The Good Fight

The "new improved" bans now start during the summer. The older bans starting in January showed immediatly how much business bars lost. It's the update on page eighteen of the instruction book. Here's the book;

http://www.no-smoke.org/pdf/CIA_Fundamenta…

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Great news, Will, maybe this year the rest of the local municipalities will join the 21st century.
Perhaps generalsn can show us some statistics showing how much business our local bars and restaurants have lost.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

You know that the only way this country will be "Smoke Free" is make tobacco an illegal drug like MJ and when you do that you'll put 35,000 tobacco farmers out of business. If you make all smokers take stop smoking program and the federal government funded it, people just might quit. The farmers could start growing other products to make a living from.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Mr. Moredock,

How long is "tree years ago", in English? Do we have to cut down a tree and count the bark rings?

Is there a Gullah/Geechee to English language guide you could point us to?

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

You know the only true way to go "smoke free" is for the government to put tobacco on the illegal drug list and make it a felony like smoking MJ.

After doing that, you now have 3500+ farmers who have to change their money crop for them to survive.

Or the government could fund a rehab program and pay for everyone who shows up to take the program.

People have to want to quit smoking for them to really quit. I quit after 45 years because I am helping my granddaughter to be raised in a smoke free home.

She is why I quit and I haven't had the erg to have a cigarette in over 18 months.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

USN Airdale,

Of course, if you make tobacco illegal like MJ, think of how much more crime and misery we will suffer from it's prohibition.

There are a lot more cigarette smokers than marijuana smokers, and plenty of studies to prove that tobacco is far more addictive than grass.

I think the best approach is the one that you took. You quit smoking because of love for your granddaughter. I would much prefer a society where we self regulate ourselves out of love, honor and compassion, rather than a totalitarian state where all live in fear of the next government edict.

A powerful argument can be made for decriminalization of marijuana when one considers how much our society has been harmed by the bloody, futile "war on drugs". A war which has lasted forty years, cost billions of dollars and thousands of lives, and will remain "un-winnable" so long as people seek to escape from reality.

Congratulations on "kicking the habit", and thank you for your service to our country. May you have many years to enjoy your granddaughter's journey to adulthood.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

While I certainly support anyone who has quit smoking, these laws are not to make tobacco illegal but simply to protect those who don't smoke from those who do.
And IPY, this is another of my rare agreements with you. Good post.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

The new Tobacco Prohibition

I would like to take the time to tell the entire community about a falsehood so big that everyone who believes in freedom should be appauled.
This falsehood is so big it resonates from historical fact forward to this day. This falsehood is so big billions of dollars have been spent to make it believable to those of us who dont take the time to look up the facts.
We all remember reading about alcohol prohibition,but did you know there was also tobacco prohibition going on before alcohol became such a target of the last nanny staters.
Our great grandparents lived thru prohibition and the great depression,they also lived thru tobacco prohibition.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.

Now onto the falsehood......

We have been told for years by smoke free advocates that second hand smoke is the cause of everything from johnnys ear ache to cousin ED'S lung cancer. But wheres the proof!!!

Remember they claim 50,000 deaths a year yet,there are no bodys not even mass graves of the dead to second hand smoke.We await the names of these victims.

A simple stroll down historys road say 10 years or so and we start to get at the truth......

A federal Judge by the name of osteen got a case dropped in his lap in North Carolina,the case was that of EPA'S study on second hand smoke/environmental tobacco smoke.The judge an anti-tobbaco judge by reputation spent 4 years going thru the study and interviewing scientists at EPA and came to the conclusion :

JUNK SCIENCE

''EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen[cherry picked] for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase [a 1.19rr] of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.''



The EPA fought to have Osteen's decision overturned on technical grounds, ignoring the multitude of facts in the decision. They succeeded in 2002 on the narrowest of technicalities. The fourth circuit court of appeals ruled that because the report was not an official policy document Osteen's court did not have jurisdiction. In their appeal the EPA did not answer a single criticism in the 92 page report, nor challenge a single fact put forth by Judge Osteen. Not one.

Although the anti-smoker movement was already established, this report was used, and continues to be used, to bolster their claim that SHS is a killer.
http://knol.google.com/k/second-hand-smoke #

So here we find that second hand smoke was made a political scapegoat by EPA.Lets not forget how EPA has reworked the global warming studys just this last summer. Where its top scientists paper was rebuked because it didnt carry the EPA'S stand that global warming was real.

The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.

4 % is carbon monoxide.

6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).


Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

The last informative tid bit I have for you is what does OSHA have to say about all this secondhand smoke stuff.

Here is where it gets interesting,it seems John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) decided to sue OSHA to make a rule on shs/ets not that OSHA didnt want to play ball with him,its just that the scientific facts didnt back up a rule to start with.

Now for a rule to happen Osha has to send out for comments for a period of time and boy did the comments fly in, over 40,000 of them....Osha has whats called PEL'S and limits for an 8 hour period of exposure to chemicals in indoor environments...[epa is in charge of outdoor air]some smoke free groups have tried to use 30 minute air samples using epa monitoring to create a air borne healthscare.

The actual standard to use is OSHA'S

The EPA standard is to be used for OUTSIDE ambient air quality and it is the average over a period of 3 years.

The proper standard to compare to is the OSHA standard for indoor air quality for respirable particulate (not otherwise specified) for nuisance dusts and smoke. That standard is 5000 ug/m3 on a time-weighted average (8 hours a day, 5 days a week) and is intended to be protective of health over an average working life of 30 years!

This is where second hand smoke really becomes a joke,remember its nearly 90% water vapor and air.....now lets get to the facts of toxicology and dose makes the poison:

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

WHAT! DILUTED BELOW PERMISSABLE LEVELS

By the way ASH dropped their lawsuit because OSHA was going to make a rule and that rule would have been weak and been the law of the land,meaning no smoking bans would ever have been enacted anywhere,simply because an open window or a ventilation system would have covered the rule.


Let me also tell you that the relative risk for shs/ets by the SG report of 2006 was a 1.19 ''EPA study is whats used to call it a carcinogen''......milks is a 2.43 and that glass of chlorinated water your about to drink is a 1.25 yet these things aren't determined to be a carcinogen....The gold standard in epidemiology is a 3.0....Now had the SURGEON GENERAL included 2 other shs/ets studys the relative risk for disease from shs/ets would have been nearer a.60-.70 meaning it would have a protective effect against ever getting disease.

But,what each of us has is years and years of exposure and the knowledge that our kids all grew up around shs and generations of others,yet we are here alive not dead from a lousy 30 minute exposure to shs as stanton glantz tries to claim.....thats another story and its just as crazy as all the rest of smokefree's claim about shs/ets.

Oh! have you heard the one about ''laugh'' thirdhand smoke or third hand drinking.
Like I said their claims border beyond that of any reasonable persons commomsence.

The next time you see a healthscare claim
consider the source.Especially if it comes from a government or non profit agency!

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Yeah, Harleyrider, you dig around the the internet long enough and you will find someone to tell you what you desperately need to believe is true.
And since it's what you want to hear, it must be true, right?
The only scam is the nonsence you just posted.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId…


The Myth of Second Hand Smoke (ETS)

http://www.sexcigarsbooze.com/2010/04/the-…

BS Alert: The 'third-hand smoke' hoax

http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-l…...

The thirdhand smoke scam

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/20…

Thirdhand smoke fever - another example of prejudice and propaganda

http://www.thefreesociety.org/Issues/Smoki…...



This study appears to be wall to wall junk science. They seem to be most worried about "carcinogenic tobacco-specific nitrosamines or TSNAs..several hundred nanograms per square meter of nitrosamines" (1)

Guess where Nitrosamines are also formed? Cooking fish, where TSNAs are measured in microgrammes, but in the Berkeley paper nanogrammes a factor of a thousand times smaller. (2)

Nitrosamines are also found in ham, milk, children's balloons and tap water. (3)

Finally the World Health Organization's cancer mouthpiece the International Agency Research on Cancer says on Nitrosamines: "5.2 Human carcinogenicity data. No data were (sic) available to the Working Group." (4)

So we have a dose that is so low, cooking a fish produces 1,000 times more "carcinogens" on a chemical which has not been proven to cause cancer in the first place.

Junk science that insults the intelligence.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/feature-stories/…...

http://rms1.agsearch.agropedia.affrc.go.jp…...

http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/134/8/…

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/v…

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Talk about questionable and biased sites... At least one of these doctors is stupid enough to be a nicotine addict, I quit looking after the first site. Why would anybody listen to a nicotine addicted doctor?
Wonder how many of these people were paid to lie by the tobacco companies.
Contrary to some beliefs, there is also a rest of the world, and their scientific and medical bodies all say the same thing.
Secondhand smoke kills.
Guess this is somehow a worldwide conspiracy.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

’They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

http://www.leparisien.fr/abo-faitdujour/on…

http://www.tobacco.org/articles/country/fr…


What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?



PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.



It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...



I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.



Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?



They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!



The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?



Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.



Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?



The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.



Why not speak up earlier?



As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.



Le Parisien

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

He ( and you) are entitled to your opinions. However, both he and you are outnumbered about 100 to 1 by doctors and scientists that say that secondhand smoke kills.
Again, you are futilely searching the internet to find anybody who will say what you want them to.

You have also neglected to say why the US or any other governmet would lie about this. It's to the US government's benefit for smokers to work until social security age, and then die, as they tend to do.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Heres what the smoke free groups did to try and prove a connection to heart disease and second hand smoke....

The "30 minute" experiments that the statement is based on have nothing at all to do with the exposures one might get on a park bench sitting next to a smoker or even with what one would normally get in any decently ventilated bar or restaurant.

The exposures in the supportive experiments involve smoke concentrations at levels of 400% to 2,000% as high as what used to be measured in the middle of the smoking sections of pressurized airplanes!! (Which used to be held up as one of the worst smoking environments.)

The experiments take nonsmokers who avoid smoke in all their daily home, social, and working life, force them to sign papers

acknowledging the "danger" they are about to be put in, and then sealing them in smoke-choked chambers that nonsmokers would run screaming from if they weren't being paid $100 to endure 30 minutes for science. . . . When the poor souls come stumbling out blood test measurement show small changes that could theoretically relate to heart disease.

The changes are like ones other experimenters find when they feed subjects a bowl of corn flakes and milk.... but in the kooky world of antismoking research those results get twisted into representing an unusual and deadly threat.

And remember: they only get those results in EXTREME conditions, nothing like normal restaurant/park or even decent bar/casino exposures. . . . The Antismokers today are lying .
Antismoking extremism needs to be put to rest.

Cornflakes, White Bread Could Boost Heart Risk
'High-glycemic' carbs like these hamper blood vessel function, study shows.

THURSDAY, June 11 (HealthDay News) -- Eating a diet rich in carbohydrates that boost blood sugar levels -- foods such as cornflakes or white bread -- may hamper the functioning of your blood vessels and raise your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, a new study suggests.

http://www.healthfinder.gov/news/newsstory…...

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Yes...the 1992/93 EPA report on second hand smoke was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge's ruling doesn't stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.

Here's some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:

2006 Surgeon General's Report (excerpts)

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally.....

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/seco…...

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

A link, of course, that goes nowhere. For the full Surgeon General's report, it's: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/seco….

The statements Harleyrider refers to above do exist in this report, but as usual, he only shows the data that support his incorrect viewpoint. It's a long report, but if the truth about secondhand smoke is of interest to you, at least read the conclusions page. This one is of particular interest:

"Chapter 8. Cardiovascular Diseases from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
1. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and increased risks of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality among both men and women."

I thought maybe Harleyrider was simply misinformed of somewhat deluded, but the above post shows that he (or she!) is deliberately trying to mislead us, by intentionally digging up only data that supports his pro-tobacco viewpoint.
By doing so, Harleyrider has lost all credibility on this forum.

People are dying every day from exposure to secondhand smoke; and those who stand against laws that protect us from this poison share responsibility for those deaths.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Nobody has ever died of second hand smoke,NEVER!

I suppose since you believe such nonsence you could provide a few hundred names of the 50 thousand you wackos claim........SHS/ETS is an insignificant health threat to anyone including children....

smoking over the last 60 years smoking has more than halved (UK 1948 66% of the population, 2009 22.5%) but asthma has risen by 300% (again in the UK). So smoking is not the primary cause of asthma and atopy, I assume the doctor’s cars and industrial pollution. The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.

“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.

The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”

They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”

http://www.medwire-news.md/…/…gic_sensitization...

This is a Swedish study.

“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)

CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubm…pubmed/ 11422156

In conclusion let’s have a balanced debate and not characterise smokers as race akin to the devil.


There have been 34 studies into lung cancer and exposure to cigarette smoke as a child. 3 suggest a raised risk, nearly four times as many 11 suggest PROTECTION with 20 suggesting no raised or reduced risk. The most famous is the World Health Organization 1998 study which concluded:

"Results: ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (odds ratio [OR] for ever exposure = 0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.64–0.96)."

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Stanton glantz was the author of this part of the report and the 30 minute chamber exposure to shs/ets is what was given to the SG to make this claim,what the SG didnt quote was that within 30 minutes those changes DISAPEARED,the same happens at the moleculor dna level where any type of environmental exposure makes genetic changes to cell structures.The human body goes thru 15-20 thousand genetic changes a day and all are repaired within hours to a few days in cell regeneration.........this is to anything not just tobacco smoke,a camp fire, perfumes even just pollen in the air,exhaust gases even cooking in the home makes the same changes and disapear within minutes to hours......

Chapter 8. Cardiovascular Diseases from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
1. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and increased risks of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality among both men and women."

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

But keep in mind stanton glantz exposed these paid volunteers to nearly 2000 times the tobacco smoke they would normally be exposed to anywhere......Why do you suppose they did that, because they couldnt get anything to show up before they got to those levels and shs/ets is of suck low concentrations the only way tobacco control can even attempt to make claims is to keep pumping up the concentrations to unrealistic levels thousands of times more than anyone will ever be exposed to......

Thats why OSHA made this their official policy

According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........

They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.

They concluded that:

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes

For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

No credibility. Cut and paste all you want.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

"Nobody has ever died of second hand smoke,NEVER!"
The cause of death is usually listed as heart attack, but the cause is secondhand smoke.
Some of my relatives have already died from secondhand smoke exposure; their names, however, are none of your business.

Again, cut and paste all you want, you have no credibility.
And not worth any more of my time, Bye.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

I don't care that much about smoking bans as long as they leave a couple refuges. In case you're wondering, in Charleston they're the Smoking Lamp, Club Habana, and Torch.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

The cause of death is usually listed as heart attack, but the cause is secondhand smoke.
Some of my relatives have already died from secondhand smoke exposure; their names, however, are none of your business.


In your dreams...........

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Locals should know that "harleyrider1978" is a non-discriminating, worldwide spammer of tobacco PR disinformation. His mission is to take over message boards, hijacking them for his own purposes: to expand his reach and his ego, like a Hyde Park orator on steroids. Google him.

He's been kicked off plenty of boards, but still finds a few like the City Paper that aren't yet on to his antics.

I especially love the way his boilerplate always begins, "I would like to take the time to tell the entire community . . ." as if he's a member of the community, and how he's taking so much of his precious time--to post boilerplate(!)

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Just to debunk a few of harleyrider1978's disinformation:

--An Acting Secretary's letter to a citizen is NOT official OSHA policy, but even so, Harleyrider truncates Watchman's letter, neglecting the crucial, "The more central concern of the Agency is that synergism of the chemicals in tobacco smoke may lead to adverse health effects even though the PELs are often not exceeded."

Harley had best avoid any mention of OSHA at all. Because OFFICIALLY, OSHA directs people for guidance on secondhand smoke issues to that very 1993 EPA report harleyrider tries so hard to trash .


--Littlewood & Fennell call their research, "a labor of our love." I guess you don't need a degree or an education or anything for love, but usually you do for, you know, science. Did these two even graduate high school? You can't tell from reading their "study." You can't even find out what Littlewood's first name is(!)

The authors don't claim to be scientists of any kind, and they seem to run a -- well, I don't know what it is, but they call it "Independent Public & Health Policy Research." It MUST be independent--why, it even says so in the title!

This weird entity is apparently run out of L/F's home in suburban Austin, and were it an actual business it may well be in violation of Austin's residential zoning codes--but I suspect it's nothing of the sort.

It seems to me that "Independent Public & Health Policy Research" has been set up for no purpose other than trying to contravene the science on secondhand smoke. No one's heard of them before or since.

But it's sterling science, as far as harley's concerned, worth decades of peer-reviewed research by real scientists and the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community--because it fits his prejudice.


----PM venue-shopped to find an ex-tobacco-lobbyist judge in tobacco country to parrot their briefs. PM has legions of the most highly paid (over $1,000/hour) lawyers in the world; they knew they had no business bringing the suit in the first place--but they wanted fodder for dupes like harleyrider1978 to regurgitate.

Funny that neither Osteen nor the brightest tobacco lawyers in the country didn't know from the git-go that Osteen had NO BUSINESS WHATSOEVER dealing with this matter in his court. This is like bringing in your complex financial regulatory suit to Dear Abby. And Abby, instead of saying, "This doesn't belong here," actually hears the case--and, in her verdict, parrots your arguments verbatim.

Osteen's decision was swiftly tossed out on appeal. But Osteen had functioned as PM planned, delivering a judgment noted for its "judicial plagiarism," ie, it just copied PM's briefs.

Yet, despite harleyrider1978's extreme claims, PM never appealed--and PM is famous for its appeals--nor has it filed any similar suit. It's been over a decade since of smoking bans referencing the EPA and other reports. Localities, states and entire countries have instituted bans based on the EPA report, OSHA refers people to the report for guidance on ETS, and science has confirmed and advanced the report's findings, which remain solid to this day.

Funny, if all these studies were as rotten as our anonymous internet "expert" harleyrider1978 says, why no more suits?

Even PM knew better than to bring up Osteen's decision in ANY subsequent action in any court in the land.

In fact, in 2005, after hearing 6 years of the best Tobacco could muster, Federal Judge, Gladys Kessler, found, in a decision recently upheld by the conservative DC Circuit:

"Evidence of the health risks of passive smoking is derived from many sources. It comes from knowledge of the health risks of active smoking, the carcinogenicity and toxicity of the components in mainstream and sidestream smoke, the evidence that nonsmokers absorb the disease-causing components of tobacco smoke, and epidemiological studies that have assessed the association of passive exposure to tobacco smoke with disease outcomes."

http://coop.dcd.uscourts.gov/99-2496-08200…

Gee, why didn't those legions of Tobacco lawyers from every major tobacco co. in the nation bring in the vaunted Osteen decision?

Maybe they should've consulted with the famed brilliant scientist harleyrider1978?

--Unfortunately for harleyrider and his cherry-picking disinformation campaign, the truth about what the 2006 Surgeon General's report _did find_ is easily accessed at http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/seco…. I'm glad he brought it up, and finds it so trustworthy he cites some of its determinations here. But he didn't complete the job; here, harleyrider, I'll help:


--The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke after birth and a lower level of lung function during childhood.

--The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers.

--The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.

--The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and increased risks of coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality among both men and women.

--Pooled relative risks from meta-analyses indicate a 25 to 30 percent increase in the risk of coronary heart disease from exposure to secondhand smoke.

--Evidence from peer-reviewed studies shows that smoke-free policies and regulations do not have an adverse economic impact on the hospitality industry.

--Exposures of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke cannot be controlled by air cleaning or mechanical air exchange.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/seco…


It seems to me that the SGR, by listing what it found and what it didn't, struck a good _balance_.

This is what scientists do.

Spammers, however, just cherry-pick, and pretend that's all there is.

Hope this helps everyone recognize harley's BS when they run across it again here--or anywhere else in the world.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike

Oh for heaven's sake, stop whining. In Canada, bars and restaurants and public outdoor patios have been smoke free for ages. They are still crowded with people. Towns and cities all over are now beginning to make public parks smoke free as well as public squares and gathering places.

Everyone is used to it and nobody questions it. If you want to smoke in your own home or in your own car, go ahead. Just don't force someone else to breathe your second hand smoke. And while you are at it, don't pee in the swimming pool, either.

report 0 of 0 people like this.   like  dislike