by Chris McCalla
Michigan’s state representatives and senators have been deadlocked on such a proposal for several months, with each preferring their own version of such a ban.
The Senate wants a total ban, while the House is prepared to accept some key exemptions like cigar bars, smoke shops and other logical places. If the House can’t get its version through, it will fall back on the Senate version, and we will have a total smoking ban by the end of this current session.
There are some 85 members of the International Premium Cigar & Pipe Retailers Association in Michigan who may well be put out of business with such a total ban.
They are, for the most part, mom-and-pop businesses that sell premium cigars to their adult friends and neighbors. They are pillars of the communities they serve, they provide thousands of jobs and pay millions of dollars annually in payroll, sales and excise taxes.
Unfortunately, Michigan legislators and the general public are being deceived by the well-funded anti-smoking organizations into believing what they hear about second-hand smoke.
They need to read the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, which clearly concludes that second-hand smoke should not be considered a legitimate health or environmental hazard. The report states no less than 108 times on its 707 pages that the evidence is inconclusive regarding the health aspects of second-hand smoke.
Even the Occupational Safety and Health Administration doesn’t regard second-hand smoke an environment hazard. Nonetheless, biased media reports, slanted statements by anti-tobacco groups and even deliberately erroneous press releases from the Surgeon General’s office contradict the actual findings of the report.
Legislators, the public and the news media should also read a report written by Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr., a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, W.V. Arnett wrote, “The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty outcomes have led to deception of the American public on a grand scale, Draconian government over-regulation and the squandering of public monies, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers.”
This proposed action is so serious that the Michigan legislature should demand clarification and validation for health claims made by the anti-smoking organizations in support of any statewide smoking ban and, at the very least, permit reasonable exemptions.
Filed under: anti insanity, health issues, reality check | Tagged: Health, health issues, smoking, smoking ban
“They need to read the 2006 Surgeon General’s report, which clearly concludes that second-hand smoke should not be considered a legitimate health or environmental hazard. The report states no less than 108 times on its 707 pages that the evidence is inconclusive regarding the health aspects of second-hand smoke.”
………………………………….
Here are a few of those entries:
2006 Surgeon General’s Report
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke
Chapter 1 Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions
Introduction, Summary, and Conclusions, page 11
Major Conclusions
4. The scientific evidence “INDICATES” that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
(Note,there is a lot of suggests,not sufficient, and insignificant evidence)
Chapter 8. Cardiovascular Diseases from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
3. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.
4. Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.
Chapter 9. Respiratory Effects in Adults from Exposure to Secondhand Smoke
3. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to conclude that persons with nasal allergies or a history of respiratory illnesses are more susceptible to developing nasal irritation from secondhand smoke exposure.
Respiratory Symptoms
4. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
5. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
6. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.
7. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.
8. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.
9. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to in-
fer a causal relationship between chronic second-hand smoke exposure and a small decrement in lung function in the general population.
10. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between chronic secondhand smoke exposure and an accelerated decline in lung function.
Asthma
11. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and adult-onset asthma.
12. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
13. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
14. The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and morbidity in persons with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
They don’t give a darn about “evidence”. As long as they can “relate anything to SHS” this is enough evidence for them.
I could report on, or publish, a study “relating” SHS to ingrown toenails and the Smoker Ban crowd would try their best to make it sound as scientific fact. We all know that this is absurd except the fanatical, hysterical paranoids, pushing Smoker Bans to order around and control people. They live for the ‘power and control’ over others and “evidence” is not going to get in their way. It’s essentially a recreation of ‘power and control’
manipulation right out of Hitler’s Germany, except that in this instance, it’s coming from the UN’s WHO FCTC.
The depressing irony is that the UN, born out of the ashes of WWII, should champion Hitlerian tactics and methods to push their Smoker Ban agenda. How sad
and ignorant that the lesson of WWII has not be learned or is being purposefully ignored and forgotten.
E-mail Michigan legislators. I have sent them my arguments and studies many times. It is a pain but it could give opponents the ammunition they need.
I wasn’t successful(so far!) in trying to register for the mlive website so that I can post comments for this article, but for whoever is posting as banthebanmn, PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD and post this article, and SCHOOL THE HELL OUTTA geneb!
Enjoy this article, debunking all the Heather Crowe SHS myths:
http://www.geocities.com/defendliberty2004/heathercrowe.html
I wasn’t successful(so far!) in trying to register for the mlive website so that I can post comments for this article, but for whoever is posting as banthebanmn, PLEASE GO RIGHT AHEAD and post this article, and SCHOOL THE HELL OUTTA geneb!
Enjoy this article, debunking all the Heather Crowe SHS myths:
http://www.geocities.com/defendliberty2004/heathercrowe.html
(apologies if this was double-posted by any chance)
And of course, if you don’t post the link to this article, you always could try the strategy of paraphrasing certain points from this article, but it’s your call. May be best to do the best of both worlds, and post both a link to that article, and some points from it.
Not sure how to debunk the Dr. Abid M. Hanson case, but I’m sure if you googled hard enough, there’s probably some info somewhere online that’ll debunk that case, too!
Another anti lie that you may have heard is that smoking causes ‘Erectile Dysfunction”.
The “TRUTH”=
2004 Surgeon General’s Report—The Health Consequences of Smoking
Executive Summary
Page 2
Table 1.1 Diseases and other adverse health effects for which smoking is identified as a cause in the
current Surgeon General’s report
(Note:erectile dysfunction is not mentioned!!-GK)
Chapter Conclusions,page 12
Chapter 6. Other Effects
Erectile Dysfunction
11. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between smoking and
erectile dysfunction.
When looking for credible information rely on scientific studies that are peer reviewed, double blind studies only. Anything that does not meet this criteria is “junk”.
“When looking for credible information rely on scientific studies that are peer reviewed,”
…………………………
Anti smoking studies ‘Peer reviewed’ by other anti smokers does not make for credible science.
Totally avoid epidemiology as proof of ‘causation’.
common sense, Peer reviewed statistics does not a scientific study make. Statistical association only shows a possible cause. When it comes to weak statistical links they have been proven wrong in the vast majority of the cases. Only anti-smoking groups claim weak statistical association proves anything. Perhaps you should read the following article and get back to us.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2%20target=
Federal Court reverses Geneva smoking ban
Smokers in Geneva will be able to light up again in public buildings after the country’s supreme court reversed the canton’s smoking ban, in force since July 1.
The judgement puts a dent in the nationwide anti-smoking trend with voters in Zurich and Basel voting on Sunday in favour of more restrictive smoking regulations in line with existing practice in several other cantons.
The Federal Court annulled the ruling by the Geneva cantonal government on the grounds that the legal basis for the ban was faulty. The law should first have been adopted by the cantonal parliament before the government exercised its veto.
The pre-emptive power of the local government to make police decisions is only meant to be called upon in cases of serious or imminent danger, which cannot be dealt with under ordinary procedure.
The need to impose a smoking ban in the interest of public health did not constitute such an urgent situation, according to the Federal Court. Almost 80 per cent of the electorate voted for a ban on smoking in public places in February, prompting the government to act quickly.
Since July, anyone daring to smoke in a public building, bar or restaurant in Geneva has risked a fine of SFr100 ($90.95) to SFr1,000. Several individuals had appealed against the legality of the ban.
[...] Getting used to – Despite e-mail support that a “WYSIWYG” display can help you to make more money, it does take a little getting used to. Your broker occasionally likes to yell: “forex [...]