Letterman and Palin

[BuzzH]

TLC,

Why should your right to smoke in a public place take priority over my right to not breath second hand smoke? You're also wrong, second hand smoke does cause cancer, so does smoking. No question and no doubt about it. How many sources do I need to site?

The gov. is not telling you that you cant smoke...you can smoke as much as you want in your own home, outdoors, etc.. You just cant smoke where your nasty habit effects others and denies them their rights of not breathing smoke and having it effect their health.. Really pretty simple. Not sure why you think a smoker should have more rights than non-smokers???

There is no question that seat belts saves insurance companies tons of money each year. When insurance companies pay less claims and risks of paying out claims is reduced...that equates to lower insurance rates for everyone. Again, its not rocket science. Basic economics.

Secondly, the vehicle may be privately owned, but the roads you drive on are not. Is it an infringement on your rights that highways and interstates have posted speed limits? Is it an infringement of your rights to not be able to drive piss drunk down a public highway? Is that what you're saying?

Thirdly, the gov. is not telling you that you have to wear a seat belt...just that there is a price to pay for not.

 

[TLC]

TLC,

Why should your right to smoke in a public place(since when is a bar or restaurant a public place? businesses are privately run and owned. you keep avoiding that part of it. unless its to your benefit.) take priority over my right to not breath second hand smoke? (no. the question is, why do your rights take precedence over a smokers rights?) You're also wrong, second hand smoke does cause cancer, so does smoking.(prove it. I have already cited cases where what you are saying is false. and after 30+ years, I don't have cancer. so much for that theory.) No question and no doubt about it. How many sources do I need to site?(as many as you can find. but something from the american cancer society is not going to hold much weight.)

The gov. is not telling you that you cant smoke...you can smoke as much as you want in your own home, outdoors, etc.. You just cant smoke where your nasty habit effects others and denies them their rights(WTF??? where does it say that this is a right?) of not breathing smoke and having it effect their health.. Really pretty simple. Not sure why you think a smoker should have more rights than non-smokers???(has nothing to do with smokers rights. but nice job of avoiding you answering why the govt sees fit to tell a private business owner what they can and cannot do in their business. if I own a bar, and want to let people smoke there, that should be my choice. if you are a non-smoker and don't want to be around the smoke, go to a private business that has made the choice to not have smoking in THEIR business.
no one is forcing you to go into the bar, or restaurant, that allows smoking.)


There is no question that seat belts saves insurance companies tons of money each year.(can you post a link for me that shows this?) When insurance companies pay less claims and risks of paying out claims is reduced...that equates to lower insurance rates for everyone. Again, its not rocket science. Basic economics.(again, no answer to my question. when they started this new law that took away an individuals choice, how much money did YOU save on your insurance premiums. after all, you just said that the insurance companies are saving money. that its basic economics. very easy question. how much was your yearly savings when they started this? we all know that if the insurance companies are saving money as you say, they are not passing along the savings.)


Secondly, the vehicle may be privately owned, but the roads you drive on are not.(actually, you better start checking into things before you make these kind of statements. there are quite a few privately owned roads in this country. they are called toll roads. more and more of these are being bought by private companies. know the chicago tollroad is being sold, and heard that the ones out in NJ/NY are being looked at being sold, if they haven't been already.)

Is it an infringement on your rights that highways and interstates have posted speed limits(actually, yes it is.)Is it an infringement of your rights to not be able to drive piss drunk down a public highway(again, yes it is. the same it will be an infringement on my rights if they re-instate the gun ban. pretty basic stuff here.) Is that what you're saying?

Thirdly, the gov. is not telling you that you have to wear a seat belt...just that there is a price to pay for not[B].(pretty sure thats called blackmail.)[/[/B]QUOTE]

be nice if you would answer some of the questions there Buzz.

 

[TLC]

In truth, smoking is not a leading cause of cancer.

Lung cancer is primarily a condition developed in old age, with average age of onset age 65, according to American Cancer Society literature. It's estimated more people will die of lung cancer in populations of older Americans, and where more older Americans live, there more lung cancer deaths will be estimated. More incidence of lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer are likely to occur in Florida than in any other state. That's where the highest percentage of retirees live. And that's where ACS estimates more lung cancers will occur. Lung cancer is a disease of old age, not smoking.

Research has now firmly linked many of today's cancers with tainted virus vaccinations given in the early 1950s. In 1960, researchers discovered that the polio vaccine distributed to certain states was infected with another virus called "Simian Virus 40." SV-40 is a monkey virus that is not normally found in humans. Unknown at the time, it was present in hundreds of rhesus monkeys that were used to grow and harvest the polio vaccine. Injected into research animals, the SV-40 virus causes brain and lung cancers. Now, some forty years later, its effect on humans is just being investigated.

 

[MattK]

TLC- You're a smoker and probably will never get cancer and hopefully you never will. There are people who drive in a vehicle at 70 miles per hour and thrown through the front windshield of their vehicle when in severe crash that walk away...I'm not sure about you, but I would put my money on the man with the seatbelt vs. the man without one when he has roll over accident on an interstate. I bet I will win that bet 70%+. If you took your odds to Vegas...you would come back broke (both with smoke related problems as well as people who wear seatbelts). I will say that I've known people (my great aunt) who smoked for many many years and never had a lung or smoking related problem that ended her life. She died of old age. On the flip side, I will show you a lot of emphasyma, asthma, lung cancer, cardio problems, heart attacks, etc. etc. all related to and attributed directly to smoking. At one time I saw a statistic that said smoking related deaths were #2. Even tobacco companies (who would be biased in your favor on this argument) have reached huge settlements to each state and also put warning on their product telling the dangers of smoking. They wouldn't do it if they could argue it wasn't detrimental...You're utterly wrong with Tobacco. You like to smoke...all the power to you...but you are still wrong. One other point when it comes to bars restaurants etc. They really aren't "private". They are public establishments. That's one of the costs of doing business with the public. You can't knowingly endanger the public when you are doing business with the public. (That's why there are food safety rules, health inspectors, underage drinking laws, liability for selling too much alcohol to someone, etc. etc. etc.) They are meant to protect consumers, ie. the public. Banning smoking goes to this same reasoning.

Insurance...completely different beast. You may not have seen drastic decreases in rates but you probably haven't seen drastic increases either (even though the average cost to repair a vehicle has increased a ton and the average cost of covered accidents have increased a ton). Insurance isn't the best example anyway as there are a lot of reasons insurance increases and decreases and only one part are the claims. A lot of it has to do with markets, supply and demand, claims and other factors. I will say this without a doubt...if you are in an accident without a seatbelt, the chances of you getting hurt are much greater and the personell having to get to your vehicle have a more difficult task if they are asked to find a passenger or driver sometimes over 30+ yards from a vehicle after being thrown through a front windshield. Put it in these terms...you get in a wreck not wearing a seatbelt...odds are you spend a few days in the hospital, possible broken bones, neck or back injuries almost certain, other head trauma, stitches etc very high odds. Add that medical bill up. Now same wreck with a seatbelt...couple sore shoulders possible scrapes and bruises and have to take x-rays for internal injuries...If you were to bet on the costs...which one would you want to pay for? It's too bad in both these cases that the government has to step in and protect you against your own stupidity.

As to the topic of this thread...you step into the limelight, it shows all your blemishes. I don't like it but until you stop buying people magazine, Star magazine, Cosmo, and quit watching Entertainment Television and most newscasts...that isn't going to change. You take a huge risk if you become a public figure. You either grow a thick skin or stay away because it just won't change. This isn't new, there's just more money in media coverage and papparazi than there used to be. In Palin's circumstance, she's getting paid for being in the spotlight...her blemishes are showing and her ego isn't taking it very well.

 

[1_pointer]

second hand smoke does not cause cancer. period. end of story. smoking does not cause cancer. how many smokers do you know that do NOT have cancer? how many people do you know that have never smoked, that have cancer? I've known people who never smoked, never around smoking, that got cancer.(age of 7) know people that lived with smokers for years(50+)that never got cancer.(passed at age 97)

Is this copy and pasted from 1959? Kid yourself all you want, but smoking can and does cause cancer.

 

[TLC]

Matt, not going to get into a discussion on every point you bring up. agree with some of what you said, disagree with other parts. but the bottom line is that it was stated that the govt should not be getting into the decision making for an individual. yet the govt does that in all the examples I gave. whether or not smoking causes cancer is irrelevant to that point. but someone brought it to that point.

as far as smoking causing cancer. there is not one shred of concrete proof that it does. there are many things that say that it MIGHT, or could cause it. know far to many people that do smoke that do not have cancer. so to say that it causes cancer is just flat out wrong. if it were stated that it MIGHT cause cancer, would have to agree with that.

1 pointer, sorry, but your statement is just not correct. all you have to do is check and see how many people you know that smoke. how many of those have cancer? how many don't? the 2 examples I gave I know personnally. 7 year old, stepdaughter. had cancer at age 7. neither parent smoked. never around smoking. yet, she got it. the other, paternal grandmother. married to grandpa 63 years, dealt with second hand smoke all her life. passed at age 97. no cancer. me, as I said. smoking for 30+ years now. no cancer. if everyone that smoked got cancer, there would be a lot more people dieing every year. in one of the articles I read while checking facts for Buzz, it gave the numbers, but don't remember what they were.

 

[JoseCuervo]

Matt, not going to get into a discussion on every point you bring up. agree with some of what you said, disagree with other parts. but the bottom line is that it was stated that the govt should not be getting into the decision making for an individual. yet the govt does that in all the examples I gave. whether or not smoking causes cancer is irrelevant to that point. but someone brought it to that point.

as far as smoking causing cancer. there is not one shred of concrete proof that it does. there are many things that say that it MIGHT, or could cause it. know far to many people that do smoke that do not have cancer. so to say that it causes cancer is just flat out wrong. if it were stated that it MIGHT cause cancer, would have to agree with that.

1 pointer, sorry, but your statement is just not correct. all you have to do is check and see how many people you know that smoke. how many of those have cancer? how many don't? the 2 examples I gave I know personnally. 7 year old, stepdaughter. had cancer at age 7. neither parent smoked. never around smoking. yet, she got it. the other, paternal grandmother. married to grandpa 63 years, dealt with second hand smoke all her life. passed at age 97. no cancer. me, as I said. smoking for 30+ years now. no cancer. if everyone that smoked got cancer, there would be a lot more people dieing every year. in one of the articles I read while checking facts for Buzz, it gave the numbers, but don't remember what they were.

Wow, I have to laugh at the ignorance of people who learned all their science and statistics on a barstool instead of wasting time getting an edjumacation.......

 

[ringer]

Anyone remember why this country was founded? Something called liberty. If I am willing to risk death by smoking or not wearing a seat belt or no helment on a bike then why is it anyone elses business? Do you believe that your neighbor should be able to put his boot on your neck? Way too many people think they can take away others rights in order that they conform to what the majority feels is good for them. If anyone is dumb enough to not link seat belt laws or smoking bans with more profits for insurance companies then have a nice day. It is all about money and lobbyists. Do not tread on me.

 

[BuzzH]

TLC,

Catch a clue...if you you can.

What are the effects of cigarette smoking on cancer rates?
Cigarette smoking causes 87 percent of lung cancer deaths (1). Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in both men and women (3). Smoking is also responsible for most cancers of the larynx, oral cavity and pharynx, esophagus, and bladder. In addition, it is a cause of kidney, pancreatic, cervical, and stomach cancers (2, 4), as well as acute myeloid leukemia (2).

Are there any health risks for nonsmokers?
The health risks caused by cigarette smoking are not limited to smokers. Exposure to secondhand smoke, or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), significantly increases the risk of lung cancer and heart disease in nonsmokers, as well as several respiratory illnesses in young children (5). (Secondhand smoke is a combination of the smoke that is released from the end of a burning cigarette and the smoke exhaled from the lungs of smokers.) The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Institute of Environmental Health Science’s National Toxicology Program, and the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have all classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen—a category reserved for agents for which there is sufficient scientific evidence that they cause cancer (5, 6, 7). The U.S. EPA has estimated that exposure to secondhand smoke causes about 3,000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers and is responsible for up to 300,000 cases of lower respiratory tract infections in children up to 18 months of age in the United States each year (5). For additional information on ETS, see the NCI fact sheet Environmental Tobacco Smoke, which can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS on the Internet.

What harmful chemicals are found in cigarette smoke?
Cigarette smoke contains about 4,000 chemical agents, including over 60 carcinogens (8). In addition, many of these substances, such as carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, and lead, are poisonous and toxic to the human body. Nicotine is a drug that is naturally present in the tobacco plant and is primarily responsible for a person’s addiction to tobacco products, including cigarettes. During smoking, nicotine is absorbed quickly into the bloodstream and travels to the brain in a matter of seconds. Nicotine causes addiction to cigarettes and other tobacco products that is similar to the addiction produced by using heroin and cocaine (9).

How does exposure to tobacco smoke affect the cigarette smoker?
Smoking harms nearly every major organ of the body (2). The risk of developing smoking-related diseases, such as lung and other cancers, heart disease, stroke, and respiratory illnesses, increases with total lifetime exposure to cigarette smoke (7). This includes the number of cigarettes a person smokes each day, the intensity of smoking (i.e., the size and frequency of puffs), the age at which smoking began, the number of years a person has smoked, and a smoker’s secondhand smoke exposure.

How would quitting smoking affect the risk of developing cancer and other diseases?
Smoking cessation has major and immediate health benefits for men and women of all ages. Quitting smoking decreases the risk of lung and other cancers, heart attack, stroke, and chronic lung disease. The earlier a person quits, the greater the health benefit. For example, research has shown that people who quit before age 50 reduce their risk of dying in the next 15 years by half compared with those who continue to smoke (3). Smoking low-yield cigarettes, as compared to cigarettes with higher tar and nicotine, provides no clear benefit to health (2). For additional information on quitting smoking, see the NCI fact sheet Questions and Answers About Smoking Cessation, which can be found at http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/cessation on the Internet.

What additional resources are available?
For additional information about cancer or tobacco use, call 1–800–4–CANCER or visit the NCI’s Web site about tobacco at http://www.cancer.gov/cancerinfo/tobacco on the Internet.

For help with quitting smoking, call NCI’s smoking cessation quitline at 1–877–44U–QUIT or visit NCI’s smoking cessation Web site at http://www.smokefree.gov on the Internet.

Information about the health risks of smoking is also available from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Office on Smoking and Health (OSH) at 1–800–CDC–1311 (1–800–232–1311) or via their Web site at http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco on the Internet.



Selected References


Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2001, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, 2004 (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2001).


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004.


American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2004. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2004.


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Targeting Tobacco Use: The Nation’s Leading Cause of Death. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens: Tenth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2002.


International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83. Lyon, France, 2004.


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco Use in the United States. Retrieved September 30, 2003, from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/overview/tobus_us.htm.


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nicotine Addiction: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Office on Smoking and Health, 1988.



# # #

Related Resources

Publications (available at http://www.cancer.gov/publications)

National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 10.17, The Truth about “Light” Cigarettes: Questions and Answers
National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 10.18, Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers
National Cancer Institute Fact Sheet 10.19, Questions and Answers About Smoking Cessation



National Cancer Institute (NCI) Resources


Cancer Information Service (toll-free)
Telephone: 1–800–4–CANCER (1–800–422–6237)
TTY: 1–800–332–8615


Online
NCI’s Web site: http://www.cancer.gov
LiveHelp, NCI’s live online assistance: https://cissecure.nci.nih.gov/livehelp/welcome.asp
Back to Top

 

[BuzzH]

Ringer,

Heres the deal then. If you really believe that clicking a seat belt is an infringement...I'd be willing to make a deal.

Tiered insurance...you dont want to wear a seat belt, get caught without wearing one ONE time, double your insurance rates. Get in an accident and its determined you werent wearing one...DENY ALL CLAIMS.

Smart enough to not wear a seat belt...smart enough to figure out a way to pay for it.

I shouldnt have to pay for your stupidity...or what you call "liberties".

 

[ringer]

Buzz-most insurance companies already deny claims if the seat belt was not being worn by the driver. Do you think these laws are really for the good of your premiums or just another way for a huge corporation to enhance profits? When no one else is smoking and everyone wears their seat belts you can bet there will be a new class to focus on like fat people, higher premiums for hunters because they have a higher risk of injury, higher premiums for roofers etc. We are a foolish people. We get sucked into the global warming bullshit then the government tries to increase gas tax or wants to charge per mile to get back the revenue. We will pay more for the vehicles and then pay more tax to make up for the lost funding. We pick on smokers because they are a minority yet no one ever considers that no matter how expensive the sick ones are they will save on social security and medicare payments for decades. My bet is there is a net financial gain by the deaths of smokers, seat belt violators and helmetless motorcyclists. Suckers give up liberty for security and suckers believe politicians and media manipulation.

 

[MNHunter]

Matt, not going to get into a discussion on every point you bring up. agree with some of what you said, disagree with other parts. but the bottom line is that it was stated that the govt should not be getting into the decision making for an individual. yet the govt does that in all the examples I gave. whether or not smoking causes cancer is irrelevant to that point. but someone brought it to that point.

as far as smoking causing cancer. there is not one shred of concrete proof that it does. there are many things that say that it MIGHT, or could cause it. know far to many people that do smoke that do not have cancer. so to say that it causes cancer is just flat out wrong. if it were stated that it MIGHT cause cancer, would have to agree with that.

1 pointer, sorry, but your statement is just not correct. all you have to do is check and see how many people you know that smoke. how many of those have cancer? how many don't? the 2 examples I gave I know personnally. 7 year old, stepdaughter. had cancer at age 7. neither parent smoked. never around smoking. yet, she got it. the other, paternal grandmother. married to grandpa 63 years, dealt with second hand smoke all her life. passed at age 97. no cancer. me, as I said. smoking for 30+ years now. no cancer. if everyone that smoked got cancer, there would be a lot more people dieing every year. in one of the articles I read while checking facts for Buzz, it gave the numbers, but don't remember what they were.

Dude, I generally don't jump on others' posts but the above post is quite possibly the most ignorant thing I have ever read on the internet. You and 2 other people not getting cancer from smoking hardly constitutes a sample...let alone a scientific study.

 

[DRAFTSTUD]

My Mother in Law even quit smoking, she was afraid the Oxygen Bottle would explode! Geez! John

 

[BuzzH]

Ringer,

You'd have to provide some kind of proof for me to believe the BS you just typed.

The health problems associated with smoking are HUGE...and incredibly expensive to address.

This is what I believe, there are a whole herd of people in the world that are so frickin' stupid that they need to be protected from themselves.

Look at TLC for an example, he thinks that someone thats piss drunk being denied their "rights" to drive down a public road and endanger others is an infringement of their "rights" by big brother.

Are you fuggin' kidding me?

Sorry, but I dont find that an infringement of the drunks rights that they should be fined and jailed for drunk driving to keep them off the roads. I also dont find it particularily unconstitutional that people cant murder each other legally either. I shouldnt have to suffer for your "liberties" and "rights" to act like a fool.

 

[mtmiller]

Some burials don't need more shovels.

 

[MattK]

Ringer- Last week the Trauma director from St. Pat's Hospital here in Missoula gave an hour long seminar on safety at the place I work. He said two things would put him out of a job...no drinking and driving and wearing a seatbelt. Alcohol is the #1 contributing factor in accidents in MT...some 70%. Alcohol is the #1 contributing factor in all fatalaties on MT roads. The other commonality in deaths on MT roads...no seatbelt. As the trauma director said..."if people didn't drive drunk and just wear their seatbelts...I wouldn't have a job. That would make me happy!" He also mentioned the fact people who drink and drive are far more apt to not wear seatbelts...shows the mentality of the individuals who would drink and drive.

 

[TLC]

Jose, please stop assuming you know me. dumbass, I don't drink. stay in the corner and let the smart people discuss this. take your education and go to the kiddies section where you belong. you and your minions have managed to turn the topic away from your hypocricy. you have them well trained. bravo.

 

[nmtaxi]

Does having "liberties" or "rights" mean that we do not have responsibilities? I don't think driving is a god given right, or even a constitutionally guaranteed right. It's a privilege, and along with it comes responsibilities. One resonsibility is not endangering other people's lives while we're exercising this privilege. Seatbelt laws are mostly geared toward making parents buckle up their kids - and it might save a few ignorant souls in the meantime.

 

[TLC]

Buzz, instead of posting your bullshit, tell us, how many smokers get cancer compared to non smokers. hell your 87% number shows what I said. smoking does not cause cancer. it mat attribute to it, but even that is questionable. you seem to either ignore, or not post, ala Jose, the part that shows how many smokers have cancer. and how many non smokers have it. from what you all say, if you smoke, then you will get cancer. you simply cannot show that from any study.

and Buzz, are you ever going to ttell us how much money you saved when they enacted the seatbelt laws? or is that just bullshit on your part? you don't have to answer. we all know what it is. think you should go on your way with Jose. think he's getting lonely.

nice references. national cancer institute. wonder what side they are on since they get money to NOT cure cancer.

 

[BuzzH]

TLC,

Maybe when you quit assuming that you have the first clue about smoking related health issues and smoking causing cancer...he'll quit assuming as well.

Pretty easy to assume quite a number of things from your posts...

Oh, and check out the references...not just the NCI...did you forget to read this part???

Selected References


Ries LAG, Eisner MP, Kosary CL, et al. (eds). SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975–2001, National Cancer Institute. Bethesda, MD, 2004 (http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2001).


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Health Consequences of Smoking: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health, 2004.


American Cancer Society. Cancer Facts and Figures 2004. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society, 2004.


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Targeting Tobacco Use: The Nation’s Leading Cause of Death. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003.


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders. Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992.


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Report on Carcinogens: Tenth Edition. Research Triangle Park, NC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, 2002.


International Agency for Research on Cancer. Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking. IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Vol. 83. Lyon, France, 2004.


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Tobacco Use in the United States. Retrieved September 30, 2003, from: http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/overview/tobus_us.htm.


U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Nicotine Addiction: A Report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Office on Smoking and Health, 1988.