Saturday, November 26, 2005
Dear Editor Nov. 25/05
Government imposed smoking bans have hurt the hospitality industry everywhere they have introduced in the world.
It's not shocking that the supposed "hordes" of non-smoking customers have never materialized in your city.
Many people who favour government mandated smoking prohibitions within the private hospitality sector fail to understand the danger these unneeded regulations represent to everyone's personal freedoms, livelihoods and property rights in modern society.
It doesn't matter whether someone chooses to believe the junk science and erroneous, fanatical claims of the professional
anti-smoking lobby. The second-hand smoke "kills" myth is one of the biggest shams of the entire century.
Smoking bans imposed by government decree have nothing to do with worker's or public health.
They are merely a means to introduce "positive" social engineering. To supposedly help smokers quit their habits.
A form of "well-intended" behaviour modification. Smoking bans also allow the government to strip the private property rights of business owners against their wills.
It's a fact that if non-smoking hospitality industry establishments really were as popular as the anti-smoking lobby and politically correct politicians claim them to be...
No government mandated smoking prohibitions would be required in the private hospitality industry.
It is true that close to 70% of the population are not regular smokers. An obvious majority.
But, by the same token...
>From 50%-90% if the regular, patron-base of most adult hospitality industry venues are regular or part-time smokers.
Since people for the most part are "creatures of habit"...
Government imposed smoking bans ostracize and disenfranchise a huge segment of these private businesses' regular clientele.
Smokers, their families and friends for the most part will not patronize the adult hospitality industry as frequently when a smoking bans is in place. A good number of these people will stay home and boycott the private hospitality sector when smoking bans are imposed. People get used to entertaining at home where they can smoke in indoor comfort. They also save a great deal of money by not paying high mark-up on alcoholic beverages, food and tips.
It's not just the smokers who avoid and shun the private hospitality sector, as I said their families and friends usually will stick with them as well.
Many non-smokers themselves do not care if smoking is permitted in adult hospitality venues, providing there is good ventilation in the establishment.
It's a fact that most smokers drink more alcohol, stay for longer durations of time, tip higher and spend more money overall than non-smokers on average.
Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people.
Especially when socializing.
Most hospitality industry establishments operate on profit margins of 8%-30%, smoking bans will obviously have a huge negative impact upon these entertainment venues. No matter what the anti-smoking lobby claims.
Since most people are slaves to routine, it is a givein that the small number of non-smokers who completely avoided or rarely patronized the hospitality industry on account of smoking being permitted will ever replace the disenfranchised smoking customers.
It would take many years for this to happen, if ever. Especially in cold and wet Fall-Winter conditions.
It is completely absurd to attempt to compare most restaurants with adult hospitality establishments where smoking bans are concerned.
The hospitality industry is one of accommodation.
Give the people what they want and they shall come.
Firstly, all hospitality industry establishments are not created equally.
These private businesses live or die by catering to a certain segment of the population.Many of these people just happen to be regular or part-time smokers.
It takes many years to establish a loyal, regular patron base in the hospitality industry.It only takes a few months or years under a smoking ban to destroy that clientele base. Most hospitality industry businesses cannot afford to wait for a new non-smoking clientele to appear, not at the low profit margins they usually operate under
.
Most small hospitality establishments never recover and many of them will go bankrupt or those that survive will do so under smaller profit margins.
I firmly believe that government imposed smoking bans are a terrible idea.
I have no problem with businesses going smoke-free of their own choice.
They key-word here is CHOICE.
In fact, the anti-smoking lobby know all too well that government mandated smoking bans are very, bad for business in the private hospitality sector. If private business owners were afforded the choice of setting their own smoking or no-smoking policies, the anti-smoking cartel knows that many businesses that voluntarily chose to go smoke-free would return to allowing smoking if they had that choice.
This is why they are so vehemently opposed to anything except 100%, government imposed, indoor smoking bans with no exemptions.
The anti-smoking lobby will never accept sane compromises such as separate, ventilated smoking rooms or ventilation systems capable of rendering a hospitality venue 99% smoke-free, which would also make it's air quality cleaner than the "fresh" outdoor air. There is no logical reason that ventilation solutions cannot be accepted as a workable solution as opposed to total indoor smoking prohibition.
Well actually there is...
The anti-smoking lobby and their slobbering minions hate the smell of tobacco smoke.
This is not a health issue.It never has been.
As I said previously stated without the phantom health risks of second-hand smoke, the anti-smoking lobby would have no means of imposing their selfish wants upon a good portion of the private hospitality industry.
Even if people foolishly believe that ETS is a serious health concern, the vast majority of those people also would be willing to accept a ventilation solution that could accommodate virtually everyone, except the rabid anti-smoking hysterics.
To be fair I fully understand that many people despise or dislike the smell of tobacco smoke.
I also understand that some people actually believe that second-hand smoke is a very,real health concern.
The mainstream media, the anti-smoking lobby and the medical-pharmaceutical community are all guilty of perpetuating this myth as a means to help reduce over-all smoking rates.
Their intentions may seem well-meaning on the surface, but the stark reality of negative smoking ban impacts, such as unemployment and business failures outweigh any positive consequences that government imposed smoking bans might spawn, such as helping smokers to quit their habits via attempted social conditioning.
Government imposed smoking bans have hurt the hospitality industry everywhere they have introduced in the world.
It's not shocking that the supposed "hordes" of non-smoking customers have never materialized in your city.
Many people who favour government mandated smoking prohibitions within the private hospitality sector fail to understand the danger these unneeded regulations represent to everyone's personal freedoms, livelihoods and property rights in modern society.
It doesn't matter whether someone chooses to believe the junk science and erroneous, fanatical claims of the professional
anti-smoking lobby.
The second-hand smoke "kills" myth is one of the biggest shams of the entire century.
Smoking bans imposed by government decree have nothing to do with worker's or public health.
They are merely a means to introduce "positive" social engineering. To supposedly help smokers quit their habits.
A form of "well-intended" behaviour modification. Smoking bans also allow the government to strip the private property rights of business owners against their wills.
It's a fact that if non-smoking hospitality industry establishments really were as popular as the anti-smoking lobby and politically correct politicians claim them to be...
No government mandated smoking prohibitions would be required in the private hospitality industry.
It is true that close to 70% of the population are not regular smokers. An obvious majority.
But, by the same token...
>From 50%-90% if the regular, patron-base of most adult hospitality industry venues are regular or part-time smokers.
Since people for the most part are "creatures of habit"...
Government imposed smoking bans ostracize and disenfranchise a huge segment of these private businesses' regular clientele.
Smokers, their families and friends for the most part will not patronize the adult hospitality industry as frequently when a smoking bans is in place. A good number of these people will stay home and boycott the private hospitality sector when smoking bans are imposed .People get used to entertaining at home where they can smoke in indoor comfort. They also save a great deal of money by not paying high mark-up on alcoholic beverages, food and tips.
It's not just the smokers who avoid and shun the private hospitality sector, as I said their families and friends usually will stick with them as well.
Many non-smokers themselves do not care if smoking is permitted in adult hospitality venues, providing there is good ventilation in the establishment.
It's a fact that most smokers drink more alcohol, stay for longer durations of time, tip higher and spend more money overall than non-smokers on average.
Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people.
Especially when socializing.
Most hospitality industry establishments operate on profit margins of 8%-30%, smoking bans will obviously have a huge negative impact upon these entertainment venues. No matter what the anti-smoking lobby claims.
Since most people are slaves to routine, it is a givein that the small number of non-smokers who completely avoided or rarely patronized the hospitality industry on account of smoking being permitted will ever replace the disenfranchised smoking customers.
It would take many years for this to happen, if ever. Especially in cold and wet Fall-Winter conditions.
It is completely absurd to attempt to compare most restaurants with adult hospitality establishments where smoking bans are concerned.
The hospitality industry is one of accommodation.
Give the people what they want and they shall come.
Firstly, all hospitality industry establishments are not created equally.
These private businesses live or die by catering to a certain segment of the population.Many of these people just happen to be regular or part-time smokers.
It takes many years to establish a loyal, regular patron base in the hospitality industry. It only takes a few months or years under a smoking ban to destroy that clientele base. Most hospitality industry businesses cannot afford to wait for a new non-smoking clientele to appear, not at the low profit margins they usually operate under.
Most small hospitality establishments never recover and many of them will go bankrupt or those that survive will do so under smaller profit margins.
I firmly believe that government imposed smoking bans are a terrible idea.
I have no problem with businesses going smoke-free of their own choice.
They key-word here is CHOICE.
In fact, the anti-smoking lobby know all too well that government mandated smoking bans are very, bad for business in the private hospitality sector. If private business owners were afforded the choice of setting their own smoking or no-smoking policies, the anti-smoking cartel knows that many businesses that voluntarily chose to go smoke-free would return to allowing smoking if they had that choice.
This is why they are so vehemently opposed to anything except 100%, government imposed, indoor smoking bans with no exemptions.
The anti-smoking lobby will never accept sane compromises such as separate, ventilated smoking rooms or ventilation systems capable of rendering a hospitality venue 99% smoke-free, which would also make it's air quality cleaner than the "fresh" outdoor air. There is no logical reason that ventilation solutions cannot be accepted as a workable solution as opposed to total indoor smoking prohibition.
Well actually there is...
The anti-smoking lobby and their slobbering minions hate the smell of tobacco smoke.
This is not a health issue.It never has been.
As I said previously stated without the phantom health risks of second-hand smoke, the anti-smoking lobby would have no means of imposing their selfish wants upon a good portion of the private hospitality industry.
Even if people foolishly believe that ETS is a serious health concern, the vast majority of those people also would be willing to accept a ventilation solution that could accommodate virtually everyone, except the rabid anti-smoking hysterics.
To be fair I fully understand that many people despise or dislike the smell of tobacco smoke.
I also understand that some people actually believe that second-hand smoke is a very,real health concern.
The mainstream media, the anti-smoking lobby and the medical-pharmaceutical community are all guilty of perpetuating this myth as a means to help reduce over-all smoking rates.
Their intentions may seem well-meaning on the surface, but the stark reality of negative smoking ban impacts, such as unemployment and business failures outweigh any positive consequences that government imposed smoking bans might spawn, such as helping smokers to quit their habits via attempted social conditioning.
Government imposed smoking bans have hurt the hospitality industry everywhere they have introduced in the world.
It's not shocking that the supposed "hordes" of non-smoking customers have never materialized in your city.
Many people who favour government mandated smoking prohibitions within the private hospitality sector fail to understand the danger these unneeded regulations represent to everyone's personal freedoms, livelihoods and property rights in modern society.
It doesn't matter whether someone chooses to believe the junk science and erroneous, fanatical claims of the professional
anti-smoking lobby. The second-hand smoke "kills" myth is one of the biggest shams of the entire century.
Smoking bans imposed by government decree have nothing to do with worker's or public health.
They are merely a means to introduce "positive" social engineering. To supposedly help smokers quit their habits.
A form of "well-intended" behaviour modification. Smoking bans also allow the government to strip the private property rights of business owners against their wills.
It's a fact that if non-smoking hospitality industry establishments really were as popular as the anti-smoking lobby and politically correct politicians claim them to be...
No government mandated smoking prohibitions would be required in the private hospitality industry.
It is true that close to 70% of the population are not regular smokers. An obvious majority.
But, by the same token...
>From 50%-90% if the regular, patron-base of most adult hospitality industry venues are regular or part-time smokers.
Since people for the most part are "creatures of habit"...
Government imposed smoking bans ostracize and disenfranchise a huge segment of these private businesses' regular clientele.
Smokers, their families and friends for the most part will not patronize the adult hospitality industry as frequently when a smoking bans is in place. A good number of these people will stay home and boycott the private hospitality sector when smoking bans are imposed. People get used to entertaining at home where they can smoke in indoor comfort. They also save a great deal of money by not paying high mark-up on alcoholic beverages, food and tips.
It's not just the smokers who avoid and shun the private hospitality sector, as I said their families and friends usually will stick with them as well.
Many non-smokers themselves do not care if smoking is permitted in adult hospitality venues, providing there is good ventilation in the establishment.
It's a fact that most smokers drink more alcohol, stay for longer durations of time, tip higher and spend more money overall than non-smokers on average.
Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people.
Especially when socializing.
Most hospitality industry establishments operate on profit margins of 8%-30%, smoking bans will obviously have a huge negative impact upon these entertainment venues. No matter what the anti-smoking lobby claims.
Since most people are slaves to routine, it is a givein that the small number of non-smokers who completely avoided or rarely patronized the hospitality industry on account of smoking being permitted will ever replace the disenfranchised smoking customers.
It would take many years for this to happen, if ever. Especially in cold and wet Fall-Winter conditions.
It is completely absurd to attempt to compare most restaurants with adult hospitality establishments where smoking bans are concerned.
The hospitality industry is one of accommodation.
Give the people what they want and they shall come.
Firstly, all hospitality industry establishments are not created equally.
These private businesses live or die by catering to a certain segment of the population.Many of these people just happen to be regular or part-time smokers.
It takes many years to establish a loyal, regular patron base in the hospitality industry.It only takes a few months or years under a smoking ban to destroy that clientele base. Most hospitality industry businesses cannot afford to wait for a new non-smoking clientele to appear, not at the low profit margins they usually operate under
.
Most small hospitality establishments never recover and many of them will go bankrupt or those that survive will do so under smaller profit margins.
I firmly believe that government imposed smoking bans are a terrible idea.
I have no problem with businesses going smoke-free of their own choice.
They key-word here is CHOICE.
In fact, the anti-smoking lobby know all too well that government mandated smoking bans are very, bad for business in the private hospitality sector. If private business owners were afforded the choice of setting their own smoking or no-smoking policies, the anti-smoking cartel knows that many businesses that voluntarily chose to go smoke-free would return to allowing smoking if they had that choice.
This is why they are so vehemently opposed to anything except 100%, government imposed, indoor smoking bans with no exemptions.
The anti-smoking lobby will never accept sane compromises such as separate, ventilated smoking rooms or ventilation systems capable of rendering a hospitality venue 99% smoke-free, which would also make it's air quality cleaner than the "fresh" outdoor air. There is no logical reason that ventilation solutions cannot be accepted as a workable solution as opposed to total indoor smoking prohibition.
Well actually there is...
The anti-smoking lobby and their slobbering minions hate the smell of tobacco smoke.
This is not a health issue.It never has been.
As I said previously stated without the phantom health risks of second-hand smoke, the anti-smoking lobby would have no means of imposing their selfish wants upon a good portion of the private hospitality industry.
Even if people foolishly believe that ETS is a serious health concern, the vast majority of those people also would be willing to accept a ventilation solution that could accommodate virtually everyone, except the rabid anti-smoking hysterics.
To be fair I fully understand that many people despise or dislike the smell of tobacco smoke.
I also understand that some people actually believe that second-hand smoke is a very,real health concern.
The mainstream media, the anti-smoking lobby and the medical-pharmaceutical community are all guilty of perpetuating this myth as a means to help reduce over-all smoking rates.
Their intentions may seem well-meaning on the surface, but the stark reality of negative smoking ban impacts, such as unemployment and business failures outweigh any positive consequences that government imposed smoking bans might spawn, such as helping smokers to quit their habits via attempted social conditioning.
Government imposed smoking bans have hurt the hospitality industry everywhere they have introduced in the world.
It's not shocking that the supposed "hordes" of non-smoking customers have never materialized in your city.
Many people who favour government mandated smoking prohibitions within the private hospitality sector fail to understand the danger these unneeded regulations represent to everyone's personal freedoms, livelihoods and property rights in modern society.
It doesn't matter whether someone chooses to believe the junk science and erroneous, fanatical claims of the professional
anti-smoking lobby.
The second-hand smoke "kills" myth is one of the biggest shams of the entire century.
Smoking bans imposed by government decree have nothing to do with worker's or public health.
They are merely a means to introduce "positive" social engineering. To supposedly help smokers quit their habits.
A form of "well-intended" behaviour modification. Smoking bans also allow the government to strip the private property rights of business owners against their wills.
It's a fact that if non-smoking hospitality industry establishments really were as popular as the anti-smoking lobby and politically correct politicians claim them to be...
No government mandated smoking prohibitions would be required in the private hospitality industry.
It is true that close to 70% of the population are not regular smokers. An obvious majority.
But, by the same token...
>From 50%-90% if the regular, patron-base of most adult hospitality industry venues are regular or part-time smokers.
Since people for the most part are "creatures of habit"...
Government imposed smoking bans ostracize and disenfranchise a huge segment of these private businesses' regular clientele.
Smokers, their families and friends for the most part will not patronize the adult hospitality industry as frequently when a smoking bans is in place. A good number of these people will stay home and boycott the private hospitality sector when smoking bans are imposed .People get used to entertaining at home where they can smoke in indoor comfort. They also save a great deal of money by not paying high mark-up on alcoholic beverages, food and tips.
It's not just the smokers who avoid and shun the private hospitality sector, as I said their families and friends usually will stick with them as well.
Many non-smokers themselves do not care if smoking is permitted in adult hospitality venues, providing there is good ventilation in the establishment.
It's a fact that most smokers drink more alcohol, stay for longer durations of time, tip higher and spend more money overall than non-smokers on average.
Smoking and drinking go hand in hand for many people.
Especially when socializing.
Most hospitality industry establishments operate on profit margins of 8%-30%, smoking bans will obviously have a huge negative impact upon these entertainment venues. No matter what the anti-smoking lobby claims.
Since most people are slaves to routine, it is a givein that the small number of non-smokers who completely avoided or rarely patronized the hospitality industry on account of smoking being permitted will ever replace the disenfranchised smoking customers.
It would take many years for this to happen, if ever. Especially in cold and wet Fall-Winter conditions.
It is completely absurd to attempt to compare most restaurants with adult hospitality establishments where smoking bans are concerned.
The hospitality industry is one of accommodation.
Give the people what they want and they shall come.
Firstly, all hospitality industry establishments are not created equally.
These private businesses live or die by catering to a certain segment of the population.Many of these people just happen to be regular or part-time smokers.
It takes many years to establish a loyal, regular patron base in the hospitality industry. It only takes a few months or years under a smoking ban to destroy that clientele base. Most hospitality industry businesses cannot afford to wait for a new non-smoking clientele to appear, not at the low profit margins they usually operate under.
Most small hospitality establishments never recover and many of them will go bankrupt or those that survive will do so under smaller profit margins.
I firmly believe that government imposed smoking bans are a terrible idea.
I have no problem with businesses going smoke-free of their own choice.
They key-word here is CHOICE.
In fact, the anti-smoking lobby know all too well that government mandated smoking bans are very, bad for business in the private hospitality sector. If private business owners were afforded the choice of setting their own smoking or no-smoking policies, the anti-smoking cartel knows that many businesses that voluntarily chose to go smoke-free would return to allowing smoking if they had that choice.
This is why they are so vehemently opposed to anything except 100%, government imposed, indoor smoking bans with no exemptions.
The anti-smoking lobby will never accept sane compromises such as separate, ventilated smoking rooms or ventilation systems capable of rendering a hospitality venue 99% smoke-free, which would also make it's air quality cleaner than the "fresh" outdoor air. There is no logical reason that ventilation solutions cannot be accepted as a workable solution as opposed to total indoor smoking prohibition.
Well actually there is...
The anti-smoking lobby and their slobbering minions hate the smell of tobacco smoke.
This is not a health issue.It never has been.
As I said previously stated without the phantom health risks of second-hand smoke, the anti-smoking lobby would have no means of imposing their selfish wants upon a good portion of the private hospitality industry.
Even if people foolishly believe that ETS is a serious health concern, the vast majority of those people also would be willing to accept a ventilation solution that could accommodate virtually everyone, except the rabid anti-smoking hysterics.
To be fair I fully understand that many people despise or dislike the smell of tobacco smoke.
I also understand that some people actually believe that second-hand smoke is a very,real health concern.
The mainstream media, the anti-smoking lobby and the medical-pharmaceutical community are all guilty of perpetuating this myth as a means to help reduce over-all smoking rates.
Their intentions may seem well-meaning on the surface, but the stark reality of negative smoking ban impacts, such as unemployment and business failures outweigh any positive consequences that government imposed smoking bans might spawn, such as helping smokers to quit their habits via attempted social conditioning.
Friday, November 25, 2005
A letter sent to Peterboro Nov. 26/05
A smoking bylaw in Thunder bay.. a person was fined for smoking in his delivery truck and he was all by himself(workplace)
An eighteen wheeler who is smoking while driving through your town can be fined..for smoking in his workplace.
A plumber who is fixing your sink in the kitchen..you can't smoke in your kitchen(his workplace)
A smoking bylaw in Thunder bay.. a person was fined for smoking in his delivery truck and he was all by himself(workplace)
An eighteen wheeler who is smoking while driving through your town can be fined..for smoking in his workplace.
A plumber who is fixing your sink in the kitchen..you can't smoke in your kitchen(his workplace)
Smoke 'em if you got 'em Law Student from Madison Wisc. Oct. 5/05
Smoking bans suck. They do. And I say this as a person who would never touch a cigarette. As a disclaimer, I smoked a cigar at a wedding once. It tasted like nothing, and I was mad that it killed important beer drinking time. Other than that, no smoking for me. A while back, a friend in Madison commented on how he loved the smoking ban in bars. My response was that he was a dirty f'ing fascist and I will slap him about the head and neck the next time I see him (kidding, you're still okay Nick). If I lived in Madison, I would just drink at home. I would never support a bar that buckled under the pressure of the Madison elitist crowd. Fun fact... I start dry heaving as soon as I enter Dane County. It happens at any time of the day. I just can't stand the fact that Communists run my state capital, so I get physically ill. Call it a personality quirk.Bars should be smoky. It's just a fact. If you are in a bar (drinking alcohol to scar your liver), you should not get all huffy over a little smoke. What, now you care how you harm yourself? "Oh, I'll drink a bunch a liquid that will kill me in sufficient amounts but keep that smoke away!" Give me a break. If you don't want smoke in the air, go to some sprout hut that serves honey dew smoothies and romaine sandwiches to emo kids. The rest of us have brain cells we want to kill.Madison banned smoking in bars. That's shocking. Really. Madison is such a believer in the free market. If there was a big market for non-smoking bars, someone would open one. And that bar would be making money hand over fist. Then another would pop up. And another. And another. Look at that free market go! These bars that are so in demand would be packed on the weekends, and the smoker bars would be hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Right?Wrong. There is no huge market for smoke free bars. Many of us want the freedom to destroy our bodies anyway we choose. And if a private business owner wants to let us damage our liver and lungs at the same time, I say more power to him. That business owner makes the choice, and the customers will endorse or oppose that choice with their dollars. But even if I am wrong and there is a huge, untapped market for smoke free bars, why only limit bars to being smoke free? Why not let the consumer choose through the free market system? I'm all about options. Give people the ability to choose an option. The bars with favorable settings will thrive, the others will fail. If you don't like second hand smoke at a certain place, don't go in. Pretty simple.Let's look at this example. Imagine that you are at a private residence for a party. Everything is cool, people have decided on their own to enter and enjoy the festivities. There are alcoholic beverages and tobacco products for those of age. Then he shows up. One guy walks into the place and starts going off. He glares at the smokers and says, "Thanks for killing me a little, you guys!" and "I sure am happy that all these people are spewing poison at me..." Maybe he'd even say, "How dare you endanger my life with your smoke?! You should all be restrained by the law from doing this!" This guy goes around to every person at the party and gives them this business about smoke-free blah blah blah. If I was a (non-smoking) guest at this party, I'd have one question: "Who's the asshole?"Wait. I know what's coming. You're saying "But Steve, c'mon. This is second hand smoke we are talking about. It is evil and dangerous and will kill me. If labor laws can demand a safe work environment, why can't they ban smoke in a work environment like a bar?" My response: _______. I just rolled my eyes at you. Let's talk about second hand smoke and health. The link between second hand smoke and tobacco caused harms is tenuous at best. The EPA did a study in 1993 that opened the doors to indoor smoking bans. It concluded that second hand smoke causes 3,000 deaths a year among non-smokers. Ooh, scary stuff. But in 1998, a federal district court took a look at this study in Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation v EPA. Then they took the EPA to task. Judge Osteen ripped the EPA for cherry picking its data, violating its own procedures, and ignoring data that deviated from their desired outcome. But no one cared, and smoking bans spread across the country. A New York court later disagreed and upheld the smoking bans in New York City C.L.A.S.H. v New York, but they said that the errors of the EPA test could be ignored. I think Judge Osteen got it right the first time, since he decided that a bad study should not be relied upon."But, Steve," you say yet again, "the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association all say that second hand smoke causes cancer." Okay. What's their source? The 1993 EPA study that was thrown out of court. These groups also took the number of deaths from second hand smoke in the EPA study (3,000) and inflated it up to 50,000 a year. It's a number not based on hard data. It's based on projection rates from mortality figures, disregarding the actually reasons that a person died. You lived with a smoker? You get added to the total of "may have died from second hand smoke." Overstating an argument is a wonderful way to lose it.The chances of dying of lung cancer if exposed to second hand smoke are 1:80,000 (12.5 out of one million people). The chances of dying of lung cancer if not exposed to second hand smoke are 1:100,000 (10 out of one million people). No statistical significance. There was another study by the World Health Organization looking at different age groups and second hand smoke that claimed that "passive smoking does cause lung cancer" in their press release. But if you actually look at the report, it had a completely different conclusion. It said "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk." And for adults, the increased risk was not statistically significant. Hmm. Here is what smoking bans do. If you are in favor of that, knock yourself out. Shut down businesses. Get people laid off. Order a private business owner to do something by law that you would prefer. Stop people from having the option of going to a bar where they can smoke. My favorite people are the ones who are "speaking for the bartenders and wait staff." Like you have a freaking mandate or something. I've met more than my share of bartenders and waitresses. A lot of them smoke. A lot of them like to work in a place that lets them smoke. If you haven't noticed, most places of business make you stand outside to smoke. Not bars. It's a pretty cool job perk if you are a smoker.I'm never going to become a smoker. Ever. But I will not legislate that choice for every business owner in my city. I believe that that would be a tyrannical use of government power. If you don't like smoky bars, don't go into them. It's cheaper to buy beer and liquor at a store and drink in a private residence anyway. If there are enough people who say that they don't like smoking and would stop frequenting a business because of it, then that business would ban smoking voluntarily to survive.I believe in the freedom to destroy myself in any way that I see fit. If someone wants their business to cater to my self destruction, I'm all for it. If a business wants to cater to your chosen method of self destruction, I'm all for it. If you find something irritating, that doesn't mean you should legislate against it. If someone says, "There ought to be a law...", there probably shouldn't.But maybe you want the government interfering more in your life. Maybe you want a full time babysitter. Don't mind me, but I'll be over at the grown ups table, deciding if I want that shot of vodka, that pack of Marb Reds, or that greasy cheeseburger. Freedom is more important than your constant comfort.
Smoking bans suck. They do. And I say this as a person who would never touch a cigarette. As a disclaimer, I smoked a cigar at a wedding once. It tasted like nothing, and I was mad that it killed important beer drinking time. Other than that, no smoking for me. A while back, a friend in Madison commented on how he loved the smoking ban in bars. My response was that he was a dirty f'ing fascist and I will slap him about the head and neck the next time I see him (kidding, you're still okay Nick). If I lived in Madison, I would just drink at home. I would never support a bar that buckled under the pressure of the Madison elitist crowd. Fun fact... I start dry heaving as soon as I enter Dane County. It happens at any time of the day. I just can't stand the fact that Communists run my state capital, so I get physically ill. Call it a personality quirk.Bars should be smoky. It's just a fact. If you are in a bar (drinking alcohol to scar your liver), you should not get all huffy over a little smoke. What, now you care how you harm yourself? "Oh, I'll drink a bunch a liquid that will kill me in sufficient amounts but keep that smoke away!" Give me a break. If you don't want smoke in the air, go to some sprout hut that serves honey dew smoothies and romaine sandwiches to emo kids. The rest of us have brain cells we want to kill.Madison banned smoking in bars. That's shocking. Really. Madison is such a believer in the free market. If there was a big market for non-smoking bars, someone would open one. And that bar would be making money hand over fist. Then another would pop up. And another. And another. Look at that free market go! These bars that are so in demand would be packed on the weekends, and the smoker bars would be hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Right?Wrong. There is no huge market for smoke free bars. Many of us want the freedom to destroy our bodies anyway we choose. And if a private business owner wants to let us damage our liver and lungs at the same time, I say more power to him. That business owner makes the choice, and the customers will endorse or oppose that choice with their dollars. But even if I am wrong and there is a huge, untapped market for smoke free bars, why only limit bars to being smoke free? Why not let the consumer choose through the free market system? I'm all about options. Give people the ability to choose an option. The bars with favorable settings will thrive, the others will fail. If you don't like second hand smoke at a certain place, don't go in. Pretty simple.Let's look at this example. Imagine that you are at a private residence for a party. Everything is cool, people have decided on their own to enter and enjoy the festivities. There are alcoholic beverages and tobacco products for those of age. Then he shows up. One guy walks into the place and starts going off. He glares at the smokers and says, "Thanks for killing me a little, you guys!" and "I sure am happy that all these people are spewing poison at me..." Maybe he'd even say, "How dare you endanger my life with your smoke?! You should all be restrained by the law from doing this!" This guy goes around to every person at the party and gives them this business about smoke-free blah blah blah. If I was a (non-smoking) guest at this party, I'd have one question: "Who's the asshole?"Wait. I know what's coming. You're saying "But Steve, c'mon. This is second hand smoke we are talking about. It is evil and dangerous and will kill me. If labor laws can demand a safe work environment, why can't they ban smoke in a work environment like a bar?" My response: _______. I just rolled my eyes at you. Let's talk about second hand smoke and health. The link between second hand smoke and tobacco caused harms is tenuous at best. The EPA did a study in 1993 that opened the doors to indoor smoking bans. It concluded that second hand smoke causes 3,000 deaths a year among non-smokers. Ooh, scary stuff. But in 1998, a federal district court took a look at this study in Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corporation v EPA. Then they took the EPA to task. Judge Osteen ripped the EPA for cherry picking its data, violating its own procedures, and ignoring data that deviated from their desired outcome. But no one cared, and smoking bans spread across the country. A New York court later disagreed and upheld the smoking bans in New York City C.L.A.S.H. v New York, but they said that the errors of the EPA test could be ignored. I think Judge Osteen got it right the first time, since he decided that a bad study should not be relied upon."But, Steve," you say yet again, "the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society, and the American Heart Association all say that second hand smoke causes cancer." Okay. What's their source? The 1993 EPA study that was thrown out of court. These groups also took the number of deaths from second hand smoke in the EPA study (3,000) and inflated it up to 50,000 a year. It's a number not based on hard data. It's based on projection rates from mortality figures, disregarding the actually reasons that a person died. You lived with a smoker? You get added to the total of "may have died from second hand smoke." Overstating an argument is a wonderful way to lose it.The chances of dying of lung cancer if exposed to second hand smoke are 1:80,000 (12.5 out of one million people). The chances of dying of lung cancer if not exposed to second hand smoke are 1:100,000 (10 out of one million people). No statistical significance. There was another study by the World Health Organization looking at different age groups and second hand smoke that claimed that "passive smoking does cause lung cancer" in their press release. But if you actually look at the report, it had a completely different conclusion. It said "Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) and lung cancer risk." And for adults, the increased risk was not statistically significant. Hmm. Here is what smoking bans do. If you are in favor of that, knock yourself out. Shut down businesses. Get people laid off. Order a private business owner to do something by law that you would prefer. Stop people from having the option of going to a bar where they can smoke. My favorite people are the ones who are "speaking for the bartenders and wait staff." Like you have a freaking mandate or something. I've met more than my share of bartenders and waitresses. A lot of them smoke. A lot of them like to work in a place that lets them smoke. If you haven't noticed, most places of business make you stand outside to smoke. Not bars. It's a pretty cool job perk if you are a smoker.I'm never going to become a smoker. Ever. But I will not legislate that choice for every business owner in my city. I believe that that would be a tyrannical use of government power. If you don't like smoky bars, don't go into them. It's cheaper to buy beer and liquor at a store and drink in a private residence anyway. If there are enough people who say that they don't like smoking and would stop frequenting a business because of it, then that business would ban smoking voluntarily to survive.I believe in the freedom to destroy myself in any way that I see fit. If someone wants their business to cater to my self destruction, I'm all for it. If a business wants to cater to your chosen method of self destruction, I'm all for it. If you find something irritating, that doesn't mean you should legislate against it. If someone says, "There ought to be a law...", there probably shouldn't.But maybe you want the government interfering more in your life. Maybe you want a full time babysitter. Don't mind me, but I'll be over at the grown ups table, deciding if I want that shot of vodka, that pack of Marb Reds, or that greasy cheeseburger. Freedom is more important than your constant comfort.
A letter that was published in the Chronicle-Journal, Thunder Bay, Ont.
Nov. 25/05
SMOKING IN THE COLD NOT COMPASSIONATE
Contrary to Nick Makletzoff's belief(Chronicle-Journal, Nov. 13) that public hospitals "are supposed to be role models for healing and healthy lifestyles, "hospitals are there for the compassionate care of the seriously ill.
Few among us would consider pushing the sick outside into cold, inclement weather to enjoy the simple pleasure of a cigarette compassionate, especially when ventilated indoor accommodations is such a simple matter.
To do so is punishment directed at Canadians who refuse to have their freedom suppressed by the unjust laws of a fanatical tobacco control minority.
Three cheers for those with the guts to stand against such injustice. After all, if they didn't who will be left behind with Makletzoff when they come for him?
Eric Boyd
Waterloo Ont.
Nov. 25/05
SMOKING IN THE COLD NOT COMPASSIONATE
Contrary to Nick Makletzoff's belief(Chronicle-Journal, Nov. 13) that public hospitals "are supposed to be role models for healing and healthy lifestyles, "hospitals are there for the compassionate care of the seriously ill.
Few among us would consider pushing the sick outside into cold, inclement weather to enjoy the simple pleasure of a cigarette compassionate, especially when ventilated indoor accommodations is such a simple matter.
To do so is punishment directed at Canadians who refuse to have their freedom suppressed by the unjust laws of a fanatical tobacco control minority.
Three cheers for those with the guts to stand against such injustice. After all, if they didn't who will be left behind with Makletzoff when they come for him?
Eric Boyd
Waterloo Ont.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Nov. 22/05
I was contacted by a Michigan reporter last week who had some questions for a story he is writing. After supplying my answers, I thought I would share them with our Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, SDF and Illinois groups. I also used an excerpt from Michael McFadden's "Dissecting the AntiSmokers' Brains" on the so-called toxicity dangers of ETS, with Michael's permission..... Garnet
Subject: new proposed smoking ban in mid-Michigan
Hi Ms. Dawn:I'm ..........., a reporter at ......................, in Michigan. I'm doing a story about a proposed ordinance that would ban smoking in all workplaces in Saginaw County, excluding restaurants. I'd like to ask you a few questions about that -- as someone who represent the interests of smokers. My questions include:1. Ordinance proponents say the measure is needed because of the dangers of second-hand smoke. Is second-hand smoke as dangerous as they claim?
NO!
To answer your first question, here is a direct quote from Michael McFadden's book "Dissecting the Antismokers Brain", which explains (as simply as possible) why SHS is not a valid threat. Studies continue to fail in proving harm from ETS. The results lie in the interpretation and the dose. Many health specialists' $100,000+ annual incomes depend upon their continued efforts to prove toxicity and expand smoking bans. If ETS or smoking had ever truly been proved to be a health hazard, smoking would be illegal. The bottom line is that spending an evening in a smoke filled bar is less harmful than consuming a glass of water or the harm derived from exposure to direct sunshine while dining outdoors on a sunny day. "As for toxicity, there has never been any official claim that all or even many of these compounds are toxic at all. The Surgeon General’s exact wording was that some of those compounds are toxic without any reference to proportion or number. The Surgeon General also carefully avoided the question of what quantity of any of these would actually be toxic. Such a question is normally considered by scientists to be fundamental to any such discussion but which, in the case of the infinitesimal quantities involved when speaking of secondary smoke, would clearly indicate all of them to be toxicologically harmless......... To return to the case of our nonsmoker, and to take one particular element that is often pointed to in Antismoking publications, let’s look at the toxic chemical “arsenic.” Now we all know that arsenic is toxic, but we also all know that if we wanted to kill someone with arsenic we’d have to give them a certain amount to accomplish the task. How much? I don’t actually know the lethal dose of arsenic, but I do know that even the proposed new stricter standard of arsenic in drinking water of 10 ppb (parts per billion) allows for 10 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of arsenic to be present in one gram of “safe” drinking water. Ten nanograms per gram equates to about 5,000 nanograms for a sixteen-ounce tumbler of water. Now, in 1999 a landmark analytical study was done by all four major tobacco companies under the coordination and according to the standards of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. This study examined the total smoke output, both mainstream and sidestream, of 26 brands of U.S. cigarettes. Forty-four separate smoke constituents were measured. Measurements of total arsenic in the smoke output of their average brand style gave a value of 32 nanograms. In most well ventilated smoking situations our nonsmoking water drinker would inhale no more than about 1/1000th of this: an amount equal to about three hundredths of a single nanogram. See Appendix B for an explanation of why this exposure assumption is reasonable (The 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study. Final Report. 07/24/00). Thus our nonsmoker would have to sit in a room with a smoker while that smoker smoked more than 165,000 cigarettes to get the same “dose” of arsenic that he or she would get from their government-approved watery beverage! Actually, under 20th century standards of 50 ppb for safe water the smoker would have to smoke 825,000 cigarettes. So is it correct to say that the nonsmoker is “threatened by toxicity” from ordinary levels of exposure on this basis? Of course not… unless we want to completely redefine the concept of threat so that we’d all flee in blind stumbling panic from a glass of water!" If it's not dangerous, what's has driven that perception to become accepted as reality. Whose agenda is it? Big pharmaceuticals and multiple "health" organizations. It's all about money and power. These bans are the agenda of the massively wealthy and powerful non-profit health organizations (Tobacco Free Kids, ACS, ALA and AHA) who work in coordination with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF has financial holdings in Johnson & Johnson worth just a shade over $5.4 billion dollars ("the largest single shareholder of Johnson & Johnson common stock"). Johnson & Johnson distributes nicotine inhalers and patches under the Nicotrol name brand through its subsidiary McNeil Consumer Products. They provide grants for anti-smoking activities. The major non-profits are also inter-related to the major pharmaceutical industry. This has been done under the guise of public health. The health extremists must continue to expand their activities to ensure steady additional income to support their extremely expensive infrastructures. "Smart Money" rated all three major charities (ACS, ALA and AHA), active in anti-tobacco activities, at the bottom of 100 productive charities. As free choice advocates, we have a nationwide boycott against the "big three".The ACS has even created a separate organization for political activities to protect themselves from violating their non-profit status. They have already spent $2 million dollars on marketing and a media blitz to promote the smoking ban in Chicago.See below: http://www.acscan.org/atf/cf/%7B2D9A46D9-9E8B-449C-A9E5-4628BA14BA2B%7D/2005%20final%20ACS%20CAN%20FAQ.pdf
ACS has created ACS CAN - Politically Active"
1. What is the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN)? ACS CAN is a sister organization to the American Cancer Society (ACS Inc). It provides certain legal protection to the (ACS Inc.), allowing us to steadily grow advocacy efforts without jeopardizing our nonprofit tax status or violating IRS guidelines.
2. How is my contribution to ACS CAN different from the American Cancer Society?ACS CAN is a separate legal and financial entity from ACS Inc. Contributions to ACS CAN are not taxdeductible.
3. What specifically will ACS CAN do? Among other activities, ACS CAN will:•
Engage in more active lobbying on cancer issues for our constituents• Educate the public and media more directly•
Create and distribute voter guides detailing candidates positions on specific health-related issuesto volunteers and donors. Host debates, town forums, and other events where candidate views on issues are tested and discussed.•
Hold lawmakers accountable on their votes regarding cancer. What does cancer have to do with politics? Whether we like it or not, cancer is a political issue. Government officials make decisions about health issues that affect your life. Issues include cancer research, awareness, early detection and prevention programs, treatment, and access to quality care for all Americans. That's why the American Cancer Society, an organization Americans have trusted for almost 90 years, is now enlisting the public to help carry the fight even further.Together we can apply enough pressure-through letters, emails, phone calls and visits-that we can convince lawmakers fighting cancer should be a higher national priority."
http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/factsheet.xhtml?&COID=46997&cm_ven=PAID&cm_cat=OVR&cm_pla=CO2&cm_ite=american_lung_association&abforward=true
American Lung Association "Many Americans breathe easier because of the American Lung Association (ALA). With about 200 local offices, the century-old ALA is dedicated to the prevention and cure of lung disease, giving special focus to asthma management, tobacco control, and clean air. The association funds research, develops public education materials, disseminates information, sponsors conferences, and lobbies for health legislation. ALA is also loosely affiliated with the American Thoracic Society, a professional organization of lung physicians and scientists. The ALA receives funding from donations, corporate grants, membership dues, and other sources. One of its best-known fund-raising programs is its annual Christmas Seals drive."2. Do these kind of laws really overstep the bounds of government authority?
Yes, they are in violation of our Bill of Rights, Amendments 5 and 9.
Does the government have any business regulating a small private business, even when it doesn't deal directly with the public in its office space?
No, unless the space is leased and in conflict with building management policy. Fire insurance is much cheaper in a smoke free environment. However, reduced ventilation costs are an additional benefit to building operating expenses, when smoke is not present to "blow the whistle" on poor ventilation standards. Smoke free air does not mean clean air. How much of a violation of privacy is this?
Smoking bans are a violation of any private business, whether or not they choose to invite the public. In a U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's involving leafleting Vietnam War protesters turned away from a shopping mall, the Supreme Court said a place of business does not become public property just because the public is invited in. By that same reasoning, a restaurant or bar is not public property.
3. What other concerns do you have about these kinds of laws?
Seat belt laws, "fat" taxes and the Patriot Act are already invasions of privacy. This will not end with smokers.....it's only the tip of the iceberg. Smoking bans are an implementation of Fascist policies. Our government was not created to micromanage. We are a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. A Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Government dictated bans and prohibitions are attempts at social engineering in it's ugliest form. Discrimination and brain washing the public against a minority, through the threat of government enforcement is in violation of our US Constitution. Why should a pharmaceutically dependent population be condoned, while smokers are demonized?
4. Should smokers be up in arms about this? What can they do?
- Stop being complacent and apologetic. - Learn that health threats from smoking have been grossly exaggerated. - Write to newspapers and government representatives, objecting to interference in private business and life style choices. - Attend city council meetings. Speak out. Our city, state and Federal representatives are supposed to serve us...not the other way around. - Read our weekly newsletter at Smokers Club, Inc. http://www.smokersclubinc.com for updates on our states and national news. Learn what bans are doing in other areas. You can either call me at 989-............., or respond by e-mail, if you prefer. If possible, I'd like to talk to a local member of your group in Saginaw County, if one is available.
I'm sorry, we do not have a representative in your area. We are attempting to motivate more people, but need more volunteers. We have created a Michigan Smokers Rights forum at michigansmokersrights@yahoogroups.com .Sincerely,______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/ mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
I was contacted by a Michigan reporter last week who had some questions for a story he is writing. After supplying my answers, I thought I would share them with our Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, SDF and Illinois groups. I also used an excerpt from Michael McFadden's "Dissecting the AntiSmokers' Brains" on the so-called toxicity dangers of ETS, with Michael's permission..... Garnet
Subject: new proposed smoking ban in mid-Michigan
Hi Ms. Dawn:I'm ..........., a reporter at ......................, in Michigan. I'm doing a story about a proposed ordinance that would ban smoking in all workplaces in Saginaw County, excluding restaurants. I'd like to ask you a few questions about that -- as someone who represent the interests of smokers. My questions include:1. Ordinance proponents say the measure is needed because of the dangers of second-hand smoke. Is second-hand smoke as dangerous as they claim?
NO!
To answer your first question, here is a direct quote from Michael McFadden's book "Dissecting the Antismokers Brain", which explains (as simply as possible) why SHS is not a valid threat. Studies continue to fail in proving harm from ETS. The results lie in the interpretation and the dose. Many health specialists' $100,000+ annual incomes depend upon their continued efforts to prove toxicity and expand smoking bans. If ETS or smoking had ever truly been proved to be a health hazard, smoking would be illegal. The bottom line is that spending an evening in a smoke filled bar is less harmful than consuming a glass of water or the harm derived from exposure to direct sunshine while dining outdoors on a sunny day. "As for toxicity, there has never been any official claim that all or even many of these compounds are toxic at all. The Surgeon General’s exact wording was that some of those compounds are toxic without any reference to proportion or number. The Surgeon General also carefully avoided the question of what quantity of any of these would actually be toxic. Such a question is normally considered by scientists to be fundamental to any such discussion but which, in the case of the infinitesimal quantities involved when speaking of secondary smoke, would clearly indicate all of them to be toxicologically harmless......... To return to the case of our nonsmoker, and to take one particular element that is often pointed to in Antismoking publications, let’s look at the toxic chemical “arsenic.” Now we all know that arsenic is toxic, but we also all know that if we wanted to kill someone with arsenic we’d have to give them a certain amount to accomplish the task. How much? I don’t actually know the lethal dose of arsenic, but I do know that even the proposed new stricter standard of arsenic in drinking water of 10 ppb (parts per billion) allows for 10 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of arsenic to be present in one gram of “safe” drinking water. Ten nanograms per gram equates to about 5,000 nanograms for a sixteen-ounce tumbler of water. Now, in 1999 a landmark analytical study was done by all four major tobacco companies under the coordination and according to the standards of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. This study examined the total smoke output, both mainstream and sidestream, of 26 brands of U.S. cigarettes. Forty-four separate smoke constituents were measured. Measurements of total arsenic in the smoke output of their average brand style gave a value of 32 nanograms. In most well ventilated smoking situations our nonsmoking water drinker would inhale no more than about 1/1000th of this: an amount equal to about three hundredths of a single nanogram. See Appendix B for an explanation of why this exposure assumption is reasonable (The 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study. Final Report. 07/24/00). Thus our nonsmoker would have to sit in a room with a smoker while that smoker smoked more than 165,000 cigarettes to get the same “dose” of arsenic that he or she would get from their government-approved watery beverage! Actually, under 20th century standards of 50 ppb for safe water the smoker would have to smoke 825,000 cigarettes. So is it correct to say that the nonsmoker is “threatened by toxicity” from ordinary levels of exposure on this basis? Of course not… unless we want to completely redefine the concept of threat so that we’d all flee in blind stumbling panic from a glass of water!" If it's not dangerous, what's has driven that perception to become accepted as reality. Whose agenda is it? Big pharmaceuticals and multiple "health" organizations. It's all about money and power. These bans are the agenda of the massively wealthy and powerful non-profit health organizations (Tobacco Free Kids, ACS, ALA and AHA) who work in coordination with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF has financial holdings in Johnson & Johnson worth just a shade over $5.4 billion dollars ("the largest single shareholder of Johnson & Johnson common stock"). Johnson & Johnson distributes nicotine inhalers and patches under the Nicotrol name brand through its subsidiary McNeil Consumer Products. They provide grants for anti-smoking activities. The major non-profits are also inter-related to the major pharmaceutical industry. This has been done under the guise of public health. The health extremists must continue to expand their activities to ensure steady additional income to support their extremely expensive infrastructures. "Smart Money" rated all three major charities (ACS, ALA and AHA), active in anti-tobacco activities, at the bottom of 100 productive charities. As free choice advocates, we have a nationwide boycott against the "big three".The ACS has even created a separate organization for political activities to protect themselves from violating their non-profit status. They have already spent $2 million dollars on marketing and a media blitz to promote the smoking ban in Chicago.See below: http://www.acscan.org/atf/cf/%7B2D9A46D9-9E8B-449C-A9E5-4628BA14BA2B%7D/2005%20final%20ACS%20CAN%20FAQ.pdf
ACS has created ACS CAN - Politically Active"
1. What is the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN)? ACS CAN is a sister organization to the American Cancer Society (ACS Inc). It provides certain legal protection to the (ACS Inc.), allowing us to steadily grow advocacy efforts without jeopardizing our nonprofit tax status or violating IRS guidelines.
2. How is my contribution to ACS CAN different from the American Cancer Society?ACS CAN is a separate legal and financial entity from ACS Inc. Contributions to ACS CAN are not taxdeductible.
3. What specifically will ACS CAN do? Among other activities, ACS CAN will:•
Engage in more active lobbying on cancer issues for our constituents• Educate the public and media more directly•
Create and distribute voter guides detailing candidates positions on specific health-related issuesto volunteers and donors. Host debates, town forums, and other events where candidate views on issues are tested and discussed.•
Hold lawmakers accountable on their votes regarding cancer. What does cancer have to do with politics? Whether we like it or not, cancer is a political issue. Government officials make decisions about health issues that affect your life. Issues include cancer research, awareness, early detection and prevention programs, treatment, and access to quality care for all Americans. That's why the American Cancer Society, an organization Americans have trusted for almost 90 years, is now enlisting the public to help carry the fight even further.Together we can apply enough pressure-through letters, emails, phone calls and visits-that we can convince lawmakers fighting cancer should be a higher national priority."
http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/factsheet.xhtml?&COID=46997&cm_ven=PAID&cm_cat=OVR&cm_pla=CO2&cm_ite=american_lung_association&abforward=true
American Lung Association "Many Americans breathe easier because of the American Lung Association (ALA). With about 200 local offices, the century-old ALA is dedicated to the prevention and cure of lung disease, giving special focus to asthma management, tobacco control, and clean air. The association funds research, develops public education materials, disseminates information, sponsors conferences, and lobbies for health legislation. ALA is also loosely affiliated with the American Thoracic Society, a professional organization of lung physicians and scientists. The ALA receives funding from donations, corporate grants, membership dues, and other sources. One of its best-known fund-raising programs is its annual Christmas Seals drive."2. Do these kind of laws really overstep the bounds of government authority?
Yes, they are in violation of our Bill of Rights, Amendments 5 and 9.
Does the government have any business regulating a small private business, even when it doesn't deal directly with the public in its office space?
No, unless the space is leased and in conflict with building management policy. Fire insurance is much cheaper in a smoke free environment. However, reduced ventilation costs are an additional benefit to building operating expenses, when smoke is not present to "blow the whistle" on poor ventilation standards. Smoke free air does not mean clean air. How much of a violation of privacy is this?
Smoking bans are a violation of any private business, whether or not they choose to invite the public. In a U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's involving leafleting Vietnam War protesters turned away from a shopping mall, the Supreme Court said a place of business does not become public property just because the public is invited in. By that same reasoning, a restaurant or bar is not public property.
3. What other concerns do you have about these kinds of laws?
Seat belt laws, "fat" taxes and the Patriot Act are already invasions of privacy. This will not end with smokers.....it's only the tip of the iceberg. Smoking bans are an implementation of Fascist policies. Our government was not created to micromanage. We are a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. A Democracy is tyranny of the majority. Government dictated bans and prohibitions are attempts at social engineering in it's ugliest form. Discrimination and brain washing the public against a minority, through the threat of government enforcement is in violation of our US Constitution. Why should a pharmaceutically dependent population be condoned, while smokers are demonized?
4. Should smokers be up in arms about this? What can they do?
- Stop being complacent and apologetic. - Learn that health threats from smoking have been grossly exaggerated. - Write to newspapers and government representatives, objecting to interference in private business and life style choices. - Attend city council meetings. Speak out. Our city, state and Federal representatives are supposed to serve us...not the other way around. - Read our weekly newsletter at Smokers Club, Inc. http://www.smokersclubinc.com for updates on our states and national news. Learn what bans are doing in other areas. You can either call me at 989-............., or respond by e-mail, if you prefer. If possible, I'd like to talk to a local member of your group in Saginaw County, if one is available.
I'm sorry, we do not have a representative in your area. We are attempting to motivate more people, but need more volunteers. We have created a Michigan Smokers Rights forum at michigansmokersrights@yahoogroups.com .Sincerely,______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/ mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Friday, November 18, 2005
The Globe and Mail
Leading by example
By ERIC BOYD
Friday, November 18, 2005, Page A18
Waterloo, Ont. -- Re Ontario Unveils Plan To Fight Bullying In Schools (Nov. 17): The Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System (formerly the London Family Court Clinic) defines bullying "as repeated and systematic harassment and attacks on others. Bullying can be perpetrated by individuals or groups. Bullying takes many forms, and can include many different behaviours, such as physical violence and attacks, verbal taunts, name-calling and put-downs, threats and intimidation, extortion or stealing of money and possessions and exclusion from the peer group." With the exception (to date) of physical violence, this is exactly how the Ontario government treats smokers.
Leading by example
By ERIC BOYD
Friday, November 18, 2005, Page A18
Waterloo, Ont. -- Re Ontario Unveils Plan To Fight Bullying In Schools (Nov. 17): The Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System (formerly the London Family Court Clinic) defines bullying "as repeated and systematic harassment and attacks on others. Bullying can be perpetrated by individuals or groups. Bullying takes many forms, and can include many different behaviours, such as physical violence and attacks, verbal taunts, name-calling and put-downs, threats and intimidation, extortion or stealing of money and possessions and exclusion from the peer group." With the exception (to date) of physical violence, this is exactly how the Ontario government treats smokers.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
A beautiful two way conversation Nov. 17/05
Dan,
You are absolutely right. Many years ago Communist sypathizers said that Communism would help to fairly divide the wealth---all it did in effect was to multiply the poverty. Today people think that with a level playing field all the bars/restaurants will be playing with the same rules and business will be good all over. What they fail to realize is that smokers will tend to go out less and when they do they will spend far less than they did when there was smoking. Today when my wife and I are forced into a non smoking situation we very rarely order before dinner drinks, appetizers, after dinner drinks and desserts. In an upscale restaurant that amounts to about $28 to $35 for each of us.
Restaurants should be allowed to have smoking/non smoking sections as they have always had. The Antis claim that we can now breathe clean air in places where the ban is in effect. They of course don't tell the unsuspecting populace about the other carcinogens that are still floating around in the air of a restaurant. Proper air filtration could take care of those carcinogens along with anything that was produced from smoking.
Bob Halfpenny }
The only solution that's fair to everyone is to repeal the ban altogether.
Prior to the ban, everyone enjoyed freedom of choice. Business owners had
the freedom to set their own smoking policies. Employees had a choice of
where to seek employment. And customers had a choice of where to dine out or
go for a drink. In fact, I would venture to guess that there were already
more non-smoking restaurants than those that allowed smoking. The free
market was already moving in that direction voluntarily.
I absolutely reject any compromise that fails to include restaurant owners
while easing restrictions on bar owners. That's no compromise.
Saying no to a smoking ban was always a legitimate option for the county.
But they did their political duty and prostrated themselves at the feet of
the anti-smoker extremists. They tried a ban and it didn't work. All it did
was destroy the dreams and livelihoods of too many business owners who were
providing jobs and paying taxes and attracting more business to Hennepin
County. They now have an opportunity to set things right again, but NOT at
the expense of one group of business owners over another. And for crying out
loud, making the ban as strict as in surrounding cities only means the
suffering is spread out even more so more businesses close and more people
lose their jobs. How in the hell does that make any sense?
Speak up and speak loudly.
~Dan
Dan,
You are absolutely right. Many years ago Communist sypathizers said that Communism would help to fairly divide the wealth---all it did in effect was to multiply the poverty. Today people think that with a level playing field all the bars/restaurants will be playing with the same rules and business will be good all over. What they fail to realize is that smokers will tend to go out less and when they do they will spend far less than they did when there was smoking. Today when my wife and I are forced into a non smoking situation we very rarely order before dinner drinks, appetizers, after dinner drinks and desserts. In an upscale restaurant that amounts to about $28 to $35 for each of us.
Restaurants should be allowed to have smoking/non smoking sections as they have always had. The Antis claim that we can now breathe clean air in places where the ban is in effect. They of course don't tell the unsuspecting populace about the other carcinogens that are still floating around in the air of a restaurant. Proper air filtration could take care of those carcinogens along with anything that was produced from smoking.
Bob Halfpenny }
The only solution that's fair to everyone is to repeal the ban altogether.
Prior to the ban, everyone enjoyed freedom of choice. Business owners had
the freedom to set their own smoking policies. Employees had a choice of
where to seek employment. And customers had a choice of where to dine out or
go for a drink. In fact, I would venture to guess that there were already
more non-smoking restaurants than those that allowed smoking. The free
market was already moving in that direction voluntarily.
I absolutely reject any compromise that fails to include restaurant owners
while easing restrictions on bar owners. That's no compromise.
Saying no to a smoking ban was always a legitimate option for the county.
But they did their political duty and prostrated themselves at the feet of
the anti-smoker extremists. They tried a ban and it didn't work. All it did
was destroy the dreams and livelihoods of too many business owners who were
providing jobs and paying taxes and attracting more business to Hennepin
County. They now have an opportunity to set things right again, but NOT at
the expense of one group of business owners over another. And for crying out
loud, making the ban as strict as in surrounding cities only means the
suffering is spread out even more so more businesses close and more people
lose their jobs. How in the hell does that make any sense?
Speak up and speak loudly.
~Dan
Alcohol..beware the next ban
Clearing the Air readers know of RWJF's activities and money to promote smoking bans....still with roughly 80% of the population being non-smokers, the general public doesn't care.Here is why you should care, and why you should fight smoking bans, which are based on false and misleading information.These recent Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grants are designed to take aim at alcohol:http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grant.jsp?id=053635&iaid=131http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grant.jsp?id=053772&iaid=131http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grant.jsp?id=037547&iaid=131 This grant is priceless as it is: addressing the second-hand effects of alcohol ....... (e.g., vandalism, noise, violence) ....... in surrounding neighborhoods (I could not make this one up, click on the link for yourself)http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grant.jsp?id=052163&iaid=131More alcohol prohibition grants here:http://www.rwjf.org/search/grantresults.jsp?query=alcohol&omitCommon=true&behaviorType=1&And as 80% of Americans sat by to let smoking bans pass unopposed......the alcohol bans have the precedent which will allow them to be passed with little opposition as well.
Read
Clearing the Air readers know of RWJF's activities and money to promote smoking bans....still with roughly 80% of the population being non-smokers, the general public doesn't care.Here is why you should care, and why you should fight smoking bans, which are based on false and misleading information.These recent Robert Wood Johnson Foundation grants are designed to take aim at alcohol:http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grant.jsp?id=053635&iaid=131http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grant.jsp?id=053772&iaid=131http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grant.jsp?id=037547&iaid=131 This grant is priceless as it is: addressing the second-hand effects of alcohol ....... (e.g., vandalism, noise, violence) ....... in surrounding neighborhoods (I could not make this one up, click on the link for yourself)http://www.rwjf.org/portfolios/resources/grant.jsp?id=052163&iaid=131More alcohol prohibition grants here:http://www.rwjf.org/search/grantresults.jsp?query=alcohol&omitCommon=true&behaviorType=1&And as 80% of Americans sat by to let smoking bans pass unopposed......the alcohol bans have the precedent which will allow them to be passed with little opposition as well.
Read
Pueblo Study on Reduced Heart Attack Rate Following Smoking Ban Cited as Evidence that Secondhand Smoke Causes Heart Disease
November 15, 2005
By Michael Siegel
A study released yesterday at an American Heart Association scientific conference reports that heart attack rates in Pueblo, Colorado dropped by 27% following the July 2003 implementation of a 100% smoke-free ordinance covering all workplaces, restaurants and bars in the city.According to the study: "In the year and a half before Pueblo's smoke-free ordinance went into effect, 399 heart attack patients were admitted to the city's two primary hospitals. In the year and a half following enactment of the ordinance, the number of heart attack admissions dropped to 291, representing a 27 percent decrease."In response to the release of this study, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids informed the public, through a press release, that these data provide evidence that secondhand smoke is a cause of heart attacks:"The results of these studies should not be a surprise in light of the overwhelming evidence that secondhand smoke poses serious, even life-threatening risks to health.""The conclusions of these studies are reinforced by the scientific evidence about the impact of secondhand smoke on cardiovascular health. Other studies have found that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent and that as little as 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can trigger harmful cardiovascular changes, such as increased blood clotting, that increase the risk of a heart attack.""The Pueblo study adds to the mountain of evidence that secondhand smoke poses a serious threat to human health."The Rest of the StoryWhile the Pueblo study is important because it adds to the evidence that smoke-free laws may result in a decrease in heart attacks, it does not, in my opinion, add to the evidence that secondhand smoke is a cause of heart attacks.I do not agree that these findings are not surprising "in light of the overwhelming evidence that secondhand smoke poses serious, even life-threatening risks to health," I don't think the conclusion of the study is necessarily "reinforced by the scientific evidence about the impact of secondhand smoke on cardiovascular health," and I don't agree that the study "adds to the mountain of evidence that secondhand smoke poses a serious threat to human health."Why?Because the study was unable to (or did not attempt to) determine whether the decrease in heart attacks was attributable to a decrease in secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmokers or to a decrease in cigarette consumption among active smokers (or some combination of the two).The problem, revealed in the article about the study but not in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' press release, is that: "The study didn't distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers, but rather represented a combination of both smokers and those impacted by secondhand smoke."In other words, one cannot conclude from the study that the reduction in heart attacks was due to reduced secondhand smoke exposure among bar and restaurant customers, as opposed to reduced smoking among smokers due to the implementation of the law. The effect of smoke-free laws on reducing cigarette consumption and promoting smoking cessation among smokers has been well-documented.If I had to take an educated guess, I would guess that the bulk of the reduction in heart attacks was due to reduced levels of active smoking, rather than reduced secondhand smoke exposure. The reason for this guess is that it is difficult for me to imagine that the limited, acute exposure that nonsmoking customers experience while dining or drinking is sufficient to explain 27% of the heart attack burden in Pueblo.While I believe that secondhand smoke exposure among bar and restaurant workers could be significant enough to cause a measurable increase in their heart attack rates, there are simply not enough of those workers in the city to explain a 27% decline in heart attacks.The only explanation that I think makes most sense, in the absence of data that would allow one to draw an evidence-based conclusion, is that reductions in active smoking explain the observed effect. It is plausible, based on the extent of smoking in the population and the magnitude of the relationship between smoking and heart attacks, that reductions in smoking could cause a 27% drop in heart attacks in Pueblo, but I don't see the same magnitude reduction in heart attacks being plausible from a reduction in secondhand smoke exposure (unless there were evidence to support such a conclusion).What I find interesting in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' response is that the scientific evidence does not seem to be an obstacle in promoting the Campaign's agenda. I actually agree with that agenda (at least as far as promoting smoke-free workplaces goes); however, I would not make a public statement attributing the cause of the observed study findings without what I believe to be adequate evidence to support such a statement.For a more detailed discussion of my recent observation that the agenda seems to be driving the interpretation of the science in the anti-smoking movement, rather than the science driving the agenda, see my earlier post.Lest anyone get other ideas, I should make it clear that I do believe that secondhand smoke is a substantial threat to the health of bar and restaurant workers and that policies to protect these workers by eliminating this exposure are warranted. It's just that I try to be careful about making sure that the evidence used to support these policies is sound scientific data from which solid scientific conclusions can be made.I just don't see how a study which found a reduction in heart attacks that is most likely attributable to reductions in active smoking provides strong evidence for the health effects of secondhand smoke.While I think this study is important because it documents a rather rapid reduction in heart attacks following implementation of a smoke-free law, the rest of the story suggests that it should not be used to tout the health hazards of secondhand smoke in the absence of data indicating that the reduction in heart attacks was attributable to reduced secondhand smoke exposure, rather than (or in addition to) reduced active smoking.
Read
November 15, 2005
By Michael Siegel
A study released yesterday at an American Heart Association scientific conference reports that heart attack rates in Pueblo, Colorado dropped by 27% following the July 2003 implementation of a 100% smoke-free ordinance covering all workplaces, restaurants and bars in the city.According to the study: "In the year and a half before Pueblo's smoke-free ordinance went into effect, 399 heart attack patients were admitted to the city's two primary hospitals. In the year and a half following enactment of the ordinance, the number of heart attack admissions dropped to 291, representing a 27 percent decrease."In response to the release of this study, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids informed the public, through a press release, that these data provide evidence that secondhand smoke is a cause of heart attacks:"The results of these studies should not be a surprise in light of the overwhelming evidence that secondhand smoke poses serious, even life-threatening risks to health.""The conclusions of these studies are reinforced by the scientific evidence about the impact of secondhand smoke on cardiovascular health. Other studies have found that exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of heart disease among non-smokers by as much as 60 percent and that as little as 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can trigger harmful cardiovascular changes, such as increased blood clotting, that increase the risk of a heart attack.""The Pueblo study adds to the mountain of evidence that secondhand smoke poses a serious threat to human health."The Rest of the StoryWhile the Pueblo study is important because it adds to the evidence that smoke-free laws may result in a decrease in heart attacks, it does not, in my opinion, add to the evidence that secondhand smoke is a cause of heart attacks.I do not agree that these findings are not surprising "in light of the overwhelming evidence that secondhand smoke poses serious, even life-threatening risks to health," I don't think the conclusion of the study is necessarily "reinforced by the scientific evidence about the impact of secondhand smoke on cardiovascular health," and I don't agree that the study "adds to the mountain of evidence that secondhand smoke poses a serious threat to human health."Why?Because the study was unable to (or did not attempt to) determine whether the decrease in heart attacks was attributable to a decrease in secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmokers or to a decrease in cigarette consumption among active smokers (or some combination of the two).The problem, revealed in the article about the study but not in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' press release, is that: "The study didn't distinguish between smokers and nonsmokers, but rather represented a combination of both smokers and those impacted by secondhand smoke."In other words, one cannot conclude from the study that the reduction in heart attacks was due to reduced secondhand smoke exposure among bar and restaurant customers, as opposed to reduced smoking among smokers due to the implementation of the law. The effect of smoke-free laws on reducing cigarette consumption and promoting smoking cessation among smokers has been well-documented.If I had to take an educated guess, I would guess that the bulk of the reduction in heart attacks was due to reduced levels of active smoking, rather than reduced secondhand smoke exposure. The reason for this guess is that it is difficult for me to imagine that the limited, acute exposure that nonsmoking customers experience while dining or drinking is sufficient to explain 27% of the heart attack burden in Pueblo.While I believe that secondhand smoke exposure among bar and restaurant workers could be significant enough to cause a measurable increase in their heart attack rates, there are simply not enough of those workers in the city to explain a 27% decline in heart attacks.The only explanation that I think makes most sense, in the absence of data that would allow one to draw an evidence-based conclusion, is that reductions in active smoking explain the observed effect. It is plausible, based on the extent of smoking in the population and the magnitude of the relationship between smoking and heart attacks, that reductions in smoking could cause a 27% drop in heart attacks in Pueblo, but I don't see the same magnitude reduction in heart attacks being plausible from a reduction in secondhand smoke exposure (unless there were evidence to support such a conclusion).What I find interesting in the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' response is that the scientific evidence does not seem to be an obstacle in promoting the Campaign's agenda. I actually agree with that agenda (at least as far as promoting smoke-free workplaces goes); however, I would not make a public statement attributing the cause of the observed study findings without what I believe to be adequate evidence to support such a statement.For a more detailed discussion of my recent observation that the agenda seems to be driving the interpretation of the science in the anti-smoking movement, rather than the science driving the agenda, see my earlier post.Lest anyone get other ideas, I should make it clear that I do believe that secondhand smoke is a substantial threat to the health of bar and restaurant workers and that policies to protect these workers by eliminating this exposure are warranted. It's just that I try to be careful about making sure that the evidence used to support these policies is sound scientific data from which solid scientific conclusions can be made.I just don't see how a study which found a reduction in heart attacks that is most likely attributable to reductions in active smoking provides strong evidence for the health effects of secondhand smoke.While I think this study is important because it documents a rather rapid reduction in heart attacks following implementation of a smoke-free law, the rest of the story suggests that it should not be used to tout the health hazards of secondhand smoke in the absence of data indicating that the reduction in heart attacks was attributable to reduced secondhand smoke exposure, rather than (or in addition to) reduced active smoking.
Read
Lack of Reason in Current Anti-Smoking Agenda Threatens Even Legitimate Public Health Policies: On the Impending Backlash to the Anti-Smoking Movement
November 14, 2005
By Michael Siegel
I think there is strong reason to believe that in many ways, the greatest obstacle to the tobacco control movement in the near future is going to be the tobacco control movement in the present - specifically, the deviation of the anti-smoking agenda from the bounds of reason, respect, and good sense.I see the anti-smoking movement as beginning to stray (or possibly, having already strayed) far from the path of reason. When you have a movement that seriously seems to be supporting policies that would deny smokers of the ability to seek gainful employment in many major companies, that supports banning smoking in virtually every outdoor area in order to prevent kids from seeing smokers smoking, and that supports increasingly taxing cigarettes to pay for every government service under the sun (except assisting smokers), I think that movement has started to go too far in its zeal to eliminate smoking, despite how well-placed and appropriate that zeal might be.DENYING SMOKERS THE ABILITY TO SEEK GAINFUL EMPLOYMENTThe anti-smoking movement appears to be increasingly embracing the idea of supporting employment policies that make not smoking a condition of employment. I'm not talking about smoking at work; I'm talking about smoking off-the-job in the privacy of one's own home. While I think employers have every right to dictate the conduct of their employees on the employers' time, I think when you leave the workplace and start to regulate the lawful behavior of your workers in the privacy of their own homes, you have crossed the line.The fact that it is perfectly legal (in most states) for employers to fire people because they smoke or to refuse to hire any smoker, that doesn't make it right. And it certainly doesn't make it a reasonable policy that public health practitioners should support, especially those of us in the tobacco control field who should, more than anyone, have an appreciation of the addictive power of nicotine and how difficult it is for smokers to quit.What we are really doing, I believe, by supporting and promoting these types of policies, is creating a second class of citizens in this country - a class that is going to increasingly find it difficult to obtain and maintain a job.Is that what tobacco control is supposed to be about? Isn't it difficult enough for smokers, without having to burden them with unemployment and discrimination in the workplace?BANNING SMOKING IN VIRTUALLY EVERY OUTDOOR AREAThe anti-smoking movement appears to be increasingly embracing the idea of supporting and promoting laws to ban smoking in any outdoor area, regardless of what I believe is the lack of evidence demonstrating that outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke in open, non-enclosed areas where nonsmokers can freely move about is a substantial public health problem. I'm not talking about smoking in an enclosed stadium or in an outdoor workplace where people are restricted in a given area. I'm talking about smoking outdoors in open areas where it is possible for nonsmokers to easily avoid any significant exposure to the smoke. By pursuing these types of policies, I think that we have crossed the line.The fact that it is perfectly legal to ban smoking outdoors doesn't make it right. And it certainly doesn't make it a reasonable policy that public health practitioners should support.What we are really doing, I believe, by supporting and promoting these types of policies, is suggesting to policy makers and the public that we view smoking not as a public health problem, but as a nuisance, an annoyance, an evil behavior, a source of litter, and an affront to public morals.Is that what tobacco control is supposed to be about? Is the goal to cast smokers as immoral people whose addictive behavior we cannot tolerate in public because it is a moral affront? Is the goal to rid ourselves of exposure to litter? Is the goal to prevent any possible nuisance from having to interfere with our enjoyment of life?INCREASINGLY TAXING CIGARETTES TO PAY FOR EVERY GOVERNMENT SERVICE UNDER THE SUNThe anti-smoking movement appears to have embraced the idea of supporting increased cigarette taxes as a solution to any and all government budget deficits. If you have a budget shortfall in your state, the anti-smoking movement has the solution: balance it on the backs of smokers. I'm not talking about taxes that will raise money to help smokers or to provide much-needed medical care and other services for this segment of the public. I'm talking about eschewing taxes on the wealthiest citizens and corporations in order to take the politically more expedient action of using heavily addicted smokers as the source of needed revenue for government programs. This is, in my view, crossing the line.The fact that these policies will reduce smoking by encouraging many smokers to quit does not, in my view, make them the right thing to do. And it certainly doesn't make it a reasonable policy that I think public health practitioners should support.What we are really doing, I believe, by supporting and promoting these types of policies, is balancing state budgets on the backs of the most addicted smokers in the population -- precisely the population that should not have added financial burdens thrown upon them. We know that these individuals are not going to quit (if they did, the policies would not raise revenue, they would decrease it), yet we knowingly agree to force them to subsidize government services for other people that could easily be funded through alternate (yet less politically desirable) means.Is that what tobacco control is supposed to be about? Are we supposed to be fiscal planners, intervening in government budget debates to promote our own fiscal solutions? Are we supposed to be offering up our clients [the most heavily addicted and poorest smokers], in essence, as the precise individuals to bear the burden for balancing state budgets, and without offering them any direct benefits in return?The Rest of the StoryThe rest of the story, in this case, is more important than the story itself, because what I think this all means is that the anti-smoking movement is setting itself up for a huge backlash. And the shame of it is that this backlash is going to threaten not only the unreasonable aspects of the anti-smoking agenda, but the legitimate and important aspects of tobacco control (many of which I have been working to achieve for the past 21 years).There's only so long that policy makers and the public are going to go along with the anti-smoking agenda when it starts to deviate from reason, respect, and good sense.Eventually, people are going to start seeing the anti-smoking movement not as a legitimate public health effort, but as a zealous crusade to try to prohibit smoking and relegate smokers to second class status by ostracizing them and discriminating against them.Look - I am an ardent tobacco control advocate who has been working in the trenches for 21 years, and I see these efforts as crossing the line. I see these efforts as going beyond the realm of reason and good sense and into the realm of punishing smokers for having had the gall to become addicted to nicotine, largely as youths. I can only imagine what the public, who has not worked in the tobacco control movement for 21 years, is going to think!Eventually, I think policy makers are simply going to conclude that these anti-smokers are nuts, and they will decide that they have simply had enough. Then, the tobacco control movement will be severely threatened. Legitimate and important policies, such as those to confront the very real and very substantial threats of smoking in the workplace, will fall by the wayside. Attempts to increase cigarette taxes to actually support legitimate tobacco control programs, to prevent kids from smoking, to support smokers in their efforts to quit, and to provide medical care for smokers will be buried.Simply, it will become nearly impossible to enact legitimate and critical tobacco control policies because we've wasted so much effort on the crazy ones.The rest of the story suggests that the anti-smoking agenda is being pushed too far. I believe it is beginning to cross the line that separates appropriate public health policy from zealous crusading to get rid of a behavior that one finds abhorrent.And I'm writing now in the hopes that we can help save the movement by preventing it from going down this road. I don't want responsible tobacco policy when my children grow up to be unavailable because the anti-smoking movement supported the idea of firing anyone who smokes and thus lost its credibility as a legitimate public health effort. And I don't want the policies that I worked to achieve over the past two decades to become unavailable to citizens who don't enjoy their benefits because public policy makers decide that they have simply had enough.
Read
November 14, 2005
By Michael Siegel
I think there is strong reason to believe that in many ways, the greatest obstacle to the tobacco control movement in the near future is going to be the tobacco control movement in the present - specifically, the deviation of the anti-smoking agenda from the bounds of reason, respect, and good sense.I see the anti-smoking movement as beginning to stray (or possibly, having already strayed) far from the path of reason. When you have a movement that seriously seems to be supporting policies that would deny smokers of the ability to seek gainful employment in many major companies, that supports banning smoking in virtually every outdoor area in order to prevent kids from seeing smokers smoking, and that supports increasingly taxing cigarettes to pay for every government service under the sun (except assisting smokers), I think that movement has started to go too far in its zeal to eliminate smoking, despite how well-placed and appropriate that zeal might be.DENYING SMOKERS THE ABILITY TO SEEK GAINFUL EMPLOYMENTThe anti-smoking movement appears to be increasingly embracing the idea of supporting employment policies that make not smoking a condition of employment. I'm not talking about smoking at work; I'm talking about smoking off-the-job in the privacy of one's own home. While I think employers have every right to dictate the conduct of their employees on the employers' time, I think when you leave the workplace and start to regulate the lawful behavior of your workers in the privacy of their own homes, you have crossed the line.The fact that it is perfectly legal (in most states) for employers to fire people because they smoke or to refuse to hire any smoker, that doesn't make it right. And it certainly doesn't make it a reasonable policy that public health practitioners should support, especially those of us in the tobacco control field who should, more than anyone, have an appreciation of the addictive power of nicotine and how difficult it is for smokers to quit.What we are really doing, I believe, by supporting and promoting these types of policies, is creating a second class of citizens in this country - a class that is going to increasingly find it difficult to obtain and maintain a job.Is that what tobacco control is supposed to be about? Isn't it difficult enough for smokers, without having to burden them with unemployment and discrimination in the workplace?BANNING SMOKING IN VIRTUALLY EVERY OUTDOOR AREAThe anti-smoking movement appears to be increasingly embracing the idea of supporting and promoting laws to ban smoking in any outdoor area, regardless of what I believe is the lack of evidence demonstrating that outdoor exposure to secondhand smoke in open, non-enclosed areas where nonsmokers can freely move about is a substantial public health problem. I'm not talking about smoking in an enclosed stadium or in an outdoor workplace where people are restricted in a given area. I'm talking about smoking outdoors in open areas where it is possible for nonsmokers to easily avoid any significant exposure to the smoke. By pursuing these types of policies, I think that we have crossed the line.The fact that it is perfectly legal to ban smoking outdoors doesn't make it right. And it certainly doesn't make it a reasonable policy that public health practitioners should support.What we are really doing, I believe, by supporting and promoting these types of policies, is suggesting to policy makers and the public that we view smoking not as a public health problem, but as a nuisance, an annoyance, an evil behavior, a source of litter, and an affront to public morals.Is that what tobacco control is supposed to be about? Is the goal to cast smokers as immoral people whose addictive behavior we cannot tolerate in public because it is a moral affront? Is the goal to rid ourselves of exposure to litter? Is the goal to prevent any possible nuisance from having to interfere with our enjoyment of life?INCREASINGLY TAXING CIGARETTES TO PAY FOR EVERY GOVERNMENT SERVICE UNDER THE SUNThe anti-smoking movement appears to have embraced the idea of supporting increased cigarette taxes as a solution to any and all government budget deficits. If you have a budget shortfall in your state, the anti-smoking movement has the solution: balance it on the backs of smokers. I'm not talking about taxes that will raise money to help smokers or to provide much-needed medical care and other services for this segment of the public. I'm talking about eschewing taxes on the wealthiest citizens and corporations in order to take the politically more expedient action of using heavily addicted smokers as the source of needed revenue for government programs. This is, in my view, crossing the line.The fact that these policies will reduce smoking by encouraging many smokers to quit does not, in my view, make them the right thing to do. And it certainly doesn't make it a reasonable policy that I think public health practitioners should support.What we are really doing, I believe, by supporting and promoting these types of policies, is balancing state budgets on the backs of the most addicted smokers in the population -- precisely the population that should not have added financial burdens thrown upon them. We know that these individuals are not going to quit (if they did, the policies would not raise revenue, they would decrease it), yet we knowingly agree to force them to subsidize government services for other people that could easily be funded through alternate (yet less politically desirable) means.Is that what tobacco control is supposed to be about? Are we supposed to be fiscal planners, intervening in government budget debates to promote our own fiscal solutions? Are we supposed to be offering up our clients [the most heavily addicted and poorest smokers], in essence, as the precise individuals to bear the burden for balancing state budgets, and without offering them any direct benefits in return?The Rest of the StoryThe rest of the story, in this case, is more important than the story itself, because what I think this all means is that the anti-smoking movement is setting itself up for a huge backlash. And the shame of it is that this backlash is going to threaten not only the unreasonable aspects of the anti-smoking agenda, but the legitimate and important aspects of tobacco control (many of which I have been working to achieve for the past 21 years).There's only so long that policy makers and the public are going to go along with the anti-smoking agenda when it starts to deviate from reason, respect, and good sense.Eventually, people are going to start seeing the anti-smoking movement not as a legitimate public health effort, but as a zealous crusade to try to prohibit smoking and relegate smokers to second class status by ostracizing them and discriminating against them.Look - I am an ardent tobacco control advocate who has been working in the trenches for 21 years, and I see these efforts as crossing the line. I see these efforts as going beyond the realm of reason and good sense and into the realm of punishing smokers for having had the gall to become addicted to nicotine, largely as youths. I can only imagine what the public, who has not worked in the tobacco control movement for 21 years, is going to think!Eventually, I think policy makers are simply going to conclude that these anti-smokers are nuts, and they will decide that they have simply had enough. Then, the tobacco control movement will be severely threatened. Legitimate and important policies, such as those to confront the very real and very substantial threats of smoking in the workplace, will fall by the wayside. Attempts to increase cigarette taxes to actually support legitimate tobacco control programs, to prevent kids from smoking, to support smokers in their efforts to quit, and to provide medical care for smokers will be buried.Simply, it will become nearly impossible to enact legitimate and critical tobacco control policies because we've wasted so much effort on the crazy ones.The rest of the story suggests that the anti-smoking agenda is being pushed too far. I believe it is beginning to cross the line that separates appropriate public health policy from zealous crusading to get rid of a behavior that one finds abhorrent.And I'm writing now in the hopes that we can help save the movement by preventing it from going down this road. I don't want responsible tobacco policy when my children grow up to be unavailable because the anti-smoking movement supported the idea of firing anyone who smokes and thus lost its credibility as a legitimate public health effort. And I don't want the policies that I worked to achieve over the past two decades to become unavailable to citizens who don't enjoy their benefits because public policy makers decide that they have simply had enough.
Read
The Road to Censorship: BMJ Letter Seems to be A Step in that Direction
November 9, 2005
By Michael Siegel
In a rapid response to a BMJ article on the effects of smoke-free workplaces on the health of bar workers in Ireland, a public health professor suggested that BMJ should perhaps not publish comments from an individual who runs a pro-smoking internet site because these comments represent opinion rather than science.The article essentially demonstrated that the implenentation of a nationwide smoke-free bar law in Ireland was associated with a dramatic reduction in secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmoking bar workers.The comment from an individual who is the president of FORCES Netherlands suggested that the study does not prove that the law has started to save lives among nonsmoking bar workers, because it demonstrates a reduction in exposure, but not necessarily in disease rates.The response (entitled "Scientific or Affective Approach to Tobacco: A Question of Ethics?") to this comment by a public health professor stated: "The article by Shane Allwright and colleagues has sound scientific basis and protocol. On the contrary, the answer by Wiel Maessen, is based on emotion from this President of Forces Netherlands, Holland (http://www.forces-nl.org/), a pro-smoking internet site. Is it the role of the BMJ to publish such type of comments? Or is it an ethical question to accept opinion as well as science?"The Rest of the StoryWhat I infer this professor is suggesting is that the role of BMJ in its Rapid Responses is to publish scientific contributions based on scientific research and not opinions of individuals. The implication (in my interpretation) is that it is perhaps unethical for the journal to publish opinion rather than scientific research itself.But this assertion is, I think, wrong for two reasons.First, opinion is an essential part of virtually every scientific, medical, and public health journal I am aware of. Not only do these journals contain commentaries and letters to the editor, which are often expressions of individual opinions, but within scientific articles themselves, the authors offer their own opinions.Second, and more importantly, the very nature and purpose of the Rapid Response feature of BMJ is, I think, to encourage discussion and debate about the published articles among members of the public, including non-scientists who would otherwise not have a forum in which to take part in the discussion. If you look at virtually any of the Rapid Responses to BMJ articles, you will find that the published responses are largely individual opinions.In fact, the public health professor's response itself is an opinion. She states that the article has sound scientific basis and the response by the FORCES president is based merely on emotion, yet she offers absolutely no scientific or other documentation to back up her assertion. She suggests that BMJ should perhaps not publish these types of comments, which is itself an opinion. And she suggests that perhaps publishing opinion rather than science is unethical - again, her opinion.Opinion is, in fact, an integral part of the Rapid Responses. This type of forum is basically one that allows people to express their opinions. As far as I am aware, there is no substantial peer review or scientific review process that goes into publishing these responses. Presumbly, most responses are published, although I imagine they are screened to make sure they are not defamatory or otherwise unpublishable. But I venture to say that screening them for the presence of opinion is not part of the review process.Ultimately, therefore, what the public health professor is actually suggesting, I believe, is that BMJ should not publish certain types of opinions. Her opinions are apparently acceptable, but the president of FORCES' opinions are not. What is the difference? Basically, her opinions support the anti-smoking agenda and the president of FORCES' opinions do not.So the argument basically is, therefore, that BMJ should screen opinions and only publish those that are on the side of the anti-smoking movement, but not on the other side of the issue.That, to me, represents a call for censorship.That response should have sounded an alarm to tobacco control practitioners and others reading it, and I was glad to see that at least the FORCES president had the insight to respond to the comment, pointing out that: "It seems to become common practice in the medical society to counter serious arguments against the outcomes or methodologies of studies with ad-hominem attacks. When opposing views do not fit in the 'modern' medical ideology, the man is attacked and not the ball. ... And this time again, Mr. Piette's only defense against the disclosure of a real flaw in this study doesn't consist of any counter argument but an attack on the source of the criticism, of whom he even doesn't know the scientific background. The criticism from the opponent is qualified as an 'opinion' while obviously his own personal interest (considering his own background as a 'health promotion & education' professor) doesn't represent an opinion at all."While this may not sound like the most alarming story, it should at least raise a red flag and lead anti-smoking advocates to pause to consider the potential implications of this kind of thinking.To me, the rest of the story alerts us to the very real danger of proceeding down a path that could well lead to censorship of dissenting opinion - not a road that the tobacco control movement should come anywhere close to going down.
Read
November 9, 2005
By Michael Siegel
In a rapid response to a BMJ article on the effects of smoke-free workplaces on the health of bar workers in Ireland, a public health professor suggested that BMJ should perhaps not publish comments from an individual who runs a pro-smoking internet site because these comments represent opinion rather than science.The article essentially demonstrated that the implenentation of a nationwide smoke-free bar law in Ireland was associated with a dramatic reduction in secondhand smoke exposure among nonsmoking bar workers.The comment from an individual who is the president of FORCES Netherlands suggested that the study does not prove that the law has started to save lives among nonsmoking bar workers, because it demonstrates a reduction in exposure, but not necessarily in disease rates.The response (entitled "Scientific or Affective Approach to Tobacco: A Question of Ethics?") to this comment by a public health professor stated: "The article by Shane Allwright and colleagues has sound scientific basis and protocol. On the contrary, the answer by Wiel Maessen, is based on emotion from this President of Forces Netherlands, Holland (http://www.forces-nl.org/), a pro-smoking internet site. Is it the role of the BMJ to publish such type of comments? Or is it an ethical question to accept opinion as well as science?"The Rest of the StoryWhat I infer this professor is suggesting is that the role of BMJ in its Rapid Responses is to publish scientific contributions based on scientific research and not opinions of individuals. The implication (in my interpretation) is that it is perhaps unethical for the journal to publish opinion rather than scientific research itself.But this assertion is, I think, wrong for two reasons.First, opinion is an essential part of virtually every scientific, medical, and public health journal I am aware of. Not only do these journals contain commentaries and letters to the editor, which are often expressions of individual opinions, but within scientific articles themselves, the authors offer their own opinions.Second, and more importantly, the very nature and purpose of the Rapid Response feature of BMJ is, I think, to encourage discussion and debate about the published articles among members of the public, including non-scientists who would otherwise not have a forum in which to take part in the discussion. If you look at virtually any of the Rapid Responses to BMJ articles, you will find that the published responses are largely individual opinions.In fact, the public health professor's response itself is an opinion. She states that the article has sound scientific basis and the response by the FORCES president is based merely on emotion, yet she offers absolutely no scientific or other documentation to back up her assertion. She suggests that BMJ should perhaps not publish these types of comments, which is itself an opinion. And she suggests that perhaps publishing opinion rather than science is unethical - again, her opinion.Opinion is, in fact, an integral part of the Rapid Responses. This type of forum is basically one that allows people to express their opinions. As far as I am aware, there is no substantial peer review or scientific review process that goes into publishing these responses. Presumbly, most responses are published, although I imagine they are screened to make sure they are not defamatory or otherwise unpublishable. But I venture to say that screening them for the presence of opinion is not part of the review process.Ultimately, therefore, what the public health professor is actually suggesting, I believe, is that BMJ should not publish certain types of opinions. Her opinions are apparently acceptable, but the president of FORCES' opinions are not. What is the difference? Basically, her opinions support the anti-smoking agenda and the president of FORCES' opinions do not.So the argument basically is, therefore, that BMJ should screen opinions and only publish those that are on the side of the anti-smoking movement, but not on the other side of the issue.That, to me, represents a call for censorship.That response should have sounded an alarm to tobacco control practitioners and others reading it, and I was glad to see that at least the FORCES president had the insight to respond to the comment, pointing out that: "It seems to become common practice in the medical society to counter serious arguments against the outcomes or methodologies of studies with ad-hominem attacks. When opposing views do not fit in the 'modern' medical ideology, the man is attacked and not the ball. ... And this time again, Mr. Piette's only defense against the disclosure of a real flaw in this study doesn't consist of any counter argument but an attack on the source of the criticism, of whom he even doesn't know the scientific background. The criticism from the opponent is qualified as an 'opinion' while obviously his own personal interest (considering his own background as a 'health promotion & education' professor) doesn't represent an opinion at all."While this may not sound like the most alarming story, it should at least raise a red flag and lead anti-smoking advocates to pause to consider the potential implications of this kind of thinking.To me, the rest of the story alerts us to the very real danger of proceeding down a path that could well lead to censorship of dissenting opinion - not a road that the tobacco control movement should come anywhere close to going down.
Read
Attacking the Naysayers: Anti-Smoking Groups' Response to Any Challenge to their Agenda
November 8, 2005
By Michael Siegel
I realize that I've written on two controversial topics this week -- discrimination against smokers and the justification for outdoor smoking bans -- and started a virtual firestorm among anti-smoking groups and advocates (and it's only Tuesday). But the interesting thing to me is that I've learned something from this experience.What I've learned is that for the most part, the anti-smoking movement is driven by an agenda - an agenda that will not allow science, sound policy analysis, the law, or ethics to get in its way.It is an agenda that if challenged causes anti-smoking groups to scramble to try to justify their actions - and they come up with new ways of defending their actions, resorting to weaker and weaker arguments to do so.And instead of merely presenting arguments to justify their actions, they resort to attacking the individual who questions the justification for their actions, in part, in order to quell any dissent from the established dogma of the movement.Instead of the science driving the agenda, it appears that the agenda drives the interpretation of the science.Instead of sound policy analysis driving the agenda, it appears that the agenda gets in the way of sound policy analysis.Instead of an informed consideration of legal issues driving the agenda, it appears that the need to defend the agenda blinds many advocates from being interested in understanding the legal framework that actually justifies their actions.And instead of a concern for ethical principles providing the boundaries in which the agenda is pursued, it appears that the promotion of the agenda defines the boundaries of what is considered ethical.A few examples in each of these areas will hopefully be sufficient to demonstrate my arguments.The Rest of the StoryLet's start with the ad hominem attacks, since those are perhaps the most troublesome to me (probably because I'm the one at the receiving end).In response to the suggestions that although smokers do not have any absolute right to smoke, they nonetheless do have a right to engage in legal behavior if it is not infringing upon the health of others, and that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to justify government intervention to ban smoking in open, outdoor spaces, I was called:
a "holier-than-thou civil libertarian manqué"; and
a "naysayer".
I actually like being called a "manqué," since I have no idea what it means, it sounds somewhat intriguing, and it has an accent egue in it.But I find it problematic to be called a naysayer. Because it implies, I believe, that saying anything that goes against the mentality of the movement is simply not acceptable. By framing my differing science-based opinion in a pejorative way, rather than as an appropriate scientific-based opinion with which others may disagree, it is really an attempt to censor dissenting opinion. If you disagree with the dogma of the movement, you must automatically be a cynic or a skeptic, rather than have a legitimate opinion.I have to admit that although I have come to expect to be attacked, I am surprised at the relatively benign comments that prompted this particular attack - an opinion that smokers have the right to smoke (i.e., to engage in a legal behavior) as long as they are not infringing upon the health of others; and my opinion that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to justify government intervention to ban smoking in open, outdoor spaces.As far as the first opinion goes, it seems perfectly reasonable to me - I honestly don't see what the controversy is or why that opinion would so deeply offend an anti-smoking advocate.As far as the second opinion goes, people can certainly disagree with me if they want, but the only scientific "evidence" that was provided to me to justify outdoor smoking bans was a single study that did not document any health problems due to sustained exposure to tobacco smoke originating from the outdoors.It hardly seems to warrant calling me a "naysayer." It hardly seems like I am a cynic or a skeptic to suggest that perhaps more than a single study would be necessary to justify such drastic government intervention and that perhaps that study should actually document sustained, not temporary levels of high exposure to secondhand smoke in places that people are unable to avoid.Next, I'll address the scrambling justification for the anti-smoking agenda, with weaker and weaker arguments.Perhaps the best example is the response I received about my post challenging the scientific justification for outdoor smoking bans. Instead of arguing the point with me and suggesting that there is evidence justifying the drastic action of banning smoking outdoors, most of the responses provided new and different justifications for such laws.One new justification was that these laws are justified because they will deter smoking by de-normalizing the behavior. That justification doesn't hold, I think, because by the same reasoning, we should ban alcohol use in public, fast food use in public, and sitting in a sedentary way on a bench in public, since all of these will help to normalize unhealthy behaviors.Another new justification was that these laws will improve the quality of life by eliminating a major nuisance. A nuisance? I can tell you right now that I am not in public health because I want to try to eliminate all the nuisances out there. I'm in public health because I want to prevent death, disease, disability, and suffering, not to prevent nuisances.Yet another new justification was that banning smoking outdoors is justified because cigarette butts are a major litter problem. That may be the case, but that makes it a problem that should be addressed by litter control practitioners, not tobacco control practitioners. I'm not in tobacco control because I want to control litter, no matter how worthy an endeavor that may be.And yet another justification was that the public supports broad outdoor smoking bans. Unfortunately, that's not a sufficient justification to me. If the policy isn't justified, then it's not justified, regardless of what the results of public opinion polls may show. After all, the majority of citizens in a number of states may oppose abortion, but I don't think that justifies public health advocates supporting laws that restrict women's abortion rights. Even here in Massachusetts, the majority of the public opposes gay marriage, but you won't find me supporting a ban on gay marriage anytime soon.Interestingly, I have never heard any of these same justifications used for indoor smoking bans. The reason, I think, is that they are not needed to support indoor bans. After all, we have the scientific evidence on our side for those. But now that the scientific evidence appears to be shaky, advocates are all of the sudden drawing upon a whole new set of justifications.Now to the big four:1. Instead of the science driving the agenda, it appears that the agenda drives the interpretation of the science.I found it interesting that the one study that was touted as justifying outdoor smoking bans failed to demonstrate that smoke entering a building from the outside poses a serious and sustained threat to the health of those working in the building or that smoking in open, outdoor areas poses any significant health threat. Nevertheless, the study was cited as completely refuting my argument.In fact, one response suggested that I was not "up to speed on the facts" and that if I read this study, I would see the error of my opinion. Of course, I was up to speed on the facts before I wrote about this issue (a lot of research goes into almost all of my posts), but it is quite clear to me that the science in this case simply does not support the need for government intervention to ban smoking in most outdoor areas (as I have stated clearly and repeatedly, I make exceptions for enclosed areas or places with fixed seating - like stadiums - where people cannot easily move away from the smoke).But perhaps the best example of the agenda driving the interpretation of the science is the article from yesterday's release of the journal Pediatrics. I won't repeat the details here, but yesterday's post explains why I think the conclusion that 38% of kids who smoke do so because they saw people smoking in movies is not warranted.2. Instead of sound policy analysis driving the agenda, it appears that the agenda gets in the way of sound policy analysis.The agenda, I believe, is clearly to ban smoking in all public places - even outdoors. While a sound policy analysis demonstrating that outdoor smoking bans are necessary to protect the public from a serious health threat would convince me to change my opinion, I am instead bombarded with arguments that this is a serious nuisance, a huge litter problem, something that should be de-normalized in spite of the lack of evidence, and a host of other arguments that in my mind, do not constitute sound policy analysis. But they are thrown forth in the name of being sound analysis. It is pretty clear to me that sound policy analysis is not driving this agenda, but it does appear that the agenda is getting in the way of sound policy analysis.3. Instead of an informed consideration of legal issues driving the agenda, it appears that the need to defend the agenda blinds many advocates from being interested in understanding the legal framework that actually justifies their actions.In responding to my argument that there is, indeed, a legal right to engage in lawful behaviors if they are not infringing upon the rights of others, one argument that was put forward was that since smoking is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, there is no right to smoke.Well, it's also true that breathing clean air is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is the right to a safe workplace reasonably free of recognized and preventable hazards. Does that mean there is no right to a safe workplace? Of course not.I clearly articulated my position that there is no absolute right to smoke and that the right to engage in this legal behavior can certainly be infringed upon if necessary to protect the public's health. But that's the key phrase - if necessary. It is simply upon those two words that my opinions are based.By far, the best example of the anti-smoking agenda getting in the way of the legal justification for that agenda is the attempts by anti-smoking groups - -most notably the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, ALA, AHA, and ACS - to try to convince a federal judge to misapply the law in order to extract billions of dollars from the tobacco companies that could be used for anti-smoking programs.4. Instead of a concern for ethical principles providing the boundaries in which the agenda is pursued, it appears that the promotion of the agenda defines the boundaries of what is considered ethical.In many ways, the bulk of this blog deals with this very issue. Probably the majority of my posts relate to what I see as the use of unethical means to achieve desired (and appropriate) ends. But to pick just one example, I think the personal attacks on my friend, Martha Perske, are a perfect example of letting the agenda define the boundaries of what is considered ethical and therefore, acceptable.The rest of the story is that I have become convinced that the agenda of the anti-smoking movement has taken on a life of its own. Anything that gets in the way of that agenda - whether it be the science, sound policy analysis, the law, ethics, or me - must be dismissed (in my case, by taking a 1-month vacation).While I would be happy to take a 1-month vacation (especially if it's during Boston's harsh winter), I unfortunately don't think that we as public health practitioners should ever take a vacation from science, sound policy analysis, the law, and ethics. And I hope that this blog plays some small part in making sure that we never do.
Read
November 8, 2005
By Michael Siegel
I realize that I've written on two controversial topics this week -- discrimination against smokers and the justification for outdoor smoking bans -- and started a virtual firestorm among anti-smoking groups and advocates (and it's only Tuesday). But the interesting thing to me is that I've learned something from this experience.What I've learned is that for the most part, the anti-smoking movement is driven by an agenda - an agenda that will not allow science, sound policy analysis, the law, or ethics to get in its way.It is an agenda that if challenged causes anti-smoking groups to scramble to try to justify their actions - and they come up with new ways of defending their actions, resorting to weaker and weaker arguments to do so.And instead of merely presenting arguments to justify their actions, they resort to attacking the individual who questions the justification for their actions, in part, in order to quell any dissent from the established dogma of the movement.Instead of the science driving the agenda, it appears that the agenda drives the interpretation of the science.Instead of sound policy analysis driving the agenda, it appears that the agenda gets in the way of sound policy analysis.Instead of an informed consideration of legal issues driving the agenda, it appears that the need to defend the agenda blinds many advocates from being interested in understanding the legal framework that actually justifies their actions.And instead of a concern for ethical principles providing the boundaries in which the agenda is pursued, it appears that the promotion of the agenda defines the boundaries of what is considered ethical.A few examples in each of these areas will hopefully be sufficient to demonstrate my arguments.The Rest of the StoryLet's start with the ad hominem attacks, since those are perhaps the most troublesome to me (probably because I'm the one at the receiving end).In response to the suggestions that although smokers do not have any absolute right to smoke, they nonetheless do have a right to engage in legal behavior if it is not infringing upon the health of others, and that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to justify government intervention to ban smoking in open, outdoor spaces, I was called:
a "holier-than-thou civil libertarian manqué"; and
a "naysayer".
I actually like being called a "manqué," since I have no idea what it means, it sounds somewhat intriguing, and it has an accent egue in it.But I find it problematic to be called a naysayer. Because it implies, I believe, that saying anything that goes against the mentality of the movement is simply not acceptable. By framing my differing science-based opinion in a pejorative way, rather than as an appropriate scientific-based opinion with which others may disagree, it is really an attempt to censor dissenting opinion. If you disagree with the dogma of the movement, you must automatically be a cynic or a skeptic, rather than have a legitimate opinion.I have to admit that although I have come to expect to be attacked, I am surprised at the relatively benign comments that prompted this particular attack - an opinion that smokers have the right to smoke (i.e., to engage in a legal behavior) as long as they are not infringing upon the health of others; and my opinion that there is not sufficient scientific evidence to justify government intervention to ban smoking in open, outdoor spaces.As far as the first opinion goes, it seems perfectly reasonable to me - I honestly don't see what the controversy is or why that opinion would so deeply offend an anti-smoking advocate.As far as the second opinion goes, people can certainly disagree with me if they want, but the only scientific "evidence" that was provided to me to justify outdoor smoking bans was a single study that did not document any health problems due to sustained exposure to tobacco smoke originating from the outdoors.It hardly seems to warrant calling me a "naysayer." It hardly seems like I am a cynic or a skeptic to suggest that perhaps more than a single study would be necessary to justify such drastic government intervention and that perhaps that study should actually document sustained, not temporary levels of high exposure to secondhand smoke in places that people are unable to avoid.Next, I'll address the scrambling justification for the anti-smoking agenda, with weaker and weaker arguments.Perhaps the best example is the response I received about my post challenging the scientific justification for outdoor smoking bans. Instead of arguing the point with me and suggesting that there is evidence justifying the drastic action of banning smoking outdoors, most of the responses provided new and different justifications for such laws.One new justification was that these laws are justified because they will deter smoking by de-normalizing the behavior. That justification doesn't hold, I think, because by the same reasoning, we should ban alcohol use in public, fast food use in public, and sitting in a sedentary way on a bench in public, since all of these will help to normalize unhealthy behaviors.Another new justification was that these laws will improve the quality of life by eliminating a major nuisance. A nuisance? I can tell you right now that I am not in public health because I want to try to eliminate all the nuisances out there. I'm in public health because I want to prevent death, disease, disability, and suffering, not to prevent nuisances.Yet another new justification was that banning smoking outdoors is justified because cigarette butts are a major litter problem. That may be the case, but that makes it a problem that should be addressed by litter control practitioners, not tobacco control practitioners. I'm not in tobacco control because I want to control litter, no matter how worthy an endeavor that may be.And yet another justification was that the public supports broad outdoor smoking bans. Unfortunately, that's not a sufficient justification to me. If the policy isn't justified, then it's not justified, regardless of what the results of public opinion polls may show. After all, the majority of citizens in a number of states may oppose abortion, but I don't think that justifies public health advocates supporting laws that restrict women's abortion rights. Even here in Massachusetts, the majority of the public opposes gay marriage, but you won't find me supporting a ban on gay marriage anytime soon.Interestingly, I have never heard any of these same justifications used for indoor smoking bans. The reason, I think, is that they are not needed to support indoor bans. After all, we have the scientific evidence on our side for those. But now that the scientific evidence appears to be shaky, advocates are all of the sudden drawing upon a whole new set of justifications.Now to the big four:1. Instead of the science driving the agenda, it appears that the agenda drives the interpretation of the science.I found it interesting that the one study that was touted as justifying outdoor smoking bans failed to demonstrate that smoke entering a building from the outside poses a serious and sustained threat to the health of those working in the building or that smoking in open, outdoor areas poses any significant health threat. Nevertheless, the study was cited as completely refuting my argument.In fact, one response suggested that I was not "up to speed on the facts" and that if I read this study, I would see the error of my opinion. Of course, I was up to speed on the facts before I wrote about this issue (a lot of research goes into almost all of my posts), but it is quite clear to me that the science in this case simply does not support the need for government intervention to ban smoking in most outdoor areas (as I have stated clearly and repeatedly, I make exceptions for enclosed areas or places with fixed seating - like stadiums - where people cannot easily move away from the smoke).But perhaps the best example of the agenda driving the interpretation of the science is the article from yesterday's release of the journal Pediatrics. I won't repeat the details here, but yesterday's post explains why I think the conclusion that 38% of kids who smoke do so because they saw people smoking in movies is not warranted.2. Instead of sound policy analysis driving the agenda, it appears that the agenda gets in the way of sound policy analysis.The agenda, I believe, is clearly to ban smoking in all public places - even outdoors. While a sound policy analysis demonstrating that outdoor smoking bans are necessary to protect the public from a serious health threat would convince me to change my opinion, I am instead bombarded with arguments that this is a serious nuisance, a huge litter problem, something that should be de-normalized in spite of the lack of evidence, and a host of other arguments that in my mind, do not constitute sound policy analysis. But they are thrown forth in the name of being sound analysis. It is pretty clear to me that sound policy analysis is not driving this agenda, but it does appear that the agenda is getting in the way of sound policy analysis.3. Instead of an informed consideration of legal issues driving the agenda, it appears that the need to defend the agenda blinds many advocates from being interested in understanding the legal framework that actually justifies their actions.In responding to my argument that there is, indeed, a legal right to engage in lawful behaviors if they are not infringing upon the rights of others, one argument that was put forward was that since smoking is not specifically mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, there is no right to smoke.Well, it's also true that breathing clean air is not mentioned in the Constitution, nor is the right to a safe workplace reasonably free of recognized and preventable hazards. Does that mean there is no right to a safe workplace? Of course not.I clearly articulated my position that there is no absolute right to smoke and that the right to engage in this legal behavior can certainly be infringed upon if necessary to protect the public's health. But that's the key phrase - if necessary. It is simply upon those two words that my opinions are based.By far, the best example of the anti-smoking agenda getting in the way of the legal justification for that agenda is the attempts by anti-smoking groups - -most notably the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, ALA, AHA, and ACS - to try to convince a federal judge to misapply the law in order to extract billions of dollars from the tobacco companies that could be used for anti-smoking programs.4. Instead of a concern for ethical principles providing the boundaries in which the agenda is pursued, it appears that the promotion of the agenda defines the boundaries of what is considered ethical.In many ways, the bulk of this blog deals with this very issue. Probably the majority of my posts relate to what I see as the use of unethical means to achieve desired (and appropriate) ends. But to pick just one example, I think the personal attacks on my friend, Martha Perske, are a perfect example of letting the agenda define the boundaries of what is considered ethical and therefore, acceptable.The rest of the story is that I have become convinced that the agenda of the anti-smoking movement has taken on a life of its own. Anything that gets in the way of that agenda - whether it be the science, sound policy analysis, the law, ethics, or me - must be dismissed (in my case, by taking a 1-month vacation).While I would be happy to take a 1-month vacation (especially if it's during Boston's harsh winter), I unfortunately don't think that we as public health practitioners should ever take a vacation from science, sound policy analysis, the law, and ethics. And I hope that this blog plays some small part in making sure that we never do.
Read
IN MY VIEW: Why the Beneficial Effects of Smoking Bans on Reduced Smoking are Not an Appropriate Justification for These Policies
November 10, 2005
By Michael Siegel
As I mentioned yesterday, I received a great deal of feedback on my post about the questionable justification for banning smoking in open outdoors areas (such as parks, beaches, parking lots, etc.), which seems to be an increasing trend in public policy.One aspect of that feedback was that many anti-smoking groups and advocates, pressed by this challenge to the dogmatic agenda, were apparently forced to scramble to try to find reasons to justify these outdoor smoking bans (since arguing that the problem is a substantial public health problem by virtue of its serious and unavoidable health effects on a population level doesn't seem to be available).As I have recently concluded about the anti-smoking agenda:"It is an agenda that if challenged causes anti-smoking groups to scramble to try to justify their actions - and they come up with new ways of defending their actions, resorting to weaker and weaker arguments to do so."One such justification for outdoor smoking bans is, apparently, the argument that they serve the government interest because they de-normalize smoking. By exposing fewer youths, for example, to smokers smoking in public, smoking rates may well decrease.The Rest of the StoryI feel compelled to emphasize strongly that I feel this particular justification for outdoor smoking bans is completely inadequate, ludicrous, and inappropriate. And more importantly, I think it is a dangerous justification to rely upon.I simply do not think it is an appropriate function of public health practitioners to regulate lawful, individual behavior in public places simply so that people will not see behaviors that could be harmful to them.I actually am finding it difficult to argue this point, because it just seems so ludicrous a concept to me as a public health practitioner that it hardly seems necessary to spend time trying to make the point. But perhaps some analogies will help.Should we ban the use of alcohol in public because it will de-normalize alcohol use and lead fewer kids to abuse alcohol?Should we ban eating fatty foods in public because it will de-normalize poor nutrition and help solve the nation's obesity epidemic?Should we ban people from sitting sedentarily on a park bench because it will de-normalize sedentary behavior? After all, if people were required to be physically active when they were in public, kids would see so much physical activity that we would probably be able to solve the obesity epidemic quite quickly.Suggesting that we should regulate individual behavior simply because others might view that behavior is perhaps the most paternalistic and inappropriate example of a proposed public health policy that I can think of.There is really only one situation I can think of in which an otherwise lawful behavior could legitimately be regulated in public simply because of an inherent societal interest in not exposing people to that behavior. And that is in the case of behavior that offends the public morals.For example, laws that prohibit public nudity in places where children are present are, I think, justified, because society places a very large moral value on what it defines as public decency.Essentially, then, the only appropriate justification for regulating individual behavior that is otherwise harmful and that does not directly harm other people, for the sole purpose of trying to avoid exposing people to that behavior, is to protect the public morals.The fact that this argument is being advanced vigorously by a number of anti-smoking advocates suggests to me one of two things:1. It is possible that these advocates simply do not appreciate individual privacy, liberty, and the value of autonomy, and are willing to trample on these values if it will advance the public health cause. 2. It is possible that these advocates are actually morally offended by the idea of someone smoking in public and this is the reason they appear to view smoking in public in a similar way as public nudity.In the first case, I think that we are going quite far astray because we do have to have some appreciation of individual liberty, privacy, and autonomy in public health practice. I don't think it is appropriate to legislate how people have to behave in public if they are doing something that is otherwise lawful, does not directly harm others (including property), and is not in some way an affront to the public morals.In the second case, I think we have gone quite far astray because we are defining smoking as an immoral behavior. That is completely inappropriate.While the effects of smoking bans on reduced smoking certainly represent a beneficial "side effect" of smoke-free policies, I do not believe they are, in any way, a sufficient justification for such policies.Where does the danger come in? It comes in because if we start regulating one behavior because some anti-smoking advocates don't want kids to see people doing that behavior, then we open up the door to regulating other behaviors because other groups don't want to see people doing that behavior.If we cannot justify outdoor smoking bans on the basis that the behavior is substantially harming other people who need to be protected from the smoke, then we simply cannot justify these policies.And the more anti-smoking advocates attempt to do just that, the more I become scared. The more it becomes apparent that there is a hidden agenda here beyond a public health one. The more it becomes apparent that there is simply not any regard for the value of individual liberty, privacy, or autonomy and that any means to achieve our desired goal is acceptable.This is not a road that we want to start going down. I hope that the anti-smoking movement will take a quick U-turn and return to the main highway - the public health highway.
Read
November 10, 2005
By Michael Siegel
As I mentioned yesterday, I received a great deal of feedback on my post about the questionable justification for banning smoking in open outdoors areas (such as parks, beaches, parking lots, etc.), which seems to be an increasing trend in public policy.One aspect of that feedback was that many anti-smoking groups and advocates, pressed by this challenge to the dogmatic agenda, were apparently forced to scramble to try to find reasons to justify these outdoor smoking bans (since arguing that the problem is a substantial public health problem by virtue of its serious and unavoidable health effects on a population level doesn't seem to be available).As I have recently concluded about the anti-smoking agenda:"It is an agenda that if challenged causes anti-smoking groups to scramble to try to justify their actions - and they come up with new ways of defending their actions, resorting to weaker and weaker arguments to do so."One such justification for outdoor smoking bans is, apparently, the argument that they serve the government interest because they de-normalize smoking. By exposing fewer youths, for example, to smokers smoking in public, smoking rates may well decrease.The Rest of the StoryI feel compelled to emphasize strongly that I feel this particular justification for outdoor smoking bans is completely inadequate, ludicrous, and inappropriate. And more importantly, I think it is a dangerous justification to rely upon.I simply do not think it is an appropriate function of public health practitioners to regulate lawful, individual behavior in public places simply so that people will not see behaviors that could be harmful to them.I actually am finding it difficult to argue this point, because it just seems so ludicrous a concept to me as a public health practitioner that it hardly seems necessary to spend time trying to make the point. But perhaps some analogies will help.Should we ban the use of alcohol in public because it will de-normalize alcohol use and lead fewer kids to abuse alcohol?Should we ban eating fatty foods in public because it will de-normalize poor nutrition and help solve the nation's obesity epidemic?Should we ban people from sitting sedentarily on a park bench because it will de-normalize sedentary behavior? After all, if people were required to be physically active when they were in public, kids would see so much physical activity that we would probably be able to solve the obesity epidemic quite quickly.Suggesting that we should regulate individual behavior simply because others might view that behavior is perhaps the most paternalistic and inappropriate example of a proposed public health policy that I can think of.There is really only one situation I can think of in which an otherwise lawful behavior could legitimately be regulated in public simply because of an inherent societal interest in not exposing people to that behavior. And that is in the case of behavior that offends the public morals.For example, laws that prohibit public nudity in places where children are present are, I think, justified, because society places a very large moral value on what it defines as public decency.Essentially, then, the only appropriate justification for regulating individual behavior that is otherwise harmful and that does not directly harm other people, for the sole purpose of trying to avoid exposing people to that behavior, is to protect the public morals.The fact that this argument is being advanced vigorously by a number of anti-smoking advocates suggests to me one of two things:1. It is possible that these advocates simply do not appreciate individual privacy, liberty, and the value of autonomy, and are willing to trample on these values if it will advance the public health cause. 2. It is possible that these advocates are actually morally offended by the idea of someone smoking in public and this is the reason they appear to view smoking in public in a similar way as public nudity.In the first case, I think that we are going quite far astray because we do have to have some appreciation of individual liberty, privacy, and autonomy in public health practice. I don't think it is appropriate to legislate how people have to behave in public if they are doing something that is otherwise lawful, does not directly harm others (including property), and is not in some way an affront to the public morals.In the second case, I think we have gone quite far astray because we are defining smoking as an immoral behavior. That is completely inappropriate.While the effects of smoking bans on reduced smoking certainly represent a beneficial "side effect" of smoke-free policies, I do not believe they are, in any way, a sufficient justification for such policies.Where does the danger come in? It comes in because if we start regulating one behavior because some anti-smoking advocates don't want kids to see people doing that behavior, then we open up the door to regulating other behaviors because other groups don't want to see people doing that behavior.If we cannot justify outdoor smoking bans on the basis that the behavior is substantially harming other people who need to be protected from the smoke, then we simply cannot justify these policies.And the more anti-smoking advocates attempt to do just that, the more I become scared. The more it becomes apparent that there is a hidden agenda here beyond a public health one. The more it becomes apparent that there is simply not any regard for the value of individual liberty, privacy, or autonomy and that any means to achieve our desired goal is acceptable.This is not a road that we want to start going down. I hope that the anti-smoking movement will take a quick U-turn and return to the main highway - the public health highway.
Read
Wednesday, November 16, 2005
Unedited version sent to The Chronicle Journal Nov. 14/05
Dear Editor, Nov. 13/05 Thunder Bay
The hospital enacted this dictatorial smoking ban policy, when they were fully aware that it would be difficult to enforce. Perhaps the hospital administration should have more thoroughly considered the repercussions in advance. They, like other anti smoking organizations have created this problem. Let them solve it by revoking their unreasonable ban. The negative aspects of hospital total smoking bans are simple commonsense that hospital administrators have failed to acknowledge. Social engineering dictatorial policies made in conflict with consideration for staff members, patients and visitors can only have negative results. Patients, their family members and concerned visitors are already undergreat additional stress from the necessity of being in a hospital facility. Hospital smoking bans deter smoking patients from obtaining medical treatment and procedures. Also, while those requiring admission are forced to stay within the confines of a hospital, forced smoking cessation hinders their recovery. Many smokers, who are family members and friends of thepatients, will reduce the length and frequency of their visits to comfort patients. Staff members who smoke will become resentful. Ultimately, many people will "sneak" their smokes, thereby increasing fire risks. Behavior modifications, mandated under already stressful situations in hospitals, are sheer stupidity and show a complete lack of respect for the well being of a great number of the very people they are committed to help.
Sincerely,
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Edited version of the letter which appeared in The Chronicle Journal
Nov. 16/05
Forcing smokers to abstain hinders recovery
Dear Editor, Nov. 13/05 Thunder Bay
The Thunder Bay Regional Health Science Centre enacted this dictatorial smoking ban policy, when they were fully aware that it would be difficult to enforce.
Perhaps the hospital administration should have more thoroughly considered the repercussions in advance.
They, like other anti smoking organizations have created this problem. Let them solve it by revoking their unreasonable ban.
Social engineering dictatorial policies made without consideration for staff members, patients and visitors can only have negative results.
Patients, their family members and concerned visitors are already under great additional stress from the necessity of being in a hospital facility.
Hospital smoking bans deter smoking patients from obtaining medical treatment and procedures.
Also, while those requiring admission are forced to stay within the confines of a hospital, forced smoking cessation hinders their recovery.
Many smokers, who are family members and friends of the patients, will reduce the length and frequency of their visits to comfort patients.
Staff members who smoke will become resentful. Ultimately, many people will "sneak" their smokes in, thereby increasing fire risks. Behavior modifications, mandated under already stressful situations in hospitals, are sheer stupidity and show a complete lack of respect for the well being of a great number of the very people they are committed to help.
Sincerely,
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Dear Editor, Nov. 13/05 Thunder Bay
The hospital enacted this dictatorial smoking ban policy, when they were fully aware that it would be difficult to enforce. Perhaps the hospital administration should have more thoroughly considered the repercussions in advance. They, like other anti smoking organizations have created this problem. Let them solve it by revoking their unreasonable ban. The negative aspects of hospital total smoking bans are simple commonsense that hospital administrators have failed to acknowledge. Social engineering dictatorial policies made in conflict with consideration for staff members, patients and visitors can only have negative results. Patients, their family members and concerned visitors are already undergreat additional stress from the necessity of being in a hospital facility. Hospital smoking bans deter smoking patients from obtaining medical treatment and procedures. Also, while those requiring admission are forced to stay within the confines of a hospital, forced smoking cessation hinders their recovery. Many smokers, who are family members and friends of thepatients, will reduce the length and frequency of their visits to comfort patients. Staff members who smoke will become resentful. Ultimately, many people will "sneak" their smokes, thereby increasing fire risks. Behavior modifications, mandated under already stressful situations in hospitals, are sheer stupidity and show a complete lack of respect for the well being of a great number of the very people they are committed to help.
Sincerely,
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Edited version of the letter which appeared in The Chronicle Journal
Nov. 16/05
Forcing smokers to abstain hinders recovery
Dear Editor, Nov. 13/05 Thunder Bay
The Thunder Bay Regional Health Science Centre enacted this dictatorial smoking ban policy, when they were fully aware that it would be difficult to enforce.
Perhaps the hospital administration should have more thoroughly considered the repercussions in advance.
They, like other anti smoking organizations have created this problem. Let them solve it by revoking their unreasonable ban.
Social engineering dictatorial policies made without consideration for staff members, patients and visitors can only have negative results.
Patients, their family members and concerned visitors are already under great additional stress from the necessity of being in a hospital facility.
Hospital smoking bans deter smoking patients from obtaining medical treatment and procedures.
Also, while those requiring admission are forced to stay within the confines of a hospital, forced smoking cessation hinders their recovery.
Many smokers, who are family members and friends of the patients, will reduce the length and frequency of their visits to comfort patients.
Staff members who smoke will become resentful. Ultimately, many people will "sneak" their smokes in, thereby increasing fire risks. Behavior modifications, mandated under already stressful situations in hospitals, are sheer stupidity and show a complete lack of respect for the well being of a great number of the very people they are committed to help.
Sincerely,
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Monday, November 14, 2005
http://www.stthomastimesjournal.com/story.php?id=195979
Meet the new tobacco
Monday November 14, 2005
Editor:
Obesity is the “new” tobacco. All restaurants should have a scale at the front door. If anybody whose BMI is over 30 ,should be refused service at that restaurant.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Meet the new tobacco
Monday November 14, 2005
Editor:
Obesity is the “new” tobacco. All restaurants should have a scale at the front door. If anybody whose BMI is over 30 ,should be refused service at that restaurant.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Thursday, November 10, 2005
http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=56250ca7426eb148#moki
Smoking Ban Not About Health Nov.6/05
The real perspective on the smoking issue — smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health? If anybody believes that, I have a bridge I would like to sell them. It is not about health, and it never was about health.
It is all about de-normalizing smoking.
Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the crossfire
.Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Smoking Ban Not About Health Nov.6/05
The real perspective on the smoking issue — smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health? If anybody believes that, I have a bridge I would like to sell them. It is not about health, and it never was about health.
It is all about de-normalizing smoking.
Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the crossfire
.Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Monday, November 07, 2005
Letter to Editors
Daily Southtown
Main offices6901 W. 159th St.Tinley Park, IL 60477
RE: Smoking banned at hospitals and everywhere else
Attention: Dennis Robaugh, Managing editor
Ed Koziarski, Director of Editorial and Commentary
John Hector, Director of Editorial and Commentary
Gregg Sherrard Blesch, Staff Writer
Dear Mr. Robaugh, Mr. Koziarski, Mr. Hector and Mr. Blesch:
This is the second subjective attack published in response to my letter regarding the trend toward hospital campuses becoming completely smoke free (October 24th). The first was, James Novak, Homer Glen (Public Forum on Oct. 29th) and the second today from, L. Kowalis, RN, Orland Park (Public Forum, Nov. 6th).
Please reference the original topic addressed http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/yrtwn/seast/201seyt2.htm : "Smoking banned at hospitals", by Gregg Sherrard Blesch, Two more Southland hospitals will stop patients, visitors and employees from lighting up on their property" "....smoking won't be allowed — inside or outside ....." .
However, even by completely straying from the initial subject matter, neither of my critics have presented one valid reason for banning smoking outside the already smoke-free interiors of hospital facilities to patients and visitors. If health threats are the real issue, according to a recent report by the CDC, there are still 120,000 accidental deaths by doctors each year in our country. Both James Novak and L. Kowalis, RN, have failed to supply any original ideas by objecting to any defense of smokers and parroting widely advertised health extremist claims about SHS.
Hospital facilities, that are already smoke free indoors, are vindictively discriminating against the one quarter of our population who still smoke when they enact a dictatorial policy to entirely ban captive patients and distraught visitors from smoking while on their campuses. Many patients in hospitals are not just "visiting" for a few hours. The hospital becomes their temporary residence. It has not been suggested that fanatical smoke haters be directly subjected to passive smoke inside these hospitals. In addition, certainly a Registered Nurse should be aware that not one study on the dangers of SHS has ever been conclusive. How many people have ever explored the actual contents and results of questionable smoking health studies? I once again issue my challenge -- show me one death attributable to SHS.
A constructive avenue for the medical profession, the ACS, the ALA and other health organization giants to pursue in the future might be to learn why respiratory problems in adults and children continue to increase, while exposure to tobacco smoke has greatly decreased over the last 25 years. Psychosomatic reactions to the sight or smell of smoke that did not exist 30 years ago might also be an issue for psychiatrists not the health profession. Tobacco smoke phobia really is a personal problem.
Passive smoke still remains an issue of "the danger being in the dosage" and has yet to been proven any more harmful than many other substances to which we are all exposed daily. Until other components of the air we breath have been placed under a microscope, in the same intense manner as has been the case for passive smoke, smokers will continue to reiterate the phrase "Prove it" and continue to smoke. Prohibition has never worked throughout history, and it will not work against smokers in the present day.
Sincerely,
Garnet Dawn Scheuer
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
847-234-8634
______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Daily Southtown
Main offices6901 W. 159th St.Tinley Park, IL 60477
RE: Smoking banned at hospitals and everywhere else
Attention: Dennis Robaugh, Managing editor
Ed Koziarski, Director of Editorial and Commentary
John Hector, Director of Editorial and Commentary
Gregg Sherrard Blesch, Staff Writer
Dear Mr. Robaugh, Mr. Koziarski, Mr. Hector and Mr. Blesch:
This is the second subjective attack published in response to my letter regarding the trend toward hospital campuses becoming completely smoke free (October 24th). The first was, James Novak, Homer Glen (Public Forum on Oct. 29th) and the second today from, L. Kowalis, RN, Orland Park (Public Forum, Nov. 6th).
Please reference the original topic addressed http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/yrtwn/seast/201seyt2.htm : "Smoking banned at hospitals", by Gregg Sherrard Blesch, Two more Southland hospitals will stop patients, visitors and employees from lighting up on their property" "....smoking won't be allowed — inside or outside ....." .
However, even by completely straying from the initial subject matter, neither of my critics have presented one valid reason for banning smoking outside the already smoke-free interiors of hospital facilities to patients and visitors. If health threats are the real issue, according to a recent report by the CDC, there are still 120,000 accidental deaths by doctors each year in our country. Both James Novak and L. Kowalis, RN, have failed to supply any original ideas by objecting to any defense of smokers and parroting widely advertised health extremist claims about SHS.
Hospital facilities, that are already smoke free indoors, are vindictively discriminating against the one quarter of our population who still smoke when they enact a dictatorial policy to entirely ban captive patients and distraught visitors from smoking while on their campuses. Many patients in hospitals are not just "visiting" for a few hours. The hospital becomes their temporary residence. It has not been suggested that fanatical smoke haters be directly subjected to passive smoke inside these hospitals. In addition, certainly a Registered Nurse should be aware that not one study on the dangers of SHS has ever been conclusive. How many people have ever explored the actual contents and results of questionable smoking health studies? I once again issue my challenge -- show me one death attributable to SHS.
A constructive avenue for the medical profession, the ACS, the ALA and other health organization giants to pursue in the future might be to learn why respiratory problems in adults and children continue to increase, while exposure to tobacco smoke has greatly decreased over the last 25 years. Psychosomatic reactions to the sight or smell of smoke that did not exist 30 years ago might also be an issue for psychiatrists not the health profession. Tobacco smoke phobia really is a personal problem.
Passive smoke still remains an issue of "the danger being in the dosage" and has yet to been proven any more harmful than many other substances to which we are all exposed daily. Until other components of the air we breath have been placed under a microscope, in the same intense manner as has been the case for passive smoke, smokers will continue to reiterate the phrase "Prove it" and continue to smoke. Prohibition has never worked throughout history, and it will not work against smokers in the present day.
Sincerely,
Garnet Dawn Scheuer
Lake Bluff, IL 60044
847-234-8634
______________________________Garnet Dawn - The Smoker's Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional DirectorThe United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.comIllinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
Thursday, November 03, 2005
Nov. 3/05 Air Exchange???
Whether the lower air exchange rates have produced an increase in airborne disease transmission is also unknown, but with the increased incidence of such airborne diseases as tuberculosis and increased concern about bioterrorism in America it could definitely develop into a serious problem: perhaps someday we’ll see smoking restaurants recommended as generally having truly healthier air! Even without disease concerns, the odor of grease in the air of some of these venues indicates that significant levels of heterocyclic amines and other cooking related chemicals may be high enough to pose a real health hazard. Unfortunately that hazard seems to be ignored by the big chains and Antismokers in favor of politics, profit and political correctness (Reuters Health NY 07/03/00).
Without the marker of tobacco smoke the customer cannot easily determine whether a healthy level of fresh air is being circulated, and government inspections do not adequately address this issue at all. It’s ironic, but the true air quality in restaurants and airplanes may well have gone down since smoking bans appeared. It’s notable that the first instances of “sick building syndrome” appeared in concert with the spread of such bans and that the first time Consumers Union Reports devoted a cover story to the problem of “What’s Happened To Airplane Air?” was several years after total airline smoking bans went into effect (Consumer Reports August 1994).
Indeed, a 1989 D.O.T study found that the putative risks from secondary smoke on smoking flights were about 1/1000th (yes… one one-thousandth!) of the risks due to increased cosmic radiation exposure on ordinary high altitude flights. Passengers are routinely assured that flying is safe, and yet the risk from cosmic radiation while flying is 1,000 times greater than the risks from the secondary smoke they are advised to be afraid of.
The same study also found that by some measures the air on smoking flights was actually healthier than the air on non-smoking ones! One measurement in particular that might be of concern nowadays was that nonsmoking flights had nine CFU/ m^3 (nine “colony forming units” of fungi per cubic meter) as opposed to only five or six CFU/m^3 on smoking flights! (Report to Congress: Airline Cabin Air Quality. U.S. D.O.T. 1989)
Such problems may now be even worse as airplanes take advantage of the absence of smoking and refresh the air of planes only 20% as often as they did back when smoking was allowed! This reduction in fresh air is not a vindictive act in any sense, merely a normal response to an opportunity for financial savings: fresh air at high altitudes costs money… and without smoke in the air the health risks are effectively invisible (Boucher, quoting James Repace. Rendez-Vous 64 04/26/00).
The increased health risks of epidemic diseases spreading in the confined and now heavily recirculated air of our planes will never be apparent until a disaster occurs… and by then it will be too late. The worldwide spread of an airborne infectious disease may someday be laid at the doorstep of the Great American Antismoking Crusade. An airborne Ebola, antibiotic resistant pneumonia, or bio-terror horror could be the final legacy of those trying to save us from ourselves.
Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Whether the lower air exchange rates have produced an increase in airborne disease transmission is also unknown, but with the increased incidence of such airborne diseases as tuberculosis and increased concern about bioterrorism in America it could definitely develop into a serious problem: perhaps someday we’ll see smoking restaurants recommended as generally having truly healthier air! Even without disease concerns, the odor of grease in the air of some of these venues indicates that significant levels of heterocyclic amines and other cooking related chemicals may be high enough to pose a real health hazard. Unfortunately that hazard seems to be ignored by the big chains and Antismokers in favor of politics, profit and political correctness (Reuters Health NY 07/03/00).
Without the marker of tobacco smoke the customer cannot easily determine whether a healthy level of fresh air is being circulated, and government inspections do not adequately address this issue at all. It’s ironic, but the true air quality in restaurants and airplanes may well have gone down since smoking bans appeared. It’s notable that the first instances of “sick building syndrome” appeared in concert with the spread of such bans and that the first time Consumers Union Reports devoted a cover story to the problem of “What’s Happened To Airplane Air?” was several years after total airline smoking bans went into effect (Consumer Reports August 1994).
Indeed, a 1989 D.O.T study found that the putative risks from secondary smoke on smoking flights were about 1/1000th (yes… one one-thousandth!) of the risks due to increased cosmic radiation exposure on ordinary high altitude flights. Passengers are routinely assured that flying is safe, and yet the risk from cosmic radiation while flying is 1,000 times greater than the risks from the secondary smoke they are advised to be afraid of.
The same study also found that by some measures the air on smoking flights was actually healthier than the air on non-smoking ones! One measurement in particular that might be of concern nowadays was that nonsmoking flights had nine CFU/ m^3 (nine “colony forming units” of fungi per cubic meter) as opposed to only five or six CFU/m^3 on smoking flights! (Report to Congress: Airline Cabin Air Quality. U.S. D.O.T. 1989)
Such problems may now be even worse as airplanes take advantage of the absence of smoking and refresh the air of planes only 20% as often as they did back when smoking was allowed! This reduction in fresh air is not a vindictive act in any sense, merely a normal response to an opportunity for financial savings: fresh air at high altitudes costs money… and without smoke in the air the health risks are effectively invisible (Boucher, quoting James Repace. Rendez-Vous 64 04/26/00).
The increased health risks of epidemic diseases spreading in the confined and now heavily recirculated air of our planes will never be apparent until a disaster occurs… and by then it will be too late. The worldwide spread of an airborne infectious disease may someday be laid at the doorstep of the Great American Antismoking Crusade. An airborne Ebola, antibiotic resistant pneumonia, or bio-terror horror could be the final legacy of those trying to save us from ourselves.
Michael J. McFaddenAuthor of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/
Cigarette Smoke Has its Benefits
What is our current definition of clean air? Is it the air we breathe on a cool night, while standing in the desert or on a beach where we can see thousands of stars twinkling in a crystal clear sky? Is it spending a day in the mountains near a sparkling stream?According to anti-smokers, it is breathing the recycled germs and viruses from every other person in the same sealed and enclosed environments of our office buildings and shopping malls where smoking is no longer allowed. We are supposed to believe with no reservations that fresh air is being supplied by ventilation systems.What kind of air are we really breathing? What are the long term effects of our supposedly healthy no-smoking indoor environments? What is recycled and manufactured air doing to us? I really would like to know, especially after my most recent shopping trip. We need cigarettes back in our closed environments to provide us with visible proof that we are being supplied with enough fresh air.Cigarette smoke used to be the "whistle blower" for indoor areas with substandard ventilation systems. Before smoking was banned from shopping malls and offices buildings, if a haze of smoke remained in the air, it was a warning sign of poor air circulation and stale air.Now, smokers are no longer allowed to light up indoors, so I wonder how we captives of controlled air quality environments can possibly know what kind of poisons we are being forced to breath. I smoke, and if allowed to spend my time in my car, home or outdoors, I breathe freely.I have always had strong allergic reactions to the dyes in clothing, carpeting, paint, fabric sections and various plastic products. Prior to smoking bans and sealed buildings, stores and shopping malls did not cause me any discomfort. Now, my eyes become red until I leave the stores--be it Marshall Fields or Wal-Mart. On the day following a shopping trip, my nose, sinuses and inner ear passages swell shut. I have learned to cope with these inconveniences through the use of eye drops, baby-oil-on-a-Q-tip (for my ears) and home made nasal rinses. I would like to see what the smoke from cigarettes would be able to tell us about the “cleaner” air we are supposed to be breathing today.I used to enjoy flying. I now dread it, not only because I can't smoke in the airport and on the plane, but because I know I will feel sick the day following my flight. I prepare myself with aspirin and cold tablets to negate the effects, but I didn't find this necessary either before airline smoking bans were passed. How many passengers could survive a flight without the little "air nozzle" above their seat, giving them the impression that they are receiving fresh air during their trip? Passenger planes have become notorious for spreading colds and viruses among travelers. Airlines would be forced to return to adequate ventilation levels if smoking were again to become legal on flights, because passengers would be able see if airborne impurities were being eliminated along with the cigarette smoke.Our world is so concerned and self-absorbed with health warnings that no one can watch, read or listen to any media source without paid commercials constantly reminding us to visit our doctors for endless preventive test procedures, and suggesting we can improve our lives by trying any of the hundreds of pharmaceutical products being advertised for any number of imaginary ailments. Big pharmaceutical firms, with the assistance of the advertising media are breeding a population of hypochondriacs! We need to encourage survival of the individual, squash this norm of socially acceptable prescription druggies and medicating ourselves into oblivion! Is Prozac really preferable to a cigarette?Something is twisted in our age of technological advancement. I really wish we could go back to the choice of opening our windows, lighting a cigarette and using fans (a no-no for many buildings with codes forbidding plug-in electrical devices) on a nice day, rather than alternately steam-roasting then freezing everyone unlucky enough to be trapped in our inescapable state-of-the-art poisonous buildings.
By Garnet Dawn 02/05
What is our current definition of clean air? Is it the air we breathe on a cool night, while standing in the desert or on a beach where we can see thousands of stars twinkling in a crystal clear sky? Is it spending a day in the mountains near a sparkling stream?According to anti-smokers, it is breathing the recycled germs and viruses from every other person in the same sealed and enclosed environments of our office buildings and shopping malls where smoking is no longer allowed. We are supposed to believe with no reservations that fresh air is being supplied by ventilation systems.What kind of air are we really breathing? What are the long term effects of our supposedly healthy no-smoking indoor environments? What is recycled and manufactured air doing to us? I really would like to know, especially after my most recent shopping trip. We need cigarettes back in our closed environments to provide us with visible proof that we are being supplied with enough fresh air.Cigarette smoke used to be the "whistle blower" for indoor areas with substandard ventilation systems. Before smoking was banned from shopping malls and offices buildings, if a haze of smoke remained in the air, it was a warning sign of poor air circulation and stale air.Now, smokers are no longer allowed to light up indoors, so I wonder how we captives of controlled air quality environments can possibly know what kind of poisons we are being forced to breath. I smoke, and if allowed to spend my time in my car, home or outdoors, I breathe freely.I have always had strong allergic reactions to the dyes in clothing, carpeting, paint, fabric sections and various plastic products. Prior to smoking bans and sealed buildings, stores and shopping malls did not cause me any discomfort. Now, my eyes become red until I leave the stores--be it Marshall Fields or Wal-Mart. On the day following a shopping trip, my nose, sinuses and inner ear passages swell shut. I have learned to cope with these inconveniences through the use of eye drops, baby-oil-on-a-Q-tip (for my ears) and home made nasal rinses. I would like to see what the smoke from cigarettes would be able to tell us about the “cleaner” air we are supposed to be breathing today.I used to enjoy flying. I now dread it, not only because I can't smoke in the airport and on the plane, but because I know I will feel sick the day following my flight. I prepare myself with aspirin and cold tablets to negate the effects, but I didn't find this necessary either before airline smoking bans were passed. How many passengers could survive a flight without the little "air nozzle" above their seat, giving them the impression that they are receiving fresh air during their trip? Passenger planes have become notorious for spreading colds and viruses among travelers. Airlines would be forced to return to adequate ventilation levels if smoking were again to become legal on flights, because passengers would be able see if airborne impurities were being eliminated along with the cigarette smoke.Our world is so concerned and self-absorbed with health warnings that no one can watch, read or listen to any media source without paid commercials constantly reminding us to visit our doctors for endless preventive test procedures, and suggesting we can improve our lives by trying any of the hundreds of pharmaceutical products being advertised for any number of imaginary ailments. Big pharmaceutical firms, with the assistance of the advertising media are breeding a population of hypochondriacs! We need to encourage survival of the individual, squash this norm of socially acceptable prescription druggies and medicating ourselves into oblivion! Is Prozac really preferable to a cigarette?Something is twisted in our age of technological advancement. I really wish we could go back to the choice of opening our windows, lighting a cigarette and using fans (a no-no for many buildings with codes forbidding plug-in electrical devices) on a nice day, rather than alternately steam-roasting then freezing everyone unlucky enough to be trapped in our inescapable state-of-the-art poisonous buildings.
By Garnet Dawn 02/05
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
http://www.dailysouthtown.com/southtown/letters/x01-fd1.htm
Smoking a danger? Don't believe it Nov. 1/05
Shall we put this smoking issue in perspective?
Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper, mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health?
If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.
It is not about health, and it never was about health. It is all about de-normalizing smoking. Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the crossfire.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario
Smoking a danger? Don't believe it Nov. 1/05
Shall we put this smoking issue in perspective?
Smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper, mixed with the air of a well-ventilated venue is dangerous to your health?
If anybody believes that, then I have a bridge I would like to sell them.
It is not about health, and it never was about health. It is all about de-normalizing smoking. Unfortunately, the hospitality sector is caught in the crossfire.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay, Ontario
