Tuesday, May 30, 2006
My letter published in the Globe and Mail Tue May 30/06
Dear Editor, May 28/06
A very important part of the unstated reasoning behind smoking bans is to make smoking as uncomfortable, unpleasant and unattractive as possible. Well-ventilated situations where smokers and non-smokers can happily co-exist would defeat the effectiveness of smoking bans as a tool of social engineering.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Dear Editor, May 28/06
A very important part of the unstated reasoning behind smoking bans is to make smoking as uncomfortable, unpleasant and unattractive as possible. Well-ventilated situations where smokers and non-smokers can happily co-exist would defeat the effectiveness of smoking bans as a tool of social engineering.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
http://www.ottawasun.com/Comment/Letters/2006/05/26/1598401.html
A smokeless environment May 26.06
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights?
Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.
Second-hand smoke is not a significant health risk.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay
A smokeless environment May 26.06
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights?
Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.
Second-hand smoke is not a significant health risk.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay
Thursday, May 25, 2006
http://fortfrances.com/index.php/11/2006-05-24/25576
Dear Editor, May 23/06
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.
Second-hand smoke is not a significant health risk.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St
.Thunder Bay, Ont.
Dear Editor, May 23/06
I believe that non-smokers, like anyone else, have this right. But how far does that right extend? Should it take priority over someone else's rights? Airplanes, court houses, publicly owned buildings and anywhere else an individual might be forced to go should properly be included in any smoking law. What should not be included are places located in or on private property, providing an individual is not compelled by necessity or law, to frequent or work at that specific location.
Second-hand smoke is not a significant health risk.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St
.Thunder Bay, Ont.
May 26/06
Our children: Smoking agenda's negative influence!
The Ontario Liberal's say,"we will be creating a healthier society for all" from within their scare tactics and legislated force. Exactly how can this be achieved when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer, employee relationships, and undermind their efficacy, by alienating them from their own human nature? This irrational mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long term emotional and mental disorders thus leading to other physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick. The Liberal's anti-smoking agenda has reached the height of absurdity!
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government's suffocating negative influence they project on society. Considering the government is aggressively determined to restrict young people from making their own decision about smoking, it may jeopardize each young person's struggle to form a sense of self-confidence. This fragile process can often be a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
A benevolent spirit rises above the initiation of force, use of scare tactics, spreading of propaganda, in order find solutions. True benevolence generates a lust for life, which naturally includes a pursuit of truth. False benevolence generates a lust for power, which unnaturally includes a distortion of truth.
On the position of right and wrong, one needs only to look at the onerous historical figure who is symbolically the father of the anti-smoking agenda, to understand the Liberal's immense wrong! Our government has chosen to bow and curtsy to anti-smoking's history, instead of learning from past mistakes.
Mr. Ken Hill
regalregent@hotmail.com
Our children: Smoking agenda's negative influence!
The Ontario Liberal's say,"we will be creating a healthier society for all" from within their scare tactics and legislated force. Exactly how can this be achieved when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer, employee relationships, and undermind their efficacy, by alienating them from their own human nature? This irrational mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long term emotional and mental disorders thus leading to other physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick. The Liberal's anti-smoking agenda has reached the height of absurdity!
A particularily foreboding feature of the mind/body dichotomy is the government's suffocating negative influence they project on society. Considering the government is aggressively determined to restrict young people from making their own decision about smoking, it may jeopardize each young person's struggle to form a sense of self-confidence. This fragile process can often be a traumatic experience, especially when that negative influence is hidden under the misconception of government benevolence.
A benevolent spirit rises above the initiation of force, use of scare tactics, spreading of propaganda, in order find solutions. True benevolence generates a lust for life, which naturally includes a pursuit of truth. False benevolence generates a lust for power, which unnaturally includes a distortion of truth.
On the position of right and wrong, one needs only to look at the onerous historical figure who is symbolically the father of the anti-smoking agenda, to understand the Liberal's immense wrong! Our government has chosen to bow and curtsy to anti-smoking's history, instead of learning from past mistakes.
Mr. Ken Hill
regalregent@hotmail.com
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
http://www.mississauga.com/mi/opinion/letter/story/3500007p-4044032c.html
THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS
Smoking truths
Dear Editor:
The Mississauga News
May 17, 2006 Smoking truths
If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country. A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay
THE MISSISSAUGA NEWS
Smoking truths
Dear Editor:
The Mississauga News
May 17, 2006 Smoking truths
If the public was honestly and truthfully informed about the effects of second-hand smoke, there would be fewer no-smoking laws in this country. A little smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is going to harm or kill you?
There has never been a single study showing that exposure to the low levels of smoke found in bars and restaurants with decent modern ventilation and filtration systems kills or harms anyone.
As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology.
Air ventilation can easily create a comfortable environment that removes not just passive smoke, but also and especially the potentially serious contaminants that are independent from smoking.
Thomas Laprade
Thunder Bay
Sunday, May 14, 2006
C.S. Lewis
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated;but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated;but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Saturday, May 13, 2006
http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060104/OPINION/601040389/1030
Claims of secondhand smoke risks don't pass science test
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 01/4/06
Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee — each free to be there or not — should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts — the owner's.The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.A note of disclosure: Our organization has no ties to the tobacco industry nor do we speak on the behalf of the hospitality industry.
Audrey Silk
FOUNDERNYC CITIZENS LOBBYINGAGAINST SMOKER HARASSMENTBROOKLYN
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=1955237
Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer
Are Secondhad Smoke Dangers Overstated?
May 12, 2006 — - Secondhand smoke -- even a little is a killer. It's why more of you smokers are banned from bars, restaurants, now even building entrances.
One public service announcement proclaims, "When you smoke, you're not the only one being harmed."
That's not a myth. Studies that followed nonsmokers who lived with smokers found some increase in lung cancer and heart disease. But they studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere.
And now Calabasas, Calif., has banned smoking everywhere outdoors where a nonsmoker could get within 20 feet of a smoker. The former mayor, Barry Groveman, said, "It's about public safety."
"This is by every standard a public health law," Groveman said.
But if they limit people's choices in the name of public health, we should know if walking past a smoker can really hurt you. I fell for the alarmists' claims years ago when I interviewed activist Stanton Glantz about secondhand smoke.
"And if I were to walk up to you and have an aerosol can filled with 4,000 chemicals and say, 'Excuse me, do you mind if I spray this in your face,' you'd think I was out of my mind, but when somebody smokes a cigarette, that's what they're doing," Glantz said.
Glantz and other activists now say just 20 or 30 minutes of smoke puts you on the road to a deadly heart attack.
Dr. Michael Siegel, a leading advocate of bans on smoking in the workplace because of the harm from daily exposure to secondhand smoke, says the 20 or 30 minute claims are ridiculous.
"If someone is just exposed for 30 minutes, it's completely reversible, and it's not gonna cause hardening of the arteries," Siegel said.
Siegel, who helped ban smoking in restaurants and bars, now says his movement is distorting science.
"It has turned into more of a crusade," Siegel said. "The cause has kind of taken over."
Some anti-smoking advocates want it banned even inside apartments.
"Now people are complaining about smoke going from one apartment to another apartment," Glantz said.
Glantz said the people in other apartments could be harmed since the "level of toxicity in the smoke is very very high."
Frankly, I like the smoke-free zones, but the science behind them may be a myth.
"I think the documented health effects of secondhand smoke are enough. I don't think we need to be stretching the truth," Siegel said.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Claims of secondhand smoke risks don't pass science test
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 01/4/06
Articles, editorials, op-eds and published letters in the pages of many of New Jersey's newspapers have been heavily lopsided in support of the effort to ban smoking in bars and restaurants. Each article or commentary seemingly has been designed to leave the reader with the perception that the supportive evidence presented is undeniable or that no contrary findings or opinion even exist.Any claim that exposure to exhaled or sidestream smoke poses a threat to life is "indisputable" is false. There are studies and scientists who dispute it strongly. When New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg claimed his ban would save 1,000 workers' lives, the president of the American Council on Science and Health, who vehemently opposes smoking, wrote, "There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant." Dr. Richard Doll, the scientist who first linked active smoking to lung cancer, said in a 2001 radio interview, "The effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me."These statements, among many others, are based on the results of studies that found no long-term health risks, and even on studies that claim to find risks, because the science is so weak.Since smoking bans are premised on protecting nonsmokers, this nonsense to ban smoking should stop right here. It is not a public health issue. However, the anti-smoking crusaders cloud the issue by also dragging in misapplied majority opinion. It's constitutionally unethical for the majority to tyrannize the minority.But more importantly, polling the public to determine a private establishment owner's fate is indecent. No customer or employee — each free to be there or not — should be able to dictate the house's rules. And for the "my way or the highway" anti-smokers who don't get it, we mean smokers shouldn't either. Only one person's vote counts — the owner's.The case that workers shouldn't have to leave an environment they don't like or hours that fit their personal needs is nothing more than emotional blackmail. Slavery ended a long time ago. No one is forced to do anything they don't like.For the lawmakers who believe economics is the determining factor, New York City's sales tax revenue for bars and restaurants did not rise 8.7 percent, as claimed by agencies Bloomberg dispatched on the one-year anniversary (March 2004) of the city's ban. Not only were the figures distorted by including places like McDonald's and Starbucks as restaurants, but smoking was banned in 95 percent of restaurants since the 1995 smoking ban law. What pre- to post-ban restaurant tax revenue comparison was there to make? In all cases (notably bars), it's a no-brainer that sales tax revenue was artificially low immediately following 9/11. To compare the post-ban year to those figures is dishonest.In April, the New York State Department of Taxation released a much more official review of sales tax revenue. When one compares the pre-ban year to the post-ban year, bars in New York City lost more than 3.5 percent. Statewide, as confirmed by a report in the New York Post May 2, sales tax revenue "dropped or remained relatively flat since the smoking ban went into effect July 2003."Junk science, tyranny and cooked books is pitting neighbor against neighbor and has ruined or will ruin individual livelihoods. Unbelievable. Don't do it, New Jersey.A note of disclosure: Our organization has no ties to the tobacco industry nor do we speak on the behalf of the hospitality industry.
Audrey Silk
FOUNDERNYC CITIZENS LOBBYINGAGAINST SMOKER HARASSMENTBROOKLYN
http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/print?id=1955237
Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer
Are Secondhad Smoke Dangers Overstated?
May 12, 2006 — - Secondhand smoke -- even a little is a killer. It's why more of you smokers are banned from bars, restaurants, now even building entrances.
One public service announcement proclaims, "When you smoke, you're not the only one being harmed."
That's not a myth. Studies that followed nonsmokers who lived with smokers found some increase in lung cancer and heart disease. But they studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere.
And now Calabasas, Calif., has banned smoking everywhere outdoors where a nonsmoker could get within 20 feet of a smoker. The former mayor, Barry Groveman, said, "It's about public safety."
"This is by every standard a public health law," Groveman said.
But if they limit people's choices in the name of public health, we should know if walking past a smoker can really hurt you. I fell for the alarmists' claims years ago when I interviewed activist Stanton Glantz about secondhand smoke.
"And if I were to walk up to you and have an aerosol can filled with 4,000 chemicals and say, 'Excuse me, do you mind if I spray this in your face,' you'd think I was out of my mind, but when somebody smokes a cigarette, that's what they're doing," Glantz said.
Glantz and other activists now say just 20 or 30 minutes of smoke puts you on the road to a deadly heart attack.
Dr. Michael Siegel, a leading advocate of bans on smoking in the workplace because of the harm from daily exposure to secondhand smoke, says the 20 or 30 minute claims are ridiculous.
"If someone is just exposed for 30 minutes, it's completely reversible, and it's not gonna cause hardening of the arteries," Siegel said.
Siegel, who helped ban smoking in restaurants and bars, now says his movement is distorting science.
"It has turned into more of a crusade," Siegel said. "The cause has kind of taken over."
Some anti-smoking advocates want it banned even inside apartments.
"Now people are complaining about smoke going from one apartment to another apartment," Glantz said.
Glantz said the people in other apartments could be harmed since the "level of toxicity in the smoke is very very high."
Frankly, I like the smoke-free zones, but the science behind them may be a myth.
"I think the documented health effects of secondhand smoke are enough. I don't think we need to be stretching the truth," Siegel said.
Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures
Carcinogen found in urine of smokers' babies
CTV.ca News Staff Updated: Fri. May. 12 2006 11:38 PM ET
Researchers say they've discovered significant levels of a known carcinogen in the urine of infants as young as three months, who have been exposed to second-hand smoke from their parents' cigarettes.
The new study, published in the May issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, shows that researchers found levels of NNAL in 47 per cent of 144 babies aged three months to a year, who were exposed to their parents' smoking.
Tests also showed that 98 per cent of the babies had nicotine in their urine, with 93 per cent testing positive for cotinine, a breakdown product produced when nicotine enters the body.
"The take home message is, 'Don't smoke around your kids,'" Stephen S. Hecht, the study's lead author and chair of cancer prevention at the University of Minnesota, said in a written statement.
"The level of NNAL detected in the urine of these infants was higher than in most other field studies of environmental tobacco smoke in children and adults," said Hecht.
NNAL is a cancer-causing compound produced in the human body as it processes NNK, a chemical specific to cigarette smoke.
NNAL has been shown to cause cancer of the lung, pancreas, liver and nasal cavities in laboratory animals.
Although a direct link to human malignancies has not been definitively proven, the International Agency for Research on Cancer considers this compound carcinogenic to humans, Hecht said.
Experts say that the study confirms tobacco-related toxins make their way from the lungs into other tissues of the body where they could have harmful effects.
When NNAL was detected in the urine of babies, family members smoked an average of 76 cigarettes per week in the presence of the infants.
The levels were typically between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of those found in smokers, although one child in the study had NNAL levels comparable to a smoker's.
Where NNAL levels were not observed, the average number of cigarettes smoked by family members was reported at 27 per week.
In questionnaires given to the mothers, 82 per cent reported being daily smokers and 72 per cent said they lived in households that included other tobacco users.
But Hecht warned that the detection test had limitations.
"With more sensitive analytical equipment, the NNAL from urine of babies in lower frequency cigarette smoking households would most likely be detectable," Hecht said.
Dr. Gideon Koren, a pediatrician and pharmacologist at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, said research at his centre more than a decade ago showed nicotine and cotinine are found in the hair of newborns whose mothers smoked during pregnancy.
"This is another marker," Koren told The Canadian Press of NNAL in urine. "Cigarette smoke has 1,400 different poisons and chemicals, some of them carcinogenic. And it all makes sense.
"If you are smoking near your kids or even in another room, it will go around through aeration. It's a real risk for children."
Scientists say there is no hard evidence that infants exposed to second-hand smoke will develop childhood cancer or malignancies in adulthood.
But there is proof in the medical literature that workers such as bartenders who are exposed to tobacco smoke over a long period of time will develop lung cancer.
"There's no reason to believe that will not be the case for small children, but convincing research is not yet out there," said Koren, noting that sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory infections and asthma are more prevalent among children living with smokers.
Koren pointed out that infants and children are captive to their parents' smoke.
They are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke because their rate of respiration is 40 times a minute on average, compared to about 12 in adults.
"Babies breathe a lot more rapidly than adults do, and what's more, they're also growing quickly and so they're absorbing lots more into the body and they're more fragile in terms of development and so on," Francis Thompson of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association said, appearing on CTV Newsnet.
"So it's not surprising that the impact of second-hand smoke on babies is likely to be larger," he said.
Koren questioned why parents are permitted to smoke in front of their children when they can't smoke at work.
"Just think about it: try to smoke at work anywhere in Canada today and you are against the law," Koren told CP. "The same individual can go home and smoke in the face of a two-month-old and he's not against the law.
"How come we cannot smoke near our fellow workers, but we can do it to our children?"
Thompson believes parents are putting their children at risk not because they don't care, but because they are grappling with addiction.
"I you're addicted to tobacco, you've been hearing for years it's very, very bad for you, the smoker, and you've been trying hard to live with that... you've probably been trying to quit fairly often and haven't succeeded," he said.
'It's very hard to accept when you're addicted to it that it can also be harming those around you. It creates a lot of anxiety, and people react to anxiety in different ways and one way they react to anxiety is just to try to ignore the issue."
With files from The Canadian Press
CTV.ca News Staff Updated: Fri. May. 12 2006 11:38 PM ET
Researchers say they've discovered significant levels of a known carcinogen in the urine of infants as young as three months, who have been exposed to second-hand smoke from their parents' cigarettes.
The new study, published in the May issue of Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers and Prevention, shows that researchers found levels of NNAL in 47 per cent of 144 babies aged three months to a year, who were exposed to their parents' smoking.
Tests also showed that 98 per cent of the babies had nicotine in their urine, with 93 per cent testing positive for cotinine, a breakdown product produced when nicotine enters the body.
"The take home message is, 'Don't smoke around your kids,'" Stephen S. Hecht, the study's lead author and chair of cancer prevention at the University of Minnesota, said in a written statement.
"The level of NNAL detected in the urine of these infants was higher than in most other field studies of environmental tobacco smoke in children and adults," said Hecht.
NNAL is a cancer-causing compound produced in the human body as it processes NNK, a chemical specific to cigarette smoke.
NNAL has been shown to cause cancer of the lung, pancreas, liver and nasal cavities in laboratory animals.
Although a direct link to human malignancies has not been definitively proven, the International Agency for Research on Cancer considers this compound carcinogenic to humans, Hecht said.
Experts say that the study confirms tobacco-related toxins make their way from the lungs into other tissues of the body where they could have harmful effects.
When NNAL was detected in the urine of babies, family members smoked an average of 76 cigarettes per week in the presence of the infants.
The levels were typically between 1 per cent and 5 per cent of those found in smokers, although one child in the study had NNAL levels comparable to a smoker's.
Where NNAL levels were not observed, the average number of cigarettes smoked by family members was reported at 27 per week.
In questionnaires given to the mothers, 82 per cent reported being daily smokers and 72 per cent said they lived in households that included other tobacco users.
But Hecht warned that the detection test had limitations.
"With more sensitive analytical equipment, the NNAL from urine of babies in lower frequency cigarette smoking households would most likely be detectable," Hecht said.
Dr. Gideon Koren, a pediatrician and pharmacologist at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, said research at his centre more than a decade ago showed nicotine and cotinine are found in the hair of newborns whose mothers smoked during pregnancy.
"This is another marker," Koren told The Canadian Press of NNAL in urine. "Cigarette smoke has 1,400 different poisons and chemicals, some of them carcinogenic. And it all makes sense.
"If you are smoking near your kids or even in another room, it will go around through aeration. It's a real risk for children."
Scientists say there is no hard evidence that infants exposed to second-hand smoke will develop childhood cancer or malignancies in adulthood.
But there is proof in the medical literature that workers such as bartenders who are exposed to tobacco smoke over a long period of time will develop lung cancer.
"There's no reason to believe that will not be the case for small children, but convincing research is not yet out there," said Koren, noting that sudden infant death syndrome, respiratory infections and asthma are more prevalent among children living with smokers.
Koren pointed out that infants and children are captive to their parents' smoke.
They are particularly vulnerable to second-hand smoke because their rate of respiration is 40 times a minute on average, compared to about 12 in adults.
"Babies breathe a lot more rapidly than adults do, and what's more, they're also growing quickly and so they're absorbing lots more into the body and they're more fragile in terms of development and so on," Francis Thompson of the Non-Smokers' Rights Association said, appearing on CTV Newsnet.
"So it's not surprising that the impact of second-hand smoke on babies is likely to be larger," he said.
Koren questioned why parents are permitted to smoke in front of their children when they can't smoke at work.
"Just think about it: try to smoke at work anywhere in Canada today and you are against the law," Koren told CP. "The same individual can go home and smoke in the face of a two-month-old and he's not against the law.
"How come we cannot smoke near our fellow workers, but we can do it to our children?"
Thompson believes parents are putting their children at risk not because they don't care, but because they are grappling with addiction.
"I you're addicted to tobacco, you've been hearing for years it's very, very bad for you, the smoker, and you've been trying hard to live with that... you've probably been trying to quit fairly often and haven't succeeded," he said.
'It's very hard to accept when you're addicted to it that it can also be harming those around you. It creates a lot of anxiety, and people react to anxiety in different ways and one way they react to anxiety is just to try to ignore the issue."
With files from The Canadian Press
http://forums.go.com/abcnews/2020/forum?forumID=17&byThread=true
Topic: Thanks for exposing Stanton Glantz's anti-smoking movement's motivations.
As a working professional musician, the all inclusive smoking bans are killing night life culture and the regular work of professional musicians. I live in a Midwestern city and we have seen our local scene go belly up since having a smoking ban in the last year. Clubs cannot afford our entertainment anymore and resort to playing the jukebox many times. Many musicians did not even work NYE engagements, including myself for the first time in nearly 20 years and it was never this way before the smoking ban hit our city from out of nowhere.
Thank you for having Dr. Michael Siegel on to counter the religion Glantz and his kind have been promoting, especially concerning the outdoor bans which were only enabled first by indoor bans.
It goes to show that the zealots of the anti-smoking movement will never stop in their crusade to control smoking tobacco which is still a very legal substance. The outdoor bans are merely the next step in their crusade.
Private homes will be next as will smoking inside your own car. Car bans have already been attempted. However more steps will be taken by these anti-smoking zealots whose only true argument is their PREFERENCE for non-smoking establishments many of which they never frequent..as we would have seen a business improvement already in my Midwestern city.
We have not.
It is only their preference for no smoking..... as any "science" they have tried to use in their crusade has never come up with conclusive results. Frankly, I could have some respect for them if they were on the doorsteps of Big Tobacco, but they are not.
It is just a little control game where private business owners livelihoods are toyed with and many times damaged financially beyond repair.
Musicians are the ones forgotten that experience FIRST HAND damage whenever a ban is implented for adult establishsments.
We are fired before even the waitstaff is cut. Thank you for taking the time to expose the myth as I know it is not the most PC thing these days due to the brainwashing of the public on the unfounded fear factor of second hand smoke. In time, we will all look at this era as another failed attempt at Prohibition.
I look forward to that day. I think it will be coming sooner than we think. Thanks again for allowing the truth to be heard on national television.
Linda Dachtyl
Topic: Thanks for exposing Stanton Glantz's anti-smoking movement's motivations.
As a working professional musician, the all inclusive smoking bans are killing night life culture and the regular work of professional musicians. I live in a Midwestern city and we have seen our local scene go belly up since having a smoking ban in the last year. Clubs cannot afford our entertainment anymore and resort to playing the jukebox many times. Many musicians did not even work NYE engagements, including myself for the first time in nearly 20 years and it was never this way before the smoking ban hit our city from out of nowhere.
Thank you for having Dr. Michael Siegel on to counter the religion Glantz and his kind have been promoting, especially concerning the outdoor bans which were only enabled first by indoor bans.
It goes to show that the zealots of the anti-smoking movement will never stop in their crusade to control smoking tobacco which is still a very legal substance. The outdoor bans are merely the next step in their crusade.
Private homes will be next as will smoking inside your own car. Car bans have already been attempted. However more steps will be taken by these anti-smoking zealots whose only true argument is their PREFERENCE for non-smoking establishments many of which they never frequent..as we would have seen a business improvement already in my Midwestern city.
We have not.
It is only their preference for no smoking..... as any "science" they have tried to use in their crusade has never come up with conclusive results. Frankly, I could have some respect for them if they were on the doorsteps of Big Tobacco, but they are not.
It is just a little control game where private business owners livelihoods are toyed with and many times damaged financially beyond repair.
Musicians are the ones forgotten that experience FIRST HAND damage whenever a ban is implented for adult establishsments.
We are fired before even the waitstaff is cut. Thank you for taking the time to expose the myth as I know it is not the most PC thing these days due to the brainwashing of the public on the unfounded fear factor of second hand smoke. In time, we will all look at this era as another failed attempt at Prohibition.
I look forward to that day. I think it will be coming sooner than we think. Thanks again for allowing the truth to be heard on national television.
Linda Dachtyl
Friday, May 12, 2006
Dear Editor, May 13/06The Globe and Mail(May 12/06)
Health Matters:
Dr. David Butler-Jones said, concerning smoking."It 's the number one cause of preventable death."
It is impossible to "prevent" someone's death. It is possible to postpone a person's death, but no person's death has ever been or ever will be "prevented". If a person's death were "prevented", they would never die and would be an immortal.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Health Matters:
Dr. David Butler-Jones said, concerning smoking."It 's the number one cause of preventable death."
It is impossible to "prevent" someone's death. It is possible to postpone a person's death, but no person's death has ever been or ever will be "prevented". If a person's death were "prevented", they would never die and would be an immortal.
Thomas Laprade
480 Rupert St.
Thunder Bay, Ont.
Thursday, May 11, 2006
2006
Of the 80 'spousal' studies most referred to by anti-smokers,the 31 'workplace' studies most referred to by anti-smokers,and the 36 'childhood' studies most referred to by anti-smokers,for each categoryover 80 % prove the Health Risks from Second Hand Smokeare NOT Statistically SignificantThe ABCs of ETS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Tobacco Farmers get about $ 1.00 for a Carton's worth of Cigarettes. Manufacturers get about $ 9 to $ 12. The rest of the Retail Prices is TAX. Provincial and Federal Taxes on Tobacco are about 80 % of the retail prices, higher than for any other product, an increase of about 700 % sinced 1995, so high in fact that the percentage is probably illegal. What would you think of a 700 % increase of Gasoline Taxes ?!We are denied our Constitutional Right to Taxation Representation because of the current Anti-Smoking Crusade/Inquisition. Farmers are being driven out of their multi-generation family businesses, many going bankrupt. Tobacco farming in Canada will soon come to a tragic end.
The Anti-Smokers, who rejected the 95 % 'safer' cigarette in 2002,get $ 500 MILLION of our money,98 % of which 'they' cannot document where it disappears to.
Think 'Boston Tea Party' Tax Revolt !
BUY YOUR SMOKES FROM RESERVATIONS !
Of the 80 'spousal' studies most referred to by anti-smokers,the 31 'workplace' studies most referred to by anti-smokers,and the 36 'childhood' studies most referred to by anti-smokers,for each categoryover 80 % prove the Health Risks from Second Hand Smokeare NOT Statistically SignificantThe ABCs of ETS
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Canadian Tobacco Farmers get about $ 1.00 for a Carton's worth of Cigarettes. Manufacturers get about $ 9 to $ 12. The rest of the Retail Prices is TAX. Provincial and Federal Taxes on Tobacco are about 80 % of the retail prices, higher than for any other product, an increase of about 700 % sinced 1995, so high in fact that the percentage is probably illegal. What would you think of a 700 % increase of Gasoline Taxes ?!We are denied our Constitutional Right to Taxation Representation because of the current Anti-Smoking Crusade/Inquisition. Farmers are being driven out of their multi-generation family businesses, many going bankrupt. Tobacco farming in Canada will soon come to a tragic end.
The Anti-Smokers, who rejected the 95 % 'safer' cigarette in 2002,get $ 500 MILLION of our money,98 % of which 'they' cannot document where it disappears to.
Think 'Boston Tea Party' Tax Revolt !
BUY YOUR SMOKES FROM RESERVATIONS !
Monday, May 08, 2006
Re: McGuinty watch, www.mcguintywatch.ca
The Promise That Should Have Been Broken!
Reference: Don't like anti-smoking law? Don't bother by Murray Campbell of The Globe and Mail, April 19, 2006--" about 1000 Korean shopkeepers--the people who sell milk, bread, and cigarettes from dawn to dusk--converged on Queen's Park yesterday to complain that the Premier was putting them out of business."
My response, from and about that article.
Jim Watson states smoke free is "a matter of principle." From the beginning the Health Promotion Ministry has been explicit about their meaning and methods. "The first step is persuasion," Watson suggested to reporters, "Let's see how that works," meaning, if they resist our bullying and intimidation, we will force them to do what we want, by legislation. "Health has to supercede any kind of economic gain and this is about discouraging people from impulse buying," meaning the Ontario Liberal government will disrupt or destroy the lives or livlihood of any individual within their dictates, to achieve their purpose. By stating that "I think that obesity is the challenge of the 21st century, just as smoking was the challenge of the 20th century,"indicates that the anti-smoking agenda is merely a test balloon for further government interference in our lives. To me, this is unprincipled behaviour.
Economic Development Minister Joe Cordiano says, "The priority is ensuring the health of Ontarians," meaning a total disregard for the health of the shopkeepers and their families, when the shopkeepers are forced out of business due to the Liberals new legislations, which is equivalent to Mr. Cordiano abandoning his post, thus making his ministry null and void to business people.
Mr. McGuinty's opinion, "I think as a government we've made it clear that we are going to be aggressive when it comes to reducing the usage of tobacco," meaning within the context of Mr. McGuinty's legislated force, the anti-smoking foundation is based on "special privilege" to the rights of non-smokers at the expense of "under privilege" to the rights of smokers. For example, from George Orwell's satircal allegory Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
The Ontario Liberal's say, "we will be creating a healthier society for all" from within their scare tactics and legislated force. Exactly how can this be achieved when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer, employee relationships, and undermind their efficacy, by alienating them from their own human nature? This irrational mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long term emotional and mental disorders thus leading to physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick. The Liberal's anti-smoking agenda has reached the height of absurdity.
On the position of right and wrong, one needs only to look at the onerous historical figure who is symbolically the father of the anti-smoking agenda, to understand the Liberal's immense wrong ! Our government has chosen to bow and curtsy to anti-smoking's history, instead of learning from past mistakes!
Mr. Ken Hill (non-smoker)
48 Shakespeare Avenue
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario
P.O. Box 1195, L0S 1J0
(905) 468-2691
regalregent@hotmail.com
The Promise That Should Have Been Broken!
Reference: Don't like anti-smoking law? Don't bother by Murray Campbell of The Globe and Mail, April 19, 2006--" about 1000 Korean shopkeepers--the people who sell milk, bread, and cigarettes from dawn to dusk--converged on Queen's Park yesterday to complain that the Premier was putting them out of business."
My response, from and about that article.
Jim Watson states smoke free is "a matter of principle." From the beginning the Health Promotion Ministry has been explicit about their meaning and methods. "The first step is persuasion," Watson suggested to reporters, "Let's see how that works," meaning, if they resist our bullying and intimidation, we will force them to do what we want, by legislation. "Health has to supercede any kind of economic gain and this is about discouraging people from impulse buying," meaning the Ontario Liberal government will disrupt or destroy the lives or livlihood of any individual within their dictates, to achieve their purpose. By stating that "I think that obesity is the challenge of the 21st century, just as smoking was the challenge of the 20th century,"indicates that the anti-smoking agenda is merely a test balloon for further government interference in our lives. To me, this is unprincipled behaviour.
Economic Development Minister Joe Cordiano says, "The priority is ensuring the health of Ontarians," meaning a total disregard for the health of the shopkeepers and their families, when the shopkeepers are forced out of business due to the Liberals new legislations, which is equivalent to Mr. Cordiano abandoning his post, thus making his ministry null and void to business people.
Mr. McGuinty's opinion, "I think as a government we've made it clear that we are going to be aggressive when it comes to reducing the usage of tobacco," meaning within the context of Mr. McGuinty's legislated force, the anti-smoking foundation is based on "special privilege" to the rights of non-smokers at the expense of "under privilege" to the rights of smokers. For example, from George Orwell's satircal allegory Animal Farm, "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others."
The Ontario Liberal's say, "we will be creating a healthier society for all" from within their scare tactics and legislated force. Exactly how can this be achieved when they betray the smoker's sense of trust, demoralize their self-confidence, disrupt their employer, employee relationships, and undermind their efficacy, by alienating them from their own human nature? This irrational mind/body dichotomy will subject smoker's to long term emotional and mental disorders thus leading to physical ailments. In reality, our government is making them sick. The Liberal's anti-smoking agenda has reached the height of absurdity.
On the position of right and wrong, one needs only to look at the onerous historical figure who is symbolically the father of the anti-smoking agenda, to understand the Liberal's immense wrong ! Our government has chosen to bow and curtsy to anti-smoking's history, instead of learning from past mistakes!
Mr. Ken Hill (non-smoker)
48 Shakespeare Avenue
Niagara-on-the-Lake, Ontario
P.O. Box 1195, L0S 1J0
(905) 468-2691
regalregent@hotmail.com
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Smoking ban serious detriment to casinos
LetterPublished: Wednesday, May 03, 2006
As a resident of another city, Niagara Falls, that will be decimated by the smoking bans at our casinos, I would like to commend your newspaper and Windsor city council for trying to inject some common sense into this issue.
I wish our local newspaper and politicians would display the same compassion and concern for working people. Both have remained silent.
"Ministry of Labour tests have shown the permanent (Windsor) casino's air quality meets or surpasses provincial standards" according to Ken Lewenza, president of CAW Local 144 who represents 3,400 Casino Windsor workers (Windsor Star, June 2, 2005.)
What is the problem? Isn't it time to demand to know who is setting the standards for working conditions in the province of Ontario? Is it the Ministry of Labour or the Non-Smokers Rights Association? Thousands of jobs across the province depend on the answer.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that as a young lawyer fresh out of law school, one of Dalton McGuinty's first jobs was legal work for the Non-Smokers Rights Association, pro-bono at that. You could look it up.
FRANK ZANIOL
Niagara Falls, Ont.
LetterPublished: Wednesday, May 03, 2006
As a resident of another city, Niagara Falls, that will be decimated by the smoking bans at our casinos, I would like to commend your newspaper and Windsor city council for trying to inject some common sense into this issue.
I wish our local newspaper and politicians would display the same compassion and concern for working people. Both have remained silent.
"Ministry of Labour tests have shown the permanent (Windsor) casino's air quality meets or surpasses provincial standards" according to Ken Lewenza, president of CAW Local 144 who represents 3,400 Casino Windsor workers (Windsor Star, June 2, 2005.)
What is the problem? Isn't it time to demand to know who is setting the standards for working conditions in the province of Ontario? Is it the Ministry of Labour or the Non-Smokers Rights Association? Thousands of jobs across the province depend on the answer.
Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that as a young lawyer fresh out of law school, one of Dalton McGuinty's first jobs was legal work for the Non-Smokers Rights Association, pro-bono at that. You could look it up.
FRANK ZANIOL
Niagara Falls, Ont.
http://calsun.canoe.ca/Comment/Letters/
Here is a message to Les Hagen, director of Action on Smoking and Health.
A small amount of smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health?
If he believes that, I have some ocean front property in Saskatchewan I'd like to sell him.
Thomas Laprade
(Victims of second-hand smoke are dying to disagree.)
Here is a message to Les Hagen, director of Action on Smoking and Health.
A small amount of smoke from a handful of crushed leaves and some paper that is mixed with the air of a decently ventilated venue is harmful to your health?
If he believes that, I have some ocean front property in Saskatchewan I'd like to sell him.
Thomas Laprade
(Victims of second-hand smoke are dying to disagree.)
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Good DayI would like to speak with someone in regard to employees that smoke and work at Tim Horton's.I am a very loyal customer who spends $50 - 70 per week at Timmy's as is my whole family of 3 children, their spouses and my four grandchildren.When Tim Horton's went non-smoking, I shifted to buying coffee through the drive-thru. I didn't really mind because I sincerely believed in the concept of property rights and support your right to run your business your way.However, I have recently become aware that employees who smoke are being consigned to taking their breaks inside the enclosure on almost all Tim Horton's sites that shields the garbage dumpster from customer view.I am confident that you will agree that requiring people to take their breaks while sitting next to an overflowing garbage dumpster is disrepectful and insensitive to say the least and very denigrating to the human spirit.Is this a policy of Tim Horton's head office or is this just a local policy of a few Tim Horton's site?I would really like to know if it is a corporate policy to equate people who smoke with a garbage dumpster? And who thought that the idea of treating employees like garbage would be an acceptable thing to do?I am the Director - Media Relations of a registered not-for-profit corporation called Citizens for Civil Liberties. We have members in almost all cities across Ontario and active links with other like minded civil liberties groups across Canada and United States.If Tim Hortons is really of the opinion that smokers are garbage and should be treated as such, I am confident that our members would like to know what this corporation really thinks of them.If this is not a corporate policy, then I am equally confident that Tim Hortons would like to be advised of the practice so that arrangements can be made that are more respectful of the needs of the employees who choose to smoke during their free time.May I suggest that an 8 foot section of fencing, separate from the garbage enclosure, to shield a small area from the view of customers, with perhaps a picnic table and an umbrella would provide a more thoughtful and considerate smoking area in most Tim Hortons locations?
Michelle GervaisDirector - Media RelationsCitizen's for Civil Libertieswww.citizensforcivilliberties.ca
Unit #32-55 Ashley Crescent
London Ontario
N6E 3R8
Michelle GervaisDirector - Media RelationsCitizen's for Civil Libertieswww.citizensforcivilliberties.ca
Unit #32-55 Ashley Crescent
London Ontario
N6E 3R8
April 28/06
RE “Ban fires up patients” (April 25): There is only one word for this inhumane situation: Despicable!
The anti-tobacco dogmatists and the government should be ashamed of themselves and be served wholeheartedly similar treatment as these long-term patients that have no choice to be where they are. Public health they say? How about public tyranny!
Iro Zannetides
(As tyranny goes, having to give up the “pleasure” of smoking strikes us as fairly minor)
RE “Ban fires up patients” (April 25): There is only one word for this inhumane situation: Despicable!
The anti-tobacco dogmatists and the government should be ashamed of themselves and be served wholeheartedly similar treatment as these long-term patients that have no choice to be where they are. Public health they say? How about public tyranny!
Iro Zannetides
(As tyranny goes, having to give up the “pleasure” of smoking strikes us as fairly minor)
Friday, May 05, 2006
May 5/06
"The secondhand smoke claims were demolished by a 1998 World Health Organization study," said Sheldon Richman, senior fellow at the Future of Freedom Foundation. "A ten-year meta-study, in which the World Health Organization analyzed all the research and studies to date, failed to find a clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The activists tried to hush it up, and their media allies were all too happy to not report it. The truth was bottled up when the activists and the media alarmists did not get the results they wanted."
"The secondhand smoke claims were demolished by a 1998 World Health Organization study," said Sheldon Richman, senior fellow at the Future of Freedom Foundation. "A ten-year meta-study, in which the World Health Organization analyzed all the research and studies to date, failed to find a clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The activists tried to hush it up, and their media allies were all too happy to not report it. The truth was bottled up when the activists and the media alarmists did not get the results they wanted."
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Busybodies or food tyrants?
Posted: March 22, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Some call the people behind the Washington-D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest busybodies, but I call them wannabe tyrants. Let's look at their agenda, which seeks greater control over our lives.
Last year, CSPI filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration to reduce the amount of salt in packaged foods. They also called for the FDA to mandate warning labels on non-diet soft drinks that consumption increases the risk of obesity, tooth decay and osteoporosis. Earlier this year, CSPI announced its intent to sue Viacom Inc. and Kellogg Company for marketing junk food to children.
CSPI has long called for excise taxes on fatty foods, cars and TV sets. Their justification is that obesity adds to Medicare and Medicaid health costs. They want some of the tax revenue used to fund exercise facilities and government fitness campaigns.
There's no end to CSPI's consumer-control agenda. They say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." Therefore, they've called for caffeine warning labels. To deal with teenage and adult overconsumption of alcohol, they've called for doubling the tax on beer. According to them, "The last thing the world needs is more drinkers, even moderate ones."
To fight obesity among young people, CSPI calls for a fast-food advertising ban on TV programs seen by children. CSPI's director, Michael Jacobson, said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses, [and] meat," adding that "CSPI is proud about finding something wrong with practically everything."
I'm guessing that most Americans, except politicians, find this control agenda offensive. Politicians might not find it offensive because controlling lives is their stock in trade, plus there's the promise of the higher revenues from food taxes. Most Americans who might find the CSPI agenda offensive are not motivated by principle. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored.
You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" CSPI tyrants are following almost to the letter the template created by the nation's anti-smoking zealots. Their fellow traveler, New York University professor Marion Nestle, says that the food industry "can't behave like cigarette companies. ... Yet there's a lot of people who benefit from people being fat and sick, and the whole setup is designed to make people eat more. So the response to the food industry should be very similar to what happened with the tobacco companies."
The anti-smoking zealots started out with "reasonable" demands, such as warning labels on cigarette packs and no-smoking sections on airplanes. They made exaggerated claims about the cost that smokers were imposing on the health-care system. Then cigarette manufacturers faced multimillion-dollar lawsuits and multibillion-dollar local, state and federal extortion, not to mention confiscatory taxes, all of which are passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices.
Just recently, the City of Calabasas, Calif., adopted an ordinance that bans smoking in virtually all outdoor areas. Partial justification is to protect children from bad influences – seeing adults smoking. Had the anti-smoking zealots revealed their entire agenda back in the '60s and '70s, they wouldn't have gotten much. By using the piecemeal approach, they've been successful beyond their dreams, and the food zealots are following their example.
I'd be interested to know just how many Americans would like to see done to our food industry what was done to the tobacco industry: massive multibillion-dollar lawsuits against food companies, massive suits against restaurants that serve too large a serving, and confiscatory taxes levied on foods and snacks deemed non-nutritious.
Consumers will pay for all of this in the form of higher food prices and fewer choices. There's also the possibility that food zealots in some cities, emboldened by the success of the anti-smoking zealots in Calabasas, who are concerned about smokers passing on bad habits to our youth, might call for an ordinance banning public appearance of obese people so as not to pass bad eating habits on to our children.
Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
Posted: March 22, 20061:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2006 Creators Syndicate Inc.
Some call the people behind the Washington-D.C.-based Center for Science in the Public Interest busybodies, but I call them wannabe tyrants. Let's look at their agenda, which seeks greater control over our lives.
Last year, CSPI filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration to reduce the amount of salt in packaged foods. They also called for the FDA to mandate warning labels on non-diet soft drinks that consumption increases the risk of obesity, tooth decay and osteoporosis. Earlier this year, CSPI announced its intent to sue Viacom Inc. and Kellogg Company for marketing junk food to children.
CSPI has long called for excise taxes on fatty foods, cars and TV sets. Their justification is that obesity adds to Medicare and Medicaid health costs. They want some of the tax revenue used to fund exercise facilities and government fitness campaigns.
There's no end to CSPI's consumer-control agenda. They say, "Caffeine is the only drug that is widely added to the food supply." Therefore, they've called for caffeine warning labels. To deal with teenage and adult overconsumption of alcohol, they've called for doubling the tax on beer. According to them, "The last thing the world needs is more drinkers, even moderate ones."
To fight obesity among young people, CSPI calls for a fast-food advertising ban on TV programs seen by children. CSPI's director, Michael Jacobson, said, "We could envision taxes on butter, potato chips, whole milk, cheeses, [and] meat," adding that "CSPI is proud about finding something wrong with practically everything."
I'm guessing that most Americans, except politicians, find this control agenda offensive. Politicians might not find it offensive because controlling lives is their stock in trade, plus there's the promise of the higher revenues from food taxes. Most Americans who might find the CSPI agenda offensive are not motivated by principle. It's a matter of whose ox is being gored.
You say, "What do you mean, Williams?" CSPI tyrants are following almost to the letter the template created by the nation's anti-smoking zealots. Their fellow traveler, New York University professor Marion Nestle, says that the food industry "can't behave like cigarette companies. ... Yet there's a lot of people who benefit from people being fat and sick, and the whole setup is designed to make people eat more. So the response to the food industry should be very similar to what happened with the tobacco companies."
The anti-smoking zealots started out with "reasonable" demands, such as warning labels on cigarette packs and no-smoking sections on airplanes. They made exaggerated claims about the cost that smokers were imposing on the health-care system. Then cigarette manufacturers faced multimillion-dollar lawsuits and multibillion-dollar local, state and federal extortion, not to mention confiscatory taxes, all of which are passed on to smokers in the form of higher prices.
Just recently, the City of Calabasas, Calif., adopted an ordinance that bans smoking in virtually all outdoor areas. Partial justification is to protect children from bad influences – seeing adults smoking. Had the anti-smoking zealots revealed their entire agenda back in the '60s and '70s, they wouldn't have gotten much. By using the piecemeal approach, they've been successful beyond their dreams, and the food zealots are following their example.
I'd be interested to know just how many Americans would like to see done to our food industry what was done to the tobacco industry: massive multibillion-dollar lawsuits against food companies, massive suits against restaurants that serve too large a serving, and confiscatory taxes levied on foods and snacks deemed non-nutritious.
Consumers will pay for all of this in the form of higher food prices and fewer choices. There's also the possibility that food zealots in some cities, emboldened by the success of the anti-smoking zealots in Calabasas, who are concerned about smokers passing on bad habits to our youth, might call for an ordinance banning public appearance of obese people so as not to pass bad eating habits on to our children.
Dr. Walter E. Williams is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.
