If the university President lifts the smoking ban, then he should allow all students to carry any and all weapons at all times, he should permit rape, murder, and other crimes on campus, for smoking is a crime against humanity. It has long been proven that smoking kills—not only the person committing suicide by smoking, but innocent people who have to endure the second-hand smoke. Smoking is not a right, but an addiction equal to the use of any drug and a crime and should be banned everywhere at all hours. Why doesn’t student Stephen Wills demand the legalization and use of marijuana and other drugs on campus since he wants to restore smoking?

Dr. Ide, driving your car is more of a crime against humanity, since it is ruining the environment. I hope that you use public transportation, walk or ride a bike since you concerned about clean air. Judging from your posts I think that you are becoming way too crazy about smoking and maybe you might need some help, so you don’t go after fat people that eat and drink junk all day. This smoking ban is going to go the same way the skate boarding ban went on campus. There are still skate boards. There are more important problems than people smoking that Americans need to focus on than policing people’s habits. The planet is trashed by humans, the world is running out of water and oil. People are losing their jobs and living in tent cities in the United States. This anti smoking thing is because Americans have to someone to hate.

Dr. Ide:

If smoking is such a health risk….why hasn’t the FDA and/or Congress made it a Schedule I/II controlled substance? Why is it that teenagers can purchase tobacco at the age of 18 but have to wait to buy liquor at age 21?

Also I doubt that a cigarette is gonna kill someone immediately. It is the constant and prolonged presence of smoke that “might” cause health side effects. For example bartenders etc. are the only folks who may be surrounded by smoke. I doubt my cigarette that I smoke for 2 minutes outside away from buildings in “open-air” is gonna cause a passerby to drop dead due to second-hand smoke.

Let me repeat this: SMOKING IS NOT ILLEGAL. So how UNM thinks they can control smoking habits OUTSIDE in free “
“open-air” is beyond me. I understand laws and rules regarding indoor smoking. Indoor Smoking can cause a tendency to trap the smoke inside. But OUTSIDE is open and subject to nature’s elements. Smoking outside is NO DANGER to the public. Only an idiot or socialist liberal will try and argue that it is

MR.IDE…..care to do a break down on second hand smoke without all the anti-tobacco spin……..osha did.

Second hand smoke is a joke.Its 98% water vapor/steam. Are you afraid of water then you will be afraid of second hand smoke.

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

The BMJ published report can be found here:
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

And concludes:

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 may be considerably weaker than generally believed.

What makes this study more significant than any other 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.

This report was of course silenced in the media; however 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 which concluded “..secondhand smoking doesn’t cause cancer…” found online here.

Excerpt:

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, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was also peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal……prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 – 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations.

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

Those that developed the “second hand smoke kills” idea are the same ones that started the global warming crap. It’s funny when a long time supporter of global warming deilvers a speach declairing that the earth is actually in a cooling trend that will continue for at least 10 more years, possibly 20. I still think the CO2 fire extingisher is a good idea.

HARLEYRIDER1978: Interesting that you would cite a study in part funded by the tobacco industry as evidence that there is no damage from passive smoke. Even more interesting that you gloss over the conclusion, here in its entirety as follows:

Conclusions The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although THEY DO NOT RULE OUT A SMALL EFFECT. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed. [Caps added by me for emphasis.}

I for one feel so much more reassured that though you are still damaging me by smoking around me, it’s not quite as bad as we originally thought. How much damage is okay with you? If you kill someone a little less, that’s better than if you killed them a lot? For me, I desire NO exposure to passive smoke and I have that right. Same as you have the right to smoke, along with the implied RESPONSIBILITY that goes with that right. Go ahead and smoke just don’t subject it to anyone else who isn’t complicit. Not complicated. Quite simple.

Even if there was no health hazard, there would still be the nuisance factor of smoking: it’s a dirty, smelly habit that spills over to all those around the smoker. I know I used to NOT love walking around campus, seeing all the spent butts littering the landscape. Smoking is a nuisance to bystanders, as well as a health hazard (even if slightly less than origianlly thought). I quit smoking and intend to keep it that way and UNM’s Smokeless campus will at least make it so that I don’t have to deal with the damage and nuisance of passive smoke in the workplace and when walking to and from classes.

As for junk food and all the other silly analogies that keep popping up on this subject, get over it people! If you want to eat junk food at the table next to mine, I am fine with it because you cannot force ME to eat it, too. Unlike that pesky passive smoke that travels right up my nose no matter WHERE I try to sit to escape it… But I guess MY inconvenience is NOTHING compared to a smoker’s need to light up whenever the addiction hits him/her. When did MY right to NOT SMOKE pale in comparison to your right TO SMOKE? I don’t think the Constitution supports your right to FORCE me to smoke, damage or no.

As for the wide open spaces argument, I was forced to swallow copious amounts of smoke for the last 4 years every time I went anywhere outdoors around campus, usually within my first step outside the building. Someone forgot to advise the smoke that it was supposed to dispurse right away and NOT assail me and other non-smokers first…

And HOW in the world did desiring not to inhale smoker’s offings make those who object “liberals”? Grow up! I’m sure there are people of all political persuasions who simply don’t want to smoke and simply want to exercise that right.

hate goes a long way for you nazis

Even if there was no health hazard, there would still be the nuisance factor of smoking: it’s a dirty, smelly habit that spills over to all those around the smoker. I know I used to NOT love walking around campus, seeing all the spent butts littering the landscape. Smoking is a nuisance to bystanders, as well as a health hazard (even if slightly less than origianlly thought). I quit smoking and intend to keep it that way and UNM’s Smokeless campus will at least make it so that I don’t have to deal with the damage and nuisance of passive smoke in the workplace and when walking to and from classes.

Does the wearing of shoes with heels cause schizophrenia? That was the contention made in 2004 by a Swedish physician in Medical Hypotheses, a scientific journal that specializes in out-of-the-box thinking. “Heeled footwear,” the physician observed, “began to be used more than 1,000 years ago, and led to the occurrence of the first cases of schizophrenia.” As heeled shoes sprinted across the world, he said, so did the incidence of the disease. He called for epidemiological studies to check his hypothesis.

It is possible that some epidemiologist somewhere is crunching heeled-shoe data and preparing a paper on the subject. And if such a paper appears, the media will treat it with sober regard — assuming that it confirms the doctor’s wild idea. A Nexis survey of newspaper headlines from the past week finds epidemiological studies playing a role in all sorts of claims: that sleep apnea increases the risk of early death; that thunderstorms provoke asthma attacks; that cellphones might cause cancer; that flu shots may not help the elderly; that consuming fruit drinks increases the risk of diabetes in women. Some of these reports may turn out to be important but most will amount to a kind of scientific noise, adding to our uneasy sense that, in the modern world, danger lurks on every side.

In “Hyping Health Risks,” Geoffrey Kabat, an epidemiologist himself, shows how activists, regulators and scientists distort or magnify minuscule environmental risks. He duly notes the accomplishments of epidemiology, such as uncovering the risks of tobacco smoking and the dangers of exposure to vinyl chloride and asbestos. And he acknowledges that industry has attempted to manipulate science. But he is concerned about a less reported problem: “The highly charged climate surrounding environmental health risks can create powerful pressure for scientists to conform and to fall into line with a particular position.”

Mr. Kabat looks at four claims — those trying to link cancer to man-made chemicals, electromagnetic fields and radon and to link cancer and heart disease to passive smoking. In each, he finds more bias than biology — until further research, years later, corrects exaggeration or error.

In the 1980s, some women on Long Island thought they noted a high incidence of breast cancer in their community and charged that man-made chemicals were to blame. In 1993, a tiny, overhyped study, examining the blood of Long Island women, announced that it had found a strong association between DDE, a metabolic molecule derived from the pesticide DDT, and breast cancer. Alarmed activists persuaded Congress to fund a massive epidemiological study devoted to the causes of breast cancer among women on Long Island.

In 2002, the Long Island study found no association between cancer and blood levels of DDE or other synthetic chemicals, including PCBs. That same year the American Cancer Society reported that 22 studies could find no association between breast cancer and compounds like DDE and PCBs. “The politicization of breast cancer,” Mr. Kabat notes, “led initially to the carrying out of the studies based on weak hypotheses and inadequate methods, which were greatly oversold.”

In 1979, a small study suggested that electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines and home appliances might cause cancer, especially in children. In 1989, Paul Brodeur played up these findings in the New Yorker and charged industry with a coverup. Mr. Kabat explains in detail how several epidemiologists slanted their studies so that, he believes, they could justify further funding for their EMF research. Indeed, epidemiologists kept torturing weak data with sophisticated statistical techniques, trying to force electromagnetic fields to confess to murder. They never did. Physicists eventually showed the biological implausibility of the EMF claim. One physicist, Mr. Kabat says, “likened concern over weak EMF from power lines to the fear that leaves falling from trees could fracture a person’s skull.”

In the 1990s, EPA regulators were eager to charge that residential exposure to radon — a gas that arises naturally from certain geological formations — was a major cause of lung cancer. They pointed to several studies to make the case and proposed a host of expensive regulations. It turned out that 90% of the lung cancer that the EPA’s studies attributed to radon was actually associated with cigarette smoking.

Finally, Mr. Kabat takes up the vexed case of passive smoking. He shows how anti-smoking activists, in collusion with EPA regulators, steam-rolled over evidence that passive smoke is a very minor cause of chronic lung disease. An irritant, yes, but a death sentence for bystanders, no. The EPA’s 1992 meta-analysis — the source for anti-smoking regulations ever since — simply tossed out studies that failed to show an association between cancer and passive smoking.

I know whereof Mr. Kabat speaks. In 1992, as the producer of a PBS program, I interviewed an epidemiologist who was on the EPA’s passive-smoking scientific advisory board. He admitted to me that the EPA had put its thumb on the evidentiary scales to come to its conclusion. He had lent his name to this process because, he said, he wanted “to remain relevant to the policy process.” Naturally, he didn’t want to appear on TV contradicting the EPA.

Mr. Kabat himself got burned by activist fury when, in 2003, he and a colleague published a study using 40 years of American Cancer Society data. The study found “no evidence of an elevated risk of coronary heart disease or lung cancer” in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers. Activists attacked the study before publication by saying that Mr. Kabat had been funded by tobacco money. In fact, only the last seven years of data collection had been funded by a research center supported largely by tobacco companies. Mr. Kabat was not prepared for this kind of scientifically irrelevant and dishonest assault. But some good came of it: It provoked him to write this book.

Mr. Bailey is the science correspondent of Reason magazine.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121841410386328473.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

With permission from my friend Michael J McFadden, I suggested that all interested parties learn about the truth behind smoking bans:

Smoking bans are based on lies, and if people take just a few minutes to honestly read some of the studies and the criticisms of the studies that the ban proposal is based on it might make a big difference. To see just how these nonsense statistics supporting bans get made up and WHY they get made up just check these three links:

http://www.jacobgri er.com/blog/ archives/ 2210.html

shows how researchers promise the “right” kind of answers for grants before even doing the research and how they juggle the numbers to create the promised “right answers.” Be sure to read the “aftercomments” to the Grier article: that is where the strongest documented criticisms are. And:

http://www.velvetgl oveironfist. com/wagner_ on_pell.php

shows how the nonsense heart attack drop meta-study also juggled numbers and scientific terminology while

http://www.bmj. com/cgi/eletters /bmj.38055. 715683.55v1# 67440

dissects the grandfather of these studies, the “Helena Heart Miracle.” Read “100 Days,” and way down near the bottom “Independently Confirmed??” where you’ll see how the “evidence” of what they did was almost wiped from the Internet. If the “little studies” are trash, then the “big combining study” is also trash.

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

1) The government shall NOT take Private property for public use without DUE COMPENSATION.

2) Smokers contribute more in taxes than they take out. We pay for things like roads, parks, gov services, and OTHER people’s children’s health insurance (SCHIP).

3) We have the Right To Assemble. If you don’t like smoke, don’t patronize the same places as smokers. Leave us alone.

4) We are a Constitutional Republic, not a Direct Democracy of mob rule. That means that the majority may NOT vote away the rights of ANY minority.

5) Non-smokers have the right to open up their own establishments.

6) If you need a reference about studies of Passive smoking, Christopher Snowdon, Author of Velvet Glove Iron Fist:
A History of Anti-Smoking, (who’s done a fantastic job, by the way) has compiled a full, annotated list of every passive smoking study ever conducted.

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=33

As expected, of course, the majority of Studies come up with either Null (no association either way) or Negative (passive smoking reduces the risk of lung cancer).

How to read studies is explained here:
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=34
7) What we have here is bigotry and hatred; business as usual for the pharmaceutical companies, their “non-profit”, “foundation” partners in social denormalisation like RWJF, Tobacco Free Kids, ASH (a hate group that promotes a book that speaks of poisoning smokers). Somebody’s making a lot of money off of these bans & it’s not the bar or restaurant owners with smoking customers.

The point is that ALL smoke is bad for you regardless of whether it comes from a cigarette or not. One of the main concerns with smoking on campus is that people with asthma would be subjected to this situation. Some of the dormitories have BBQ grills that produce FAR more smoke than a cigarette. And furthermore, on a cold night, one can smell the burning of wood from fireplaces across the city. Should these too be subjected to bans and limitations? Come on people, there are FAR more pollutants in the air to worry about to be concerned with a few smokers around the area. Not to mention, I visited one of the smoking areas near Zimmerman and I found the grouping of people smoking at the same time to be far more invasive to walk by than if an individual were to casually smoke. It is more economical and makes more sense to tell smokers they need to be a certain distance from all buildings than to tell them they have a designated area to smoke in. This limits patrolling to the perimeters of buildings rather than the entire campus (which is impossible).

Too bad smokers NEVER honored the bann of smoke near doorways and kept the proscribed distance from buildings. If they had, we probably wouldn’t have gone to designated smoking areas. as unpleasant as I found it swallowing smoke all the way to class and back.

Why is it NAZI-like to NOT WANT TO SMOKE? Why would you assume hate is involved because I don’t like cigarette butt litter and because I don’t like to inhale 2nd had smoke? Good greif, there is no reasoning with someone under the influence, I guess.

Bottom line: I defend your right to smoke. And I don’t hate you for it. I just also defend my right NOT to smoke. And if I now know where you are likely to smoke, I can exercise my right and avoid those locations. There is no opression to smokers either implied or inferred. Is it inconvenient that you now have to honor mine and others wishes? I bet, but at least OUR rights are honored now, for the most part, since smokers still smoke outide the designated areas, unfortunately.

Dang it Karen, you beat me to it. I am always suspicious, of course, when ONE study is cited and that negates 30 years of research by thousands of researchers. But thanks for the link Harley: as Karen points out, if one scrolls down the page of the Brit. Med. J article, one sees several letters in response pointing out the flaws in the methodology, letters written by respected researchers at other universities, hospitals and the American Cancer Society.

But more importantly, we find out this:

“Funding: The American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, … follow up through 1999 . . . with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies” “Competing interests: In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research…”

JEE is James E Enstrom, the author of the one study you cite that supposedly disproves hundreds of others. Just a coincidence I suppose that it was funded by tobacco companies. Oh, well, nice try. And your response when Karen points this out? Calling her a “nazi.”

Dear Red head girl,

In a logic course you would learn that personal criticisms constitute an “ad hominem” attack and thus are not a logical argumetn. However, when one is discussing science and research, it is legitimate to evaluate the qualifications and motives of one making argumetns, especially the lone one saying all other researchers are wrong.

I checked your three links. Jacobgrier.com – a guy named Jacob Grier, a freelance writer who blogs. O.K., but on his web site he lists his day job as bartender/manager in a restaurant in Oregon. So, he does have a vested interest in claiming that second-hand smoke studies are wrong: he doesn’t like that smoking bans may have affected his business. See?

Christopher Snowdon. A guy in Britain who got a degree in history 11 years ago, no other information available on his qualifications to evaluate scientific reseach. So, he is right and the hundreds of doctors and scientist who have been doing epidemiological studies for decades are all wrong. Please. Oh, and he’s selling a book, like your friend McFadden.

“Someone’s making a lot of money off these bans…” Who would that be, Red Head? We know for sure who stands to lose a lot of money from these bans – the tobacco companies. Yes, these regulations do help convince many to smoke less if not quit. And that’s been a disaster for the tobacco companies.

Follow the money…

Funding: The American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, … follow up through 1999 . . . with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies” “Competing interests: In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research…”

JEE is James E Enstrom, the author of the one study you cite that supposedly disproves hundreds of others. Just a coincidence I suppose that it was funded by tobacco companies. Oh, well, nice try. And your response when Karen points this out? Calling her a “nazi.”

as you point out..the tobacco companies took over when the outcome after decades from the study were not going as the american cancer society wanted……..it was abadoned by the ACS in lieu of funding other studies that showed more promise for their outcome based criteria………..many many studies were started by anti-tobacco groups and when the outcomes werent going their way they left them hanging………now we can go into the EPA study which was thrown out as junk science by a federal judge but obviously you dont want to go there………and as you go down the listing of studies you find that even the few that showed a casual relation to shs………they were small insignificant study groups where the outcomes were of dubious nature in methodology…….of over 126 studies of which there are nearly 246 done to date only 28 showed any corelation and of those they averaged below 1.5 in their risk……….others showed 2.4 but those were of dubious quality in their methods……..when looked upon as a whole………..second hand smoke is but a joke………….its still 98% water vapor……..thats the dirty of it……..the only real push in any of this shs/ets deal is a political agenda to institute prohibition again…….with hate as the main backer to push it thru…….along with years and millions of dollars in junk science.

“Someone’s making a lot of money off these bans…” Who would that be, Red Head? We know for sure who stands to lose a lot of money from these bans – the tobacco companies. Yes, these regulations do help convince many to smoke less if not quit. And that’s been a disaster for the tobacco companies.
duhhhhhhhhhh who do you think rj reynolds is in bed with now………..tobacco control……….rjr isnt losing anyhting,why do you think e cigs are getting banned and outlawed.becasue rjr doesnt like competition and the flavored cigs……..it was only 1% of the whole in cig sales………..follow the money is right all the way back to the robert woods johnson foundation where the rest of the nazis stashed all the big bucks from johnson and johnson big pharma………then you can go after the non-profits like the american cancer society..paid to be a lobbying firm for big pharma to the tune of over 150 million bucks since 1994…………….psuedo-science and propaganda……………..thats what you get from people bent on prohibition………there are nothing but meta analysis studies that the nazi tobacco control groups use as a basis of proof which is no proof at all……….they still cant prove smoking causes cancer..all they can actually do is say its likely……….carcinegins are in evrything………but that doesnt make them cause cancer….exposure in vast amounts at a toxic level to humans is what on expects in order for disease to be likely………but thats still not proof………take third hand smoke the latest nazi propaganda it would take your kid 4 trillion years licking the walls to get anywhere near the amount of radioactive crap they talk about to get sick……….take shs in levels.osha did and they found it not to harm anyone………..now you take the epa who does outdoor testing as osha has indoor air quality……..thats what these nazi anti groups try and do is test with outdoor monitors on indoor pollutants………what epa does is set the monitors miles from the source of say a smoke stack…and take readings over several days like they did about schools remember that one……….they go inside and measure for 30 minutes and then say there it is bad air quality…..that would be the same as epa going and putting the monitor right on top of a smoke stack…..that dog dont hunt…….the monitors from the anti groups dont even use the formula epa uses……….then you have take into concideration the carcinogenic levels at what epa calls them unsafe…….which is a far step from what osha calls unsafe……..oshas levels are based upon how much it takes to cause disease epas are not……..thats the biggest diference in the 2…….now add in a ventilation system and their is nothing to even measure…….unless your sucking in roadside pollution from the street.

I must say that I am actually shocked at some of the things that I have read here. Not about the studies – and whether they are right or wrong – but that people ‘think’ that making someone sick is OK!

When did it become OK with anyone to make someone else sick – just so personal happiness is satisfied? And why is it that smokers want to say they are being persecuted for their ‘addiction’ – just because someone ‘fights’ them on the issue?
One person was kind enough to suggest that people with asthma could be affected by the smoke; but that was shot down by some smoker who could care less about asthmatics.

Why has this come down to “who cares about health issues and ailments of others”? And why is it all about 2nd-hand smoke? In these two instances, no distance will be accomplished in order to create a livable atmosphere!

The people that should come firs – no matter what – are the people who have REAL health issues with tobacco products: asthmatics, people with oxygen tanks, and allergies. Doesn’t anyone know, or care, that ONE CIGARETTE can cause a lot of damage to a person that has any of these three ailments?! Doesn’t anyone care – or can imagine – what a person with one of these ailments would go through in a situation where they breathe in tobacco products?

IMAGINE THIS:
You breathe, unknowingly, in some tobacco smoke… in the open air (as has been suggested). As you do, your breathing tubes start to constrict. You look around, wondering what is causing your chest to compress in on itself. Due to your body needing air in order live, you breathe again. Your second breath, in just a few seconds time, leads to your breathing tubes to constrict again… and more. If you have allergies, your throat gets irritated and scratchy, where it hurts to swallow – on top of your tubes constricting. In a mere 15 seconds time – and I am not exaggerating! – you have to cover you mouth, try not to breathe anymore, and pray to God that it stops. What is just 15 seconds feels like 15 hours. THIS reaction is from ONE cigarette, for a few seconds time, in an OPEN air area. All so that a smoker can take a hit.

Is it fair to put these people in danger just because a smoker wants to smoke? Is their smoking habit truly more important than someone’s real health scares, like asthma, allergies, and the like? IS IT?! …If you said ‘yes’, then you really don’t understand the trauma that a reaction gives a person and are very insensitive. I would hope that no one would say that someone that fears – everyday – about their throat and breathing passages was inconsequential when it comes to any habit or social desire.

Smokers can go anywhere, do anything, and not have to worry about things; while, people with real health issues can not go out without fear. If someone with ailments goes to the store, the park, a movie, an amusement park…. they have to wonder “can I really be out, have fun, but without running into something that will cause a reaction? If the sign says ‘no smoking’, will the smokers obey?”

It is very scary and be very lonely for a person who has to limit their lives just so that smokers can smoke out in the public. Stay home and smoke; smoke in your car with the windows rolled UP; smoke at a smoker’s bar. Why do you now have to smoke in a public building (be it at school or elsewhere), at a public park – making it where health ailment people can NOT be, or any other examples of the same likeness?

No one says that a smoker shouldn’t smoke; I surely do not! But where a smoker smokes IS the issue at hand. Is it appropriate to smoke where anyone can come across you and possibly have a reaction to the product? Is it ok to light up a cigarette where YOU could be causing health problems and now make the area unsafe for others to be. Is it OK with YOU to cause someone to STOP BREATHING, get a SEVERE sore throat, and make a PUBLIC place unusable for everyone? I would hope that NO ONE is that greedy and selfish!

Designated smoking areas may be an inconvenience… but people not breathing and getting raw, irritated sore throats that will make them sick and miss lots of classes is definitely the far more inconvenience of the two. No on says ‘don’t smoke’… they are just saying ‘don’t smoke wherever you feel like’. With the areas of designation, people with ailments can stay AWAY from the products that would cause them harm – because they would know WHERE not to be. YOU would still get to smoke, and the people with health problems would be safe and healthy. So what’s the problem?

Lastly, trying to get more smoking areas closer to the dorms is ridiculous in logic. Why? For one specific reason: if you live in the dorms, isn’t logical to think that the same people with health issues ALSO live in the dorms? With this in mind, bringing the one thing that would cause them to have reactions even closer to them would be extremely detrimental to their health – even more so than not. Again, why? Because they would NOT be able to escape it!!!! Allergens and asthmatic impulses should not be in the living area… due to the fact that a person is at home MORE than they are out. The home life, or area in which a person lives, is their place of sanctuary – a place that when everything has broken down your immune system, you can go to and recover safely. By introducing more designated areas, it limits a person’s sanctuary and doesn’t allow them to get away from what is making them sick.

I’ve also heard that ‘there are no places to study while smoking’. Instead of signing petitions for more areas to smoke, why not petition for tables to be placed at the current locations so that you can study while smoking; or petition for better lighting so that you can study; or how about better security situations so that women smokers feel safe while out at night???!!! I would sign these types of petitions – because smokers would deserve these as human beings. You need to feel safe, you need to be able to study, you need better lighting; but you do NOT NEED more designated areas. As smokers NEED BETTER provisions at the designated areas, so do the people with health problems NEED BETTER understanding and acceptance and help with keeping them healthy – which means keeping smokers in the designated areas.

Come on people… instead of fighting against each other, rally TOGETHER to make UNM a better place for EVERYONE! Smokers and non-smokers CAN co-exist… as long as both sides understand, appreciate, and care about the others involved. It’s not about a smoker’s ‘choice or right’ being taken away, which is what it more sounds like; it’s about a smoker’s ‘choice’ to give others the same ‘rights’ that they wish to have. A smoker can ‘choose’ to say “I have the right to smoke but I don’t have the right to cause someone to panic because they can not breathe” OR they can say “I have the right to smoke and could care less if someone can’t breathe as long as I can breathe while smoking my cigarette”.

PLEASE – on behalf of those who REALLY and TRULY need a place to breathe and be healthy – I BEG YOU… CHOOSE to care; CHOOSE to do the one thing that can help people; CHOOSE to obey the designated smoking areas; and CHOOSE to live together in a way that would allow everyone to benefit from this beautiful campus.

It’s not about the minority OR the majority… It’s about the all!

Thanks for reading,

Brenda

“The students right to smoke stop at my nose” was a quote from an article I recently read from another school where the students tried to protest against the ban but lost.

The thing is that there is no medical benefit from tobacco ever documented anywhere – EVER. It has over 400 carcinogens. It should be banned from the U.S. frankly. But that’s not going to happen for reasons not going into here.

I respect the students and their freedom to express themselves, but if you were just killing yourselves, no one would probably care, but since your actions are impacting others’ health – you kind of have no rights.

Here’s an idea: Request plastic or glass boxes that you – the smoker- can go into with the door shut and smoke your lungs out in. Probably would not be too comfortable, but that’s what it feels like to a nonsmoker who has to inhale secondhand smoke.

Brenda, I think you missed my point in regards to those with asthma when you referenced me. My point is that there are plenty of OTHER toxins in the air that are just as harmful and are not regulated. To repeat myself, for instance, there are BBQ pits near the dorms and these put off far more smoke than a cigarette. Also, smoke from fire places can be smelled from hundreds of houses throughout the area. And if allergies are the issue, many people are allergic to colognes and perfume, are we to ban people in classrooms from wearing these? The point is that there are tons of things in our environments that can cause different people harm, and while I sympathize with those who have health issues that limit them and make them more susceptible, this is not a reason to try and outlaw (which is what the whole idea of this ban is to do, “eventually create a smoke-free campus environment”) individuals.

I do not smoke myself, and the one point I will give the smoking ban is that I do not enjoy the sight of littered cigarette butts on the beautiful campus. But then again, no litter should really be tolerated.

This whole smoking ban is getting out of hand. Both sides just need to use their heads. Personally, I don’t care where people smoke. If you’re outdoors, secondhand smoke isn’t going to do any more harm than any of the other things that may be in the air. Here’s a request for everyone. If you’re a smoker, be courteous about it. If someone asks you politely (key word here) kindly take a few steps out of the way. It won’t kill you to move a few feet. Conversely, if secondhand smoke really bothers you that much, politely ask the person to move a few feet. Or move yourself a few feet. It won’t kill you. It’s all about respect ladies and gentlemen.

I agree with Andrew… it is all about RESPECT. Unfortunately, I don’t see much of it on this campus; and I’m not just talking student to student either, or just about smoking. On the same respect, sometimes asking a person not to smoke in the area is needed, a little more than just a few steps. Will the respect hold true in this instance?

And Chris:
You do have a point, indeed. Since anyone can have anything wrong with their bodies, from asthma to allergies or even epilepsy, people should be respectful toward others at all times. That said, I don’t think we need a ban on perfume etc (although I, myself, am allergic to them) nor should there be a ban on chimneys (although they bother me too). Why, I’m sure you’re asking? There are many reasons actually, but here are a few:

Something very far away from you, even it it makes you react to it, is less harmful to the asthmatic/allergic body than something that is directly around your person. Another reason is because some houses don’t have any other heating except for fire places, thus to be warm those people need to burn wood and use their chimneys; meaning they shouldn’t freeze. To get away from these conditions, it is easier to move away from them, to shut your window, etc. (This includes a BBQ that might be in an isolated area.)

However, if lots of different people are smoking tobacco, and a person such as myself needs to be in the area that the smokers are, it is not easy to get away from. I know the common misconception about this would be to just ‘move away from it’. However, being in the general area, no matter where you are, it is still close enough to your direct spot that it does no good to really move. I have tried to step up wind so that I wouldn’t breathe in the tobacco, but it never works completely. This is why:

I move to another area and another smoker comes along or is already there; I move to another area and the wind shifts so that I need to move again; I move and move until I am so far away from where I should be to participate in whatever I am supposed to be doing that finally, fed up and feeling outcasted, I turn and go home – to my sanctuary, the place where I feel safest and free to live and breathe without fear of illness.

Back to my normal thoughts…

How can anyone, like me for instance, enjoy an afternoon in the park or go to a football game or even go to the movies to stand in line for a ticket if there’s always a smoker at the same place… unaware that he/she is making it truly unbearable for me to stay? I only wish that all I had to worry about was 2nd hand smoke. I, unlike the majority, have to worry more seriously about breathing problems, throat ailments and infections, and more. Truthfully, I can tell that there is a smoker in the vicinity way before anyone else can… NOT because of smelling the smoke BUT BECAUSE I can feel it in my throat – it pangs and dries and becomes a bit harder to swallow. As you may imagine, life can be hard to live at times.

My personal point in all of this – besides the respect and courtesy part of it, of course – is that I more can keep my allergies under control, making me able to stay healthier, when the tobacco that’s in the world is nominal. If I know where you are, there are no surprises and I can take preventive caution; if someone lights up out of nowhere or I come upon someone by chance, the damage is done and I had no way of taking hold of my own ailments. To help others be able to continue their own lives without worrying about me, the stranger, I need others to be responsible for their own actions and not do something that hurts my body – with or without being aware.

It’s not as hard as it may sound. I know for a fact that if educated, both sides can co-exist harmoniously. I have friends who smoke (they are not UNM students, however) and we are able to still be friends and go do things. The difference between this and the issue on campus is that my friends have listened, understand, care enough to respond accordingly, and do things that only take a little courtesy so that I am healthy and still their friend.

One big, major thing that would help people like me is NOT to smoke anywhere you like. By respecting the designated areas, people get to smoke, I get to know where not to go, and both sides are well; smoking persists and my health is not disturbed.

One final thought:
This past Thursday was the Red Rally. I went to it, and was present in the LaPo plaza area. How many smokers do you think were there and smoking although it was obviously not an appropriate area? How many times do you think I had to move in order to try and still participate yet not get sick? How many cigarettes do you think I stomped out because the smoker left it without putting it out? When we went down to Johnson’s field, how long do you think I was able to stay within that huddle of smokers before I had to get out of there? And where do you think I was able to see tha burning of the Aggie from, compared to where everyone else was? And lastly, how much fun do you think everyone had vs. how much fun I had? It was sad that a student couldn’t be invited and participate in a school event, where no smoking should have been in the first place, because the smokers chose to ignore the policy.

Courtesy is the bottom line. I want the smokers to have suitable and provisioned smoking areas, areas that have good lighting, safety and even tables to study on. Since I want them to have better areas, could they not also want better for me too? Could they possibly not like the areas yet stick to them in courtesy of those who can NOT be around it?

If it were only the smell, I could live with that; I wish it were only that! But it’s not. It’s the product itself and how it reacts on my body the moment I come in contact with the substance. For people like me, the minority, I still ask for courtesy of humanity.

“CHOOSE TO CARE” should be the UNM motto concerning both sides of this issue. I care about smokers rights to be treated as humans and not dogs; I hope they choose to care for my health ailments and smoke in more appropriate areas.

Choose to Care everyone! :)

Yours,

Brenda

I agree with Andrew… it is all about RESPECT. Unfortunately, I don’t see much of it on this campus; and I’m not just talking student to student either, or just about smoking. On the same respect, sometimes asking a person not to smoke in the area is needed, a little more than just a few steps. Will the respect hold true in this instance?

And Chris:
You do have a point, indeed. Since anyone can have anything wrong with their bodies, from asthma to allergies or even epilepsy, people should be respectful toward others at all times. That said, I don’t think we need a ban on perfume etc (although I, myself, am allergic to them) nor should there be a ban on chimneys (although they bother me too). Why, I’m sure you’re asking? There are many reasons actually, but here are a few:

Something very far away from you, even it it makes you react to it, is less harmful to the asthmatic/allergic body than something that is directly around your person. Another reason is because some houses don’t have any other heating except for fire places, thus to be warm those people need to burn wood and use their chimneys; meaning they shouldn’t freeze. To get away from these conditions, it is easier to move away from them, to shut your window, etc. (This includes a BBQ that might be in an isolated area.)

However, if lots of different people are smoking tobacco, and a person such as myself needs to be in the area that the smokers are, it is not easy to get away from. I know the common misconception about this would be to just ‘move away from it’. However, being in the general area, no matter where you are, it is still close enough to your direct spot that it does no good to really move. I have tried to step up wind so that I wouldn’t breathe in the tobacco, but it never works completely. This is why:

I move to another area and another smoker comes along or is already there; I move to another area and the wind shifts so that I need to move again; I move and move until I am so far away from where I should be to participate in whatever I am supposed to be doing that finally, fed up and feeling outcasted, I turn and go home – to my sanctuary, the place where I feel safest and free to live and breathe without fear of illness.

Back to my normal thoughts…

How can anyone, like me for instance, enjoy an afternoon in the park or go to a football game or even go to the movies to stand in line for a ticket if there’s always a smoker at the same place… unaware that he/she is making it truly unbearable for me to stay? I only wish that all I had to worry about was 2nd hand smoke. I, unlike the majority, have to worry more seriously about breathing problems, throat ailments and infections, and more. Truthfully, I can tell that there is a smoker in the vicinity way before anyone else can… NOT because of smelling the smoke BUT BECAUSE I can feel it in my throat – it pangs and dries and becomes a bit harder to swallow. As you may imagine, life can be hard to live at times.

My personal point in all of this – besides the respect and courtesy part of it, of course – is that I more can keep my allergies under control, making me able to stay healthier, when the tobacco that’s in the world is nominal. If I know where you are, there are no surprises and I can take preventive caution; if someone lights up out of nowhere or I come upon someone by chance, the damage is done and I had no way of taking hold of my own ailments. To help others be able to continue their own lives without worrying about me, the stranger, I need others to be responsible for their own actions and not do something that hurts my body – with or without being aware.

It’s not as hard as it may sound. I know for a fact that if educated, both sides can co-exist harmoniously. I have friends who smoke (they are not UNM students, however) and we are able to still be friends and go do things. The difference between this and the issue on campus is that my friends have listened, understand, care enough to respond accordingly, and do things that only take a little courtesy so that I am healthy and still their friend.

One big, major thing that would help people like me is NOT to smoke anywhere you like. By respecting the designated areas, people get to smoke, I get to know where not to go, and both sides are well; smoking persists and my health is not disturbed.

One final thought:
This past Thursday was the Red Rally. I went to it, and was present in the LaPo plaza area. How many smokers do you think were there and smoking although it was obviously not an appropriate area? How many times do you think I had to move in order to try and still participate yet not get sick? How many cigarettes do you think I stomped out because the smoker left it without putting it out? When we went down to Johnson’s field, how long do you think I was able to stay within that huddle of smokers before I had to get out of there? And where do you think I was able to see tha burning of the Aggie from, compared to where everyone else was? And lastly, how much fun do you think everyone had vs. how much fun I had? It was sad that a student couldn’t be invited and participate in a school event, where no smoking should have been in the first place, because the smokers chose to ignore the policy.

Courtesy is the bottom line. I want the smokers to have suitable and provisioned smoking areas, areas that have good lighting, safety and even tables to study on. Since I want them to have better areas, could they not also want better for me too? Could they possibly not like the areas yet stick to them in courtesy of those who can NOT be around it?

If it were only the smell, I could live with that; I wish it were only that! But it’s not. It’s the product itself and how it reacts on my body the moment I come in contact with the substance. For people like me, the minority, I still ask for courtesy of humanity.

“CHOOSE TO CARE” should be the UNM motto concerning both sides of this issue. I care about smokers rights to be treated as humans and not dogs; I hope they choose to care for my health ailments and smoke in more appropriate areas.

Choose to Care everyone! :)

Yours,

Brenda

Why stop at smoking? I think we should ban dihydrogen monoxide also. We all know cigarette smoke contains dihydrogen monoxide, which is harmful to the environment and a leading cause of global warming.

Since this discussion is Way more far-ranging then just UNM … please allow me to throw in my two cents. And since everybody seems to have a real attention span here… ( if this post isn’t dead yet )

Smoking once upon a time for First Nations people was not just ceremonial but medicinal. We now know it to be anti-bacterial, anti-microbial. To quote the researchers at the Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel (who do not grow tobacco as far I know) – “Smoking, most especially nicotine is sometimes beneficial in certain diseases, including Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, allergic alveolitis, nausea and vomiting of pregnancy, pre-eclampsia, fibroids, carcinoma of body of uterus, ulcerative colitis, pyoderma gangrenosum, aphthous stomatitis and ulceration, pemphigus, herpes simplex and acne.”

And, oh yes, and it kills 450,000 people in America every year … directly or indirectly. Exactly what percent of the population are unaware of that fact in 2009?

With all these prospective benefits … is there maybe a question or two we still haven’t answered? And do you think maybe it’s because we haven’t asked?

Lung cancer research isn’t cheap or easy and is funded to the tune of one/tenth of breast cancer per capita – yet is far more deadly.

We do it because we don’t have to face the estimated 783,000 iatrogenic* deaths or the 250,000 attributed to Pharma every year. [* induced by a physician’s words or therapy (used especially of a complication resulting from treatment)]

Targeting smokers with over-the-top smoking bylaws and ad campaigns is a poor substitute for enlightened Health Policy.

Exhibit A – Like Big Brother video surveillance, we learn of new legislation being proposed across America (!) whereby small, discrete devices are placed on rooftops. They have incorporated a new smoke sensing technology from NASA with robotics so they can cut-down smokers in the streets … and leave all non-smokers standing. Quite ingenious really.

And for Dr. Arthur Frederick Ide at the top of the show, legalizing marijuana would be a great idea – especially for people with cancer (brain tumors) as the research shows.

And to Ronald Bailey/ er poster harleyrider1978 …
you(he) hit it right on the head, albeit inadvertently.

You worship at the alter of Geoffrey C. Kabat and his Hyping Health Risks, because let’s face it, cynicism is easy and cool.

Directly Quoted – “ In 1979, a small study suggested that electromagnetic fields (EMF) from power lines and home appliances might cause cancer, especially in children. In 1989, Paul Brodeur played up these findings in the New Yorker and charged industry with a coverup. Mr. Kabat explains in detail how several epidemiologists slanted their studies so that, he believes, they could justify further funding for their EMF research. Indeed, epidemiologists kept torturing weak data with sophisticated statistical techniques, trying to force electromagnetic fields to confess to murder. They never did. Physicists eventually showed the biological implausibility of the EMF claim. One physicist, Mr. Kabat says, “likened concern over weak EMF from power lines to the fear that leaves falling from trees could fracture a person’s skull.”

Directy UnQuoted –

Kabat says “one small study “. That’s right, that’s how it started with cigarettes and tobacco, one small study… in 1945. It showed smoking increases the relative risk of getting lung cancer 2X We know today – smoking increases lung cancer by 10X and up to 50X depending on the amount of time smoked.

And on the issue of electromagnetic fields, E-M-F, there have been thousands of studies since. In fact, there are over 78,000 papers on the biological effects of Electromagnetic fields.

Nothing in the history even approaches this volume of research.
All from “one small study” just like smoking and tobacco.

Kabat’s lack of scientific rigor continues ..
Direct Quote – “ In the 1990s, EPA regulators were eager to charge that residential exposure to radon — a gas that arises naturally from certain geological formations — was a major cause of lung cancer. They pointed to several studies to make the case and proposed a host of expensive regulations. It turned out that 90% of the lung cancer that the EPA’s studies attributed to radon was actually associated with cigarette smoking.”
Direct UnQuote –

It’s funny subsequent studies firmed up the link and the World Health Organization just recommended slashing Radon levels. The “associated with cigarette smoking” is just silly as it is the first confounder the adjusted for.

NOW, the connection you make harleyrider1978 by posting Bailey’s review of Kabat’s book …

The largest occupational study ever done on electromagnetic fields was done up with Ontario Hydro, Quebec Hydro (Canada) and Electricity du France. They confirmed leukemia and brain tumors at 3x ( remember how smoking started?).

Well, as tragic as leukemia and brain tumors are ( if you have them ) as a health risk, they are very rare, thus not a public health hazard (especially as this is occupational exposure).

But a follow-up study from Quebec looked at microwave frequencies ( ya know, like cellphones and Wi-Fi ). They found
an increase in lung cancer, our most popular cancer to die of.

So with such a large group of cancers you don’t have to be an epidemiologist to understand even a 20-30% increase is WAY a public health concern versus a mere doubling or tripling of a rarer cancer.

They found a 6.67X increase, almost 700% in Lung Cancer associated with high frequency electromagnet radiation ( aka cellphones and Wi-Fi).
Quebec Hydro fired Dr. Gilles Therriault, cancelled the contract with McGill University and legally barred them from sharing the data with the scientific community (or public).

In Canada, at Lakehead University in Ontario, they banned Wi-Fi for health reasons. For all you health-concerned at UNM, may I suggest you forget about the cigarette ban and rather ban Wi-Fi and cellphone-use within a few feet of your head!

The larger cigarette solution? We know smoking has 4,000 chemicals and 400 are known carcinogens. We know the tobacco companies have engineered nicotine ( the hook ) to stratospheric levels bearing no resemblance whatsoever to “tobacco” as it once was known.

Why not legislate nicotine levels to their natural original level? Then people would smoke 5 a day not 25 or 50. Bingo, you cut the death rate in half (or more) and the “irritation” level by 3/4.

Why not legislate that only 2,000 chemicals are allowed and no more than 150 of them can be known carcinogens. I don’t have my calculator … have we save 300,000 lives a year yet?

But politicians have no balls. It is easier to hand the oppressive policing, the pretend health campaigns, to localities.

Maybe we can ALL get together and lobby our cigarette smoking President?

OH, speaking of balls, methinks harleyrider1978’s
enthusiasm for Kabat’s lame electromagnetic field “debunking” stems from The Motorcycle Cancer Book which says EMF radiation from motorcycles causes testicular and prostate cancers!

And without addressing the entirety of Kabat’s drivel – you can bet the farm – cell phone companies ARE serving up brain tumors with the efficiency of McDonald’s.

Smokin’!

Smoking is harmful and should not be legal. But since it is, smoking should be done as far away from campus as possible. I lived in the dorms and I hated the smell of smoke. I would be willing to sign a petition against smoking on campus.

Quoting Dr Arthur up there “If the university President lifts the smoking ban, then he should allow all students to carry any and all weapons at all times, he should permit rape, murder, and other crimes on campus, for smoking is a crime against humanity.”

REALLY??? You just equated smoking a cigarette to be on par with rape and murder. If we can’t have this debate rationally, then what is the point of this discussion? Red Herring, ignoratio elenchi, call it what you want, but that was ridiculous.

All arguments on the anti-smoking side that point to personal distaste at smell etc. are irrelevant to a rights based argument (and this is a rights based argument since we are asking if we have the right to smoke on public lands). Stick to health claims where you have potential validity…though I still think this is an exaggerate claim—there is a big difference between being in an enclosed and unventilated room with smoke and being outdoors. In the first situation I could see health risks from second hand smoke if this was a persistent environment, in the second I do not…if passing by a smoker five or six feet away from you causes that much distress I am sorry, but unless we are banning perfume, car exhaust, barbeque grills, and other allergens from campus then I can’t get behind a smoking ban. Some of this neuroticism about outdoor smoking and health claims probably causes more stress on the body than passing by the occasional outdoor smoker…stress, it’s a killer ya know.

SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE. Ask the anti-tobacco folks to tell you what truly is in second hand smoke…when it burns from the coal its oxygenated and everything is burned and turned into water vapor………………thats right water……….you ever burned leaves in the fall…know how the heavy smoke bellows off…….thats the organic material releasing the moisture in the leaves the greener the leaves/organic material the more smoke thats made……thats why second hand smoke is classified as a class 3 irritant by osha and epa as of 2006……..after that time EPA decided to change the listing of shs as a carcinogen for political reasons…….because it contained a trace amount of 6 chemicals so small even sophisticated scientific equipment can hardly detect it ……..they didnt however use the normal dose makes the poison computation when they made this political decision. However osha still maintains shs/ets as an irritant only and maintains the dose makes the poison position…….as osha is in charge of indoor air quality its decisions are based on science not political agendas as epa’s is. We can see this is true after a federal judge threw out the epa’s study on shs as junk science……… 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
-harleyrider1978

Harleyrider, posting the same short list of bogus sources to prove your point again does not make them come true. All you can hope to do is fool someone new to the thread – someone impressionable. So let’s take another look at your handful of citations that supposedly prove that second-hand smoke is safe: the British Medical Journal article? Newbies, I looked this up, read subsequent letters to the journal, and guess what? The main author – James E Enstrom – gets his funding from the tobacco companies. Which is perhaps why his methodology, as pointed out by several doctors and scientists at major universities, was flawed. He manipulated the data to get the answer he and his tobacco industry masters wanted. That, harley, is pseudo-science.

Next, I tried to find the WHO report that supposedly concluded that “passive smoking doesn’t cause cancer.” Gee, wonder why that didn’t make the headlines? Maybe because it is a lie? You keep citing this source but give no URL link, no citation, exact report tile, etc. Being a librarian, I know how to look up bad references. The UN Database shows a report called “Protection from exposure to second hand tobacco smoke: policy recommendations,” Geneva,
WHO, 2007. Fortunately UNM has the book in electronic format. So, if you have UNM access (if you are student, faculty, staff) you can look it up in LIBROS and link to the ebrary document:

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/unma/docDetail.action?docID=10214532

I did a casula search on the phrases you quote 0 niothing. But here’s a passage I did find, right in the Introduction:

“Tobacco companies continue to misrepresent the evidence on the health effects of SHS (second-hand smoke) exposure and even claim that WHO has concluded that SHS is not dangerous. In fact, WHO has consistently concluded the opposite: SHS kills. (p.3)

So, this contradicts your assertion that WHO says passive smkoe is okay. If you have an exact reference for us that proves me wrong, please post it. Internet link, bibliogrpahic citation, whatever. As the one making the allegation, it is up to you to prove your argument – that’s how it works.

Then there was the vague reference to something written by an Allen Blackman in something caled Chemistry Magazine in 2001 about nanograms and picograms, somehow proving that passive smoke chemicals are harmless. So I search the Science Citation Index and ArticleFirst: no articles in chemistry by anyone named A(llen) Blackman. In fact, sccording to these sources and the WorldCat database, there is no periodical “Chemistry Magazine”. I tried “Chemistry” by itself; there is “Chemistry: A European Journal.” I checked the 2001 issue – no Blackman.

I think I’ve made my point here. Admit it harley, you just copied and pasted all of this from some pro-smoking source, probably the web site of the Antismokers’ Brains guy, or some other blogger.

I’m not saying you are intentionally spreading misinformation. There are powerful vested interests that want no restrictions on smoking: tobacco companies and their addicts – I mean customers. They are the liars – and they are using people like you.

Final note: in one of your many rants you claim “tobacco companies” aren’t losing money.” Really? Then why are they seeking new addicts – I mean customers – in poor countries?

Lawrence, why did you put tobacco companies in quotes?

Also are you really asking why a company would want to go world wide? to expand business just like any other business. Uh oh kfc is getting customers in china! they must be looking for new fried food addicts.

…moron

“Tobacco companies continue to misrepresent the evidence on the health effects of SHS (second-hand smoke) exposure and even claim that WHO has concluded that SHS is not dangerous. In fact, WHO has consistently concluded the opposite: SHS kills. (p.3)

WHO forgets that many of their findings wold disagree with their current statement if it wasn’t for cherry picking. (done by powerful people with vested interests that want restrictions on smoking to continue their agenda and career.)

what better way for a politician to gain support than to save your life from something you didn’t know was “killing you and your children”

Right on harleyrider! don’t be discouraged, not everyone is entitled, misinformed, and condescending as Lawrence (obviously he did exactly to you what he was accusing you of. hitting up google and just copy pasting anti smoking propaganda.”

Lawrence is it? I’m not saying you are intentionally spreading misinformation, because you dont seem to know what you are regurgitating here. There are powerful vested interests that want restrictions on smoking: hard line liberals, interest groups, and years of anti smoking propaganda. They are the liars – and they are using people like you.

And this is another item on my list of reasons why I chose to live off-campus. It’s expensive, the quality of living isn’t that great, and I would have been surrounded by people complaining they can’t smoke, when I can go right outside my apartment, sit on the steps, and smoke to my heart’s content for 1/4 the cost of living on a dorm.

Big pharma Johnson & Johnson’s main shareholder and smoking ban shill, the RWJohnson
Foundation, depends on it’s livlihood from J&J making and marketing cessation products. They have hoodwinked many people and gov’t officials that without smoking bans forcing 1/3 of the entire population of the U.S. and the rest of the world, that smoking and second hand smoke will kill. How on earth have we survived thus far! They have spent over one Billion dollars to influence legislation to take away freedom and private property rights in the grand marketing scam of the century. The Surgeon General managed to avoid testifying under oath to a congressional committee along with the commissioner from the FDA. I would say that is a conflict of interest to say the least, especially with FDA regulation of tobacco. What a scam this whole thing is, shut them all down!

Since 1981 there have been 148 reported studies on ETS, involving spouses, children and workplace exposure. 124 of these studies showed no significant causal relationship between second hand smoke and lung cancer. Of the 24 which showed some risk, only two had a Relative Risk Factor over 3.0 and none higher. What does this mean. To put it in perspective, Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration said “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” The National Cancer Institute states “Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to mere chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” Dr. Kabat, IAQC epidemiologist states “An association is generally considered weak if the relative risk is under 3.0 and particularly when it is under 2.0, as is the case in the relationship of ETS and lung cancer. Therefore, you can see any concern of second hand smoke causing lung cancer is highly questionable.” Note that the Relative Risk (RR) of lung cancer for persons drinking whole milk is 2.14 and all cancers from chlorinated water ranked at 1.25. These are higher risks than the average ETS risk. If we believe second hand smoke to be a danger for lung cancer then we should also never drink milk or chlorinated water.

I read your WSJ article today which mentions a reduction of heart attack rates due to smoking bans.

Have you seen the study by NBER researchers which found that heart attacks rates are just as likely to increase as to decrease after the imposition of smoking bans. The study, CHANGES IN U.S HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY RATES FOLLOWING
SMOKING BANS, concludes:

“U.S. state and local governments are increasingly restricting smoking in public places. This paper analyzes nationally representative databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, to compare short-term changes in mortality and hospitalization rates in smoking-restricted regions with control regions. In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction
or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature.”

The researchers further suggest:

“We also show that there is wide year-to-year variation in myocardial infarction death and admission rates even in large regions such as counties and hospital catchment areas. Comparisons of small samples (which represent subsamples of our data and are similar to the samples used in the previous published literature) might have led to atypical findings. It is also possible that comparisons showing increases in cardiovascular events after a smoking ban were not submitted for publication because
the results were considered implausible. Hence, the true distribution from single 23 regions would include both increases and decreases in events and a mean close to zero, while the published record would show only decreases in events. Thus, publication bias could plausibly explain why dramatic short-term public health improvements were seen in prior studies of smoking bans.”

Smoking ban opponents have long suspected that the cities chosen for smoking ban heart attack studies were cherry picked. For instance, the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association warns on its website:

“Researchers can deliberately sift through enough small local jurisdictions with smoking bans to find a few aberrations in heart attack rates and then claim that elimination of exposure to secondhand smoke will dramatically reduce incidents of heart attacks. Please don’t be taken in by misleading claims based on very select data samples.”
http://www.ilba.net/cgi-bin/ILBA/info.pl?domain=info&name=SmokingBan

Someone needs to look into this! Please find the NBER study attached.

‘chemistry matters’

Chemistry Matters
“Chemistry Matters” is an ongoing monthly column by Dr Allan Blackman, on topical chemistry subjects of interest to the general public, published in The Otago Daily Times newspaper, and reproduced here.”

Conductive polymers: their discovery and applications (02 April 2001)

Department of Chemistry, University of Otago – “Chemistry Matters”
“Chemistry Matters” is an ongoing monthly column by Dr Allan Blackman, … Quiet
death of scientist reminder not all stars grace the magazine covers (04 …
http://neon.otago.ac.nz/chemistry/magazine
Depleted uranium: what is it? (07 May 2001)
Carbon dioxide plays pivotal role in global warming (04 June 2001)
What exactly are ‘the party drugs’? (01 July 2001)
Coming to the defence of the notorious free radical (06 August 2001)
How the body benefits from sacrificial antioxidants (03 September 2001)
‘Natural’ and ‘good for you’ don’t always go together (08 October 2001)
Why it matters whether molecules are left or right handed (05 November 2001)
Sunlight essential, but not too much (03 December 2001)
Universe made up of 114, or so, elements (31 December 2001)
Naming of elements could stir rows (11 February 2002)
Quiet death of scientist reminder not all stars grace the magazine covers (04 March 2002)
A break for our air, not for Auckland (01 April 2002)
Peer review vital to avoid cooking up controversy (06 May 2002)
Inside the workings of controversial killer (03 June 2002)

http://neon.otago.ac.nz/chemistry/magazine/

lawrence your full of it………there it took less than 2 seconds on google

Hello Lawrence. A pleasure (?) to meet another anonymous blogger who likes to disparage my work in general without citing anything specific. I’m the “Antismokers’ Brains guy” you referred to in your post.

Let me offer an apology for a somewhat botched citation. The actual reference for a grain of salt weighing 100 million picograms comes from an AllAn Blackman, an associate professor of chemistry, where he said “a grain of salt weighs about one hundred micrograms.” at:

http://neon.otago.ac.nz/chemistry/magazine/7/

However, as with all the other research that went into my book, I went beyond such a simple citation (citing sources as if they were automatically “fact” is something that’s accepted at the high school and, sadly, even often at the college level, but in graduate school and beyond it doesn’t cut the mustard. I also borrowed a sensitive scale, one that went down to the milligram type level (It may have only gone to a tenth of gram, which would be a hundred milligrams… I actually forget as this was done almost ten years ago.) and determined for myself that a hundred micrograms (a tenth of a milligram) was a reasonable estimate of the weight of a single grain.

You criticized James Enstrom for his funding background but made no mention of his co-researcher, Geoffrey Kabat. Was it because you could find no mud at all to sling there perhaps? I also notice that you made absolutely no substantive criticism of Enstrom’s work: easier to throw mudpies I guess.

In terms of “manipulating data” to get what the paymasters want, how about if I invite you and other readers to see how antismoking researchers promise to deliver “pleasing” results to the antismoking grant funders in return for million dollar grants and then juggle the unsatisfactory research findings to hide the truth? Read the AfterComments to Grier’s article at:

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

and come back with some substantive criticisms… if you have any.

Your skills as a researcher seem a bit limited when you weren’t even able to dig up the WHO’s 1998 ETS study that was supposed to provide the conclusive condemnation of “passive smoking. Instead they found NO significant result for workplace or spousal exposure, even over constant decades of daily exposure. The one finding of significance they DID uncover was rather embarrassing: children of smokers got 22$ LESS lung cancer than children of nonsmokers. You can look it up in the original source itself from my reference at the bottom of:

www.nycclash.com/Philly.html#ETSTable

So Lawrence, in sum, I hope “the Antismokers’ Brains guy” has answered your questions satisfactorily. Please feel free to come back if you feel my responses were lacking in any way. Thank you.

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

OUCH! That’s going to leave a mark! Thanks Mr. McFadden, well done.

Thanks Ed! :)

One correction: Children of smokers got 22% less lung cancer than children of nonsmokers. Percent, not “ $ “

- MJM

No one has any substantive criticisms of my efforts at the Grier or Clash link above? ::sigh:: And I worked SO hard on them.

Tell you what: I’ll offer you a bigger target to shoot at. Read the pages at www.TheTruthIsALie.com and come back with any specific substantive criticisms you have. I’ll try to stop back and defend myself.

- MJM