Points of View

THE MECHANICS OF ANTI-TOBACCO JUNK SCIENCE

We don't need leaders telling us what we can't do, we need leaders who'll show us what we can do

           Barack Obama

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

A DOCTOR'S POINT OF VIEW    

Ban changes way of life

From: The Gazette INTERNET RDITION (Gloucestershire Publications)

MY LOCAL hostelry has been a pub for upwards of 300 years. From the time that men in frock coats would put the world to rights over a quart of mead and a long clay pipe before a roaring fire, to the present day, when all types of people meet to put the world to rights over a pint in front of a wide screen rugby match. But, alas, my local is dying, owing to the smoking ban and the onset of winter weather.

Often there is either no-one at all in the bar, or just one or two sad stalwarts like myself. If things carry on as they are, the pub will no longer be viable and Berkeley will lose one more rural treasure.

Where are all the PC minded computer tapping Chelsea tractor drivers who said they could not use the pubs because of smoking? They are still sitting in front of their PCs with their glasses of wine. We never see them.

Life expectancy is increasing by two years every decade. We now have a large population of nonagenarians, 50% of whom have dementia, the management of which is often woefully inadequate and very expensive. What is the point of keeping us alive long enough to suffer a prolonged, poor quality old age?

Landlords do not want the ban. Most of the pub staff don't want it. The customers, smokers and non-smokers alike don't want it. It does not have an economic leg to stand on. So why can't the powers that be give us just one room in our pub to smoke in? It would save the life of a precious institution - the British pub!

Dr Susan Hatten Salter Street Berkeley.

11:54am Wednesday 28th November 2007

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

In an article in the Daily Mail, 10th January 2008, Keith Waterhouse writes as if in answer to the article below by , Professor Jeremy Richards, that the Prohibition era, was the first time the American Constitution had ever been used to limit, rather than protect (as in the right to bear arms etc) the personal liberties of American citizens.

He goes on to liken Gordon Brown and his toying with the idea of a British Constitution, which he will never obviously deliver, with the so-called "noble experiment" which was Prohibition in America.

Not that this can be blamed directly on Gordon Brown of course, as he is, and was, usually away (out of the Commons) when any big bill is debated. But, as Mr Waterhouse points out, Brown's Bunnies, the successors to Blair's Babes, are in it up to their fluffy ears, demanding more and more restrictions on smoking wherever they find it.

The idea of a Constitution, is supposed to be, to grant the people their rights. We here in Great Britain, seem to be granted far more things we should not do, under this preposterous government, than things we should be granted to do as our natural right.

Barack Obama, the United States Senator for Illinois, quoted on a recent tour "Should JFK have looked at the moon and said 'No, too far?' We don't need leaders telling us what we can't do, we need leaders who'll show us what we can do"

Since Labour came to power, Great Britain has been on an ever increasing downward spiral. The real constitution of this country has now been lost to European leaders whom the people of Great Britain have never even heard of, let alone had the chance to vote for or against.

Tony Blair took us to war on a lie. The smoking ban is based entirely on lies. What is next?

Peter Thurgood

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Unfounded Scares about Secondhand Smoke by Edmund Contoski

Everyday I swallow a pill with rat poison. Millions of other people have been doing the same thing. It is a common drug prescribed as a blood thinner for people with a heart condition. Tuesday I made a routine visit to a cardiology clinic; periodic tests are needed to determine if the level of the drug in my blood is appropriate or needs to be adjusted up or down. While waiting my turn for the test, I picked up a magazine titled Minnesota Health Care, March 2007. Inside the back cover was a full-page ad by ClearWay Minnesota. The entire page was covered with a picture of bugs and the alarmist message—in very large print—that secondhand tobacco smoke contains the same chemicals as insecticides to kill bugs. Then it asks the blatantly scary message "Are you OK with this?" Of course I am OK with this! I burst out laughing, which brought incredulous stares from those around me since medical waiting rooms are usually not sources of hilarity. But not only is it "OK with me" since I am already not frightened by taking a rat poison, I happen to know that a basic principle of toxicology is "The dose determines the poison." Anything is toxic or carcinogenic if the dose is large enough. Enough distilled water will kill you if you drink several gallons at one time. (It upsets the electrolyte balance in the brain). Conversely, if the dose is small enough, otherwise dangerous chemicals are harmless—and often beneficial. So the crude and essentially dishonest attempt to scare people about the very small doses of chemicals in secondhand smoke—which science has shown to be harmless—is so ludicrous that I erupted in laughter.

But the general public does not know the facts on this issue, and ads that play on people's ignorance are evidently successful no matter how unethical and misleading they are. So I decided to write this blog to inform people about some facts regarding secondhand smoke and ads like the one I encountered, which many anti-smoking groups are using in attempting to sway public opinion.

At the bottom of the page, the ad said secondhand smoke contains hydrogen cyanide, arsenic, and formaldehyde. Boy that sounds scary! At least to those with no knowledge of chemistry and biological processes. But as I pointed out in my book MAKERS AND TAKERS, hydrogen cyanide is present in lima beans, cherries, plums, apricots, peaches, pears and peas. Even cabbage, broccoli and cauliflower contain cyanide compounds.

Arsenic is found in many fruits, vegetables, cereals, meats and dairy products. Seafood can contain even more. Shrimp, oyster, mussels, prawns and other marine foods have been found to contain up to 174 ppm of arsenic—far more than the doses anyone will ever get from secondhand smoke. Yet the smoking ban activists chant unrelentingly, "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke", "any dose is dangerous." How can any dose of chemicals be dangerous in secondhand smoke when our bodies take in much larger amounts of these same chemicals from other sources? Furthermore, arsenic—despite its scary reputation—has been found to be essential to human life. At least ten other elements that are essential to human life are carcinogens at high doses—including and iron and even oxygen. Do the smoking ban activist know what they are talking about when they claim any dose of a carcinogen is dangerous, that there is no safe level for the chemicals in secondhand smoke?

Arsenic is naturally occurring in air, soil and water. The largest concentrations are found in soil, on which cattle graze on on which we grow fruits and vegetables.

The threshold OSHA has set for airborne arsenic is 10ug for an 8-hour work shift. This is the PEL (permissible exposure limit), below which the chemical is considered safe. And OSHA is being very conservative. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, no symptoms are evident below "about 100 ug." The World Health Organization estimates that pack-a-day smokers of American cigarettes inhale 2.6 ug arsenic per 8-hour work shift. The National Research Council says nonsmokers inhale 0.1 to 1% of what smokers inhale. Now, if a bartender has 25 seats in his bar and 10 are occupied by smokers, each smoking two cigarettes per hour, 160 cigarettes would be smoked per 8 hour shift. L. Stewart, author of Epidemiology 101, or How to Read and Understand a Study, shows that even if the 160 cigarettes could somehow all be smoked in a 40-inch cube without ventilation, the airborne arsenic inhaled in that cube would be only 0.064 ug—which is far, far, far below the OSHA standard. If instead of being confined to a 40-inch cube, the smoke was dispersed throughout a room large enough to hold 25 people, the concentration would be far, far, far less. He then notes:

"the same kinds of calculations can be made for every "poison" and "toxin" in all the ads. Which is why OSHA has stated that it's well-nigh impossible to find any actual workplace where its PELs for secondhand smoke or any constituent thereof would be met, let alone exceeded.

"The point we're trying to make is that while Arsenic!! is a 'poison' and even a 'carcinogen' it's neither at these doses. And further, people's normal exposure from other sources is greater by great amounts."

Finally, there is formaldehyde, the last of the chemicals ClearWay Minnesota is trying to scare people with in its ad. Formaldehyde sounds scary. But how can it be dangerous in any amount in secondhand smoke ("no safe level") when we are exposed to small amounts from auto exhaust and other sources of combustion as well as from sunlight and oxygen acting on methane and other naturally occurring hydrocarbons in the atmosphere? Furthermore, our own bodies produce formaldehyde through internal biological processes having nothing to do with industry, pollution or tobacco. How can a chemical be dangerous in any amount in secondhand smoke when the same chemical is produced by our own bodies?

Edmund Contoski has had a varied career. He is a former director of planning for an internationally renowned environmental consulting firm doing business in more than forty countries. He has been an urban planner and also held responsible positions with major real estate development companies. In addition, he has lectured widely on international monetary issues and done economic research on a variety of subjects, including world trade. He's the author of three books, including the award-winning MAKERS AND TAKERS: How Wealth and Progress are Made and How They are Taken Away or Prevented and The Trojan Project, a novel of political intrigue that deals with the restructuring of the United States government. A frequent guest on radio talk shows, his views have been heard on well over one hundred radio stations across the United States and Canada. He has also spoken at various colleges and universities and at conventions.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE STINK by Peter Thurgood

When did the stink first start, can anyone remember?

The stink that I am referring to is of course, that "horrible" smell of tobacco which we are told impregnates people’s clothes, their breath, and even their hair.

How many times do we hear about this terrible stink, we have even been bombarded with television adverts telling us of how bad we will smell if we smoke.

When I was a child and almost all adults smoked, the smell of cigarettes to me became a comforting smell. When my father came in and picked me up to say hello, the first thing I would smell was a heady mixture of tobacco and wood shavings, as my father was a cabinet maker and also a regular smoker, yes even in work where there were wood shavings and sawdust everywhere, smoking was still allowed. Not just allowed but encouraged, in fact so much so, that when Christmas came around, his boss would always give him a box of 50 or 100 cigarettes.

When my father hugged me and I smelled these aromas, I knew that they were the aromas of a good and honest working man, who loved me, and even today, I still associate these smells with love and honesty.

As I grew up, smoking and the smells of tobacco were still very socially acceptable, in fact when I was about ten years old, I used to collect cigarette packets, and if ever I found a rare American packet, the first thing I would do was smell the inside of the empty packet for that rich aroma that the American cigarettes then had. French cigarettes were even rarer, and almost cigar like in their smell, all of which I found delightful.

In my teens smoking was a very sexi thing to do, and a great way of chatting up girls. Offer them a cigarette and not only did it make you look more manly and grown up, it was also an easy way of introducing yourself. If a girl blew cigarette smoke towards you, in meant she fancied you, and if your cigarette burnt down one side, it meant somebody loved you. All very innocent stuff eh.

I think busses were the only places I knew of where one wasn’t allowed to smoke, although you could if you went upstairs, so needless to say, that is where all the "real men" sat, leaving the downstairs for old people and children.

A visit to the cinema was a wonderful thing as films were shown by projectors from the back of the theatre, meaning that these beautiful rays of flickering light would shine through the darkness, cutting their way through the whirling wisps of cigarette smoke that drifted up from probably 80% of the audience, as they relaxed and enjoyed a smoke whilst watching the film. I used to love looking up above me at the wonderful effects that this produced, sometimes it was almost better than the film.

Although I have always loved the smell of tobacco, I have never been a heavy smoker, in fact some people tell me that I am not a "real" smoker at all. The reason they say this, is because I do not inhale the smoke as most people do. I smoke purely because it relaxes me, I love the smell, and it reminds me of my childhood and far better times.

I never heard, in those early days, one person ever complain about the smell of cigarette smoke, and as far as I know, the smell hasn’t changed over the years, so why do we hear it so much now? I personally do not like the smell of chewing gum, but I wouldn’t dream of rudely waving my hand in front of people’s faces if they chewed in front of me. It is fast becoming almost like a civil war in this country, with smokers being verbally and mentally attacked and abused by a so called civilised society, the majority of whom, do not have enough common sense to question the blatant lies that this government have spread with regard to second hand smoke.

I am not absolutely sure when "the stink" first raised its smelly little head, maybe about ten years ago, could be more, but suddenly I started hearing about this awful smell, the smell of cigarettes on people’s clothing, their breath, and in their hair. I thought at first that maybe something was wrong with me, maybe I had lost my sense of smell. But that was impossible for I could smell everything else, flowers, food, wood, grass cuttings, all smells which I love, even the sickly smell of chewing gum, so why couldn’t I smell this so called awful smell of tobacco?

Today I either smoke cigars or Spanish cigarettes made with "black" tobacco, which isn’t actually black, it is just called that because like cigars it contains hardly any chemicals, just pure tobacco, and like cigars, the smell is delicious!

I quickly came to the conclusion that this so called awful smell of tobacco which I was then hearing about more and more, was made not by the normal tobacco companies, but by HM Gov.uk. In other words it was pure and simple propaganda, which I mistakenly thought at first would never catch on apart from the old lady "nanny" fraternity, if you’ll pardon the pun, which I certainly wasn’t a member of.

Now however it seems that time has definitely proven me wrong, for more and more people have been taken in by the big stink swindle, they have been led blindfolded into this government trap, and repeat this banal phrase verbatim. A few years ago these same people would have happily sat down to dinner besides smokers or stood in a bar beside some old boy rolling his Old Holborn into matchstick thin ciggies, but today, if they did the same, they would, in their brainwashed minds, certainly catch some terrible decease, and they would certainly come away stinking of something or other.

If only we could teach these poor ignorant people how to relax and enjoy life, if only they had experienced a marvellous life like I did, if only they would learn to question instead of accepting every dubious "fact" that is thrown at them. If only the stink from our hypocritical government would go away!

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Prohibition & the Smoking Ban  by Professor Jeremy Richards

As a historian I try to place the smoking ban movement into some historical perspective. I have been doing some reading up on earlier prohibitions, both smoking and drinking. It is interesting, I think, that a truly effective national resistance movement to Alcohol Prohibition in the US really did not emerge until about eight years into national Prohibition. The US ushered in nationwide Prohibition f alcohol in 1920. Drinking went down a little then quickly rebounded (I think we are seeing a similar pattern with smoking now). Early on there was an organisation against Prohibition called the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment (AAPA). It was composed of wealthy guys who never seemed able to appeal to average Americans.

The AAPA flopped around for years and was not very effective. Early on we also saw some restaurants sneak around the Prohibition law. We saw many more illegal bars emerge, however. The illegal bars, or speakeasies as they were called, spread rapidly. Drinking became the "cool" thing to do again among the young and hip "incrowd" types. (I think I see that happening on the smoking issue to some extent with the college students I teach as smoking is becoming more "cool.") With the spread of speakeasies came more organised crime as Mafia bosses engaged in the alcohol trade. For several years during national Prohibition the people were fairly contented with sneaking around drinking and breaking the law with no powerful organisation to resist the alcohol mandate. However, in 1928 Al Smith emerged as the Democratic presidential nominee. Smith, who had been New York governor and was openly hostile to Prohibition (a "Wet"), made Prohibition repeal a major issue during the campaign. Ultimately, the "Dry" forces were able to help take down Smith. However, Prohibition did NOT die as a national political issue. In fact, it stayed in the forefront of political topics as alcohol-related crimes continued to clog the court system and alcohol-related murders continued to be committed. In 1929 the most effective anti-Prohibition group finally emerged, the Women's Organisation for National Prohibition Reform (WONPR).

The WONPR was able to appeal across social classes, unlike the AAPA. The WONPR and its associated groups spread like wildfire, as Americans were tired of the Alcohol-related crime and broken promises of the Dry reformers. The Drys, just like the anti-smokers of today, had alleged before Prohibition that America would be a sort of Utopia as our society would be SO much better without alcohol. Disease and death would be lower and the economy much improved. Sound familiar? Of course the reality of Prohibition was much different. By 1932 the opposition to Prohibition was so great that presidential candidate Franklin Roosevelt and the Democratic Party were effectively able to use Prohibition repeal as a major issue to help assure victory. Roosevelt won the election, and Prohibition repeal came in 1933.

I predict, as a historian, that in some countries it may take a few years for a massive, wide-scale opposition movement to smoking bans to develop. However, eventually such a movement will emerge. Will Freedom to Choose be the primary vehicle for such a movement in Britain? Perhaps, though we know not what the future holds. One of my big objectives in that e-mail I sent was to try to prod the hospitality interests into resisting. The quicker they resist the quicker this bad law will be repealed.

By the way, one of the best recent books about Prohibition in the US is Dry Manhattan. That book takes on Prohibition in New York City. NYC was a hub of resistance during the "Noble Experiment."  As for smoking prohibition, we've had that in the past as well. One Ottoman sultan banned the smoking of tobacco and executed several thousand people for doing so. Interestingly, he died from alcohol abuse. The Russian Orthodox Church proclaimed that smoking was a sin and banned it, to little avail. One Catholic pope declared a global tobacco ban. Well, of course that was not effective. Even in the USA, during the drive for Alcohol Prohibition, we had a movement against cigarettes. Historian Cassandra Tate delves into that topic in her book Cigarette Wars. She deals a lot in that work with Lucy Page Gaston, an anti-smoking activist who ran a national organisation opposed to cigarette consumption. The anti-cigarette movement in the US was powerful enough that it got fifteen states to pass Cigarette Prohibition and twenty-two other states to consider it. The cigarette prohibitions of that era ended, first, on the battlefields of WWI, second, in the speakeasies of Alcohol Prohibition, and, third, in the soup lines of the Great Depression. Of course the state governments wanted the tobacco taxes that they could get coming in to fill their coffers.

Professor Jeremy Richards is a professor in History. He lives in the state of Georgia in the USA. He has connections with several anti smoking ban groups, including, The Smokers Club, Forces, Freedom to Choose, and of course ourselves, The Smoker Magazine.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________