Comments on: Student group lights up discussion on tobacco ban

By: Francis

Francis — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:00:59 +0000

The health hazards are irrelevant. The point is that smokers discharge stinking wastes from their bodies. In private let them do what they like, but in public where others are impacted by the sight and smell, cigarette smoking is disgusting.
.
Bodily wastes from the body’s north end are no more desired by others than bodily wastes from the south end. The real argument against cigarette addiction is just that it is dirty and rude.
.
Those who want to argue about how “harmless” waste smoke from their face is may as well also argue how harmless waste gas from their rectum is – after all, nobody has died from the stink. But whether or not it is toxic, people have the right to tell f@rters and smokers to go away and do whatever they must do, in private. The rest of us just don’t want them around us.

By: Michael J. McFadden

Michael J. McFadden — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:56:51 +0000

I’m glad to see students and professors actually taking the debate seriously and looking beyond the soundbites from the antismoking advocates. Let me recommend a couple of online readings to start: Read the COMMENTS at:

http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html

to see how the Antismokers lie with statistics and WHY they lie. {Hint: millions in grant money}

See:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/09/iceland-smoking-banheart-attack-study.html

for an example of the heart attack studies used to build up that “Big New Study” you’ve been hearing about in the news. And see “Independently Confirmed?” at:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1#125618

to see how contradictory data actually got erased from the internet and had to be retrieved by an archival engine.

If any professor is thinking of devoting part of a course on social movements, the psychology of groups, propaganda analysis, medical ethics, or other such studies as relate to the question of smoking bans and the antismoking movement, I invite them to email me at Cantiloper over on the AOL system and I’ll be happy to recommend further readings (and no, not just my book.)

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

By: snowbird

snowbird — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:26:38 +0000

Smoke from tobacco in a decently ventilated venue is a statistically insignificant health risk.

By: repealthebans

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 23:07:42 +0000

Wednesday, March 12, 2008
British Medical Journal & WHO conclude secondhand smoke “health hazard” claims are greatly exaggerated

The BMJ published report at:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

concludes that “The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer are considerably weaker than generally believed.”

What makes this study so significant is that it took place over a 39 year period, and studied the results of non-smokers who lived with smokers….. meaning these non-smokers were exposed to secondhand smoke up to 24 hours per day; 365 days per year for 39 years. And there was still no relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality.

In light of the damage to business, jobs, and the economy from smoking bans the BMJ report should be revisited by lawmakers as a reference tool and justification to repeal the now unnecessary and very damaging smoking ban laws.

Also significant is the World Health Organization (WHO) study:

Passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer-official
By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

” The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: ‘There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood.’ ”

And if lawmakers need additional real world data to further highlight the need to eliminate these onerous and arbitrary laws, air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University proves that secondhand smoke is up to 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

The Chemistry of Secondary Smoke
About 94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a slight excess of carbon dioxide. Another 3 % is carbon monoxide. The last 3 % contains the rest of the 4,000 or so chemicals supposedly to be found in smoke… but found, obviously, in very small quantities if at all.This is because most of the assumed chemicals have never actually been found in secondhand smoke. (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

Most of these chemicals can only be found in quantities measured in nanograms, picograms and femtograms. Many cannot even be detected in these amounts: their presence is simply theorized rather than measured. To bring those quantities into a real world perspective, take a saltshaker and shake out a few grains of salt. A single grain of that salt will weigh in the ballpark of 100 million picograms! (Allen Blackman. Chemistry Magazine 10/08/01).

- (Excerpted from “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” with permission of the author.)

The Myth of the Smoking Ban ‘Miracle’
Restrictions on smoking around the world are claimed to have had a dramatic effect on heart attack rates. It’s not true. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

“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