WHO would like to be on OPRAH?

[Elaine]

Oh Good, I get to argue with Snowflake!

Truthfully, as an addict of both caffeine and nicotine, I don't see the two as being anywhere near the same as far as in the damage one can do nor in the ability of one to kick the habit.

Nicotine, as a drug is the MOST addictive substance ever studied--including heroin. If I were addicted to heroin, I could go into a 30 day lock up to get off of it. To get locked up for 30 days to get off cig--there is no place I could go that is for the expressed prupose of kicking one's nicotine addiction. I supposed being locked up in the hospital for the treatment of lc, is about the closest I could get.

The tobacco companies WITHELD data about the harms of their product, and what is worse, they withheld the manners in which they experimented with the dosage of nicotine in cigerettes to find the most addictive dose. Then when people started quitting, they actually upped the dose to make it harder, increasingly increasing it over time. All the while knowing the 10-20 per cent of the users of their product would die because of the product.

They also came out with low tar products and basically said that these were safer cigerettes, when we know NOW that is NOT the case. They knew long before the public did that it was not the case, yet failed to tell the public this until FORCED to by recent tobacco settlements. It was fraud.

When I don't have caffine, I get a headache, sometimes mild, sometimes moderate. That is the only side effect I get. I dont know how many people die of their addiction to Coca Cola. I assume some do. Perhaps they get run over by your Coca Cola truck, instead of your beer truck.

Cigerettes, are more than physically addicting, they are physchologically and socially addicting. People with addictive personalities are more susceptible to their power. And addictions ARE powers. Ask anyone who has been addicted to anything.

The US Governement has many agencies, including the FDA, that have as their responsibility to safeguard the health and safety of the US citizenry. Ephedra kills three-whoosh, it's off the market--Cigerettes kill millions and still they are for sale.

Shouldn't we be protecting the rights of those who want ephedra to be able to have it? Why aren't we doing that? Wonder what the big difference is between ephedra and tobacco? Look at the lobbyists for the tobacco companies and farmers. Look at the amount of taxes cig produce for the governments.

Ultimately, it was my responsibility to quit. I will agree with you on that. But when you say: "Blame for the act of smoking goes to the smoker, blame for cancer should not." --you are really saying blame for the cancer is on the smoker--and you can't tell me that that is NOT what you are saying, unless, of course, you think that there is some coincidence that most of the people who get LC have been or are smokers.

These are the kinds of discussions that NEED to happen and be resolved, or else there is no sense trying to go public with trying to break the stigma or the myths.

PS: How long have you had those asbestos underwear? Maybe those caused your cancer!!! Ouch. Don't they itch or burn or scratch???

love (and I mean LOVE)

elaine

[Elaine]

Mary Ann,

[Snowflake]

Elaine,

I'll answer you in a PM. Not going to interrupt Cat's flow with a topic that's on a tangent...

[Elaine]

LOL-- you did already! Or did I start the discussion on blame?

[Snowflake]

Oh, bite me!

Geesh!

People need to take responsiblity for their actions. If I'm driving a beer truck and I hit some poor sucker in the middle of the road, that is NOT the fault of Guinness, GMC or the weatherman, it's MY fault...or if it's someone that's p*ssed me off, it's THEIR fault.

It ain't a "Smoker's Disease". Smokers don't own it, shouldn't be blamed for it, etc. AS FOR THE SMOKING PART, the person lighting the flippin' cigarette is the one responsible for the action. Cause and effect...

I don't care WHAT "Big Tobacco" did or didn't do, that is not my fight. Tobacco money doesn't mean crap to non-smokers...and by the way, all the money in the world wouldn't make the disease worth having. The answer for preventing lung cancer is NOT preventing smoking. There have been public service announcements against smoking for decades, update them when needed, BUT, spend the NEW money on research, on a cure! Not smoking didn't keep me free of the disease, so it's NOT the answer...

...and stop poking me with that d*mn stick, I bite and I haven't had my shots! Geesh!

[Elaine]

BITE ME BACK! I

The tobacco money, if used properly, would benefit non-smokers. Any cure would be a cure for ALL, not just smokers.

SO you are saying the fraud committed by the industry is NOT something THEY should be responsible for? Are you saying the government who has as its responsiblity to protect its citizenry should not also be held accountable?

I think there are a whole host of people and entities that as a whole are responsible. One of those groups IS smokers. It's a shared thing.

And you seem to somehow be saying that people choose to be addicted. Seems to me that choice and addiction are contradictory words. There is choice involved, yes., but it's nore complicated than choice or else it wouldn't be an addiciton.

And your dirver of the truck and the smoker--again, I don't think you are comparing apples to apples here. Unless of course it would be possible to be addicted to running over people, and since that is possible, my question would be--is it probable?

I will also disagree-- I do think that preventing smoking will significantly cut down on the numbers of LC patients. But I don't think that spending tons of money on silly ads will do much to prevent smoking. Taking cig off the market--now that would, quite a bit. I can already hear you" talk" about a black market. Heck we as a nation love to build prisons, so why not build some more!!!

Go get your shots and call me in the morning, lol

Love

elaine

[Guest bean_si (Not Active)]

..

[Elaine]

Pls don't anyone think that Becky and I are not being polite nor postive. That is not the case! Sometimes, like in all conversations, one thing flows to the next. But the fact that this topic flowed in the direction it did, just shows me how important it is to be careful of how to approach the breaking of the stigma and what you call myths.

Thanks

elaine

[Melinda]

Let me know what I can do to assist in getting this going!

I WILL gently suggest that we don't immediately approach her staff with a "negative" vibe (doctors don't care and everyone blames us), but more of a "informative", "we need to get the word out there" "silent epidemic" issue that Oprah would be compelled to feel passionate about and want to share with her audience.

Once we get the go ahead for sharing our story, then we could get into those issues that are so important.....but we need to reel her in by appealing to her kindness and compassionate side!

I agree with Hebbie.

There has been so much more press about women and lung cancer recently, that although of course this disease does not only affect women, it may be the "gimmick" to getting the disease more coverage/money for awareness/and money for research.

When Oprah initially said "no way"--there had not recently been so much press of this nature.

As sad and cynical as it may be, until the media decides that something is a "noteworthy" and "sellable" topic, it will not get coverage. Therefore, we have to usually give the media the "hook" itis lookig for. And once ONE large media organization starts it--the others all tend to jump on the bandwagon. (Example--when I worked for The Evening News with Dan Rather, there was an entire team devoted to seeing what the "top stories" on CNN, the other networks, in the major newspapers/magazine, on BBC, and AP (the Assoc. Press) were that day. Then--AND ONLY THEN--would another team decide what stories were worth "covering" that night on the news and what "in-depth" projects to research. Often the writers only re-worded earlier reports that had been aired on CNN that day!!! Although I had great respect for almost all of the people that I worked with--they were driven, dedicated journalists--this fact stunned and disenchanted me immensely.)

When something hits the AP wires about women's health--it will show up soon in every "women's" magazine (at least in the form of a blurb, if not an in-depth story). The same is true for men's health (compare "Men's Health" and "Men's Fitness" magazines).

As far as I'm concerned, the ultimate goal is to put lung cancer in the public's (and medical community's) eye. Make people aware of how many people it kills--and raise awareness, activism, and money for research, treatments, and eventually a cure! EVERYONE (female/male, young/old, smoker/ex-smoker/non-smoker, patient/caretaker/family) benefits as a result.

Maybe we have to be pragmatic and figure out what are the best possible "hooks".

Personally, I wish there were a three armed Martian with lung cancer on Oprah--that would get press, and help us ALL achieve our goals.

Melinda

[Guest bean_si (Not Active)]

..

[ginnyde]

Cat,

Does it matter who gets the attention, smokers, nonsmokers, young, old, man, woman, giraffe. What does matter is that lung cancer gets the attention and funding that it rightly deserves.

I am so glad to see this thread. Starting to get active - Oprah, congressmen whatever is so exciting.

How about we start to get press releases out under the LCSC name. Newspapers are always looking for stuff to fill space. That needs to be okayed by the board and should probably be sent out by them.

I am copying and pasting these letters for senators, reps and state house people too and sending them off.

Isn't there some type of slogan in advertising about it doesn't matter what the publicity is - just as long as you get the name out.

Let's get the name out.

[brm1949]

OK, lung cancer does not discriminate, it affects men, women and children. It takes no prisnors and sure doesn't debate the issues. I believe that seperating it into groups only makes it harder to talk about and confuses the issue. It is what it is and constantly focusing on what may be the cause instead of what can cure it detracts from what needs to be done. Emphasis should be on what treatments are working and how solving this disease benefits every other cancer treatment. We are the largest cancer with 174,000 dxed each year and 150,000 dying each year. While the cause are important to the research, the bottom line is, its there and finding a cure is what we should focus on and bring to the front everthing thats been done and is being done and show the public that this research is a must because in the long run, it effects everyone with cost and mainly with suffering. So it would make good sense to put as much as we can into beating it with funding for more research and not anti-smoking ads. If the tobacco companies have been proven to be at fault, let them pay for the campagn against smoking. Just my 2 cents. Cancer is a human condition, not a womens or mans, its unfortunately both of ours.

[Guest bean_si (Not Active)]

..

[close to the edge]

cat

close to the edge here

my name is Ann

[Guest draiocht_bean_si]

..

[kimblanchard]

I would be interested in sharing my story. I am relatively young (46) and the mother of an eight year old boy. I have never smoked although I lived almost half my life with people who chose to smoke.

My experience with medical personnel has been wonderful. We have managed to gather a group of professionals around us who are devoted to the quality of my life and have directed my treatment in that direction. We just do not stay with people who handle me otherwise. I do, however, pay a lot out of pocket medical expenses.

I am most interested in increasing funds dedicated to research for new treatments so I can continue to out live the statistics and see my son grow up. I am also interested in research on early diagnosis so perfectly healthly people are not sitting in doctor's offices hearing that they have stage IV lung cancer (with all that means).

Please let me know what I can do.

Thanks for your effort!

[BoBennett]

bean_si wrote:

Logically, if anyone should be blamed, it should be the tobacco companies.

Where is the thread to argue the responsibility. I think this is an extremely important point.. Not only to those of us who smoked prior to diagnosis, or those who continue to smoke post diagnosis, and how it can affect our surviving the disease. But to the fact that we want more research done but we don’t want to leave behind habits that undoubtedly contribute to our ill health. I would much rather belong to a group that wants to help themselves but statisticaly 85% of lung cancer folks were smokers and that means I don’t have a choice. So if you get on Oprah and don’t take responsibility and say it’s the tobacoo companies fault, I will ask for equal time and ask for research monies to help me survive I won’t ask for money to help me continue to destroy myself while I enjoy known bad habits. I realize that not all folks continue a non healthy path but it only take a few vocal ones who won’t take responsibility to ruin it for those that want to try and survive Take responsibility!!!

[Elaine]

Bo

You need to read my posts about tobacco companies more closely. No one is saying people should continue to smoke (not on this thread) and no one is giving up total blame to tobacco companies. Read the post and research on your own how these companies made sure you were addicted.

elaine

[BoBennett]

This is not aimed at anyone this is my opinion based on the realities surrounding this diseases.

Whether or not anyone is saying that we should continue to smoke or not is not the issue. If we as lung cancer folks did something that undoubtedly contributed to our ill health and then don’t take responsibility how can we ask for help. For sure I have no love loss for the tobacco companies. And yes, I believe they do all they can, legally and illegally to see that we have a hard time quiting smoking. It is a horrible addiction But as I read the argument/discussion it appears to be that many folks want to pass the buck on responsibility. I can’t help but think if I, (or anyone) continue to treat my body badly, then how can I ask for help. I can’t help but think if I shout from the top of a building that I have lung cancer and continue to treat my body badly, that a good portion of those listening would rather I jump than impose on them, rightfully so. God helps those who help themselves. Again I know that smoking after DX is most likely not the rule, but the exception, but in my small world I see it over and over. And I would love to see a cure that would allow me unrestricted abuse of my body, (because it feels good to drink, drug and smoke) but unfortunately we have a better chance if we treat ourselves well. Also, the reality is, that lung cancer is associated with smoking and when a non smoker watches the undisciplined abuse themselves and then ask for help, especially if they continue to abuse themselves they have no pity on us.

No doubt that some folks get lung cancer who never smoked, but again no doubt that 85% of us did. There is a connection. There is another part to this. It is those that follow our lead. When we teach our young that we don’t accept the responsibility for our ill health, and blame others, then statistically they will acquire these bad habits and in turn lung cancer.

We can not allow ourselves the luxury of saying we have not aided the disease in some way and blaming some external factor as we have no control over the external we have the best control over ourselves.

There I said what has been building up. For those I may have offended. I hope you take my opinions as intended, that we need to see things as is, not how we want them.

[Guest draiocht_bean_si]

..

[stephnewyork34]

I would love to go on , just to get Moms story out there, She was a smoker, but still it is important, As< I said in the last Oprah post, I wrote to Oprah several times, and now I would be going in my Moms name. But please get intouch with me if this happens. Please.....stepholivieri@hotmail.com

thanks. I am in Denmark, but I can leave the film for this if needed.

Stephanie for Judy B

[Guest bean_si (Not Active)]

Sounds good to me Stephanie. I can see your mom smiling at you.

Cat

[Guest bean_si (Not Active)]

..