From Detroit News, May 25, 2005, "$5,000 Bounty Is Offered To Smoke Out Tax Scofflaws,"  by Nick Bunkley: 

“Thousands of Michigan smokers are getting burned by their attempts to avoid the state's $2-a-pack cigarette tax by ordering online. The state Treasury Department has sent letters to more than 2,800 residents ordering them to pay an average of $3,200, spokesman Terry Stanton said. . . . The state eventually could target thousands more Michigan smokers -- and taxes collected could grow to tens of millions of dollars -- as more vendors respond to subpoenas demanding information about online cigarette purchases made since 2001. . . . The state, which is facing a revenue crunch due to the slumping economy, is prosecuting dozens of residents who bought more than 300 cartons online, according to a report on the Treasury Department Web site. Rewards of up to $5,000 are being offered to "concerned taxpayers" who tell authorities about tax-free cigarette purchases. Detroit resident Kathy Fitzgerald, a hairdresser who smokes two packs a day, was billed $1,800 for taxes on 80 cartons she bought at eSmokes.com since November 2003. She paid $19.99 for cartons of Eve 120s -- about half the price they sell for in Michigan, where taxes alone are more than $20 for a 10-pack carton. . . . Fitzgerald, like others targeted by the crackdown, was given 30 days to pay before the state tacked on a 500 percent penalty. . . . Michigan is one of at least 10 states that ban buying cigarettes in the mail or online unless the customer is a licensed distributor or the seller collects Michigan sales and cigarettes taxes. Violators can be punished by up to five years in prison. . . . But while tax-free cigarette purchases are illegal, Stanton said, other online transactions are allowed as long as residents pay the sales tax when submitting their yearly income tax returns. Officials realize that few people do so. Plus, the state has no method to find out about most online purchases. With cigarettes, however, authorities have the power of a 1949 law known as the Jenkins Act, which requires tobacco retailers to report interstate sales. . . . "It's the tax rate that's the problem here. We can try to say we'll do more enforcement, but retailers and customers will find ways around it," Griffin said. "You turn people into common criminals in their desire to use an otherwise legal product." . . . Even some cigarette manufacturers oppose online sales. Philip Morris USA, whose brands include Marlboro, Virginia Slims, Parliament and Basic, has sued several sites and supported legislation to make sure vendors follow all laws. . . .  Fitzgerald, the Detroiter who got slammed with a big bill for her online purchases, only buys her cigarettes in stores now -- but not in Michigan. "I just got back from Kentucky," she said. "I went down there to look at some property, and I stopped at every smoke shop on the way."  (Underline added)

 

The preceding report from The Detroit News brings to the fore three immediate and urgent recommendations for persons who smoke. First, any citizen who still harbors the delusion that government would not declare select citizen-consumers to be “Targets” has to be tokin’ some mighty strange stuff that ain’t made from tobacco; second, Philip Morris continues to demonstrate its propensity to use government to craft regulations and laws that support its market share mercantile interests; and third, consumers would be well advised to take some immediate action to address this situation.

 

Michigan must be an interesting place to live. The state is now turning “concerned” nonsmokers into bounty hunters of smokers, with rewards at $5,000 per head. One is reminded of good Germans who turned their Jewish, Gypsie, or alleged Communist neighbors in to the Gestapo to garner the SS reward of taking over that person’s better house or job. Michigan has also been recently noted for other self-serving and unseemly phenomenon. I refer to the Detroit company (WEYCO) that refuses to hire persons who smoke and will terminate current employees who smoke, as well as a new tax on fast food establishments. What a fun place to live or visit, that state is now a “Target Rich” environment.

 

The WEYCO matter was reported January 26, 2005 by CNN in its article “No Smoking.”   CNN reported: 

“NEW YORK (CNN) -- Banning smoking on company property is common. But Weyco in Michigan is banning workers from smoking altogether, even in the privacy of their homes. The company is conducting mandatory testing to make sure employees are following the rules -- or else they're out. It is more than a fight over smoking cigarettes. For former Weyco employee Cara Stiffler, quitting smoking is a fight about personal liberty. ‘People shouldn't have to be forced to do something that they don't believe in as long as it's not going to hurt somebody,’ says Stiffler. Stiffler and three other employees lost their jobs.”

 

The Detroit fast food tax recently surfaced in a May 9, 2005 CNN article, ”Burger, Fries And Fast-Food Tax To Go?”   CNN reported about the Detroit fast food tax:

“NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - An additional tax on fast-food may be a distasteful idea for whopper-lovers but at least one major city in the Midwest is seriously considering such a proposal. In an effort to curb a looming $300 million budget deficit, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick last month floated what he called a ‘different budget than has ever been presented to our city council.’ The budget includes a proposed 2 percent tax that would be levied only on sales at fast-food restaurants, among other items that would generate additional revenue for the city.”

 

I suspect that pretty soon some poor sap who happens to be munching on a cheese burger while filling out a job application in Detroit, then having the temerity to light up after finishing his happy meal, will not only be SOL but also a “concerned taxpayer” bounty hunter’s dream. Such circumstances could be worth at least $15,000 in bounty checks from the state for a dweeb with a problem about how much his fellow citizens cost him.

 

Unfortunately, Detroit is merely representative of that trend across the United States. It appears that the “Anti-Mentality” behind the War on Obesity and the War on Tobacco has now run amok throughout our fair land. One simply cannot do anything for politicians and activists who have been bit by the “stick it to targets for fun and profit” bug. Consumers are on their own, it appears.  

 

Which is why I recommend that readers immediately go to two Web sites linked through Forces.org:

 

WWW.NYCCLASH.COM  Join the boycott of donations to the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association, then tell your friends about it. Few organizations have been more aggressive about promoting bans and taxes related to “Target” products. If their programs take money out of your pocket through unfair taxes then return the favor by assuring they never, ever see one dime in donations from you or your friends.

 

WWW.SMOKERSTAXREVOLT.COM  Join the boycott of tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) brands such as Philip Morris’ Marlboro. States take new cigarette taxes out of your hide, return the favor by eliminating funds for MSA payments. Fair’s fair.

 

Fail to take the above steps and you seal your own fate. Not only is the War on Whatever Makes Bucks escalating to a frightening level but we now have a clear picture that politicians who support such agendas are out of control. Take action as you can to oppose that.

 

This matter is urgent. It is the product of years of special-interest agendas coming to ultimate fruition. We the people must respond. I’d like to explain why, based on a few interesting facts about the false and misleading public policy data those programs are based on. I will use “statistics” about obesity to illustrate the point, then relate that information to tobacco products.

 

The “Statistics” Con Game

 

Not that the War on Obesity and taxes on fat are a new concept. The Seattle Times reported about anti-obesity in its December 5, 1994 article “Many Of US Are Fat, So Shape Up, America -- First Lady, Former Surgeon General Everett Koop Launch Drive To Point Out Health Risks Of Obesity,”  by Steven Pratt of The Chicago Tribune. That article said in part: 

“As Americans grow fatter and suffer more ill health as a result, a former surgeon general and the first lady are launching a campaign to get people out of the refrigerator and off their backsides. Shape Up America, a nationwide program to promote better eating habits, more exercise and a raised consciousness about obesity, will get its official start tomorrow in a White House press conference with Hillary Rodham Clinton and C. Everett Koop. Being overweight is not only a problem of looks, it's also a serious national disease that contributes to more than 300,000 deaths a year, Koop said Friday. More than a third of all adults are obese, he said - 32 million women and 26 million men - up dramatically from 25 percent in 1980. Similar to Koop's war on smoking, which beefed up warnings on cigarette packs and helped push smokers out of offices and airplanes, the Shape Up campaign will focus on the workplace, schools, doctors' offices and even on cereal boxes. . . . Obesity is not just a health risk. The cost to Americans adds up to more than $100 billion a year, Koop said, including $45.8 billion in direct expenses such as hospital and doctors' bills and $33 billion more in weight-reduction products and services. He puts the indirect costs at $18.9 billion in lost output caused by death and disability from weight-related diseases. Hillary Clinton endorses the Shape Up program because it can reduce disease and lessen the demand for health care, Koop said.” (Underline, red added.)   

Readers may want to review a Knight-Ridder News September 16, 1999 article “Fat Tax Urged In War On Obesity:”   

“WASHINGTON - Obesity experts offered a radical agenda Wednesday to reduce the growing ranks of overweight Americans, including proposals to tax high-fat foods and make insurers cover weight loss programs. Calling the fat problem a "ticking time bomb in the health care system," many experts who gathered here for the first annual conference on obesity and public policy proposed several activist solutions. Among them: lengthening the school day to give kids more exercise, spending a lot more money to research the causes of obesity as well as the "fat tax" and expanded insurance for weight loss treatments. More than half of adult Americans, about 97 million, are estimated to be overweight. Of those, 39 million are considered obese, or more than 30 pounds overweight. More than 20 percent of children are overweight, a number that has doubled in recent decades. Extra pounds are more than unsightly. They contribute to 300,000 deaths each year. The annual cost of treating health problems related to obesity has been estimated at $100 billion.” (Underline, red added.) 

A study published October 27, 1999 in Volume 282 No. 16 of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), “Annual Deaths Attributable To Obesity In the United States,”   published the following conclusion:   

“Conclusions  The estimated number of annual deaths attributable to obesity among US adults is approximately 280,000 based on HRs from all subjects and 325,000 based on HRs from only nonsmokers and never-smokers.”  (Underline, red added)

Well, it appears that smokers provide a valuable medical contribution in the United States: apparently they significantly reduce the overall numbers of deaths due to obesity. It appears from data in the JAMA study that nonsmokers have a significantly greater risk of death from obesity than smokers. Light up and enjoy a smoke to reduce your risks of dying from obesity-related illness!

July 2002 then-U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher issued a “Call to Action” in the War on Obesity, reported by CNN in its July 16, 2002 article “Satcher: Obesity Almost As Bad As Smoking.” CNN’s article reported, in part:

"Obesity is reaching 'epidemic proportions' in the United States, Surgeon General David Satcher said Thursday, and could soon cause as much preventable disease and death as cigarette smoking. More than 61 percent of adults and 14 percent of adolescents are affected by obesity and some 300,000 die each year from health problems directly related to obesity, Satcher noted. He released a 'call to action' to battle a condition he has said should be treated as a disease. However, obesity is not just something that affects the individual, Satcher said. Obesity costs the United States $117 billion per year."  (Underline, red added)

Let’s stop and take a breather here, to look at a few facts. The alleged death toll from obesity was 300,000 in 1994, 300,000 in 1999, and 300,000 in 2002. The alleged costs of obesity-related illness were $100 billion in 1994, $100 billion in 1999, and $117 billion in 2002. As of 2002, based on authoritative sources such as two U.S. Surgeon Generals and the Journal of the American Medical Association, over a seven year period we experienced a constant number of alleged obesity deaths per year and a modest 17 percent increase in costs that can be accounted for by simple inflation (17 percent increase over seven years equals a 2.4 percent average increase per year.) In fact, the stated increase in obesity-related costs from 1994 to 2002 of 17 percent was less than inflation. During that period the Consumer Price Index, as reported by the U.S. Department of Labor,   increased from 149.7 in September 1994 when the Seattle Times published its article about Shape Up America to 180.1in July 2002 when surgeon general Satcher issued his “Call to Action.” During a period when obesity-related costs increases 17.0 percent the U.S. Consumer Price Index increased 20.3 percent. 

While deaths from any disease are unfortunate, a medical condition where mortality remains constant – does not increase – over a seven year period and associated costs increase less then inflation is hardly a growing “epidemic” that commands an immediate “Call to Action.” We should be grateful that both related deaths and associated costs remained constant, then use that favorable circumstance to responsibly communicate competent public health information about diet and exercise. Conclusion: U.S. Suregeon General Satcher’s “Call to Action” was either a lie or issued by an incompetent. Neither alternative is acceptable to responsible administrators and concerned citizens. 

But there are pharmaceutical diet pills to foist on the masses and diet programs of Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig to hustle. What better way to do so than to convince a large “Target Group” segment of the population that they are slovenly, irresponsible, and morally weak fat-asses who will screw their fellow citizens by bankrupting the U.S. economy unless they get with the program to suck down the pills, pay premium prices for allegedly healthy food provided by corporate special-interests, and high step a few for Hilary on the tread mill?  

The preceding obesity-related death figures later escalated to 400,000, threatening to overtake the alleged 440,000 annual deaths from tobacco use. Why we can’t have that. What would happen to anti-tobacco’s funding if the anti-obesity crowd could promote a bigger public health threat?  

The apparent source of the widely-touted figure of 400,000 obesity related deaths per year was a study published in Volume 291, No. 10 of the March 10, 2004 Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), “Actual Causes of Death In The United States, 2000,”   The study relied on and used Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “cause attributable fraction” to arrive at its estimates. That study’s abstract reported, in part: 

"Context  Modifiable behavioral risk factors are leading causes of mortality in the United States. Quantifying these will provide insight into the effects of recent trends and the implications of missed prevention opportunities.  

Design  . . . We used 2000 mortality data reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to identify the causes and number of deaths. The estimates of cause of death were computed by multiplying estimates of the cause-attributable fraction of preventable deaths with the total mortality data.  

Results  The leading causes of death in 2000 were tobacco (435 000 deaths; 18.1% of total US deaths), poor diet and physical inactivity (400 000 deaths; 16.6%), and alcohol consumption (85 000 deaths; 3.5%). Other actual causes of death were microbial agents (75 000), toxic agents (55 000), motor vehicle crashes (43 000), incidents involving firearms (29 000), sexual behaviors (20 000), and illicit use of drugs (17 000).

Conclusions  These analyses show that smoking remains the leading cause of mortality. However, poor diet and physical inactivity may soon overtake tobacco as the leading cause of death. These findings, along with escalating health care costs and aging population, argue persuasively that the need to establish a more preventive orientation in the US health care and public health systems has become more urgent.^"  (Underline added)

The first reports concerning the error in CDC’s obesity calculations stated an error of about 20 percent. Forces contributor John Luik discussed that in his column “Eat Crow,”   published by Forces.org. At the time it appeared that CDC had overstated obesity deaths by about 20 percent or 80,000, which would reduce the widely proclaimed figure to the low 300,000s. The Center for Consumer Freedom published information about the CDC’s overestimate of obesity deaths in its November 29, 2004 article, “More Errors In CDC Obesity Deaths Study”  The center’s article reported in part:  

“Washington, DC – A simple math error that led to a gross overstatement by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) of the number of obesity related deaths in the U.S. is just the first of many flaws in the research, according to The Center for Consumer Freedom. The erroneous study has led to unwarranted alarm that obesity was set to surpass smoking as the number one preventable cause of death and an overhyped frenzy among policymakers and the media over the nation’s so-called ‘obesity epidemic.’"

A May 2004 article in Science magazine captured initial criticism of the study and highlighted disputes within the CDC that the data was weak. One critic said the figures were ‘loosey-goosey.’ Several epidemiologists at CDC and National Institutes of Health echoed this concern but declined to go public. ‘I don’t want to lose my job,’ one CDC staffer told the Science reporter.

This week, the CDC came clean and admitted that their March study suggesting that obesity caused 400,000 deaths each year was incorrect and may have overestimated by as much as 20 percent.

But it got much worse. CDC later retracted their estimates, reducing the number of obesity-related deaths to about 26,000 per year. April 20, 2005 The Washington Times reported that the actual number for CDC’s new estimate of obesity-related deaths per year was 25,814. The following excerpt from The Times’ article, “CDC Says Obesity Deaths Overestimated,”  by Joyce Howard Price, provides interesting information:  

“The federal government greatly overestimated deaths from obesity in the United States, according to new CDC estimates, which now ranks it as the No. 7 most-preventable cause of death, rather than No. 2. As recently as January, the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimated obesity as being responsible for 365,000 deaths per year in the United States. But the new estimate, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), puts the annual death toll at only 25,814 -- the earlier estimate was about 14 times greater.” (Underline, italic added.) 

It is interesting to note that an editorial about the CDC’s obesity estimate published by the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) on April 20, 2005, “Deaths Attributable To Obesity,”  claims a figure of 112,000 obesity deaths per year, rather than 25,814 as reported by The Washington Post:

"In this issue of JAMA, 2 studies^1-2 present new analyses on the subject of obesity. The study by Flegal et al¹ is likely to generate interest because it provides an estimate for deaths attributable to obesity that appears to strongly contradict prior estimates published in JAMA. Flegal et al¹ estimate that there were about 112 000 obesity-attributable deaths in the United States in 2000, far lower than the 414 000 estimated by Mokdad et al^3-4 for the same year and the 280 000 estimated by Allison et al.⁵ for 1991."

On the same day, April 20, 2005 News-Medical.net published “New Study Challenges CDC’s 400,000 Obesity Deaths Figure,”  which clarifies how the 25,814 figure was derived:

“A new study by researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) published in JAMA concludes that obesity kills 112,000 Americans each year -- a dramatic decrease from an admittedly flawed study published last year by the CDC. . . . Today's study in JAMA indicates that being overweight, as opposed to obese, actually saves 86,000 lives. When the authors add their obesity and overweight deaths, they write: ‘Thus, for overweight and obesity combined, our estimate was 25,814 excess deaths.’ Perhaps more importantly, the study employs more recent data that shows a much lower risk of obesity. This data was collected by the CDC itself, and could have been used in its 400,000 study.” (Underline, italic added.)

It turns out that those who are merely overweight – but not classified as obese – have a reduced risk of mortality! OK folks, light up and enjoy food that may add a few extra pounds, to save yourself from the risk of death due to obesity!

Which, of course, also puts the 1994 to 2002 figure of 300,000 obesity deaths per year – as well as the claims about $100 billion to $117 billion of associated costs – in the bathroom device invented by a fellow named Mr. Crapper. Not only did we have an obesity epidemic that did not exist due to constant mortality rates and cost increases less than inflation 1994 to 2002, but today we also find that the hyper-inflated obesity-related death estimates launched by CDC in 2004 to support the War on Obesity were a fourteen-times-inflated falsehood.

John Luik’s commentary, “They Don’t Embarrass Easily,”   published by Tech-Central Station April 26, 2005 and linked on the Forces Web site, is recommended reading. Mr. Luik writes in that commentary:

“A few years ago The New York Times ran a cartoon that showed two Washington DC policy experts having a conversation. ‘In Washington the search for truth is a creative process. First, you create a premise. Next you create a statistic to back it up. Then you create an audience by repeating it over and over again, until the media pick it up. That's when you know that you've done it.’

 ‘Done what?’

 ‘Created a fact!’

 Just add Atlanta -- the home of the Centers for Disease Control -- to Washington and you have a pretty good idea of how obesity science and policy are made these days. Despite the fact that the CDC has been caught out creating "statistics" to back up the ‘fact’ of an obesity epidemic, it appears to be neither embarrassed nor remorseful. As the Associated Press reported:

          ‘CDC Director Dr. Julie Gerberding said because of the uncertainty
           in calculating the health effects of being overweight, the CDC is not
           going to use the brand-new figure of 25,814 in its public awareness
           campaigns and is not going to scale back its fight against obesity.’

So let's get this straight. When the CDC's numbers said that obesity was overtaking tobacco as the leading cause of death, allegedly killing 400,000 Americans a year, it was all right to use that 400,000 figure non-stop to scare us into losing weight. But when the real number turns out to be just short of 26,000 then the CDC is so worried about "uncertainty" that they aren't going to use the figure. Obviously, Dr. Gerberding did not get her doctorate in logic.”

We began the War on Obesity with Dr. C. Everett Koop and Hillary Clinton launching Shape Up America because 300,000 obese folks were allegedly dropping like flies each year (about 822 per day) and the “National Epidemic” of obesity was costing taxpayers $100 billion per year. Based on such alarming “statistics” Kelly Brownell at Yale University advocated in December 1994 new taxes based on the fat content of food and restrictions on youth access to vending machines. We arrive at 2005 with the understanding that there are actually about 26,000 obesity related deaths per year bottom line (about 71 folks per day) and realizing that all the obesity-related cost estimates must be a mere fraction of the figures touted over the last eleven years as well.

The interesting point about the “statistics” crafted to support the War on Obesity is that similar data manipulation has been applied in the War on Tobacco.  One of the most interesting works on that subject is “Lies, Damned Lies, & 400,000 Smoking-Related Deaths,”  by Robert A. Levy and Rosalind B. Marimont, Mr. Levy is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, Ms. Marimont is a retired mathematician formerly with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Levy and Marimont write:

“The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) prepares and distributes information on smoking-attributable mortality, morbidity and economic costs (SAMMEC). In its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report for 27 August 1993, the CDC states that 418,690 Americans died in 1990 of various diseases they contracted because, according to the government, they smoked. . . . What would happen if SAMMEC data were to exclude deaths from those diseases that had a relative risk of less than two for current or former smokers? Table 1 (at the end of this article) shows that 163,071 deaths reported by CDC were from deaths that should not have been included in this report. Add to that another 1,362 deaths reported by CDC from burn injuries . . . That is a total of 164,433 misreported deaths out of 418,690. When the report is properly limited to diseases that have a significant relationship to smoking, the death toll declines to 254,257. Thus, on this count alone, SAMMEC overstates the number of deaths by 65 percent.” (Underline added.)

In that article Levy and Marimont also describe how the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) Cancer Prevention Survey overstates smoking-related deaths by about 65 percent. Other research based on CDC’s mortality tables shows that 60 percent of alleged “premature” smoking related deaths occur for those past age 70, and another 17 percent are for those over age 80.

It goes without saying that if CDC’s and ACS’s “estimates” of smoking related deaths are overstated by about 65 then so are the alleged costs associated with treating smoking-related illness. But the overstated figures were used as the basis for a $206 billion tobacco MASTER Settlement Agreement in 1998, allegedly for states to recover the costs of treating smoking related illness.  

 Consumers’ Reality Today

 What is the CDC’s response to the dramatic change in obesity mortality risk and associated costs? Clearly, full steam ahead with the War on Obesity, no change at all. In fact, we need look no further than current news to see that the War on Consumers in the name of anti-obesity is escalating. As reported above, Detroit is considering a tax on fast food outlets – a prime target of anti-obesity activists. And we can look to a column by Nicole Brodeur published today in the Seattle Times to observe that restricting children’s access to vending machines that contain certain foods, as well as banning mobile food vendors from school areas, is being aggressively pursued. From The Seattle Times, May 25, 2005, "Schools May Gain By Losing Fat,"  by columnist Nicole Brodeur: 

“The Seattle schools we worried would close have been spared. Great. But our math problem remains on the board, people: Where to find the money to ease the district's budget pain? Enid Hohn says a way to drop at least some revenue into the schools' ever-leaking bucket is to drop the right kinds of snacks into vending machines. Hohn, a registered dietitian, has quadrupled vending-machine revenue at one California high school, and in the process, helped fight childhood obesity by limiting kids to healthful choices. ‘It just has to be appealing,’ said Hohn, 52, director of child-nutrition services at the Vista Unified School District in Oceanside, Calif. She replaced candy and chips with bagels, Nutri-Grain bars, Pop-Tarts, fresh fruit and vegetables. . . . Hohn told the Puget Sound Educational District this month how she phased out sugary sodas by telling students she had simply run out. They had no choice but to buy water and fruit juice. . . . Last week, the Seattle City Council voted to ban mobile vendors — pizza trucks — within 1,000 feet of public schools. Council members called it a strike against childhood obesity. But they did it at the urging of the union that represents cafeteria workers, whose pay and benefits are linked to the number of meals served. . . . Last year, after schools were urged to cut sugary, fatty snacks and drinks, Lynnwood High School saw its vending profits drop 40 percent. One Rainier Beach High teacher last year estimated his school would lose $15,000 a year. . . . Hohn's plan keeps profits inside the school. She has even started an in-house pizza business that's been duplicated by seven other school districts." (Underline added)

But at least we now have the true nature of “Anti-Mentality” health advocates clearly revealed: it’s about the bucks; it always has been and always will be. If it takes a few crafted lies to school kids about running out of soft drinks as an excuse to put water and fruit juice in vending machines, so be it. If it takes outright BSing the public about the true mortality risks and costs associated with obesity for eleven years to “justify” raking in the bucks, that’s OK, too. And if it takes banning mobile food distributors within 1,000 feet of schools – thereby eliminating vendors’ revenue and jobs – to manipulate a market that sustains a profit-producing school food program that includes pizza, main stream media columnists will laud such blatant market manipulation.

What we citizens and consumers are confronted with through “Anti-Mentality” programs is nothing more or less than overt consumer and free market manipulation for special-interest dollars. We are being taxed and forced to pay added costs for products at an unprecedented rate based on the lowest and most deceptive Junk Science. We are being forced to pay those costs based on blatantly false and manipulated data concerning mortality rates and cost of treating related illness. The “statistics” generated by “Anti-Mentality” con artists are also used to craft negative labels and unfavorable stereotypes about “Target Group” citizens to justify special-interest mercantile agendas.  And, as now evident form current reports about Detroit’s tax on fast food restaurants and school districts, the admission that it’s truly about the bucks and bucks only is transparent.

So what to do about that. Well, you could sit on your duff, do nothing and therefore change nothing. A reasonable alternative is to return to the top of this commentary, click on the two icons provided, then boycott tobacco Master Settlement Agreement brands and boycott donations for the American Cancer Society and the American Lung Association. Do that and we may have a chance to end this. Fail to do so and your consumer or donation dollars will assure this mercantile sickness continues.

To those who yawn, reach for a Marlboro, then send a donation to the cancer society or lung association there is a simple message: enjoy, dude, you have just sealed your own fate. Suck it up and blissfully suffer in your status as a willing victim.

Norman E. Kjono