Treatment Abuse, Behavior Modification, Thought Reform > Hyde Schools

Only @ Hyde

<< < (3/5) > >>

Ursus:
Seems to me that the smoking issue was a much bigger deal back in those days, but then again, I was never there in the capacity of a "grad," hahaha!! Once I left, I never looked back. And I may very well have been much more brainwashed than you, that is for sure... to the point where it quite seriously compromised my ability to understand human nature and even my survival instincts.

From what I recall, Joe Gauld... was... rather... anti-smoking... with all the fervor and righteousness of a probably fully-addicted ex-smoker himself (no personal offense intended).

Did you know that he participated in the hearings for the National Commission on Drug-Free Schools in 1989/1990? Much, if not most, of the resultant concern of that Commission focused on alcohol and tobacco. A 33-page portion of the Final Report TOWARD A DRUG-FREE GENERATION: A Nation's Responsibility (November 15, 1990) happens to now be on file at the Legacy Tobacco Documents Library at UCSF.

There's Joseph W. Gauld, representing "The Hyde School" (page 84 of the original document, page 25 of the truncated link) as one of "more than 200 experts in drug education and prevention" who participated in panel discussions in one of six regional areas across the country. In Joe's case, this took place on November 13-14, 1989 at the Commission's stop in Boston, Massachusetts (Madison-Park Humphrey Center High School and Boston University).

From the introductory section of the report, explaining purpose and focus:

-------------- • -------------- • --------------

FOREWARD

The National Commission on Drug-Free Schools was established by Congress in Section 5051 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-690) and assigned the following four tasks:


* To develop recommendations of criteria for identifying drug-free schools and campuses;
* To develop recommendations for identifying model programs to meet such criteria;
* To make other findings, recommendations, and proposals the Commission deems necessary; and
* To prepare and submit a final report to the President and Congress.
Under the legislation, the Secretary of Education, Lauro F. Cavazos, and the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, William J. Bennett, were appointed cochairmen of a 26-member commission. In August 1989, they appointed 16 citizen members representing drug education and prevention, state and local education agencies, parent-teacher organizations, school boards, community groups, and law enforcement. Congress appointed a bipartisan delegation of four members of the senate and four members of the House of Representatives.

The Commission met for the first time on August 24, 1989, when it adopted the following goals:


* To identify and discuss circumstances, situations, and issues that contribute to illicit drug, alcohol, and tobacco use, abuse, and dependency among students.
* To make recommendations on strategies, programs, criteria, and policies that could assist in making our schools and students drug-free.
* To develop criteria for identifying model programs.
* To develop recommendations for identifying existing programs that meet such criteria.
* To make recommendations on ways to develop model programs.
* To develop a report of the Commission's findings and present that report to the President and Congress within a year.
Commission members heard prepared testimony from more than 150 people representing the schools and communities where hearings were held. At six regional meetings, the Commission held day-long panel discussions with more than 200 experts in drug education and prevention. Commission members visited 17 schools and campuses, as well as a neonatal intensive care unit for drug-affected babies, a center for abused and neglected infants, foster homes, a runaway shelter, a juvenile detention center, and a public housing project. Commission members also talked with more than 1,500 students, teachers, school administrators, and parents, and rode police and citizen patrols through inner-city neighborhoods and along the Mexican border.

This final report presents an outline of goals for achieving drug-free schools by the year 2000; an overview of drug problems among young people; a summary of students' views on alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; and an outline of the roles and responsibilities of community groups and organizations. The Commission's findings and recommendations, which make up most of the report, provide observations about drug problems and suggest ways that schools and communities can begin to solve them. Examples of some effective drug prevention programs and activities the Commission found in its investigations appear throughout the report.

The Commission has given considerable thought to the contents of this report and is in full agreement on an overwhelming number of the findings and recommendations. Unanimity on every recommendation, however, was not possible given the diversity of perspectives and strongly held views of members. Rather than include minority views separately, the Commission wishes to acknowledge that some differences of opinion exist among members.

TOWARD A DRUG-FREE GENERATION: A Nation's Responsibility proposes an action plan for the nation to achieve drug-free schools. It is presented to the President, Congress, and the American public with the hope that it will lead to more effective drug education and prevention in schools and communities--and that ultimately it will help save young people now and in the future from the ravages of drugs.[/size]

Anonymous:
Altria Group Inc. in the news re. deceptive marketing practices:


link to article
Court allows lawsuits over 'light' cigarettes
Monday, December 15, 2008


WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court on Monday handed a surprising defeat to tobacco companies counting on it to put an end to lawsuits alleging deceptive marketing of "light" cigarettes.

In a 5-4 split won by the court's liberals, it ruled that smokers may use state consumer protection laws to sue cigarette makers for the way they promote "light" and "low tar" brands.

The decision was at odds with recent anti-consumer rulings that limited state regulation of business in favor of federal power.

The tobacco companies argued that the lawsuits are barred by the federal cigarette labeling law, which forbids states from regulating any aspect of cigarette advertising that involves smoking and health.

Justice John Paul Stevens, however, said in his majority opinion that the labeling law does not shield the companies from state laws against deceptive practices. The decision forces tobacco companies to defend dozens of suits filed by smokers in Maine, where the case originated, and across the country.

People suing the cigarette makers still must prove that the use of 'light' and 'lowered tar' actually violate the state anti-fraud laws, but those lawsuits may go forward, Stevens said.

He was joined by the other liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter, as well as Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote often decides cases where there is an ideological division.

The conservative justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, dissented.

Thomas, writing for the dissenters, said the link between the fraud claims and smokers' health is unmistakable.

But he also said: "The alleged misrepresentation here -- that 'light' and 'low-tar' cigarettes are not as healthy as advertised -- is actionable only because of the effect that smoking light and low-tar cigarettes had on respondents' health."

Three Maine residents sued Altria Group Inc. and its Philip Morris USA Inc. subsidiary under the state's law against unfair marketing practices. The class-action claim represents all smokers of Marlboro Lights or Cambridge Lights cigarettes, both made by Philip Morris.

The lawsuit argues that the company knew for decades that smokers of light cigarettes compensate for the lower levels of tar and nicotine by taking longer puffs and compensating in other ways.

A federal district court threw out the lawsuit, but the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could go forward.

The case is Altria Group Inc. v. Good, 07-562.
(Copyright ©2008 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

Ursus:

--- Quote ---Justice John Paul Stevens, however, said in his majority opinion that the labeling law does not shield the companies from state laws against deceptive practices. The decision forces tobacco companies to defend dozens of suits filed by smokers in Maine, where the case originated, and across the country.
--- End quote ---
Kind of ironic that this case originated in Maine, home base of Hyde School.

And just what, exactly, does Hyde School have in common with Big Tobacco? The same deceptive marketing practices, even some of the same marketing personnel!

 :roflmao:

Anonymous:
does this mean that smoking is now OK at Hyde School?

Ursus:

--- Quote from: "dfg;gior" ---does this mean that smoking is now OK at Hyde School?
--- End quote ---

LOLS. Probably NOT!!

Btw, in case I didn't make it clear in one of my previous posts, my issue is not with smoking per se. That is kind of a personal choice, as far as I am concerned. Certainly, it has its uses in brain stimulation and stress reduction, not to mention early morning binnis facilitation.

My issue lies with Hyde School's deceptive marketing practices (long a complaint from disgruntled parents and former students), and Hyde School's hypocrisy (also long a complaint from that same community).

The recent marketing collaboration of Hyde School with a senior marketing exec from Philip Morris (long historically accused of deceptive and fraudulent marketing practices), makes their ideological similarity all the more apparent.

Hyde School is in bed with Big Tobacco.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page