January
22, 2004 - Who Is
Washington
State
Representative "Edmonds"? See Readers Test Comments At End Of
This Text
Press,
Public Bamboozled By Anti-Tobacco Council Members?
On Wednesday January 14, 2004 Forces posted a link to Elizabeth
Ciepiela’s article “Pierce’s
Smoking Ban May Light One In King County,”
in the Federal Way Mirror
regarding the Pierce County, Washington smoking ban. Forces reporter
Norm Kjono was quoted in that article. Regarding King County
Councilwoman Carolyn Edmonds, and the
Pierce
County
ban extending to
King
County
, Ms. Ciepiela reported:
"While
[
Edmonds
] has considered a smoking ban in
King
County
, the prosecuting attorney’s office ‘advised [
Edmonds
] that we are precluded from doing that by state law.’ For now,
she’s just waiting and watching. ‘I would love to have a similar
action take place in
King
County
. However, we’re going to just sit back and watch the court challenge
that Pierce County is facing,’ she said. ‘I would like
Pierce
County
to prevail and have their ban upheld.’" (Brackets inserted.)
While
we do not doubt that Elizabeth Ciepiela accurately reported statements
by Ms. Edmonds (KC1-D),
it appears that a King County Council member may have bamboozled the
press and the public. A mere two days after Ms. Ciepiela’s article
appeared in The Mirror Kjono received a copy of the agenda for a January
23, 2004 King County Board of Health meeting (full text appears at
bottom) that says:
“Roger
Valdez, [
King
County
] Program Manager, will provide data on the health effects of
environmental tobacco smoke and discuss
King
County
’s efforts to reduce environmental tobacco smoke in public places
currently and over the last several years. The Board will also hear from
John Britt, Prevention Coordinator for the Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department who will discuss the recent action taken by the Pierce County
Board of Health and the current educational efforts of the Health
Department.” (Brackets inserted.)
The
ink is barely dry on The Mirror’s article that reports
King
County
will wait on a smoking ban and the county’s Board of Health is already
beginning to plan how to enact it. There would naturally be a short
delay between a reporter’s interview and publication of an article,
however it is also certain that such Board of Health meetings are not
scheduled in a vacuum. That is particularly true when the board briefing
includes bringing in representatives from other counties to discuss a
common agenda. Was Councilwoman Edmonds speaking out of both sides of
her mouth to different people during her interview with The Mirror, one
side contradicting the other? It appears that could well be the case: on
the one hand Ms. Edmonds says to Elizabeth Ciepiela that King County
will wait -- implying to do nothing – and see what happens in Pierce
County before it decides what to do about a King County smoking ban, and
on the other hand the King County Board of Health, which operates under
her council’s supervision, is already coordinating its efforts with
Pierce County to implement a smoking ban.
Regardless
of whether Councilwoman Edmonds mislead The Mirror’s reporter, and
therefore the public, to lull opposition to King County’s preordained
smoking ban, the Board of Health’s agenda for January 23, 2004
confirms Kjono’s view as quoted by Ms. Ciepiela:
“Now
that state Attorney General Christine Gregoire ‘has made it clear in a
letter’ to Pierce County health officials ‘that she will not enforce
Washington’s preemption statute regarding smoking bans, it is a
virtual certainty that the Pierce County ban will spread to King and
Snohomish counties in the immediate future,’ Kjono said.”
“‘Any
action where our state’s attorney general winks at willful violations
of state preemption laws and business-specific exemptions threatens all
citizens alike, whether they smoke or not,’ he added.”
Why
would expansion of
Pierce
County
’s smoking ban to
King
County
be a virtual certainty? The answer to that question is found in one
phrase: special-interest bucks. The Seattle-King County Department of
Public Health and other state agencies are beneficiaries of several
current grants from the pharmaceutical special-interest Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation:
1.
No.
044464 $223,378 Improving
School-Based Mental Health
2.
No.
044215 $1,348,282 Allies
Against Asthma
3.
No.
041129 $749,743 Expansion
of Senior Wellness
4.
No.
041391 $228,548 Affordable
Assisted Living
5.
In
addition, King County, Washington was one of five demonstration sites
for an American Bar Association grant in the amount of $481,605 No.
02931to develop a Unified
Family Courts initiative (see “The Initiative” in that
report.) That grant lead to a current King County Superior Court grants
totaling $1,250,000 to finance coordination of juvenile court actions in
king county under the foundation’s “Reclaiming Futures” program.
There are two grants for King County Superior Court: one for $1,000,000
and one for $250,000.
$4,281,556
in Robert Wood Johnson Foundation special-interest grants that directly
or indirectly effect public policy in King County and the State of
Washington says that the foundation will get what it wants in Pierce and
King counties, regardless of what voters or consumers say. Ms. Edmonds
says on her King County Council Web site:
“The
trademark of my public service career is building partnerships between
community members, business, nonprofits and all levels of government. I
believe the best solutions to regional problems are achieved through
collaboration and cooperation. To that end, I am dedicated to improving
ties between state, county, and local suburban governments.”
While
it appears that a stellar job of building a partnership with nonprofit
foundations has been accomplished in
King
County
, it also appears that we have fallen far short of cooperating with
members of the community. Given a choice between a nonprofit
foundation’s agenda and cooperating with members of our community who
lawfully consume legal tobacco products
Edmond
’s solution appears to be to demean and ostracize community members to
benefit the nonprofit foundation’s special-interest agenda. Needless
to say,
King
County
already planning to enact a smoking ban that directly challenges both
state preemption statutes and business-specific smoking ban exemptions
is not a way to improve ties between county and state government.
Please,
no protestations about how the above programs serve good causes. Current
news tells us that we live in a world where things are probably not what
they seem, regardless of appearances. We have more priests, Boy Scout
leaders, youth sports coaches and pastors than we can now count who,
when they’re not busy saving souls or other people’s children,
repetitively molest our kids. Regardless of how much other alleged
“good” one may do, willfully doing what is wrong must also be held
to account. The nature of the cause is not at issue, it’s
the conduct and behavior of those who embrace and implement the cause
that matters. Getting rid of child molester priests or
pastors is not denying one’s faith, nor should such action be avoided
because of one’s faith. The same observations apply by corollary to
tobacco control: having presided over a record 43 percent increase
in youth smoking 1992 to 1997 the same anti-tobacco activists who are
financed by the same special-interest foundation now seek to impose
self-serving mandates on young adults who smoke, and to do so for
starkly mercantile reasons that directly relate to the original increase
in youth smokers. It should be intuitively obvious that every one of the
increased number of kids who began to smoke under Project ASSIST during
the 1990s is a prospective customer for “Smoke Free” pharmaceutical
nicotine products today.
Did
allegedly anti-tobacco activists use their grants from the RWJ
foundation during the last decade to systematically craft a future
expanded market for their financial sponsor’s nicotine products in the
new millennium? Strident denial of that possibility is not only specious
at this point, it is also self-serving and unseemly. According to
documents in Project ASSIST proposals to the State of
Washington
that program’s strategies were tested during the National Cancer
Institute’s 1984 to 1988 community intervention COMMIT program and
they represented the “state of the science” for tobacco control when
implemented. But “state of the science” for what? We judge that by
the demonstrated results of Project ASSISTS: skyrocketing youth smoking
rates that did produce a stabilized tobacco consumer base of prospective
customers for “Smoke Free” nicotine, as well as a new generation
with dramatically increased smoking rates to sustain $206 billion in
tobacco settlement payments over 25 years. In contrast, had declining
smoking trends prior to 1992 merely continued – which is to say had
Project ASSIST had no effect at all – youth smoking rates would be
about one half of what they are today and there would be about 25
percent fewer adult smokers. Those preceding trends imply a dramatically
reduced market for pharmaceutical nicotine products and a substantially
smaller tobacco settlement for which payments to settling states could
be sustained. And it should be noted that the much-touted declines in
youth smoking since 1997, with dramatic increases
in cigarette costs, are less than or merely equal to youth
and adult smoking rate declines during the 1970s and early 1980s when
tobacco companies reduced
cigarette prices to stimulate demand.
Arguing
about tobacco control’s intent through addressing its strident denials
also evades the principal point: their programs were implemented, the
results are now historical record, and the disastrous consequences of
their programs on our children are what they should be held accountable
for. Was selling nicotine addiction to kids the Trojan Horse in
pharmaceutical tobacco control’s assault on our children? Considering
that we now observe executive branch agencies aggressively promoting
mandates that those now young adults use “Smoke Free” nicotine
products I suspect that the final confirmation of the Trojan Horse is
found in smoking ban efforts to capture sales revenues from the “Smoke
Free” nicotine market that was crafted during the 1990s.
Perhaps
a better alternative is have the common sense to get rid of those in
public health who presided over boosting youth smoking rates 40
percent-plus during the 1990s, thereby creating a dramatically expanded
source consumer base for “Smoke Free” pharmaceutical nicotine
delivery device products. We could start by reviewing the performance
records and participation of Seattle King County Department of Public
Health in that youth disaster. That review should include the
department’s director, Alonzo Plough, who informed Kjono in a May 27,
1999 letter that kids on pharmaceutical nicotine replacement products
“is indeed indicated for teenagers who are addicted to cigarettes,
even though the products are not specifically approved for use in this
age group.” Letter
from Alozo Plough
He
who pays the piper calls the tune. We have more than sufficient
smoking ban pipers in the State of
Washington
’s Executive Branch, and their orchestrated tune that sings about
smoking bans directly serves the interests of the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation’s agenda. Along with the RWJ foundation’s grant bucks
come its special-interest pharmaceutical agenda. That agenda, to reduce
opportunities to smoke through smoking bans and to thereby
provide an artificial competitive
edge for mercantile distribution of pharmaceutical nicotine products,
is explicitly clear in a June 2003 Washington University in Saint Louis
research paper, “Estimating the Health Consequences Of Replacing
Cigarettes With Nicotine Inhalers,” published by the Tobacco
Control journal. As noted in the Forces report “Nicotine Inhalers,
The New Cigarette,” which included Kjono’s article “XXX
Products,” that strategy includes use of smoking bans to
reduce opportunities to smoke and considers the possibility that
nonsmokers could begin to use pharmaceutical nicotine products, too.
One
of the most compelling reasons why
King
County
is already preparing to enact the
Pierce
County
smoking ban may be found in a recent study as to the cost effectiveness
of smoking cessation products, in which both counties directly
participated. The Pierce-King County smoking cessation products study
was financed by a RWJ foundation grant (No. 022927) in the amount of $169,737
and established cost estimates of $797 to $1,171 per
person who quit smoking. Assuming there are 1 million smokers
in the State of
Washington
(a very conservative estimate), we are talking a potential smoking
cessation products sales market between $797 million and $1.2 billion
one state. Those figures assume that every person who uses the products
successfully quits and does not become addicted to pharmaceutical
nicotine (in this regard see a recent New York Times article, “Getting
Even With
Nicorettes,” about a man in New York who has used
Nicorette gum for years and now reportedly chews 72 pieces of nicotine
gum per day.) Those figures also do not consider the possibility that nonsmokers
could begin to use pharmaceutical nicotine products as Dr. Sumner of
Washington
University
in
Saint Louis
suggests could occur. Considering multiple quit attempts by smokers who
use pharmaceutical nicotine replacement therapy products with a 15
percent success rate, many smokers who simply trade in tobacco nicotine
for pharmaceutical nicotine at work, a dramatically increased youth
smoker source consumer base for those products that materialized under
Project ASSIST, and the possibility of inducing nonsmokers to begin
using “Smoke Free” nicotine products, we are looking at a
prospective billion-dollar-plus pharmaceutical nicotine market in the
State of Washington. And a
Pierce-King
County
study funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has already
established the “value per head” of that market at between $797 and
$1,171 per person who uses those products in attempts to quit smoking.
Beyond
apparent state and county conflicts on smoking bans, one wonders what
accounts for Councilwoman Edmonds’ and many other politicians’
personal penchants for smoking bans. Perhaps that compulsion to mandate
special-interest agendas is accounted for, at least in part, by Ms.
Edmonds’ connection to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the $7
billion Princeton, New Jersey pharmaceutical special-interest that
provided about $200 million in grant funding to anti-tobacco activists
during the 1990s (while its namesake corporation, Johnson & Johnson,
of which the RWJ foundation reportedly owns 5.4 percent of the
outstanding shares, was distributing Nicotrol nicotine delivery device
products.) In October 2001 Carolyn Edmonds was a Closing Speaker
at a RWJ foundation conference, “Engaging
State Policy-Makers On Family Caregiving Issues,” that
was financed by the foundation’s $231,530 grant No. 040402. One
wonders if there is a family connection to Jeanne Edmonds, a current
member of the Washington Legislature (D-1)
who serves on the Health Committee and who has been Legislative Liaison
for Attorney General Gregoire’s tobacco control task force. We should
also consider that former Pierce County Councilman Dennis Flannigan was
a member of the National Policy Panel On the Justice System And
Substance Abuse for the RWJ Foundation’s $19,260,364 Join
Together program, which has now begun a new initiative to
increase treatment for substance abuse (see Appendix 5 of the Join
Together Grant Results Report), which includes smoking cessation. Mr.
Flannigan is now a member of the Washington Legislature (D-27)
who serves on its Judiciary Committee. Does Mr. Flannigan’s education
at
Boston
University
, where he was a Join Together Fellow, account for his support of
smoking bans? And others in state and county government also have
beneficial links to the RWJ foundation. For example, Forces has already
reported on links between Emily’s List that facilitated $360,000 in
out-of-state gubernatorial campaign donations for Washington Attorney
Christine O. Gregoire in “Christine,
Queen of Nicotine Raises Campaign Cash.” Ms. Gregoire
championed and negotiated the 1998 tobacco Master Settlement Agreement
and served for years as the head of the settlement’s Legacy
Foundation. In addition, in November 1998 Attorney General Gregoire’s
tobacco task force recommended in its report that state health policy be
coordinated with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The material point
is that there appear to be personal, educational and professional ties
between politicians who support smoking bans and the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation.
Some
reporters have characterized such connections to one of the largest
health special-interests in the nation as tenuous. We strongly disagree.
Moreover, we believe that such undisclosed relationships directly
influence the focus and content of public policy. Not only is the source
of such funding directly tied to aggressive promotion of smoking bans,
and there are numerous examples of smoking ban proponents having links
to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, but, as reported by Kenneth P.
Vogel in the Tacoma News Tribune’s January 11, 2004 article, “Smoking
Fight Shows Cigarette Makers In Defensive Posture,” that
foundation has also pledged $92 million through its SmokeLess States
program to help pass smoke-free laws around the nation. Moreover, the
RWJ foundation has been asked for a grant to pay the costs of defending
the
Pierce
County
smoking ban. In addition, our attorney general’s task force has
already recommended in writing that state policy regarding smoking be
coordinated with the RWJ foundation and Attorney General Gregoire has
publicly reversed her office’s previous written statement to the
effect that county smoking bans violate preemption statutes. Those are
very direct ties to smoking ban issues which are not tenuous at all. We
respectfully point out that a prospective $1 billion-plus market for
“Smoke Free” nicotine in just
Washington
is perhaps worthy of considerable investment by pharmaceutical
special-interests. What better way to spend that money than to directly
fund state programs and initiatives that virtually mandate consumers use
“Smoke Free” pharmaceutical nicotine products and to then pay for
defense of lawsuits brought against counties that pass smoking bans to
reduce opportunities for consumers to use competitive tobacco nicotine
products? Welcome to the “Nicotine Market Share Wars.” It appears
that pharmaceutical special-interests and a $7 billion private
foundation in
New Jersey
seek to win tobacco consumers’ wallets while imposing a new identify
on them; forget about the hearts and minds of consumers whose opinions
apparently do not count.
Today
we the people face entrenched special-interests whose demonstrated
performance is that they will gleefully demean, vilify and loot their
neighbors and constituents in the name of an allegedly noble goal. Not
only have the noble goals never been achieved but we now confront the
consequences of results opposite to what was represented to justify
special-interest interventions. It is also evident that those who
brought the abject failure of tobacco control to our public policy now
seek to mandate personal preference through smoking bans in a way that
directly supports a written plan to further enrich special-interests who
sponsored them. Given the extent to which millions of pharmaceutical
dollars flow through county and state coffers in support of that agenda
addressing those issues would appear to be a daunting task. In light of
Ms. Edmonds’ statements and the King County Health Board’s meeting
agenda it is clear that anyone who testifies before the King County
Council or at a public health meeting in opposition smoking bans will be
studiously ignored. And those who oppose smoking bans cannot expect any
support or assistance from our attorney general, she has publicly
reversed her office’s previous opinion that such bans violate
preemption laws. What our attorney general had done is to effectively
wink at special-interests that choose to willfully ignore state
preemption laws in pursuit of “Smoke Free” nicotine product sales
revenues, while making it unmistakably clear that she will not enforce
state laws as her office has a responsibility to do. And it appears that
our Superior Courts, which would rule on cases that oppose smoking bans
are also tainted with more than $1 million in special-interest RWJ
foundation grants. Finally, the foregoing come into crystal clear focus
when we consider that the “value per head” of persons who smoke has
already been established at about $1,171 by Pierce-King County smoking
cessation study. So, on the surface it appears that there is nothing
that can be done because the vested-interests are too great, the money
is too good, the issue is too polarized, and tobacco control is too
powerful.
We
propose a different view. Perhaps the vested interests are now too
transparent for even the politically-catatonic to ignore, the direction
that tobacco control money flows clearly leads us to those who willfully
violate state law and concepts of honest public policy, and nicotine
empire participants in this hurtful scheme now stand publicly exposed
bereft of their public health cloak. Is it possible that the tobacco
control agenda, like all other deceptive and manipulative agendas in the
history of mankind, has finally overextended itself to where its true
goals and purposes are clearly exposed for honest citizens to see?
So
what do we go from here?
Tim Ferguson, columnist for
Melbourne
,
Australia
’s The Age, recently
said it quite eloquently: “Single-minded persistence in the face
of futility is what humanity does best.” And we should seriously
consider what Gene Hardin said in a recent Letter to the Editor of The
Seattle
Times: “Smokers have clout but fail to use it. . . .
Sometimes a little rebellion is needed to ensure that democracy
survives.”
So
how does one engage in single minded, persistent opposition and
responsible rebellion when confronted with a multi-billion-dollar
special-interest that is firmly entrenched in local and state
government? While the possibilities are myriad, a few guidelines come
immediately to mind:
First,
make a personal commitment to understand the issue and its various
components. This may take some of your time, but remember that
pharmaceuticals and tobacco control programs have full time, paid
professionals to craft their version of reality.
Second,
ask questions.
Contrary to what many politicians seem to believe, these issues are the
people’s business, they are not special-interests’ business. As you
become informed several glaring contradictions will present themselves
to you about tobacco control issues. E-Mail county council and
legislature members and ask that they explain the contradictions. You
will also find many facts about programs and their supporters that are
not reported in the press or publicly considered by politicians. E-Mail
reporters and representatives with facts that you feel are pertinent and
ask why they have not been disclosed or publicly discussed. For
example, an important question that should be asked of Washington
legislators today is why are they are silently sitting on a frontal
assault on legislative intent through tobacco control’s direct
challenging of preemption statutes and industry-specific exemptions form
smoking bans? Why not simply cut off tobacco settlement funds to
counties that openly defy existing state laws regarding smoking bans?
And additional item of concern and interest is to demand that our state
legislatures begin to provide constituents list of all Robert Wood
Johnson Foundation grants to the state, counties, and municipal entities
in
Washington
.
Third,
get over being a victim.
You are a victim to the extent that you permit yourself to be used
through your silence. Place a value on your views and your self-worth.
Tobacco control advocates have spent years planning behind closed doors
how to pick your pockets and use our kids to achieve their own ends. You
should, at the least, have an equal right to object to that process. If
you smoke, ask why should you be embarrassed to be a consumer who
lawfully uses a legal product?
Fourth,
stop waiting for “them” to do “something” about the current
situation.
“They” are the ones who created it! If our elected county and state
representatives had opposed this agenda it would not exist today. Accept
the fact that “They” are in fact “You,” and get on with
accomplishing what you expect others to do. If you are waiting for
government ton solve the anti-tobacco problem, perhaps you should read
Councilwoman Edmonds’ statements at top of this report again – she
not only would love for there to be a King County smoking ban like that
in Pierce County but a Health Board that operates under the auspices of
the King County Council has already started meetings to do so! And that
situation exists in an environment where Ms. Edmonds herself says the
prosecuting attorney’s office has informed her that such bans violate
state preemption law. If you wait on Ms. Edmonds and her colleagues to
“do something” about smoking bans, please do not hold your breath
– you will die from asphyxiation waiting on politicians on this issue.
Fifth,
begin to associate with others of like mind.
Follow press and Web site reports, begin to contact others and express
your views. Write columnists and reporters, as well as contacting those
who write Letters to the Editor. You will find there are many others who
think and believe as you do. Not only can those other folks be
supportive of you but they can also offer information or perspectives
you may not have considered. As you persist in this effort you will find
yourself progressing from feeling like an isolated victim to becoming a
participating challenger. Which contributes most to your personal sense
of empowerment and self-worth?
Sixth,
attend public hearings.
You could start with the
King
County
hearing scheduled for January 23rd, for which the agenda
appears below. Yes, you will sit and watch the sages of tobacco control
who presided over a 40 percent-plus increase in youth smoking during the
1990s stridently proclaim on the 23rd that we need smoking
bans to “Save the Children.” Yes, you will observe large amounts of
junk science about how persons who smoke are killers being presented.
But you will also have a personal opportunity to see firsthand how we
got into this anti-tobacco mess in the first place. And you do not need
to be broadly informed on all the issues to step up to the mike and say
just a few words: “I want you to know that I object to this ban.”
Seventh,
vote. Respect for the law and the rights of others is a hallmark of
competent leaders who have integrity. By that standard vote against any
politician who supported tobacco control or stood silent while its
professional activists implemented its special-interest agenda in
Washington
. Make November 2004 your litmus test voting year regarding tobacco
control, regardless of a candidate’s party affiliation or your other
beliefs. No, you are not throwing away your vote by voting that one
issue, remember that one issues has had the undivided attention of
special-interest activists and their political supporters for years.
The above seven steps will not immediately disburse the “Anti”
Barbarians who have stormed the bastions of our public policy
institutions. And, no, tobacco control activists and their supporters
will not change their mantra, regardless of credible facts to the
contrary or public opinion. And tobacco control has never acknowledged
that the subject is not about them or what they mandate, or that
ultimately the subject is about the integrity of our public policy. In
the final analysis, those are not the criteria for success in this
endeavor. In these matters success is defined in terms of personal
well-being and self-empowerment. If each citizen took the time to be
informed, discussed the issues with others, let their elected
representative know what they believed, and voted according to their
beliefs the larger picture of credible governance would automatically
take care of itself. Citizens behaving in that way will create a
political environment were those who employ junk science and political
deception to achieve their ends cannot operate. And, if our political
environment makes it impossible for antis to operate on tobacco control
it then follows that such activists cannot do so on any other subject,
as well. That final outcome is our greatest benefit. By standing to duty
about anti-tobacco we are also opposing anti-obesity, anti-caffeine, and
anti-whatever programs that are based on the same model, advocated by
the same activists, and funded by the same special-interests.
So
it turns out that by each of use committing the effort required to take
our personal power back from those who abuse it for their own ends we
create a combined group that does have genuine political power. We
don’t need to change the antis or their political supporters – an
impossible and vain task over which we have no control, to begin with
– all we need to do is begin to take the seven actions above that we
can control and then have faith that others are doing so as well. By
doing so the Barbarians at the gates are left to their own well-earned
fate because there will be nothing in our
new city
that can sustain them. Most important, we will create a cultural
environment in our communities that rejects the values that antis
embrace. That is a final payoff for we the people well worth our time
and effort.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITICIANS'
TEST FROM TOP OF FIRST PAGE
Politicians'
Test:
Who is First District Washington State Representative Jeanne
“Edmonds”? Answer: When you click on the icon provided and go
to that state representative’s Web site you immediately find that the
representative’s name is Jeanne Edwards, not
Edmonds
. There is therefore no family relationship based on surname between her
and King County Councilwoman Carolyn Edmonds. This test as to detail of
what is reported was memorialized by the author in an E-mail sent the
day this commentary was posted:
From:
Norm Kjono [mailto:normkarl@earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, January 19,
2004 9:02 PM
To:
'Andy Ludlow'
;
'gianturci@forces.org'
Subject: January 19
posting "Press, Public Bamboozled?"
I
conducted a reader experiment in today’s posting that should be
patently obvious to those who pay attention to the piece. I asked a
one-line question whether there was a family relationship between
Carolyn Edmonds on the King county Council and Jeanne “
Edmonds
” in the
Washington
legislature. When people click on the icon they will immediately see
that the state legislator’s name is Edwards, and therefore the obvious
answer is “No” there is not a surname family relationship. I want to
see what press, anti, and legislator’s to whom I sent a posting
response is to that information. We’ll see. This can be updated with
an italic headline to after one week of waiting for responses. My
purpose is to elicit comments from readers in the context of GET
INFORMED. Do folks pay attention to detail of what they read?
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Copies
of “Press, Public Bamboozled?” were sent by E-Mail to members
of the Washington House and Senate and news media prior to posting. It
would seem that members of the legislature would be aware that Jeanne Edwards
was the legislative liaison with Attorney General Gregoire’s tobacco
control task force and that there is not a Jeanne Edmonds presently
serving as a representative from the 1st District. No response has been
received from the press or politicians to whom advance copy was sent.
This raises three possibilities: 1.) they do not read what is sent to
them, or 2.) they do not pay attention to what they read, or 3.)
believing they have an “error” that can be used to “discredit”
others how speak to these issues, they jump on it to use in the future
against an “opponent.”
But
why should constituents be “opponents,” to begin with? Neither of
the above three possibilities are acceptable for those who are to be
deciding about or reporting on important public issues that effect all
constituents. Any one of the three above possibilities raise serious
questions as to whether there is any genuine or meaningful dialog
between elected representatives and tobacco consumer constituents on
important tobacco control issues. Tobacco consumers and those who take
the time to research and write about tobacco control issues take such
matters very seriously. It is highly regrettable that state politicians
apparently do not pay sufficient attention to what tobacco consumer
constituents write to even catch a glaring contradiction. If we the
people do not merit serious attention on issues that directly affect our
consumer pocket books and many people’s livelihoods who and what does?
Can “obese” people expect the same disregard for what they research
and write about in the War on Fat?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KING
COUNTY
,
WA
- The King County Board of Health will hold its next meeting on Friday,
January 23, 2004, from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The
meeting will be held at the following location:
King
County
Council Chambers
10th Floor, King County Courthouse
516 Third Avenue
,
Seattle
AGENDA
I.
Call to order
II.
Announcement of Any Alternates Serving in Place of Regular Members
III.
Approval of Minutes of December 19, 2003 (Action
Item)
IV.
General Public Comments
V.
Chair’s Report
VI.
Board Members’ Update
VII.
Director’s Report
VIII.
Election of Officers (Action Item)
IX.
Board Briefing - Tobacco Control Program UpdateToday’s
briefing will provide an overview of the Tobacco Control Program’s
second hand smoke prevention efforts. Roger Valdez, Program Manager,
will provide data on the health effects of environmental tobacco smoke
and discuss
King
County
’s efforts to reduce environmental tobacco smoke in public places
currently and over the last several years. The Board will also hear from
John Britt, Prevention Coordinator for the Tacoma-Pierce County Health
Department who will discuss the recent action taken by the
Pierce
County
Board of Health and the current educational efforts of the Health
Department.
X.
Board Briefing - Injury Prevention UpdateTony
Gomez, Manager of Injury and Violence Prevention, Prevention Division
will provide an update on recent traffic safety efforts and the bicycle
helmet enforcement plan.
Adjournment
If
you have questions or need additional information about this agenda,
please call Maggie Moran, Board of Health Administrator, Public Health -
Seattle & King
County
, at 206-205-5680.
Sign
language, communication material in alternate formats or other
reasonable accommodations can be arranged. Please call 206-296-4850 or
TDD Number 206- 296-4600 or use Washington Relay Service at
1-800-833-6384.
Visit
the King County Board of Health webpages for information about the
Board. Go to http://www.metrokc.gov/health/boh