High Quality Arguments From Smoking Ban Opponents

Share With Friends
  

Hoisted from the comments:

You need to stop reading so much put out by the industry that began all the propaganda for their own profits. Follow the money and stop the nonsense before they go into the razor blade business and make bald heads mandatory with their ‘paid for’ science using their grants!

Hmm I am not sure which industry stands to profit from indoor smoking bans. The Public Health Industrial Complex?

This entry was posted in Health.

42 Responses to High Quality Arguments From Smoking Ban Opponents

  1. Karel Minor says:

    You know, Jon, Hitler was a real smart ass too. In addition to hating smokers.

  2. harleyrider1778 says:

    Hmm I am not sure which industry stands to profit from indoor smoking bans. The Public Health Industrial Complex?

    Only a moron couldnt see it! Smoking bans are in fact rent seeking legislation and guess how many statewide bans bought over 100 million dollars worth of NRT drugs when they passed their bans!
    NRT nicotine replacement therapy drugs. Guess who runs the nationwide QUIT LINES,The ACS and they in fact contract it out for what they dont run themselves and make millions a year doing it!

    The New Corporate America Business Model

    The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was created by the founder of Johnson & Johnson with over ten million shares of Johnson and Johnson (JnJ stock)[i]. In 1972, it was established as a national foundation worth $1.2 billion [ii]. In 2009, the Foundation’s investment portfolio increased $1 billion to $8,379,808,000[iii]. RWJF’s mission today: to help society transform itself for the better. Noble sounding, until you delve into the fact that it’s what RWJF considers “for the better”, foregoing what we want for ourselves or for society. The horrifying truth is RWJF profits from what it wants for society.

    The RWJF Anthology “Taking on Tobacco: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Assault on Smoking” publication [iv] outlines how they gave $99 million in grants to fund coalitions “housed in organizations” such as the American Cancer Society (ACS), American Lung Association (ALA) and American Heart Association (AHA). This publication outlines all the organizations who received over $446 million in grants just through January, 2008. In the beginning, grants were given to organizations to promote tobacco education. Once organizations were used to receiving funding, if they did not move on to tobacco “control”, their funding was cut off. The Foundation makes it perfectly clear in their publications that as a Foundation, their grant money cannot be used for lobbying. However, to quote Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman, that’s just geography. It’s just moving money from point A to point B while accomplishing lobbying, with smoking cessation as RWJF’s ultimate goal. Over $99,000 in grant money was invested in Evaluating an Innovative Communications Campaign Designed to Increase Consumer Demand for Tobacco Dependence Treatment by Medicaid Recipients [v]. Nearly $97,000 in grant money was invested for Individual and Policy Level Influences on the Use of Various Cessation Strategies and Abstinence from Cigarettes Among Adult Smokers [vi].

    RWJF points out repeatedly that coalition building is the key. Here are but a few.

    O The Center for Disease Control has received grant money from RWJF [vii].

    o RWJF provides funding to TFK for polls used to influence lawmakers, such as an Ohio poll [viii] on raising cigarette taxes.

    o RWJF is a major funder of the Tobacco Control Legal Consortium [ix] who helps works with communities with tobacco law-related issues such as smoke-free policies (smoking bans) and tobacco control funding laws.

    o Steven Schroeder, former CEO of RWJF, returned to the University of California, San Francisco, with a $10 million RWJF grant for the Smoking Cessation Leadership Center[x].

    o GSK, marketer of Nicorette, Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, is quoted in this article as applauding two organizations for their efforts to improve the regulation of smoking cessation aides. The two organizations, Association for the Treatment of Tobacco Use and Dependence (ATTUD) and the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco (SNRT) both urged the FDA to adopt more flexible regulatory approaches to expand access to and the use of NRT products. ATTUD’s FDA petition drive [xi] was funded, in part, by RWJF. SNRT is funded [xii], in part, by RWJF, Johnson & Johnson, Glaxo Smith Kline, and McNeil.

    o Professor Stanton Glantz, University of California, San Francisco, received grants over $1,071,000 to create Tobacco Scam to claim smoking bans don’t hurt the Hospitality Industry. It’s been proven that most bars are hurt by smoking bans, but Glantz combines restaurants with bars (restaurants outnumber bars 5:1 while restaurant employees outnumber bar employees 10:1). (RWJF Grants 52810 and 36173). Glantz’ job? To say it’s all a Big Tobacco lie and that’s what his website claims [xiii].

    http://forces.org/News_Portal/news_viewer.php?id=2303

  3. harleyrider1778 says:

    Jon theres a ton more evidence than whats listed in that story!

  4. Billy says:

    Something scary to think about when it comes to private property rights is how cheaply they can be taken away with!
    “She said $1,000 grants are available to jurisdictions that pass tobacco-free ordinances. The grants can be used for such costs as putting up signs and communications with residents.”
    Will $1000 buy a ban on gun ownership under in the name of Public Health?
    Could a persons ability to lease their land for Oil and Gas be taken away by the anti frackers for $1000?
    How about banning overweight people from public display as it might give the impression of seeing overweight people as social acceptance.

    http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/20120725/COMMUNITIES02/207260314/Outdoor-smoking-ban-proposed-Granville
    Which means if I privately own a bar and want to allow my customers to smoke outside on my own patio that business decision upon the use of my private property was just taken away for $1000! Grrr
    Could a persons ability to lease their land for Oil and Gas be taken away by the anti frackers for $1000?
    Whats the cost of freedom your so anxious to do away with?

  5. CarolT says:

    The anti-smokers commit flagrant scientific fraud by ignoring more than 50 studies which show that human papillomaviruses cause at least 1/4 of non-small cell lung cancers. Smokers and passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus for socioeconomic reasons. And the anti-smokers’ studies are all based on lifestyle questionnaires, so they’re cynically DESIGNED to blame tobacco for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV. And they commit the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on tobacco.

    http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm
    http://www.smokershistory.com/SGHDlies.html

    And, all their so-called “independent” reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he’s now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That’s how they make their reports “unanimous!”

    http://www.smokershistory.com/Samet.htm

    For the government to commit fraud to deprive us of our liberties is automatically a violation of our Constitutional rights to the equal protection of the laws, just as much as if it purposely threw innocent people in prison. And for the government to spread lies about phony smoking dangers is terrorism, no different from calling in phony bomb threats.

  6. Jon said, ” I am not sure which industry stands to profit from indoor smoking bans. The Public Health Industrial Complex?” Big Pharma of course, namely the RWJF. They have even been known to fund a little astroturf pretending to be grass roots efforts.
    href=”http://tavernsclearing.blogspot.com/2011/08/who-is-taverns-clearing-air.html”

    • Jon says:

      But how would Big Pharma benefit if fewer people get sick from smoking…

      • Obviously you didn’t follow or read the link. They profit from selling their smoking cessation products (Which don’t work causing you to try and try again)
        http://tavernsclearing.blogspot.com/2011/08/who-is-taverns-clearing-air.html

      • harleyrider1778 says:

        First thing Jon is you have to PROVE people get sick from smoking!

        This may destroy your beliefs in medical science especially tobacco control junk science:

        NOW TAKE THE TIME TO READ THIS:

        JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
        7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
        November 2004.

        http://cot.food.gov.
        uk/pdfs/cotstatement
        tobacco0409

        “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

        In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

        The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

        Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.

        • Jon says:

          I’m not going to get drawn into a debate over whether smoking causes cancer. What I know is that almost every doctor in America is persuaded that it does. It’s not always true that professional consensus means contrarians are wrong, but in this case, it seems extremely likely to me that the professional consensus is correct and that you are hawking a crank view. It also seems likely to me that your strategy of trying to muddy the waters, and pretend there’s not a consensus on this, is the same strategy that the tobacco companies have been using since the 50’s to ward off regulation of tobacco products. You don’t need to disprove the consensus, you just need to make enough rightwingers and smokers doubt it to hamstring any policy action.

          Even without the health issue, there’s a strong utilitarian argument for banning indoor smoking: it is less of an inconvenience for a handful of smokers to go outside, than for the nonsmoking majority to have to breathe smoke. In absolute terms, it affects very few people, and it’s just not a serious inconvenience for people to go outside.

          • Ah yes Jon, the old apeal to athority. Too mad the scientific McCarthyism within the tobacco control movement is well documented by credible former members like Dr Michael Siegel, who was a tobacco control trainer and worked at the CDC.
            http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2007/10/more-on-my-epidemiologic-perspectives.html?m=1

          • harleyrider1778 says:

            Jon even the CDC is starting to come around and state smoking might set the cancer process in motion just because its never ever been proven. The point here is theyve made the claim for nearly 100 years and yet NO PROOF to anything. Concencus its a falacy created by duping folks with propaganda for decades. Dont feel alone when I discovered they actually had no proof I like to shit! The entire tobacco control movement is the same way,all a sham from the git go!

      • harleyrider1778 says:

        Jon this may destroy your beliefs in medical science but they have never proven one claim in regards to tobacco and disease,NEVER!

        Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors – of which smoking can be one.

        • harleyrider1778 says:

          JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
          7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
          November 2004.

          http://cot.food.gov.
          uk/pdfs/cotstatement
          tobacco0409

          “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

          In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

          The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

      • MattZuke says:

        “But how would Big Pharma benefit if fewer people get sick from smoking…”

        They wouldn’t, however methods they promote are only about 7% effective at test, with the nicotine patch under 3% in 12 week programs after 24 months, and according to Tobacco Free Florida, it takes 7-11 times to quit smoking. Roughly 50% smokers die smoking, with no decline in the number of smokers for roughly 10 years.

        If you actually review the data, you’ll notice in the past 10 years the CDC claims no decline in second hand smoking fatalities despite increased aggressive smoking bans. This would suggest that either second hand smoke isn’t as dangerous as claimed, or the statistics are not valid. The claim is also to protect children from the image of smoking, by making smokers more viable on the street by children. How does this reduce teen smoking? Well it doesn’t obviously.

        So smoker on the street looks as cool as Joe Camel, gets pressured into NOT trying to quit cold turkey and gets shoved into 12 week NRP programs, which are not effective, and relapses to smoking, 7-11 times. Teens continue to rebel by smoking, and roughly 75% become habitual users, smoking outside, and the cycle continues.

  7. Kevin says:

    It is entirely illogical that grown adults, in the face of news anchors, who only represent the face of large corporate advertising agencies, are not tremendously enraged to a point of demanding corrective action. The talking heads stand there giving you advice on menial life issues, that only invoke common sense as though they were talking to a six year old, especially when talking about health issues. Essentially dispensing medical advice to suit what they are selling, by wide-brush medicine. A practice outlawed by the Nuremberg trials when Doctors were hanged for good reason and the eventual Helsinki declaration entombing your parental and personal autonomy rights which are under direct assault today. Yet there it is, as normal and unimportant as it can be. The defining quality of an infomercial is the Bubble head being taught by a much more respected and informed expert, bestowing intelligent and insightful reasoning, in acquiring what ever product is being shilled. When they do it in the news reports, just as they used to sell cigarettes to kids with cartoons smoking, in these same agencies, the local anchor becomes the bubble head, wide eyed with amazement,equally as thrilled as though they were being sold a vacuum cleaner or a series of oldies tunes. However the risk and dangers incorporated by this influence over communities of purchased advertisements, presented deceptively as the news, holds is substantial sway. Any small change seen in a large population is a considerable effect. They don’t pay millions for 30 second spots during the super-bowl or pay sports figures 10s of millions for endorsement contracts because they are running a risk. The stats tell them what they get for their promotions with incredible accuracy and that is a measure of profit, in very large proportions, or you would never see these type of advertisements, much less see them in such large quantities that they have to struggle to avoid them. Subliminal ads were outlawed because of their covert nature. The same in your face ads that you can’t avoid, have the same effect on your psyche beyond your ability to recognize those influences.

    When we base laws in sock puppet organizations, using your own money as Government hires , in process they create divisions within communities, as part of that plan. When the Government continues the charade be it environmentalism or second hand smoke, siding with their own hires while allowing them, and in most cases allowing no opponents voices, to dominate Public inquiries. Providing the Government an opportunity to act as a disinterested third party, innocently resolving the issue as a parental moderator will, by the only means available, most times from a list of all possible solutions offered by their own hires[while pretending not to realize that less intrusive means are available] What we are witnessing is organized crime and large scale fraud. An abuse of office that should be prosecuted as criminal acts against a nation, with no parliamentary privileges to afford immunity. A crime perpetrated by elected Governments, ruled by their own coercive bureaucracies, whom survive all elections, in league with United nations agencies and in particular Public Health agencies, which are corrupted to the core, over many years of immunity from prosecutions, it is a state of chaos with no rules and no boundaries, wrought with nepotism and industrial influence, with no road to reforms or a criminal cleanup in sight. Preaching new moral awakenings demanding change right in our children’s class rooms no less, in the same fashion Hitler [“Your politics are not important, you see, I have your children”] and any other dictator pump up their legal rights through “protecting” the public. As a nanny state, or more properly a totalitarian paternalist state, who denies your competence as an adult. Or your ability to make sound judgements on your own. Making all lifestyle and medical judgements the Governments sole right to make.

    When people by their ignorance in these matters, cheer for removing the rights of others they fail to understand the value of personal rights the most expensive asset you will ever own, our sole authority over governments [not each other] Any right ceded to Government, is a right we all loose for all time. When ad agency shills in lab coats talk up the value of giving away those rights, they are violating us all. People need to understand there should always be a price for those crimes, even if it is only lost profits by boycotting everything they sell. The same should apply to Doctors and researchers who act as prostitutes and fluffers. Make them pay dearly, for the immense damages they have done to us all.

    Before the box cars start to roll for a change.

    • Jon says:

      I..don’t detect a point in here.

      • How’s this for a point. The junk science behind the smoking ban has been perpetrated by the same activist in scientific clothing that got caught faking the 1992 EPA report using exactly the same questionable methodology and admit as much on page 21 of the 2006 Surgeon Generals Report.
        http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.com/2011/06/20/meta-analysis-science-or-a-tool-for-advocacy/

        • Jon says:

          Inhaling less smoke means less cancer risk. The science is sound dude! I don’t see how you can deny this..

          • Jon you suffer from the same delusion as all the other Kool-aid drinkers. That is the BS that there is no safe level of tobacco smoke. Of course that ignores the first rule of toxicology ” Dose makes the poison.”

            “All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison….” Paracelsus (1493-1541)
            http://learn.caim.yale.edu/chemsafe/references/dose.html

            All substances are toxic including those essential for life, don’t believe me? Look at water.
            http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5460584-504083.html

            For more on the no safe level BS!
            http://amlibpub.blogspot.com/2008_01_01_archive.html

          • harleyrider1778 says:

            OSHA / NIOSH RESEARCH

            In 1991 NIOSH { OSHA’ research group} Looked into ETS although at the time they recommended reducing ETS exposure they found the studies lacking.

            NIOSH recognizes that these recent epidemiological studies have several shortcomings: lack of objective measures for charachterizing and quantifying exposures,failures to adjust for all confounding variables,potential misclassification of ex-smokers as non-smokers,unavailability of comparison groups that have not been exposed to ETS, and low statistical power.

            Research is needed to investigate the following issues:

            1. More acurate quantification of the increased risk of lung cancer associated with ETS exposure,including determination of other contributing factors[e.g.,occupational exposures]that may accentuate the risk.

            2.Determination of the concentration and distributuion of ETS components in the workplace to help quantify the risk for the U.S. working population.

            a.The association of ETS exposure with cancer other than lung cancer
            b.The relationship between ETS exposure and cardiovascular disease
            c.The relationship between ETS exposure and nonmalignant resporatory diseases such asthma,bronchitis and emphysema, and
            the effects of ETS on lung function and respiratory systems
            c. Possible mechanisms of ETS damage to the cardiovascular system,such as platelet aggravation,increased COHb leading to oxygen depravation,or damage to endothelium
            d.Effects of workplace smoking restrictions on the ETS exposure of nonsmokersand ETS-related health effects in nonsmokers

            After ten years of no conclusive research and lack of studies that didn’t eliminate the bias OSHA decided that the studies did not have substance and here is there present policy.

            Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

            Because the organic material in tobacco doesn’t burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

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

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

            If you actually read the surgeon generals report it used mostly “The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship” and even then if you read page 21 they admit that the use of meta-analysis on observational questionaire studies is not a widely accepted and controversial practice and yet they do it anyway.

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

          • harleyrider1778 says:

            Jon have you ever actually looked at the chemistry of second hand smoke;

            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 quickly 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).

      • Karel Minor says:

        Uh, I was kidding. And the despite what Linda says, the only people being compared to Nazis (in a serious fashion as opposed to my jesting comparison above) here are apparently Jon and I.

        • Well I guess giving the fact that the two of you promote stripping property owners the right to use a legal product on their own property or allow their guests to do the same only to satisfy your personal desires it’s understandable.

        • harleyrider1778 says:

          Heres the Historical significance of the Nazi comparison with smokefree pundits and advocates:

          “The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
          (Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler; 1943 interpretation)

          Hitler’s Anti-Tobacco Campaign

          One particularly vile individual, Karl Astel — upstanding president of Jena University, poisonous anti-Semite, euthanasia fanatic, SS officer, war criminal and tobacco-free Germany enthusiast — liked to walk up to smokers and tear cigarettes from their unsuspecting mouths. (He committed suicide when the war ended, more through disappointment than fear of hanging.) It comes as little surprise to discover that the phrase “passive smoking” (Passivrauchen) was coined not by contemporary American admen, but by Fritz Lickint, the author of the magisterial 1100-page Tabak und Organismus (“Tobacco and the Organism”), which was produced in collaboration with the German AntiTobacco League.

          http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/id1.html

        • CarolT says:

          Anti-smokers use the same pseudo-science the Nazis did: Lifestyle questionnaires that ignore the role of infection, which falsely blame lifestyles of poorer people because they’re more likely to have been exposed to the pathogens that cause cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. In the last three decades there has been much research revealing the role of infection. The Nazis could hide behind the excuse of ignorance, but your ilk CANNOT.

          http://www.smokershistory.com/percent.htm

          You also believe in their totalitarian ideology that the individual is the property of the state and has no rights which it is bound to respect. Your media deliberately spread Big Lies and ruthlessly censor the truth.

      • Kevin says:

        “I..don’t detect a point in here.”

        The evidence shows that leftover smoke as a health risk is more a matter of invention, than science which requires no promotion.

        A “DANGER” PROMOTED FROM AN EXTREME LIFETIME EXTENSION OF “RISK”. Real only by promoted baffle-gab and irresponsible fear mongering, with a stated intent to divide communities, that should be one point.

        Originating from a medical community without debate of what should be entirely controversial in it’s embarrassing low levels of statistical significance, should be a point as well.

        The main point is that anyone who believes that leftover tobacco smoke could seriously affect your long term health or significantly increase your risk of disease, is a victim of a drug company fraud. As proof you only need to turn to observations of the baby boom generation who were exposed at levels easily quadruple those seen today. Yet they grew to be the most healthy long lived generation to walk the planet, ever. So with less exposures, your health risks today are estimated to surpass those of generations gone by, in the realm of sixfold increases over previous observations, even with a “no safe level” standard? Believe what you will, however what is being promoted today expands the boundaries of credibility even farther than they expanded the truth, in promotions of “reefer madness”. It is fun to see how that “Public Health Campaign” worked out today. Not so much for the thousands who did serious prison time, for personal weight possessions, last time the prohibitionists were given credibility on the soap box.

        That is where the evidence goes, in spite of the corruptions of process which go deliberately elsewhere.

        The emperor has no clothes.

        • Jon says:

          Call 20 doctors at random in the phone book right now and tell me which percentage agree with you.

          • Kevin says:

            It would be much easier to produce a body killed by second hand smoke. Many of the experts have been asked on numerous occasions and not one body has been produced to date. So with thousands dead and dying, where are they hiding them? And why would they when they would make such excellent medical porn, props when displayed on the front page or on cigarette packages?

            No need to call any of them, what they will tell you should be obvious by now, they are all controlled in what they can and can not discuss in public, and none will agree because they are not allowed to agree, otherwise they face extreme penalties which could be career ending.

            Ask James Enstrom if he agrees and he will tell you, not only does he agree he can show you scientific proof this is a bandwagon campaign, driven by advantages and self service and never unbiased observations and legitimate sciences.

            http://www.linkedin.com/pub/james-enstrom/10/530/59

            The fact that researchers are challenged personally with no discussion of the research to determine it’s validity by reasoned debate, attacked only for revealing what they find, is a whole nasty kettle of fish in itself.
            Nothing new here even the talking points date back in some cases hundreds of years with most going back to 1930s Germany.

            Just some very old mistakes that no one learned from.

          • Kevin says:

            Pick 20 Doctors at random from the phone book and picture them naked. That would be a very nasty thought, because it provides way too much information.

            Now consider why you deem them so credible as experts; in family relations and financial choices, even the economics of someone else’s bar and all the things you define today on your own, without assistance.

            As just other people, who should have the power to run your life, and the rest of us, in spite of your opinion or mine never mind, their more than obvious lack of qualifications.

            So is it right to afford them those same powers, if they work for large corporations and promise to produce profits for those corporations, in exchange for a very generous reward for their efforts?

            The World Health Organization attracts stakeholder partners, by describing you as “human capitol” Actually calculating the returns on investments, for involvement in those potential partnerships. Then they have the unmitigated Gaul to publicize the numbers openly on their website.

            With little to fear from you or me.

          • CarolT says:

            Your beloved report on ETS wasn’t even written by real EPA scientists, who were against calling secondhand smoke a human carcinogen. It was written by handpicked anti-smoking activists, using illegal pass-through contracts. And on the board of directors of the crooked EPA contracting firm, ICF, sat President George H.W. Bush’s campaign manager, Fred Malek, along with a prominent Democrat.

            http://www.smokershistory.com/etslies.htm

            And, all their so-called “independent” reports were ring-led by the same guy, Jonathan M. Samet, including the Surgeon General Reports, the EPA report, the IARC report, and the ASHRAE report, and he’s now the chairman of the FDA Committee on Tobacco. He and his politically privileged clique exclude all the REAL scientists from their echo chamber. That’s how they make their reports “unanimous!” Now, tell me how many of those doctors whose opinion you think we’re supposed to respect even know about these things. As long as they don’t know, it is irrelevant how many ignorant, clueless and/or malice-ridden quacks you trot out.

  8. harleyrider1778 says:

    Friday, July 27, 2012
    Pharmaceutical Nicotine and Chantix: 93% Failure Rate Reconfirmed

    A study published in the European Journal of Internal Medicine indicates that pharmaceutical nicotine and Chantix (varenicline) had 93% failure rates at two inner city academic health center clinics with predominantly Medicaid patients (abstract here).

    http://rodutobaccotruth.blogspot.com/2012/07/pharmaceutical-nicotine-and-chantix-93.html

    • Kevin says:

      The general consensus among even the tightly controlled “experts” points to a 12% success rate among smokers who quit without
      “Medical treatments” or “interventions”

      So how do you pass off snake oil that doesn’t even work as a placebo treatment, as a “medical treatment” recommended to Doctors internationally as the correct way to treat smoking. A product that keeps people smoking who want to quit, more than 90% of the time?

      Only with a slick advertising campaign designed to deceive the public one that does obvious harms by misinformation, yet is ignored because those responsible are members of a very well connected social club. A group of stakeholders that finances election campaigns, exert pressured silence over media groups and the medical community. Or sell their wares with payoffs that keep the most highly addictive drugs flowing to people in pain, until they become addicted to them. The drug dealers in lab coats make billions, by promoting the more popular street drugs with first class accommodations and social ego stroking conventions, which convince Doctors that it is sometimes fine to do harm as long as the consensus agree.

      Tell me how on earth this is consistent with the special interest or government claims that they would like to see people quit and thus put each other out of a very well paying career?

      Guns don’t kill people and cigarettes don’t light themselves, so to describe an “anti-smoking” group the way they prefer to be seen, is foolish at best this is promoted hatred and stereotype building bigotry, designed to divide communities.

      IMPOSED BY ANTI-SMOKER EXTREMISTS.

      • harleyrider1778 says:

        1905: POLITICS: Indiana legislature bribery attempt is exposed, leading to passage of total cigarette ban
        In 1905, a clumsy attempt at bribery virtually forced the Indiana legislature into prohibiting cigarettes. The measure had been passed by the Senate with the intention of embarrassing certain reform leaders in the House; the House as a whole was expected to hoot it down. However, right before the vote, Representative Ananias Baker dramatically held aloft a sealed envelope and announced that it had been given to him by a lobbyist from the Tobacco Trust, with instructions to vote against the bill, He opened it with a flourish: five $20 bills dropped out.

  9. Dave K says:

    As long as it’s legal to smoke, it should be legal to secondhand smoke. Nobody on either side of this issue has ever seen a smoker dragging a nonsmoker, kicking and screaming, into a venue where smoking is allowed. Of course, my main point is– therefore, bans protect no one who needs protection, and thus, are useless legislation.

    And don’t anyone give me BS of how nonsmoking workers are afraid to complain because they might lose their jobs— BECAUSE when bans pass, they DO lose their jobs. I have personally studied the economic effects using U.S. Department of Commerce data, and in every instance, states with bans do worse, than states without bans.

  10. Dave K says:

    I need to add that recently the state of Nevada took a leadership role, in recognizing just how seriously bans hurt sales in bars and restaurants, and took legislative action last year to substantially weaken it’s state-wide ban. BTW, it is very common for states to exempt bars from state-wide bans, and PA should be no different.

    Lastly, if one does the math, the expected 20% income loss, if PA extends it’s ban to cover all bars, will cause about 8 times more life expectancy loss, than antismoking groups claim are caused by secondhand smoke among the workers. and no data has ever been presented claiming occasional exposure to customers shortens their lifespans.

  11. Kevin says:

    Beyond the constitution “Crimes Against Humanity” laws encase exactly this kind of activity. Justified by it’s supporters as a campaign against Big Tobacco or the use of tobacco in general, when in fact the target is smokers, in every conceivable way, persecuted as part of a negative Government policy.

    -Smokers qualify as a class or identifiable group in law because they can readily be identified by a single word “smoker”

    -You can not launch a campaign against tobacco, because tobacco does not light itself.

    -You can not aid a campaign against the tobacco industry with smoking bans and cigarette taxes paid by others. Without distinguishing your deceptive language.

    -So in no conceivable way do you justify the public funding expenditures, invested in Tobacco Control the organization, and numerous financially conflicted government hires, paid to make smokers as uncomfortable as possible “in order to force them to quit” [See Extortion] without recognizing; that ongoing act, is an attack on human dignity that denies individual autonomy rights afforded all human persons, regardless of your own or their, personal, moral or religious beliefs.

    -Neither can you bemoan all the children and innocent bystanders who don’t smoke, who, according only to statistics, are “killed by smoking”, without accusing smokers of a heinous crime, while never affording each and every one of them the right to defend themselves against such serious charges, brought by wide-brush, through the Public Health diocese or Eugenics religious beliefs.
    Again tobacco does not light itself.

    Tobacco Control in spite of the many protests to the contrary is an act of Hatred, unprovoked aggression and violence against otherwise absolutely innocent people, who have every right under the law, to the protections provided by a presumption of innocence, until proven otherwise.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

    “are particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. However, murder, extermination, torture, rape, political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of meriting the stigma attaching to the category of crimes under discussion. On the other hand, an individual may be guilty of crimes against humanity even if he perpetrates one or two of the offenses mentioned above, or engages in one such offense against only a few civilians, provided those offenses are part of a consistent pattern of misbehavior by a number of persons linked to that offender (for example, because they engage in armed action on the same side or because they are parties to a common plan or for any similar reason.) Consequently when one or more individuals are not accused of planning or carrying out a policy of inhumanity, but simply of perpetrating specific atrocities or vicious acts, in order to determine whether the necessary threshold is met one should use the following test: one ought to look at these atrocities or acts in their context and verify whether they may be regarded as part of an overall policy or a consistent pattern of an inhumanity, or whether they instead constitute isolated or sporadic acts of cruelty and wickedness.”

  12. Kevin says:

    Your Government and the “ad agencies” who represent themselves falsely, as “News agencies” are involved in a heinous act, targeting other persons and their personal dignity. The most popular excuse for such inconceivable encroachments on the human rights of others?

    Smoking is “addictive” and needs to be eradicated.

    That reasoning speaks volumes on it’s own.

  13. Kevin says:

    There have always been more responsible ways of marketing “alternative products” however RWJF believed that replicating the successes of the Tobacco Industry, would be the most profitable approach. So they hired the same ad agencies and dispensed a counter to the positive campaign of the tobacco industry, with a negative flow of information, by the same standards of truth and credibility, they once attached to their current role models.

    It is sad to see those who once condemned the Tobacco Industry for their deceptions, now more actively engaged in identical activities to a much higher degree.

    “Do no harm” now equates “take no profit” The motivations of “Tobacco Control” are no largely held secret any longer.

    Profiting by promoting the indignity of others is cruel and inhuman activity. Even if they are too cowardly to discuss it and defend their actions, Tobacco Control is now and will forever be; a process dispenser of hatred and ignorance, tied inextricably to; larger profits by larger lies, as all that is left, at the end of their road.