear me say that!
>
> Thanks, Joe,
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 21:37:30 -0700
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people  
> with facts."
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com
> CC: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com; vision2020 at moscow.com
>
> Dear Keely,
>
> Very good questions. I don't want to give the impression that I'm an  
> expert on personhood, for I'm not. My areas are metaphysics and  
> epistemology, not ethics. Also, the term 'person' has a wide array  
> of uses among philosophers. Some like Harry Frankfurt (Princeton),  
> who writes on issues about free will, think of personhood in terms  
> of volition, for instance, but I was speaking mainly about the use  
> of the term in philosophical debates about death: abortion,  
> euthanasia, animal rights, etc. It isn't quite right to define  
> 'person' as a being with rights but usually it turns out (given the  
> definition) that persons have full rights and non-persons have, at  
> most, limited rights. So it is hard to separate our contemporary  
> philosophical discussions of personhood from talk about rights.  
> Lastly, there are many common sense views on personhood that I won't  
> even mention. This is a report from the field (philosophy), so to  
> speak.
>
> In this context, Joel Feinberg (a former professor of mine at  
> Arizona who has since passed away) and Peter Singer (Princeton)  
> define 'person' (roughly) as a being with certain rational  
> capacities. Given that definition, it turns out that not all human  
> beings are persons since the kinds of capacities in question are not  
> developed until age 2 or so. It also turns out that some non-humans  
> are persons. I understand how this might sound absurd and offensive  
> to some but it is useful in answering questions about the rights to  
> life of various beings at various stages of development. Think of it  
> as a term of art. An interesting article along this lines, on the  
> abortion issue, is located here:
>
> http://www.iep.utm.edu/a/abortion.htm
>
> (I'm the metaphysics editor of the Internet Encyclopedia of  
> Philosophy, though I had nothing to do with this article. Another  
> good source for on-line philosophical articles is the Stanford  
> Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
>
> In any event, let's look more closely at the definitions that you  
> offer below and see what consequences follow were we to adopt them.  
> First, suppose that we define 'person' as a being with a soul. The  
> problem with this definition is that it is not clear when the term  
> applies or even if it ever does. Some folks are materialists, they  
> think that no one has a soul, in which case it follows that no human  
> beings are persons, which is even more absurd than the claim that  
> only some of them are persons. And what about animals? Do they have  
> souls? Again, it is not clear how we could answer that question.  
> Thus, defining 'person' as a being with a soul is not going to help  
> us to settle important questions like which beings do or do not have  
> rights, like the right to life. And the same problem holds if we  
> define 'person' as a being created in God's image. What does God  
> look like, and who's to say? For this reason, many philosophers have  
> searched for other definitions.
>
> Let's consider another group: beings with "volition, awareness of  
> self, capacity for relationship." Note first that these are three  
> distinct criteria. Ants have the capacity for relationship -- they  
> are social beings -- but likely not self-awareness or volition.  
> Humans are social beings and have self-awareness but whether they  
> genuinely have volition is a matter of debate (I think they do but I  
> won't want to hang any substantive hat on the matter). Do dogs have  
> volition or self-awareness? That's hard to say.
>
> Note too that NOT ALL humans have volition, self-awareness, or the  
> capacity for relationship. Just as with the Feinberg/Singer  
> definition, if you define 'person' as a being with, say, self- 
> awareness, then it is undeniable that no fetus is a person. Self- 
> awareness is not developed until well after birth. (Note that though  
> infants are not always persons, and thus have no rights according to  
> Feinberg, he still thinks that it is wrong to kill an infant, or to  
> abort a fetus after the point of viability, since the state still  
> has an interest in the protection and development of all humans and  
> after the point of viability the mother is no longer required for  
> this.)
>
> Perhaps what you meant was that a person is a being with the  
> potential for self-awareness, etc. But this definition seems ad hoc  
> since the only beings with the potential for all three capacities  
> are humans. It no longer seems like a discovery that all human  
> beings have rights, given that persons have rights, for the "fact"  
> appears to be pre-built into the definition. Given this, the result  
> is not surprising. And the problem is even worse if one defines  
> 'person' as human being, for this clearly begs all of the relevant,  
> interesting questions. That doesn't mean it isn't true but it is  
> unhelpful.
>
> Lastly, we have a final definition that is often used, which you  
> also hint: 'person' is a sentient being. Again, Peter Singer's views  
> are close to this, for while his definition of 'person' precludes  
> many animals from the full slate of rights "the capacity for  
> suffering" is "the vital characteristic that gives a being the right  
> to equal consideration" and moral worth <http://www.animal-rights-library.com/texts-m/singer02.htm 
> >.
>
> Thus, as you note, one might argue that non-human animals have  
> rights to life and protection even if they are not persons, for they  
> have the capacity to feel pain. Again, it is doubtful that this will  
> help in the case of abortion, since the capacity to feel pain  
> requires a level of self-awareness that humans are incapable of  
> until well after birth.
>
> In short, certainly a view like yours -- where only humans are  
> persons but animals have rights nonetheless -- is well in the  
> running and I did not mean to suggest otherwise. I don't have much  
> else to say other than that, personally, I believe in the sanctity  
> of human life -- maybe even the sanctity of life in general -- and  
> thus I think the issue of personhood is irrelevant to any of the  
> more interesting questions. This is a good thing since it is a  
> struggle to find a definition of 'person' that is (a) informative,  
> (b) non-question begging, and (c) gets the result that all humans  
> are persons.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> PS This was a "fair and balanced" report on the concept of  
> personhood from a contemporary, analytical, philosophical  
> perspective. I report, you decide! Don't make the Crabtree mistake  
> of thinking that just because I report an argument that I accept it.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 25, 2009, at 2:04 PM, keely emerinemix <kjajmix1 at msn.com>  
> wrote:
>
> Really?
>
> I'm sorry, but is the definition of "persons," in a philosophical  
> sense, simply that they enjoy a "right-to-life"?  Isn't there an  
> argument from necessary ontology that results in something being  
> described as having "personhood" -- i.e., volition, awareness of  
> self, capacity for relationship, and, of particular importance for   
> the religious, a soul as a creation in the imago Dei?
>
> I am becoming more and more convinced that, for me, and certainly  
> for the world in an ecological sense, the eating of animals is  
> wrong.  They're sentient beings, in my mind deserving of at least  
> minimal safeguards to their well-being - no torture for the benefit  
> of my mascara --  but they're not "persons."  All human beings are  
> persons; necessarily, from an ontological, not a philosophical,  
> perspective, all persons are human beings.  The necessary traits  
> that define biological human beings include personhood if that  
> biologically human being is allowed to develop, if for no other  
> reason than her creation in the image of God.
>
> Most religious people I know value, in some form or another, animal  
> life -- even if only in the service of their sustenance.  Some,  
> myself included, believe that while animals do not possess souls --  
> are not created in the image of the Creator -- they will be in  
> heaven, Eden recreated and teeming with the animals that delight  
> God, even if not created in God's image.
>
> Keely
> http://keely-prevailingwinds.blogspot.com/
>
>
>
>
> From: philosopher.joe at gmail.com
> To: lockshop at pull.twcbc.com
> Date: Sat, 25 Jul 2009 10:04:22 -0400
> CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people  
> with	facts."
>
> I should add that if erring on the side of caution were relevant,  
> you should be in favor of laws againts eating non-human animals.  
> After all, some think they're persons too -- not humans but persons,  
> things deserving of the right to life -- and who are you to say  
> otherwise? After all, we don't want to unknowingly kill persons, do  
> we?
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 3:40 PM, "the lockshop"  
> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
> "He believes that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all  
> other views. I believe it is not the kind of issue that anyone can  
> be certain of and that the law should deal with knowledge, not  
> certainty."
>
> Since I believe that the fetus is a person, how could I not believe  
> that it trumps all other views? Since, as you admit there is  
> uncertainty, I prefer to err on the side of caution and allow a  
> fetus to live rather than take a what the hell attitude and have an  
> innocent person die.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: Wayne Price
> Cc: the lockshop ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 11:36 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people  
> with facts."
>
> Wayne,
>
> I share your beliefs -- exactly. And in the past Crabtree has made  
> fun of these same beliefs, so don't expect him to respond. As in the  
> case of Sunil's questions, he'll remain silent when his  
> inconsistencies are obvious. The diiference between our views and  
> Crabtree's is that we genuinely respect freedom and think people  
> should decide for themselves about personal, religious,  
> philosophical issues. Crabtree is only for those freedoms that  
> coincide with his own world view. He is not for freedom per se. He  
> believes that his view that the fetus is a person trumps all other  
> views. I believe it is not the kind of issue that anyone can be  
> certain of and that the law should deal with knowledge, not certainty.
>
> Joe
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 2:14 PM, Wayne Price <bear at moscow.com> wrote:
>
> Gary,
>
> I too am stuck with this one. While I am personally anti-abortion, I  
> am still pro-choice on the matter. IF I were in a situation where  
> the abortion decision had to be made,  I would choose NOT to  
> terminate the pregnancy and put the child up for adoption. HOWEVER,  
> I still believe that the choice to be made should NOT be the  
> governments to make but the individuals.
>
>
>
>
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is mis-stating my position really the only way you can think of to  
> try and make a valid point?
>
> As I have said repeatedly, I believe that if homosexuals can find  
> someone who is willing to pronounce them man and man, wife and wife,  
> or man, wife, wife, or any permutation thereof then swell, I wish  
> them the best. What I am not in favor of is in my or the state being  
> forced to recognize it.
>
> With regard to the abortion issue though I've really got to admit  
> that you've got me caught on the horns of a delimma. How could I not  
> see the similarity between making a choice that has a 1 in 15 chance  
> of potentially damaging the  health of the person doing the choosing  
> and making a decision that has a 100% chance of killing an innocent  
> party?
>
> In both of your examples the decision extends to others who will not  
> be given a choice to participate. Bar patrons and employess do get  
> to make an informed choice and as a result your comments seem a  
> trifle lame.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Joe Campbell
> To: the lockshop
> Cc: TIM RIGSBY ; <starbliss at gmail.com> ; <vision2020 at moscow.com>
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 9:29 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people  
> with facts."
>
> You don't even think that ADULTS are able to make decisions about  
> whom to marry or whether pr not to have children, so stop pretending  
> to respect a person's right to make decisions for him or herself!
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 24, 2009, at 12:11 PM, "the lockshop"  
> <lockshop at pull.twcbc.com> wrote:
>
> It would seem that you, Mr. Moffet, and our city council have a  
> mighty low opinion of the intelligence of the patrons and employees  
> of bars and taverns. I can't speak for your students but, I find it  
> very difficult to believe that by the time a citizen reaches the age  
> of 21 in the United States he hasn't heard the anti-smoking mantra  
> to the point of nausea.
>
> How lucky we are that there are people out there who will take it  
> upon themselves to prevent emancipated Americans from making their  
> own decisions with regard to the risks they take in life.
>
> g
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: TIM RIGSBY
> To: starbliss at gmail.com ; vision2020 at moscow.com
> Sent: Friday, July 24, 2009 7:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people  
> with facts."
>
> I would like to add the idea of this saying,
>
> "Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story."
>
> Either way Ted, you brought up some very valid points that tend to  
> be forgotten when people discuss tobacco/smoking regulation and  
> legislation.  What scares me as a Health Teacher is when I hear my  
> junior high and high school aged students talking about how safe,  
> they think anyway, Hookah bars are.  When asked if they would ever  
> smoke cigarettes, they claim that they won't.  Yet what these  
> students don't realize is that they are actually smoking tobacco at  
> the high school hookah parties.  What is even scarier is a lot of  
> the parents think that hookah is a safe alternative as well.
>
> The hookah bar closest to my house in Boise is constantly packed  
> with young people all of the time.  Often times, other substances  
> are being laced into the tobacco as well and these young people are  
> unknowingly smoking illegal drugs along with their fruit and tobacco  
> mixture.
>
> I predict in the not so distant future, Boise and possibly the State  
> Legislature will enact legislation to regulate/control these hookah  
> establishments.
>
> Here is a question to ponder.  By definition based on Idaho Code,  
> what is a hookah bar categorized as?  A restaurant, a bar, a private  
> club?  If it falls under the bar definition, then people under 21  
> should not be allowed in.  It seems as though hookah bars would fall  
> into an undefined gray area of the Idaho Clean Indoor Air Act.   
> However, Moscow seems to have covered hookah bars in               
> their recent ban of smoking, I could be wrong though.
>
> " 'Politics is the art of controlling your environment.' That is one  
> of the key things I learned in these years, and I learned it the  
> hard way. Anybody who thinks that 'it doesn't matter who's  
> President' has never been Drafted and sent off to fight and die in a  
> vicious, stupid War on the other side of the World -- or been beaten  
> and gassed by Police for trespassing on public property -- or been  
> hounded by the IRS for purely political reasons -- or locked up in  
> the Cook County Jail with a broken nose and no phone access and  
> twelve perverts wanting to stomp your ass in the shower. That is  
> when it matters who is President or Governor or Police Chief. That  
> is when you will wish you had voted." - Hunter S. Thompson
>
>
>
>
> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:39:45 -0700
> From: starbliss at gmail.com
> To: vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: [Vision2020] "Please do not continue to confuse people with  
> facts."
>
> The "Off List" response referenced, from someone I regard as one of  
> the most educated and honest Vision2020 participants, that I  
> received to my post below on tobacco regulation, is in total what is  
> stated in the subject heading of this post.  Wise words, no doubt,  
> that I ignore at my own risk...
>
> Notice there is limited or no discussion of some of the critical  
> facts my post presented: that tobacco (nicotine) is a physically  
> addictive drug, with underage tobacco addiction common, raising  
> questions if whether adult "choice" is in effect regarding employees  
> or consumers in tobacco related decisions; that tobacco is the  
> leading cause of premature death (nuclear waste or energy or even  
> nuclear weapons production is not even close as a cause of premature  
> death); that other drugs doing less harm to society than tobacco are  
> criminalized and prosecuted aggressively, involving civil and human  
> rights violations, yet who among those opposing regulation of  
> tobacco, will as aggressively advocate for these drugs to be managed  
> by free choice and the marketplace, rather than a government "Big  
> Brother?"  Some, perhaps... While there are others who should know  
> better playing some on this list as fools, for the sake of debate,  
> or political advantage, or popular image or whatever... Or they are  
> as deluded as those they are debating with...
>
> My response to the "Off List" comment discussed here:
>
> Ummm... OK, I guess... However, being an idealist in belief that  
> expressing the truth is morally mandated (where did I get that  
> dangerous idea?  I''ll end up in serious trouble!  Oh, I forgot, I  
> already am...), I may not comply.  I recently read a variation of  
> this same expression in James Lovelock's "Revenge of Gaia:" "Don't  
> confuse me with the facts, my minds made up."  Lovelock was  
> referring to this mentality regarding the rejection of nuclear power  
> by many in the environmental movement.
>
> Ted
>
>
> Please do not continue to confuse people with facts.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ted Moffett
> To: Moscow Vision 2020
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2009 1:55 AM
> Subject: [Vision2020] Tobacco: Targeting the Nation’s Leading Killer 
> : Centers for Disease Control
>
>
> Tobacco (nicotine) is a physically addictive drug.  Once addicted,  
> "choice" becomes a problematic concept.  And many people become  
> addicted while underage, encouraged to continue their addiction in  
> bars, where cigarettes are often shared between customers.
>
> The fact tobacco is physically addictive is absent from the comments  
> of many opposing the smoking ordinance, as are the                   
> facts regarding the magnitude of the damage.  Comparisons to other  
> harmful behaviors are drawn (fatty food, etc.), suggesting that a  
> slippery slope of regulation will lead to government control over  
> too many aspects of life, but many of these behaviors do not involve  
> a drug addiction.  Of course alcohol has dramatic negative impacts.   
> But workers in bars are not forced to drink the drinks the customers  
> order, as they breathe the smoke of the customers.
>
> I find it incredible that the health of workers exposed to an  
> addictive drug when they breathe in the workplace is approached so  
> callously.  They can work elsewhere, it's announced with smug  
> authority, as if in this economy workers have the luxury of choosing  
> whatever job suits their fancy, rather than an urgency to take  
> whatever work they can find.  If it was cocaine or heroin or  
> methamphetamine that workers were exposed to, the attitude might be  
> different.
>
> Profits from exposing workers to addictive drugs in the workplace  
> should be protected based on free market, free choice, adult  
> responsibility?  If this is the logic, where are the protests  
> against laws imposed on those selling cocaine, heroin or  
> methamphetamine, et. al., to consenting adults, which can result in  
> long prison sentences?  Let the free market decide!  Why stand in  
> the way of profits and the free choice of adults?
>
> If those opposing the smoking ordinance were consistent in their  
> outrage against limits on the free market, their ideology might have  
> more intellectual credibility.  Instead, the libertarianism proposed  
> is inconsistent and conformist.  Or perhaps those opposed to the  
> smoking ordinance will now protest that bars do not allow legal  
> cocaine, heroin or methamphetamine use?  Think of the profits to be  
> made!  And remember, tobacco prematurely kills more people than  
> those three drugs combined...
>
> If attempts were made to criminalize tobacco like cannabis is,  
> resulting in prison sentences, home invasions, for sale or use, I  
> would oppose this vehemently.  But an ordinance regulating smoking  
> in bars does not stop any adult from legally using tobacco products  
> in settings where they do not expose workers.
>
> If worker freedom of choice was a valid argument to justify the  
> exposure of workers to tobacco smoke in bars, than OSHA could be  
> mostly eliminated.  After all, if workers exposed to hazards  
> monitored or banned by OSHA don't want to work with                   
> those risks, they can work elsewhere, as long as signs posted in the  
> workplace inform them of the risks.  A "Big Brother" government  
> bureaucracy gone.
> --------------------------
> http://www.cdc.gov/NCCDPHP/publications/aag/osh.htm
> The Burden of Tobacco Use
>
> Tobacco use is the single most preventable cause of disease,  
> disability, and death in the United States. Each year, an estimated  
> 443,000 people die prematurely from smoking or exposure to  
> secondhand smoke, and another 8.6 million have a serious illness  
> caused by smoking. For every person who dies from smoking, 20 more  
> people suffer from at least one serious tobacco-related illness.  
> Despite these risks, approximately 43.4 million U.S. adults smoke  
> cigarettes. Smokeless tobacco, cigars, and pipes also have deadly  
> consequences, including lung, larynx, esophageal, and oral cancers.
> The harmful effects of smoking do not end with the smoker. More than  
> 126 million nonsmoking Americans, including children and adults, are  
> regularly exposed to secondhand smoke. Even brief exposure can be  
> dangerous because nonsmokers inhale many of the same carcinogens and  
> toxins in cigarette smoke as smokers. Secondhand smoke exposure  
> causes serious disease and death, including heart disease and lung  
> cancer in nonsmoking adults and sudden infant death syndrome, acute  
> respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe  
> asthma attacks in children. Each year, primarily because of exposure  
> to secondhand smoke, an estimated 3,000 nonsmoking Americans die of  
> lung cancer, more than 46,000 (range: 22,700–69,600) die of heart di 
> sease, and about 150,000–300,000 children younger than 18 months hav 
> e lower respiratory tract infections.
> Coupled with this enormous health toll is the significant economic  
> burden of tobacco use—more than $96 billion per year in medical expe 
> nditures and another $97 billion per year resulting from lost produc 
> tivity.
>
>
> [A text description of this graph is also available.]
>
> The Tobacco Use Epidemic Can Be Stopped
>
> A 2007 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report presented a blueprint for  
> action to “reduce smoking so substantially that it is no longer a pu 
> blic health problem for our nation.” The two-pronged strategy for ac 
> hieving this goal includes not only strengthening and fully implemen 
> ting currently proven tobacco control measures, but also changing th 
> e regulatory landscape to permit policy innovations. Foremost among  
> the IOM recommendations is that each state should fund a comprehensi 
> ve tobacco control program at the level recommended by CDC in Best P 
> ractices for Comprehensive Tobacco Control Programs–2007.
> Evidence-based, statewide tobacco control programs that are  
> comprehensive, sustained, and accountable have been shown to reduce  
> smoking rates, tobacco-related deaths, and diseases caused by  
> smoking. A comprehensive program is a coordinated effort to  
> establish smoke-free policies and social norms, to promote and  
> assist tobacco users to quit, and to prevent initiation of tobacco  
> use. This approach combines educational, clinical, regulatory,  
> economic, and social strategies.
> Research has documented the effectiveness of laws and policies to  
> protect the public from secondhand smoke exposure, promote  
> cessation, and prevent initiation when they are applied in a  
> comprehensive way. For example, states can increase the unit price  
> of tobacco products; implement smoking                  bans through  
> policies, regulations, and laws; provide insurance                   
> coverage of tobacco use treatment; and limit minors’ access to       
>             tobacco products.
> If the nation is to achieve the objectives outlined in Healthy  
> People 2010, comprehensive, evidence-based approaches for preventing  
> smoking initiation and increasing cessation need to be fully  
> implemented.
> CDC's Response
>
> CDC is the lead federal agency for tobacco control. CDC’s Office on  
> Smoking and Health (OSH) provides national leadership for a comprehe 
> nsive, broad-based approach to reducing tobacco use. A variety of go 
> vernment agencies, professional and voluntary organizations, and aca 
> demic institutions have joined together to advance this approach, wh 
> ich involves the following activities:
> Preventing young people from starting to smoke.
>
> Eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke.
>
> Promoting quitting among young people and adults.
>
> Identifying and eliminating tobacco-related health disparities.
> Essential elements of this approach include state-based, community- 
> based, and health system-based interventions; cessation services;  
> counter marketing; policy development and implementation;  
> surveillance; and evaluation. These activities target groups who are  
> at highest risk for tobacco-related health                  problems.
> -------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
>
>
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite  
> sports pics. Check it out.
>
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                http://www.fsr.net
>           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.26/2257 - Release Date:  
> 07/23/09 18:00:00
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:  
> 07/24/09 05:58:00
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.27/2258 - Release Date:  
> 07/24/09 05:58:00
>
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite  
> sports pics. Check it out.
>
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Search, add, and share the web’s latest  
> sports videos. Check it out.
>
> Windows Live™ Hotmail®: Celebrate the moment with your favorite  
> sports pics. Check it out.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20090728/b69be87a/attachment-0001.html