An appeal for an outdoor smoking ban

“a person sitting or standing next to a smoker outdoors can breathe in wisps of smoke that are many times more concentrated than normal background air pollution levels.”

That statement is not a reason to ban smoking outdoors. Paraphrased, it simply means, "if you stand or sit next to a smoker you might breathe in smoke." Some obvious questions to that comment would be, "How close do you have to be to the smoker?", "What are 'normal background air pollution levels?", "And so what, I breathe in a little smoke, does that mean I will be harmed?"

The truth is that there are no studies that show breathing in a few wisps of smoke in an outdoor environment will hurt anyone. If you don't like the smell, then it might be beneficial to you to ban smoking outdoors. But to be fair, what else should be banned?

The study and survey mentioned in the above column were funded by Clearway Minnesota, and are clearly biased. The survey, for example, focused on a specific demographic. The study focused on a specific carcinogen, which is meaningless, since everyone ingests many carcinogens on a daily basis from "clean" air, drinking water, and food.

There are very few "anti-smoker" articles I read that tell the whole story. And to have to omit facts and tell outright lies should really make one question the integrity of the anti-smoking movement.

I believe most people have a better idea of what is causing the increase in Cancer /Heart disease. The leading threats, Diesel, Wood Smoke? To find out about Wood/Wildfires, look up Burning Issues http://www.burningissues.org/comp-emmis-part-sources.htm
and note where Tobacco smoke is on the chart and then try this.
Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
Bear in mind, this report was made before the EPA forced the inclusion of Cigarette Smoke to the Carcinogenic tables, with only their fraudulent report as proof.

To access a comprehensive list of 150 ETS studies to date: click on link
http://www.forces.org/evidence/study_list.htm

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS J. BLILEY, JR. JULY 21, 1993 http://www.pipes.org/Articles/Bliley.html

There are serious issues with the scientific numbers; No matter how you stack it this smells like Eugenics as the only form of science in play.
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/001282/128291eo.pdf

According to Anthony J. Alberg, PhD, MPH and Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS et al,
Lung Cancer mortality in 1960 was close to 38 per hundred thousand, or roughly 38,000 in a 100 million population. If 90% of those cancers were in fact caused by smoking, as the current research indicates; we arrive with 34,200 smoking caused cancers. The 90% figure is controversial as we know from the bulk of Public Health media statements and published research papers; the figure resides in a range between 70% and 85%, however, in establishing a worst case scenario, and as we must, in erring on the side of caution we will calculate the mortality risk with the larger figure.

Carrying forward with the same number of smokers [B. Godshall et al] fifty years down the road, we should understandably expect, [all things remaining the same] that the lung cancer mortalities figure would not change.

Today we can conclude the same 34,200 mortalities believed to be caused by smoking in 1960 still remain, among the 220,000 lung cancer mortalities which occur today, although the 90% associated figure has declined significantly, along with smoker prevalence within the general population, as we would naturally expect would be the case. Logic and common sense tells us; if 90% was applied to the current figures, the percentage of cigarette related Cancers in 1960 by comparison would be five times the number of those we know actually occurred.

One can only conclude from the evidence; five out of six Lung cancers are not caused by smoking; but are in fact, caused by the Tobacco Control [TC] lobby groups. Figures they cite in respect to heart disease or any other so called smoking related disease, can be proven to be similar.

Making TC and Public Health [who all rely heavily on the American Cancer Society for the figures cited] the planet's leading source of "preventable mortality".

You can quote me on that, any time you like. The facts speak for themselves.

Conclusions;
Lung Cancers proportional to the population total have doubled since 1960. In actual numbers they have risen sixfold while the true number of smokers remained consistent throughout, for over 50 years. Lung Cancers can be developed in a laboratory in a matter of days. There has never been a reliable explanation of why it would take cigarettes 30 or more years to culture the same cancers. The reliance on Clara cells and their benefit in protecting the lungs of smokers for so many years, diminishes the claims made in respect to the more immediate effects of second hand smoke.

Citations;
Anthony J. Alberg, PhD, MPH and Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS et al;
http://www.chestjournal.org/cgi/content/full/123/1_suppl/21S

“Figure 1.. Lung cancer mortality rates for the United States from 1930 to 1998, age-standardized to the 1970 US population. Adapted from Gordon et al,19 and Mckay et al,20 and Ries et al.21” ;
http://www.chestjournal.org/content/vol123/issue90010/images/large/cb01t...

W. Godshall et al;
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1779270

"But declining prevalence overshadows the fact that, with population growth, the absolute number of smokers in the U.S. remained relatively constant at 45 to 50 million over the entire period."

Sheldon Ungar Et Al;
http://pus.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/1/5

“The results suggest that the public consensus about the negative effects of passive smoke is so strong that it has become part of a regime of truth that cannot be intelligibly questioned. ”

James E Enstrom, researcher1, Geoffrey C Kabat, associate professor Et Al;
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/326/7398/1057?ijkey=aec30140aba2...

“The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”

Me;
http://lieberaldictators.blogspot.com/2008/11/evidence-is-mounting-that-...

While we romanced the idea that smoking causes everything, what have we neglected? and how many died as a circumstance, of embracing high drama and calling it science?

"Secondhand smoke kills — we know that."

Your "appeal" is flawed from your opening remark, or at the very least suffers from the same kind of routine omission of complete information that would be required to be considered a truthful statement.
For instance, if you had stated;
Second Hand smoke CAN POTENTIALLY kill people that are ALREADY SUFFERING from ACUTE coranary disease of one form or another, because then even a small, slight, or passing exposure to second hand smoke could potentially be enough to POSSIBLY TRIGGER a fatal heart attack or stroke.

But, you didn't take the truthful approach.
Anti-smoking (anti-liberty) op eds seldom do.

Chelsey, if you are a student at one of the Universities you mention, then please stop skipping the health class, because clearly your knowledge is lacking in this area. If you're not a student, and simply another uninformed lazy journalist that prefers to parrot the propaganda, then find a University that offers a night course and sign up right away. You may not be a better journalist for it, but at least you'll have made the effort.

It is obvious that paid tobacco company lobbyists have infiltrated this discussion,
as they always seem to do in the public forums. I've seen this time and again.
They spread their dubious misinformation far and wide. Well why not? They are
highly-paid mercenaries for their cause. They are just doing their jobs. Do not
fall prey to their blatant lies. There are no 'studies' which 'prove' smoking is harmless.

"There are no 'studies' which 'prove' smoking is harmless."

The subject is SECONDHAND smoke, which is not harmful according to these air quality studies.

British Medical Journal air testing

American Cancer Society tests

Health dept testing

Johns Hopkins testing of secondhand smoke

And if you're wondering why someone not "paid" by the tobacco industry would speak out against the lies by the smoking ban activists it's because you don't understand the number of people who lose jobs due to these unnecessary bans:

Smoking ban increases home foreclosure rate

Meanwhile Nicoderm interests at RWJF financed the smoking ban lobbyists, including the U of M to the tune of $446+ million:

Smoking bans: good public policy? Or simply a Nicoderm funded marketing scam

It's tragic that University of Minnesota students lack legs which could be used to move them away from deadly and nefarious outdoor smokers. We should implement this ban immediately.

"It is not to demonize smokers, but rather form an inconvience to further smoke cessation."

Why don't I form an inconvenience to stop you from eating junk food on public property? Seriously. You eating a Big Mac on the Northrup Mall has the same risk to passersby as you smoking does.
Seriously, Chelsea, you should be intellectually honest with the readers of your letter and yourself and advocate for a ban of consumption of fast food on public property. Don't lie to yourself. You have engaged in organizations funded by the earnings from Ciresi/Humphrey lawsuit against big tobacco and your goal is to use a backdoor to make cigarettes illegal. It's a fundamentalist mentality only rivaled by the Benny Hinn televangelist crowd.
I'm embarrassed for you.

I unfortunatly am a smoker, and even when outside I try to stay away from people while smoking because I know it's unpleasant, but there are far more hazordous toxins out there.
I am keen to the idea of smoking cessation programs free of charge, but I must say the most postive expeirience I had trying to quit involved a wonder-weed that presently is illegal.
I was suprisingly pleased with the state-wide smoking ban, as smoking seems to amplify hang-overs. I think both sides of this argument equals to a bunch of whiners. The most reasonable thing to do would be to have designated smoking areas, as opposed to designated non-smoking areas.

Bob Moffitt wrote here, "You can trust what you hear from us. " but he's also written elsewhere, "Bingo and pulltabs have been on the decline for some years -- even when the halls and bars were blue with smoke -- not just in here Minnesota, but nationwide. The current decline in pulltab revenues many in the pro-smoke camp attribute soley to the statewide ban actually began months before FTBA began on Oct. 1, 2007"

Given that gambling revenue in Missouri, a state that has left Free Choice up to its businesses and patrons, has not only failed to see a drop, but has actually seen a RISE in its casino revenues, Bob's "you can trust us" statement about nationwide declines independent of smoking bans seems a bit less than trustworthy.

His further statement about the decline in revenues beginning "months" before the smoke ban law kicked in on Oct. 1st 2007 has a bit of a problem too once you look at official government figures. See:

http://banthebanwisconsin.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf

for the full story.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

As for Tom's comment about "tobacco company loyalists" and not knowing the identities of folks here... er... Tom? I think I'm somewhat better identified than you are, and my "loyalty" or even "sympathy" to the industry is a bit questionable since I've consistently lambasted them for selling out smokers in the Master Settlement Agreement.

If you'd like to read a bit more about me, just go to:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/130.html

and have fun!

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Thanks Mike for your book offer, but I do not think I will be buying it, as the title
suggests that my brain is somehow flawed, in that I am an "anti"... I agree that
people should, for the most part, be free to make choices in life, but I am sorry
to say that I strongly disagree with the loyalist/lobbyist propaganda stating that
tobacco is somehow harmless (or is not dangerous to human health)

Sometimes laws and regulations are necessary to allow people to live together
in a civilized society in a congenial manner with a minimum of discord.
Consider driving a car: we must obey traffic signals and wear seat belts. This is
for our own good, as well as for the good of others around us. What, I ask, if there
were no traffic controls? Would not the roads then become a very dangerous place?
Thus should the smoker be allowed to render the air unfit to breathe for others?
Should there not be some reasonable regulation of their behavior, since it often
conflicts with others?

Smokers, smoke all you want, but please keep your distance. And don't, for God's
sake, believe that inhaling a heavy dosage of particulate matter is good for you!

Tom, you don't need to buy the book to learn of the flaws in the basic arguments put forth by the Antismokers. Just take a look at the main studies they use that are analyzed in the "Stiletto" at

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/130.html

No buying of anything at all, and I'd be quite happy to see you address any flaws you find in it.

If you stop in at my main site at www.Antibrains.com you'll be able to read the preface to the book and find that in the first full paragraph I quite clearly say, "I also do not here, nor have I ever, tried to claim that smoking is generally good for you, although many find enough enjoyment in it to justify its risks."

Some Antismokers want to label all smokers as "addicts", "murderers", or "child-abusers." But many others simply want reasonable accomodations so that they have a fairly equal chance to enjoy eating, drinking, working, and playing without excessive irritation or inconvenience as smokers do. Free-Choice markets work quite well for that, although the balance in many cases gets tilted more to the Antismokers' side as business owners seek to attract what they see, perhaps mistakenly, as the larger customer base. I say "perhaps mistakenly" because many nonsmokers, particularly if they're made aware of the actual "risks" of being around low levels of smoke in the air, have no trouble at all in sharing airspace with smokers. I explore that in "Brains" in the first fifty pages, and you can see a nicely done 1 page summary of it all at:

http://www.stahlheart.com/wispofsmoke/recovery.html

where Stephanie Stahl offers help for people recovering from ASDS.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

This letter is in reference to all anti-smoking bans from a non-smoker.

*An open letter that was emailed to all (103) Ontario, Canada political MPP's in early May, 2008. No replies!

Betrayal, Anti-Smoking Message is Like Fascism that Preys Upon Our Children

We must not look within ourselves. We may discover what we are becoming!

Moral judgement is the mirror, mirror, on the wall image, always lurking in our mind, like an alter-conscience, prepared to reveal the frightening truth, in our soul, such as the undeserved vengefulness, at any cost, wielded against smokers. Even betrayal, of the next generation, becomes palatable within self-betrayal.

This remorseless mental/emotional preying upon, our precious children, recklessly poisons their mind and spirit, under the government's pernicious slogan "health and safety."

By supporting anti-smoking, we endorse and promote Fascism, an historically proven scurvy upon humanity!

The inevitable shame, of our past actions, can still be averted, by rescinding this government agenda!

The most"dangerous smoke" comes not from cigarettes, instead from the government smoke screen to obscure from view, that the real issue is Capitalism and science versus Fascism and politicized environmentalism, not 'health and safety.'

Science and politicized environmentalism are colliding worlds, science being the height of pursuing truth, politicized environmentalism the depth of distorting truth. Anti-smoking is part of politicized environmentalism and the attempted foundation of Fascism!

Do we therefore side with Capitalism, science, Second World War troops and our allies-- honour; or do we side with Fascism, politicized environmentalism, our enemies of the Second World War-- disgrace? Thus far we blindly follow our enemies and disgrace!

From the mouth of Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace, "It doesn't matter what is true; it only matters what people believe is true.....You are what the media define you to be. Greenpeace became a myth and a myth-generating machine." We deserve truth, not half-truths and propaganda!

For any high ranking government official that lack this critical knowledge, they are in their office under false pretenses. They are unprepared to govern. Their present course of anti-smoking legislations is the proof of that statement.

In the words of Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, "I was acutely conscious of the pressure to 'adapt' and to absorb the values of the 'tribe'---family, community and culture. It seemed to me that what was asked was the surrender of my judgement and also my conviction that my life and what I made of it was of the highest possible value. I saw my contemporaries surrendering and losing their fire. Why was growing up equated with giving up?"

Philosopher/Novelist Ayn Rand wrote, "If some demagogue were to offer us, as a guiding creed, the following tenets: that statistics should be substituted for truth, vote-counting for principles, numbers for rights, and public polls for morality--that pragmatic, range-of-the-moment expediency should be the criterion of a country's interests, and that the number of its adherents should be the criterion of an idea's truth or falsehood--that any desire of any nature whatsoever should be accepted as a valid claim, provided it is held by a sufficient number of people--that a majority may do anything it pleases to a minority--in short, gang rule and mob rule--if a demagogue were to offer it, he would not get very far. Yet all of it is contained in--and camouflaged by--the notion of 'Government by Consensus."

'Rule by Consensus,' (Rule by health care pressure group) is todays' anti-ideology in government. Appeasement of these power-lusting, health care pressure groups is of higher priority than our children and all other tax payers, voters, and citizens. The permeating emotion from 'Rule by Consensus' is demoralizing, debilitating fear instead of an optimistic view of the future.

Note this recent example, Premier of Ontario, Canada Dalton McGuinty said he wouldn't entertain a ban (smoking in cars with children) because it amounts to "too much intrusion into people's private lives." The logical interpretation of this statement is that the entire anti-smoking movement eliminates smoker's individual rights, and has always been an intrusion into a smoker's family dynamic. Now, the Ontario government is prepared, in predictable flip-flop fashion, to enact such a ban.

In ignobility, many people have misaligned themself with politicized environmentalism, despite the fact that 1930's, 1940's, Germany used "politicized ecology and public health" to base its rationalizations. Are we predisposed to mistakenly mirror the historic footsteps of self-loathing mass destruction? No! Everyone has an individual mind and conscience, above party politics. Be true to them, follow your courage (truth) and dethrone your fear (fallacy). Rescind this government's shameful anti-smoking agenda.

References:

Paul Watson - Environmental Overkill, (Whatever happened to common sense) - book
Psychotherapist Nathaniel Branden, The Six Pillars of Self-Esteem - book
Ayn Rand - Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal - book

Mike, I do not like to create derogatory labels for smokers either, because the
facts are, these people are sick. They are ill. Just as an alcoholic is ill. As a heroin
addict is ill. Their poor bodies are ravaged with poisons. I can testify to this
because I have myself fallen under the powerful influence of a nicotine addiction.
This is a controlling force. To these claims of nicotine being merely a 'habit,' as the
tobacco companies have been falsely claiming for so many years, it is a bona-fide
addiction. A habit is easy to stop. An addiction is not.

Are smokers suggesting that the morning nicotine pre-dosage rotten feeling, along
with the resultant coughing and hacking one's guts out, are somehow 'enjoyable?'
I will never buy into this 'enjoyment' claim, because I've been there and done that.
I feel that the long-term smoker who claims to 'enjoy' smoking is a liar. They want
to quit smoking, but cannot. But they won't admit it. They won't even admit it to
themselves. They like to think that they enjoy smoking. Any gratification comes
only from having temporarily satisfied a nicotine withdrawl, hence the smoker feels
'relatively' better (by way of comparision) to how he had felt before the dosage.
This nearly resembles a heroin-like addiction, only the effects of heroin are more
immediately life-threatening than those of nicotine.

I think it is a dirty rotten shame that kids can still easily obtain cigarettes.
Paid tobacco lobbyists perpetuate this problem. Even after forty years of warnings,
declarations of tobacco as being harmless are still entering into the ears of children
and teens. How do you tobacco lobbyists/loyalists sleep at night, knowing full well
that young impressionable minds are watching?

Yes there are opinions of mine which others may not agree with, but I can
conjecture that the physiological effect of nicotine is most likely similar to my
own experience, because I have something in common with other nicotine addicts,
something pertinent: I am a human. Perhaps some people react differently to
nicotine than others, but to say that it is "easy to quit" is absurd. If this
precariously-legal narcotic were so easy to abstain from, why don't millions of
smokers quit immediately, because they know the health dangers of smoking?
The common-sense answer is that they can't.

I am an air pollution researcher. I have been at this for a long time. I do not
enter into these discussions unprepared, Mike. Would you like proof that kids
are influenced by movies and advertising:

Exposure to Smoking Depictions in Movies
Its Association With Established Adolescent Smoking

http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/161/9/849

"Conclusion: In this national US adolescent sample, exposure to smoking in
movies predicted risk of becoming an established smoker, an outcome linked
with adult dependent smoking and its associated morbidity and mortality."

This is impossible to enforce! It doesn't work on the UMD campus it's not going to work here.

I have checked your credentials. You are a psychologist with an impressive record,
and I am sure that you have thought through all of these arguments completely.
But still, I do not understand why you feel you must pick apart good evidence.
Look at it this way Mike. The Journal of the American Medical Association has
accepted the paper. That's good enough for me, and it's good enough for the
department of sociology who have peer-reviewed the work as being sound and
acceptable.

As you have stated, no doubt certain addictions have an element of psychological
effect. The physiological effect of addiction in no way is the only parameter.
Some people do have 'addictive' personalities. As you know as a psychologist,
human behavior is very complex.

But now I have a suggestion for you: since you are the one making the counter-
claims to almost everything I have posted, then the burden of proof also falls into
your lap. Prove to the world that tobacco is neither harmful nor addicting. Prove
the movie study is junk science. I would like to hear your complete analysis.

As far as my statement of "tobacco lobbyists" perpetuate teen smoking, take this
debate for example: I think it is a safe bet that somewhere out there, some young
teen is following this carefully. The teen reads something such as 'tobacco is
harmless,' then tells friends at school the next day: "I read it on the internet:
smoking is OK. You don't get addicted, and it isn't harmful at all!" This scenario
I have conjured up is certainly possible, isn't it? That is, the young, rebellious,
immature mindset is just looking for an excuse to 'light one up.' You are giving
them incentive to do so. If this were an adult-only discussion board (no way to
insure that) I would say speak freely.

That isn't even a worst-case situation. There is an online group called "Forces
Tavern" which goes way out in left field somewhere to vigorously promote smoking
of tobacco. There are some really far-out people there. One article claims that
smoking is not only harmless, it is actually GOOD for you! This is precisely the kind
of garbage which I speak of when I make a claim of kids being 'influenced.' Is this
acceptable? What if there were a site which encouraged teens to have sex? (there
probably is somewhere) would that be OK? I don't think many parents would
approve of such an organization. The webmaster of such an organization would
probably shut the thing down in the wake of angry parental protests.

I would submit to you that dubious claims of "the harmless cigarette" tends to
diminish, even destroy, the credibility of your position, because your arguments are
only going to appeal to a very small fringe group who share your views. That is,
I don't think there are very many people who consider tobacco, in any form, to be
harmless. The exception may be young teens, who usually have the point of view
of having a sense of personal indestructibility. That is a good reason not to peruse
the health parameter of smoking. It has been proven unhealthy. Do you think the
Surgeon General of the United States 'invents' scientifically-derived information?

Perhaps stick with arguments about smokers rights, or attack this from a civil rights
approach. Arguing that tobacco is not harmful is an argument you will never win.
Why waste your time?