Ban all jobs which involve any danger.

Ban perfume- are we absolutely certain those chemicals are not carcinogenic?

Ban automobiles- I assume there's no reason to explain why the deadly things have gotta go...

Ban jaywalking and punish it with severe penalties- people can get killed crossing the street.

Ban fatty foods.

Ban starchy foods.

Ban all artificial chemicals.

Ban electricity production: it pollutes the air, and electrocutes people.

Ban obnoxious people: they cause fights, which cause injuries.

Ban alcohol.

Ban twinkies.

My son just called. He's not going to Iraq in two months- he's going just four weeks from today.

Shit.

Ban Islam.

At first I thought you were inspired by the recent 9th Court decision on firearms.

Don't forget, there's a huge correlation between drinking and both child & spousal abuse.

We need to ban the stuff.

Fine, you want to bang around some straw men; so be it.

Legalize murder.

Fine, you want to bang around some straw men; so be it.

Legalize murder.

We have. It's called abortion...

I'll tell you how the law is in the province in which I live:

Knowingly having unprotected sex while you have an STD is illegal. There has even been a precedent set that if you give someone HIV you are tried for murder.

Driving while under the influence of alcohol is illegal. If you kill someone while under the influence, precedent has been set that you are tried for murder; or at the very least, manslaughter.

So while having sex and drinking is perfectly legal, it is illegal in scenerios where it unwittingly harms other people.

Why can't this be for smoking too? (In reference to banning smoking at workplaces.)

Because there is no evidence that second-hand smoke actually hurts anyone.

The same effects can be had by standing on a street corner smelling car exhaust or a standing near a barbecue grill.

Well, I'm not one to quibble.. aw crap yes I am!
My alergies are far further agrivated by Cigarette smoke than anything else, the smell makes me want to hurl often as not besides. Never had that problem with car exaust and a babecue grill only makes me salavate!!

So ban all Cigs! j/k ^_^

Honestly, I wish I had a nasty fart ready every time someone lit up! Be fair in my opinion... I've never met (this is a generalization mind you) any group of people so rude, selfcentered and willing to give not a rats ass about anyone else as smokers, when it comes to their addiction.
Litter tossed any where, the eqivelent of long drawnout farting around others without shame nad above all geting self absorbed when chalanged about it....

Anyway thats my rant, don't take it too seriously ^_^

Those same aggravations can be experienced by people who have dogs or cats. The same allergic reations occur around the tar used for roofing, perfumes, pot pourri, gasoline additives, pollens, etc.

Discomfort or allergic reactions is not the same thing as harm. Allergic persons should not and cannot expect the rest of the world to accomodate them whereever they go.

The anti-smoking activists have done a really good job twisting the facts and have many people believing that there is a link between SHS and serious health problems. There is none.

None of those things are good: Lying about statistics and probabilities, asserting that discomfort or unpleasantness around smoking is a causal link to illness, villifying a group for commiting "sins", and infringing on property rights using the strong arm of the State to get people to do what others want them to do.

Rosemary's headline is a stretch, we all know that. But it isn't that much of a stretch.

Be careful about how much authority you give the state. The next politically incorrect group, the next villified habit, may be your own.

Typical shortsighted liberal thinking, downigba! :)

If a state has the legal or moral authority to criminalize sexual behavior as you outline, what's to stop them from quarantining all HIV carriers? We could even make them wear cute little pink triangles...

While the idea may sound silly, consider the movie Demolition Man as a dystopia. "Anything that is not good for you, is bad for you; hence illegal." This is the Nanny-State dreamworld where everything is clean, safe, and there's no sharp edges...

Dave D., you forgot one major killer in your list: Dihydrogen Monoxide.

From the DHMO website FAQ:

What is Dihydrogen Monoxide?
Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the unstable radical Hydroxide, the components of which are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

What are some of the dangers associated with DHMO?
[they include]
- Death due to accidental inhalation of DHMO, even in small quantities.
- Prolonged exposure to solid DHMO causes severe tissue damage.
- DHMO is a major component of acid rain.
- Gaseous DHMO can cause severe burns.
- Contributes to soil erosion.
- Leads to corrosion and oxidation of many metals.

What are some uses of Dihydrogen Monoxide?
[they include]
- as an industrial solvent and coolant
- in nuclear power plants
- by the U.S. Navy in the propulsion systems of some older vessels
- by elite athletes to improve performance
- in the production of Styrofoam
- in biological and chemical weapons manufacture
- as a major ingredient in many home-brewed bombs

Clearly, this stuff MUST be banned!

That's a funny viewpoint to take, Mrs. du Toit, given the fact that you don't mind the government regulating the private lives of certain citizens, like my own, as long as it's in keeping with your own worldview. I just might include you in my marriage vows.

Anyway.

I was a smoker for 16 years, from the ages of 12 to 28. For most of that time, I was a two pack-a-day smoker. I understand what nicotine addiction is like, and I understand what it takes to overcome it. Dean and Rosemary deserve big kudos.

However, I'm reminded of a choice quote from the film "Sid and Nancy":

"Never trust a junkie."

If you believe in the right to smoke, to drink, to eat fatty foods, to drive cars whose emissions are bad for the lungs (and allergies and asthma), to have extramarital sex -- in short, to do things that can be bad for you -- then you should also be for the legalization of marijuana and other illicit drugs, of BASE jumping, and of suicide (assisted or otherwise). The point here is that our bodies belong to us, as do our lives, and that the government has no right to tell us what to do with them -- as long as there is no demonstrable harm done to others.

That whole "harm" issue is where things get weird. Some people think that private drug use is more "harmful" to "society" than smoking in a public place. Some people think that gay marriage is more "harmful" to "society" than serving fast foods in our schools. Some people think that assisted suicide is more "harmful" to society than gunshot deaths.

It's all about what kind of "harm" results in what sort of "acceptable losses". I always err on the side of the individual. Some err on the side of "society".

As Ayn Rand famously put it, 'society' often means 'everyone but you'.

I would never seek to prohibit others from smoking tobacco, though I think that widespread use of nicotine gum would be preferable -- it delivers the drug without the stench and ill-effects of the smoke. (I miss nicotine. I don't miss smoking.) I would never seek to prohibit drinking, or extramarital sex, or even unprotected sex. I would never seek to prohibit first-trimester abortions, or the right to own and use firearms.

This is because I value my own liberty.

I find it endlessly ironic that many of the people who would fight to the death for some of the liberties above would still allow the government to regulate my personal life. Sometimes, we value and protect the liberties we happen to agree with, when it's convenient. What about when it's not?

Not sure what you mean, Casey. I didn't make up those laws; that's how they are where I live. Where I live also you can't smoke in most types of business (I believe you can smoke in bars that don't serve food, but that's pretty much it). Also, technically you can't smoke within sixty feet of these businesses. I smoke. Doesn't bother me one bit.

I should also mention that all these laws were incepted by our CONSERVATIVE government. (We have a liberal in office now, as of a month ago.)

John, you better be willing to "back up" the claim that I support the government regulating behavior. Back it up, take it back, or fuck off. Your pick.

I must admit, I didn't think anyone would take my comments as a push for illegalizing (assuming thats a word) smoking. I just think its extreemly rude.
I see it as legaly equivelent to disturbing the peace. Seriously, a massive Boom Box crancked up to 80% of tis full volume on heavy meatal (wich btw I'm a big fan of) Is pretty cool at home, assuming you're not peeling the neighbors paint off but damn rude if Im forced to sit next to such an ass while waiting for the bus.

Or to get more equivilent,have lots of people walking down the crowded street. I'm sure you've all been there. Now picture 40% to 50% (more in some areas) smoking as they go, heeless or uncaring of the others around them. Pretty normal right.
Transform the cig's to boomboxes turned up as far as 75% valume nad you get audio disturbance of unthinkable levels. No resonable people would put up with a distubance of the peace of this sort for long. But if their assaulting our noses and lungs(for some) instead of our ears and heads(also for some) its ok.

I'm not saying its should be illegal. But why is is social permisable, or even thinkable for an other wise reasonalbe person to be so rude?

Does nicotine impare the sense of rudeness(that might not be the best way to phrase that..)

What I'm gettign at here is that smoking around nonsmokers (former smokers too I suppose) is like ripping a fart whenever you want for several minute stretches at a time, heedles of the people around you. Why the rude uncaring or ever self important attiude?

I'm disgusted, annoyed and downright tired of people feeling they have a license to subect me to their habit, just beause they smoke.

I would like it to be legal, but socialy unacceptable to subject others too. For those of you who say "But its my freedom too!" Well yea, and technically its leagal for me to fart anywere I go, do you really want 50% of the poulace to do it everywhere all the time?

Again, don't take it too seriously ^_^

Darn, I can't seem to type my way out of a wet paper bag today sorry...

Hey de Toit:

Getting me to fuck off is something you have neither the authority nor the ability to do on this site. I'll leave it up to Dean and Rosemary.

You've written on your site many times that you *disagree* with sodomy laws. You think that this, somehow, gets you pro-gay points? Yet at the same time, you uphold the *constitutionality* of sodomy laws. You describe sodomy laws as "silly" (but not "bad") or "stupid", yet you uphold the right of the State to regulate the bedroom -- UNTIL the people have been sufficiently convinced of the injustice of it that they vote to have such laws repealed.

This is a contradiction that any self-respecting gay or lesbian person must shudder at. Here are the logical steps I take through your argument:

1. You might disagree with sodomy laws specifically, but you agree with the right of "the people" (embodied in the legislature) to pass and enforce them.

2. Rather than have such laws struck down by the judiciary (whose job it is to interpret the constitutionality of laws), you would rather have the legislature repeal them after having been convinced that such laws are "silly" or "loopy" or whatever mild term you might ascribe to a law that would put me in jail for making love to my husband who the state will not recognize, though all of my family and friends do.

3. In order to convince the legislature that sodomy laws are "a laugh riot", "we" (those seeking to get the government out of our bedrooms) must convince "you" (those whose numbers make a repeal possible) that sodomy laws are "simply daffy" and must be taken off the books -- unless, of course, the legislature decides to put them back *on* the books, which they could do at pretty much any moment, following your rules.

4. Therefore, the rights of the minority are granted to us at the whim of the majority. Therefore, you believe that "the people" have authority over the bodies of "those people". Therefore, you think that in principle, you own my body while I do not -- though you may be nice enough to let me use it.

5. Therefore, on this particular subject, you are a totalitarian -- nearly indistinguishable from the People's Republic of China.

Congratulations -- you're a Communist!

It isn't *enough* to say, "Oh, this law is silly -- let's repeal it!" when it comes to human rights. The government must be denied the power to violate human rights altogether. Your chagrin is based on the fact that you think groups have rights and not individuals. What else could explain your support for state-sponsored intrusions into the bedroom?

I think your passion for firearms, manhood and home-schooling might segue nicely into a passion for sexual liberation had you ever spent a night in jail for having it off with the old man, or for necking in a car, or for simply *being* in the wrong park at the wrong time of night.

It isn't *enough* that states can be convinced to stop meddling in the sexual affairs of grown-ups. Those of us who have oppression based on sexuality know that the government must never have that power under any circumstance, lest we suffer under a modern Paragraph 175, as did homosexuals under the Nazis.

But then again, I'm sure that communities can be convinced that carrying concealed weapons is really a good idea. Don't you? Isn't it time we let the legislatures decide who may and may not carry a gun?

Again, practicing principles by convenience. It works for you, as you have nothing to lose. It will never work for me, as I'm not willing to pay the price you so casually quote, never having paid it yourself.

The issue re: public smoking is much the same as public nudity -- it's all about consent. One of the reasons we don't allow public nudity is that most Americans find it shocking and would prefer to know beforehand whether they will be encountering nudity. So, we relegate nudity to certain environments where it is expected; and so we can say *yes* or *no* to it.

If someone in an adjacent apartment is smoking, it's their business -- I don't need to consent to their cigarette smoke, because it isn't (presumably) invading my space. In public, you cannot consent to cigarette smoke: it's there whether you want it there or not.

The question is: is it "harmful" enough, or "shocking" enough that it should be kept out of the public sphere? In Madison, WI where I live, the answer is somewhat in the affirmative: you can smoke outdoors, but there are restrictions in restaurants and some bars, and the culture is overwhelmingly anti-smoking. Smokers are definitely a "fringe" culture, and having someone light up next to you on the street is likely to get you some looks.

Is it illegal? No. Is it frowned upon? Yes. Is there anything wrong with that? Absolutely not. Like many unpopular things, people are free to smoke, but they're free to suffer the consequences as well.

Whether or not I agree with something doesn't make it consitutional on unconstitutional. It's a black or white issue. Something IS either constitutional or it is not. How I FEEL about it doesn't make a damn bit of difference.

Restrait of law-making is something I assert constantly. Just as important, however, is judicial restraint. You're confusing the two.

You're attempting to attribute principles and policies to me, I suspect because you have a bug up your ass about something my husband wrote, or me personally, to infer that I believe that there SHOULD be sodomy laws, or any laws similar.

I DO NOT. Nor have I ever said any such thing. Nor do I hold any such ideas.

Legislatures can pass laws that I find 1) Wrong/Intrusive, 2) UnConstitutional, 3) Moot, or 4) Constitutional and necessary. Those are the facts. Other than descriptions or labels, I'd wager that most people could categorize their opinions of new or existing laws in the same way.

I seldom advocate for government intervention in ANYTHING. What I constantly argue for is a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I also argue for the strict interpretation of State constitutions. Those are the only protections the people have against the encroachment of the government. When the judicial branch attempts to legislate from the bench, REGARDLESS of how I feel about the outcome, I will argue that it is dangerous. That's commonly referred to as being consistant or intellectually honest, concepts you might want to mull over.

It appears that you believe that the judicial branch (at any level) should just have the willy-nilly idea that they can legislate from the bench and act as activists for whatever cause the people feel is popular, making moot the entire purpose of having a legislature that is accountable to The People.

So, before you go putting words in my mouth, or decribing opinions to me that I do not hold, verify your facts.

I will not be libeled.

Dean and Rosemary, I apologize for the use of your website for this purpose, but I cannot and will not allow lies and slanderous statements said about me (or my husband) without challenge.

Don't apologize for anything, Mrs. du Toit. I have no problems with the discussion so far, except the amount of prejudice and anger some people are expressing.

I, too, worry a great deal about the way some people equate "a judicial decision whose outcome makes me feel happy" with "a judicial decision which is correct." Because, while the latter may seem strict, the former is infinitely more seductive and therefore infinitely more dangerous.

Let us say, for the sake of example, that the city of Detroit passed an ordinance declaring that all citizens must wear underwear on the outside of their clothing, or be subject to a $25 fine.

Would such a law be unConstitutional? I can think of no reason why it should be.

What if the city of San Francisco were to declare that picking your nose and chewing it was subject to a $20,000 fine and 2 years in jail, and loss of custody of your children. Ridiculous? Yes, probably. UnConstitutional? I'd have to say not.

A very serious question that too few people seem to ask themselves is, "Is there any limit on what judges may declare accceptable vs. non-acceptable?"

Indeed, a growing fear I have is that we increasingly look to judges to do "what is right for us," rather than trusting to the democratic process and the rule of law. It genuinely frightens me, in more than one way. Yes, because of the possibility of judicial tyrrany, but also because of the concomitant loss of respect for the democratic process.

Honestly, why don't we all just vote on judges, and do away with legislators and executives entirely?

There are laws right now which could be used to put me in jail. That scares the crap out of me, but less than it scares me that some judge may just decide whatever the hell he wants about a law in order to put me away.

Dean, Pournelle recently observed that, with so many laws on the books, it's almost impossible not to break a law.

If nothing else, the Feds can get you for lying to any federal employee...

Dean (and, to a lesser extent, Mrs. du Toit):

You're equating chewing gum, picking your nose, and wearing underwear with sex. I and most gay and lesbian people who believe as I do find it insulting that laws protecting sexual freedom are seen as "willy-nilly" judicial activism. It's sickening and insulting and contemptible to us. That, I think, is the fundamental split that makes debate so difficult in this matter.

It is as as insulting a dismissal to me as it would be to her if I said, "Oh, all this hysteria over gun ownership is entirely over the top. Clearly, the public has an interest in controlling these deadly devices, and the issue needs to be decided in the legislatures and not because of the neoconservative machinations of a self-appointed judicial elite." Mrs. du Toit talks about giving one's life to defend the right to bear arms. It's a big thing to her, obviously. Well, sexual freedom is a big thing to me.

And as for putting words in the mouths of others, her proclivity for that is well-documented on my site and others. Phagh, say I. Clean your own apron before pointing at stains on mine.

I'm not attempting to libel Mrs. du Toit so much as I'm trying to make it clear that while she is philosophically against sodomy laws (and other such "silly" pieces of legislation), she does not view one's sexuality or its expression as a right deserving of protection. Through all of her bluster about Constitutionality and freedom and liberty and on and on, not once has she affirmed one's sexuality and the emotional and familial bonds it engenders as a right worth protecting. Advocating for, sure. *Persuading* about, yes. Protecting? No. If all of her "pro-gay" protestations were to have any credibility whatsoever, Mrs. du Toit would be rallying her and her husband's troops for an interpretation of the Constitution or a Constitutional amendment that would uphold the freedom of tax-paying, law-abiding adults to conduct their personal lives without meddling (or worse, punitive action) by the state.

She has proposed no such idea. All she's done is decry "judicial activism" and come out so strongly against same-sex marriage as to make any claim on her part that she is somehow supportive of gay and lesbian Americans laughable on its face.

In closing, if "constitutionality" were a black-and-white issue, we would not require odd numbers of life-long legal scholars to make decisions about it. Constitutionality would be self-evident and would require no interpretation. While the Constitution is somewhat of an open book to Mrs. du Toit and others blessed with moral clarity, the operation of our own government is a self-evident proof that it isn't always so simple.

The Supreme Court said that sodomy laws were unconstitutional. You may disagree with the decision, but to begin talking about judicial activism when the system is working as designed smacks of the same "it's bad/good because it's bad/good for me" argument Dean makes above.

I question the motives of people who, seeing a judicial ruling that removes the taint of criminality from millions of gay and lesbian Americans, made in full accordance with the established guidelines of our government, and say, "This is the judiciary run amok!"

Perhaps it was the legislature that had run amok. Perhaps there would be more trust in the democratic process if those participating in it acted in a more trustworthy manner. As things stand, I am not likely to entrust my citizenship to the democratic process. I was born an American. That is not up for a vote.

Aside: I recently read a book titled "The Magic of Dialogue" that explores the ways that dialogue -- as distinguished from discussion or argument -- can create new levels of understanding between people in traditionally antagonistic roles. In the book, some of the prerequisites for dialogue are:

1. trust

2. a sense of equality

3. a willingness to point out one's preconceptions

It's obvious why I can't get into a dialogue on the topic of sexual freedom or same-sex marriage with, for instance, Mrs. du Toit: I don't trust her, I sense that she sees her position and ideas as superior to mine, and neither of us seem interested in shedding or exploring our preconceptions. But the big thing is trust -- it's the issue in all political debate today. It's what prevents dialogue between progressives and conservatives. We don't trust one another. And historically speaking, why should we?

Rosemary, I don't know that most people think non-smokers' rights are more important because they're in the majority. Well, maybe they do at heart, but the argument tends to be (in Miss Manners' phrasing) that in a conflict between an intrusive preference and a non-intrusive preference, the right not to be intruded upon should win.

In social terms, we all recognize that that's true. The problem is that it doesn't work so hot when you're trying to figure out who should be able to get the law on whom. Every sensible person knows of the common-sense dangers associated with inveterate smoking, drinking, fucking all comers, and living on Twinkies. But we also know life-long smokers who die in their sleep at 85, hard drinkers who live responsibly, promiscuous people without STD's, and people who shovel down too many Big Macs with perfect bills of health. Getting the law to force people to be polite and accommodating requires the ridiculous reasoning that every cigarette and corn dog is a threat to the very fabric of society. It responds to the in-your-face obnoxiousness of a few by disallowing trade-offs for everyone. To my mind, the solution is for everyone to start reading and taking to heart the last 25 years of Judith Martin's writing this very minute. Not holding my breath, though.

Oh, and it's nice to see John and Mrs. du T. going at it. As if a cosmic pattern's been reaffirmed, or some such. At the risk of fostering dialogue, promoting the process of healing, and reconciling differences, may I point out that you both have a point? Looking at a thorny issue, Connie thinks it's more important to limit state power and trust our neighbors to make good on the American live-and-let-live philosophy, and John thinks it's more important to encode protections for non-conformist behavior because the majority has set a precedent of not tolerating it. I think you're going to keep talking past each other until it's clear to each of you which good-faith trade-offs the other thinks a member of a free society needs to be willing to make without the force of law.

If: a court striking down a law = "judicial activism" then: a legislature passive a law = "legislative activism", police enforcing a law = "executive activism", soldiers fighting an enemy = "military activism", an industrialist building a factory = "industrial activism", a farmer plowing a field = "agricultural activism", Dean posting something = "blogger activism"

Also: "Sodomy" laws are not "silly" or "goofy" or "daffy" any more than segregation laws were.

Sean, since your quoting Miss Manners and urging people to read her, take a look at her column from 20 Jan 02:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A2849-2002Jan18¬Found=true

____
Then came the plague, not just of smoking scofflaws, but of righteous busybodies. Newly empowered with public support, nonsmokers started polluting the atmosphere with unsolicited and insulting health care. Nor have they been intimidated from doing this in regard to the eating habits of those whom they deem to be overweight by not knowing whether there are other contributing factors.

And they certainly haven't been inhibited by politeness. Miss Manners hopes they will not consider the obesity warning encouragement to point out to the obese that they are obese and that this is not good for them. On the contrary, it should relieve them of the job. There can be no doubt that they already know (as if they didn't before), because the surgeon general has now told them.

Steven:

I know you are being cute but you are in err.

Legislators passing laws = doing their job

Judges are supposed to strike down laws that are unconstitutional = doing their job

Judges striking down laws because they don't like them = judicial activism

Just because a law sucks doesn't make it unconstitutional.

I'm actually having one of those moments where one says "Damn! I wish I'd thaought of that!!"
In regads that is to the public smoking comparison to public nudity.
I've not got the basis on which to make smokers understand why Im soo pissed. All I have to do is ask them to imagine every smoker wandering down the sidewalk nasting up the air, replace it with a hairy fat guy like me and viola'! They will see the light! (And probably hurl!)

Thanks!

BTW On the subject of legalising or legislating away this or that, fact is it happens. How much it happens is up to us. We the People. All of us here seem to have resonably clear idea of what part of the government do these things, for good or ill.

It falls to the citizens to decide, and if we screw it up to fix it. All of this is somewhat indierect of course, but thats how it goes. Jim crow laws, Sufferage, Prohibition all had the up or down from us and sooner or later the leaders got the message and heeded our wishes.

Everyone knows this allready, the whole point of the origional post was to point this out, pretty much a statemnt of the obvious.

^_^

I think that our discussions about all of these laws beg a deeper question: do we own our bodies, and if so, are there provisions in the Constitution that address this? And if not, should there be? Things like smoking and gum-chewing and sidewalk-spitting and Twinkie-eating are also linked in principle to bigger things like abortion and sodomy and assisted suicide. I'd hate for people to get so caught up in the details -- is smoking really harmful or not, are Twinkies really deadly, is suicide a moral choice or not -- that we lose the bigger picture and the underlying principle: that to have life, you have to own your own body; to have liberty, you have to have the freedom to use your own body; and to pursue happiness, you have to be able to make adult decisions that affect your body. These are big questions, and I think that some of the big debates we struggle with in this time -- abortion, sodomy, gay marriage, right-to-die -- are essentially challenging America, from the public to our highest legal scholars, to start questioning whether our current Constitution is up to the task of managing the society we have become. We might have hit one level of abstraction higher than the Founding Fathers could have forseen.

The question about individual liberty and owning one's body goes a step further when the exercise of such liberty effects other people's liberty - e.g. smoking/second-hand smoke, drinking/drunk-driving.

When you examine the arguments presented on many of these issues, their foundations generally relate to how some group will be effected if the debated action or behavior is allowed or refused:

Anti-smokers argue second hand smoke enfeebles health, negatively impacts children who might become addicted, etc

Smokers argue second hand smoke is harmless and they have individual rights to do as they will.

Those against gay marriage argue established tradition and the negative impact gay unions will have on the morals and/or sexual behavior of society.

Advocates argue they are not harming anyone and they are entitled to the same rights and benefits of others. They also argue their unions will strengthen morals, set a good example, they are simply being discriminated against, etc.

If you sell fatty food to somebody who is not an expert in nutrition, are you harming them? Are you responsible?

If you know you have AIDS and are promiscuous are you guilty of some crime?

The list goes on and on for any number of hot topics, but the issue of how one's actions will effect others remains an underlying theme.

I believe it was Forge who wrote: "Or to get more equivilent,have lots of people walking down the crowded street. I'm sure you've all been there. Now picture 40% to 50% (more in some areas) smoking as they go, heeless or uncaring of the others around them. Pretty normal right."

Given that the average adult smoking rate in this country is about 25%, and that the average smoker smokes about a pack a day (a bit more than 1 cig per waking hour), and that a cigarette, particularly one smoked outdoors in the breezes etc, takes about 6 minutes to smoke, the average rate of encounter would be more like 5 to 10% at most rather than t most about 10 minutes to smoke
rather than "40% to 50% (more in some areas)"

The reason the above point is important is that it's typical of the exaggerations that are so commonly used in this overall debate about smoking bans. Do cigarettes emit poisons into the air? Sure they do. Are the amounts they admit in any sense commensurate with the normallly accepted use of the word "poison" to describe them? Of course not: as noted in Dean's thread on AntiBrains a normal glass of water delivers hundreds or thousands of times the amount of arsenic to a nonsmoker in a room with a smoker as a neighbor's cigarette. To speak of "poisoning nonsmokers" is a misuse of the language that amounts to little more than an outright lie. (Note: I don't think anyone here has actually stated that "poisoning" accusation, but it's a VERY common one at hearings on smoking bans.)

Remember: alcohol is classified as a Class A Known Human Carcinogen. Put a rocks glass with a shot (48g) of pure grain alcohol out on a table and come back two days later. It's gone. Unless MeowMeow lapped it up think about where it has gone. Right... into the air which we're all breathing. At about the rate of one full gram of Class A Carcinogen per hour. A cigarette emits six Class A carcinogens. They total about one half of one milligram per cigarette. I.E. the drink puts out TWO THOUSAND TIMES as much carcinogen into the air that the innocent women, children, and babies in the restaurant around you must breathe.

Should drinking be outlawed in restaurants? What about bars? There ARE nondrinkers who work in bars... shouldn't ALL workers have safe, clean, carcinogen-free to breathe? Perhaps bars should all be converted to the milk/juice variety.

Am I advocating the above? Aside from purely aesthetic issues that should obviously be left to individual businesses to decide it certainly makes as much sense as banning smoking on the basis of secondary smoke exposure.

- Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
www.AntiBrains.com

How many people leave drinks sitting around in restaurants for two days?

I've looked into some of this anti-anti-smoking movement, and have found the following:

http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/strsfs.html

So, an author, a website appropriately named "AntiBrains" and the tobacco industry is trying to persuade us the EPA is wrong and we have nothing to lose by breathing in smoke that coincidentally they do agree is harmful to people if they breathe it in directly.

The tobacco industry has a lot of money at stake and the smokers are addicted, whereas the EPA is here to protect us. One need not be a master of critical thinking to see a clear picture here.

John characterizes the opposition to the secondary smoke claims as coming from "an auther, a website, and the tobacco industry."

Actually, there are dozens of websites and a good number of authors who have mounted such opposition. The tobacco industry on the other hand has done its usual trick of late: it's so scared of lawsuits it's willing to do or say almost ANYTHING the Antis want it to say. Just check out the PM ads and go to some of the industry websites and you'll see what I mean.

John asks who leaves a drink out for two days, but such a question has nothing to do with the rate at which and the quantities of carinogens entering the air.

Do I agree with the idea that normal exposure to secondary smoke is harmless in the normal sense of the word while also agreeing that smoking itself is likely to be harmful? Yes... in the same way that I agree that exposure to secondary alcohol fumes is harmless while drinking alcohol directly is harmful. (Yes, before it is brought up, I am fully aware that a glass of wine a day correlates with reduced heart disease. Smoking a few cigarettes a day correlates with lower Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases.)

I was surprised a year or so ago to find that secondary alcohol exposure was not a new idea: evidently it was used by the Antismoker equivalents of the past, the Alcohol Prohibitionists, as well: they conjured up the scary image of the drinking father coming home and breathing those harmful fumes onto the faces of their sleeping babies.

In 1975, at the 3rd "World Conference on Smoking and Health" Sir George Godber, the British Minister of Health, delivered the final address which concluded that in order to achieve a worldwide elimination of smoking "... it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to environmental tobacco smoke."

This is the same George Godber who had earlier compared smokers in the home to having infestations of head lice.

Antismokers believe strongly, and in my view probably quite correctly, that smoking is bad for people's health. The fear of secondary smoke and the creation and misrpresentation of studies supporting that fear is simply a tool to that end. Most professional Antismokers know that the argument is weak, but they feel that "the end justifies the means."

Those who would like to see a full listing of 130 secondary smoke and lung cancer studies along with detailed results and some analysis are welcome to visit my "Philadelphia" page at www.nycclash.com, a website founded and run by a Brooklyn cop who is fed up with the lies being promulgated on this topic.

- Michael
www.Antibrains.com

The EPA is lying and big tobacco is correct? Somehow I still wonder about the motives for each side. From your latest entry I suppose you now argue the motive behind all of these anti-smoking campaigns is a conspiracy dating back to 1975.

Soon you'll have a statistic explaining to me that when secondary smoke irritates my lungs the feeling is all in my head. I just visited About.com and did more research, and the site linked me to another site detailing the experience of second hand smoke victims. I didn't like the stories I read. According to you these stories are probably all false or caused by something else.

I find this debate interesting, because you base your arguments for smoking on the singular principle that people are exaggerating the effects of second hand smoke and a large conspiracy is in play. You seem to suggest the EPA and Surgeon General are on a mission to castigate smokers out of simple dislike. Let me agree with the dislike, as there are a lot of reasons to dislike smoking. But even if you were successful at refuting some or all of the existing studies you allege to be inaccurate, numerous other characteristics of smoking are still left to debate, including the fact that it is killing people, is annoying, pollutes, sets a poor moral standard, etc. No, I'm not getting into these debates, but they are there and easily argued by the anti-smokers, which is why most people don't smoke and don't want smokers around them.

Like I said earlier, one need not be a master of critical thinking to understand the motives each party has in the grand debate. For Mr. McFadden to argue that all anti-smoking is about general dislike fueled by years of falsified studies is absurd.

I'll end with a story from today- I had to visit the cellular phone store, and while I waited for a repair, I stepped outside to make a call. What I saw only reminded me of this continuing debate: cigarettes everywhere alongside the building. I wish I had a picture to post, as there were at least 300 or more butts along the sidewalk and all over the grass. All other arguments aside, I've never understood why smokers can't avoid littering, but anybody can look around almost anywhere and find cigarette butts even in the cleanest urban areas. Perhaps if the smokers were more civil and respectful when exercising their habits they wouldn't get such a bad rap.

I'm going to intersperse John's comments/questions with my responses here. My responses will be with double parentheses.

=====The EPA is lying and big tobacco is correct?

((Actually I disagree with BT on several points, most specifically their support for the MSA deal that they made with the states to take smokers money while getting off scot-free themselves and their capitulation on smoking bans out of fear of future lawsuits. Legally it may seem to make sense to them, morally it sucks. I don't expect moral behavior from Big Tobacco any more than I expect it from Big Auto, Big Pharma, or Big Food though: corporations are ALL into covering their legal butts and stockholder profits.))

Somehow I still wonder about the motives for each side. From your latest entry I suppose you now argue the motive behind all of these anti-smoking campaigns is a conspiracy dating back to 1975.

((The motives for Antismokers are a mixed bag: I spend the first 50 pages of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains examining them. The motive for focusing on secondary smoke and the Denormalization of smokers is clear though: it makes for a VERY effective weapon in the war against smoking. No unified conspiracy, just a general recognition of its effectiveness by the larger and best-funded groups.))

Soon you'll have a statistic explaining to me that when secondary smoke irritates my lungs the feeling is all in my head. I just visited About.com and did more research, and the site linked me to another site detailing the experience of second hand smoke victims. I didn't like the stories I read. According to you these stories are probably all false or caused by something else.

((No. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. The proportion of "psychosomatic" reactions has probably grown greatly in recent years because of the success Antismoking groups have had in frightening people.))

I find this debate interesting, because you base your arguments for smoking on the singular principle that people are exaggerating the effects of second hand smoke and a large conspiracy is in play.

((I have not ONCE argued "for smoking." Next to the Ad Hominem argument of making connections between Free-Choicers and Big Tobacco, the "Straw Man" argument here is perhaps the most popular. If someone argues that secondary smoke is not a significant threat, an Antismoker will very often try to switch things around to make it sound as if that person is arguing that "smoking is healthy." Smoking itself and smoking bans based on false arguments about secondary smoke are two VERY different things.))

You seem to suggest the EPA and Surgeon General are on a mission to castigate smokers out of simple dislike.

((Not at all: the motive is to reduce smoking.))

Let me agree with the dislike, as there are a lot of reasons to dislike smoking. But even if you were successful at refuting some or all of the existing studies you allege to be inaccurate, numerous other characteristics of smoking are still left to debate, including the fact that it is killing people, is annoying, pollutes, sets a poor moral standard, etc.

((And none of those are sufficient grounds for Big Government to be stepping into our private lives and businesses and prohibiting those annoying or "immoral" (?) behaviors. As for pollution... that's simply silly unless you're just talking about litterbugs. A single take-off/landing cycle of a 747 puts out the same amount of carbon monoxide as 357,000 cigarettes and the same amount of nitrogen oxides as 17 MILLION cigarettes. A single large airport can put out almost as much nitrogen oxide pollution in a single day as all the smokers in the world combined.

No, I'm not getting into these debates, but they are there and easily argued by the anti-smokers, which is why most people don't smoke and don't want smokers around them.

((Most people in the US currently do not smoke. In Japan, a country with one of the longest life expectencies in the world, most adult males DO smoke. And, while the second half of your statement is somewhat subjective, my memories of growing up in the 1960s are ones where *I* was one of the only "Antismokers" that existed. My parents and grandmother would always apologise to people about the fuss I'd make sometimes... I really did NOT like the smell. Most people never seemed to notice it in most situations.))

Like I said earlier, one need not be a master of critical thinking to understand the motives each party has in the grand debate. For Mr. McFadden to argue that all anti-smoking is about general dislike fueled by years of falsified studies is absurd.

((It would be absurd, if indeed that was the argument I was making. It's not. And, if you'd actually gone to the site I suggested and looked at the studies listed you'd find that I do not in any way try to argue that they were falsified: most of them do NOT find any significant connection between smoke exposure and lung cancer, EVEN after 30 or 40 or more years of daily and intense exposure... much less find any connection when the exposure is casual or mitigated by decent ventilation/filtration systems.))

I'll end with a story from today- I had to visit the cellular phone store, and while I waited for a repair, I stepped outside to make a call. What I saw only reminded me of this continuing debate: cigarettes everywhere alongside the building. I wish I had a picture to post, as there were at least 300 or more butts along the sidewalk and all over the grass. All other arguments aside, I've never understood why smokers can't avoid littering, but anybody can look around almost anywhere and find cigarette butts even in the cleanest urban areas. Perhaps if the smokers were more civil and respectful when exercising their habits they wouldn't get such a bad rap.

((And here we largely agree, although the phenomenon of massive amounts of butts outside of buildings only occurred AFTER smokers were thrown out into the cold and rain if they wanted to smoke, and became worse when Antismokers complained that ashtrays provided for them only encouraged smoking and should be removed.))

- Michael
www.Antibrains.com

Okay, point by point then -

The EPA site I linked to states that second hand smoke is a preventable health risk. It details negative health effects derived from exposure to second hand smoke. Big tobacco and you both claim second hand smoke is not harmful. So, do you assert the EPA is lying? Perhaps you would like to claim they are simply wrong. They have not falsified the study, they just messed it up. If you say second hand smoke does no harm then you obviously don't accept their case as true.

Next, you cover the mixed motives of anti-smokers. You say they are using demonization to get people to stop smoking. Why do they want smokers to stop and why do they wish to avoid second hand smoke? What are the motives for smokers and the tobacco industry in claiming all of this information is false?

"No. Sometimes they are, sometimes they're not. The proportion of "psychosomatic" reactions has probably grown greatly in recent years because of the success Antismoking groups have had in frightening people."

Sometimes? I thought second hand smoke was not harmful according to your argument? If they are only sometimes false, then how do you account for the times when they are true? If second hand smoke does no harm, and a single glass of water is more harmful than second hand smoke, none of these cases should be true, because second hand smoke could have never caused any harm to these individuals. I’m confused.

Where are your statistics to support this probable increase in psychosomatic reactions to cigarette smoke?

Let's me be clear that I never argued you portray smoking as healthy. As far as your arguments "for smoking" I had better be clear that I am speaking of your arguments that I believe are intended to support the rights of people to smoke wherever they like, because you believe the smoke their cigarettes generate will cause no harm to anybody but those directly inhaling. You've talked about anti-smoking groups leveraging false studies and using demonization tactics while knowing their argument is weak. This sounds like the definition of a conspiracy to me.

"Not at all: the motive is to reduce smoking."

According to this answer, the EPA and the Surgeon General are not castigating smokers out of dislike for them. They are simply trying to stop smoking. I suppose when you were talking about the demonization of smokers earlier you were specifically referring to anti-smoking groups other than the EPA and the Surgeon General. It is only a tactic?

But if they are not trying to do so out of dislike for smokers then what is their reasoning for wishing to stop smoking and supporting the idea that second hand smoke is harmful?

"And none of those are sufficient grounds for Big Government to be stepping into our private lives and businesses and prohibiting those annoying or "immoral" (?) behaviors. As for pollution... that's simply silly unless you're just talking about litterbugs. A single take-off/landing cycle of a 747 puts out the same amount of carbon monoxide as 357,000 cigarettes and the same amount of nitrogen oxides as 17 MILLION cigarettes. A single large airport can put out almost as much nitrogen oxide pollution in a single day as all the smokers in the world combined."

I didn't say these reasons were sufficient to call in big government, but I've already seen one example posted to this blog comparing noise pollution and the laws against it to smoking. Laws are passed to protect people, even from annoyances. Pollution- I was referring to littering. Furthermore, the fact that a 747 pollutes in no way justifies any pollution a cigarette causes. Surely you aren't trying to imply that one wrong can be used as justification for another?

"It would be absurd, if indeed that was the argument I was making."

Okay, so you now say anti-smokers are not fueled by general dislike. If that is not your argument, then why do you believe they are so against smoking? Misinformation from inaccurate studies? Are these people simply misguided?

This is the next part I just don't get. According to this post, they are not falsified studies, but they are not accurate? They are full of false information, but not falsified? They are just wrong? The EPA study clearly claims that second hand smoke is harmful and explains why.

I did go to the site you listed, and all I really saw was t-shirts, coffee mugs and something about a lawsuit. Perhaps the information is there, but it's not readily accessible without digging.

Rosemary:

"Steven:

I know you are being cute but you are in err."

I'm not being cute. I'm being serious. You're the one who thinks "sodomy" laws are "cute" (or "daffy" or "silly" or what-not). I don't.

"Legislators passing laws = doing their job"

Their job is to pass laws that protect my life, liberty, and property -- not to pass laws to throw me or you or John Kusch in jail for making love to another consenting adult in the privacy of our own homes. If they do that, then they are no better than Communist thugs. My right to privacy in my own home is not open to debate nor subject to majority vote.

"Judges are supposed to strike down laws that are unconstitutional = doing their job"

You got that right.

"Judges striking down laws because they don't like them = judicial activism

Just because a law sucks doesn't make it unconstitutional."

Just because a law mostly affects only an unpopular minority (homosexuals, "faggots") doesn't make it constitutional. Otherwise we might as well pass laws against Jews, blacks, "witches", gun owners, smokers, you name it. And just because a law is "merely" against sex doesn't make it constitutional or moral either or merely "silly", since sex is not trivial, bestial, etc., or merely "silly". Sex is central to our being as men or women.

The bottom line is: Just because you're in the majority, you don't own John Kusch. You have no right to forbid him to make love to a man in the privacy of his own home. You have no right to permit him to do so either. He is not your slave, he is a sovereign individual, as are you, as am I.

This issue is not an abstract parlor game about legislative vs. judicial or state vs. federal branches of government. The hard, cold, physical FACT is that _TWO CONCRETE, FLESH-AND-BLOOD INDIVIDUALS_, John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, were ARRESTED in the middle of the night and hauled off to jail in their underwear for making love in the privacy of their own homes.

I'll get to the chase: I have yet to encounter anyone of those who complains about "judicial activism" in this case who ever actually _seriously_ spoke out _against_ "sodomy" laws or ever tried to get any of those laws _repealed_ -- and I mean BEYOND merely joking that those laws were "daffy" or "loopy" or what-not -- BEFORE this case went to the Supreme court, BEFORE these two men, Lawrence and Garner, were arrested. I hope you can prove me wrong on this.

Sorry to be so harsh, but that's the way I feel. This issue is not a joke to me. It's a question of the most fundamental individual rights.

Rosemary:
"Legislators passing laws = doing their job"

Steven Malcolm Anderson:
"Their job is to pass laws that protect my life, liberty, and property -- not to pass laws to throw me or you or John Kusch in jail for making love to another consenting adult in the privacy of our own homes."

One might also point out here--it can't be said too often--that we don't measure performance in congresscritters based on pounds of legislation churned out. The Capitol building is not a steel mill or meat processing plant.

Rosemary: I didn't mean to jump on you personally. I like what you've written, and most of what Dean writes. But I do get mad when people talk about Lawrence and Garner vs. Texas as though it were merely an academic squabble between branches of government rather than involving the sacred rights of two individual men.

John writes, "The tobacco industry has a lot of money at stake and the smokers are addicted, whereas the EPA is here to protect us. One need not be a master of critical thinking to see a clear picture here."

ROFLMAO, now that's funny. So, what you are saying is that the EPA has nothing at stake and is in existance solely to protect us, therefore their words are a pure as new fallen snow? With such pursuasive arguments as that, you really missed your calling and should be writing jingles for the the campaign to put a kinder and gentler face on the IRS.

I really shouldn't have laughed, but it struck me that you wrote that with such sincerity, I couldn't help but imagine that you must come from a family with a long history of public "service". You're not a Kennedy, are you?

Anyway, the fact is that the tobacco companies now ARE part of big government. They've been assimilated some time ago. It's the biggest scam they have going. Government openly persecutes tobacco companies only to give the impression that they are the good guys and entrap the gullible, but big government also is the recipient of most of the profits. Big tobacco gladly accepts their role in this "bad cop, good cop" routine to keep what pittances the government allows them to retain. Nothing is more revealing of this situation than the provisions in the Master Settlement Agreement, whereas the states openly declared they will allow big tobacco to pass on ALL costs of the settlement to their customers and inhibit competition from upstart tobacco companies, which had zero legal liability and were not defendents in the lawsuits. They did this to ensure stable market share, preserve profits, and maintain the money flow into state coffers. In short, it's nothing less than racketeering, and the courts to date have thrown out all legal challenges as to the Constitutionality of those provisions.

Mr McFadden, who is a good friend of mine, and I aren't here to pursuade you or anyone else to do anything, John, for your comments thus far indicate that you are one of those closed-minded anti-smokers already too far absorbed into the cult of sheep. The only thing that can save you is deprogramming, not facts that you can analyze on your own. No, we're simply here to identify some of the hidden issues for others, who have more open minds but not the enormous amount of time it takes to follow these complex issues, for them to contemplate. Neither Mr McFadden nor I have any ties or receive monetary compensation from any tobacco companies, large or small. Our only competing interest is that we both enjoy using tobacco. {sigh} Call us "addicts", if you must, if you think that will help you discount our arguments. It's only fair, since I laughed at you to discount yours. I must add that is only tobacco not procured from the big oligopoly that we purchase for they are just as much our enemies as those in big government who have vested interest in excessively controlling behaviors.

Have a fine Thanksgiving, John. You have a lot to be thankful for with all the charlatans out there, who, as you maintain, have no vested interests {snicker} {- sorry, I couldn't help myself again, because it's just too funny} other than to "protect" you from us evil inhuman smokers.

John writes, "No, I'm not getting into these debates, but they are there and easily argued by the anti-smokers, which is why most people don't smoke and don't want smokers around them."

But you are right in the middle of these debates and have offered your position on each and every one. What you failed to do is research as to the validity of your opinions, which appear to be formed solely on anti-smoker sound-bites and massive advertising. At least that will soon be coming to an end as the states have gotten their loot, bled the well almost dry, and are now defunding anti-smoking special interest groups who have outlived their usefulness.

I have news for you, John. I don't want to be around you or any other unsufferable anti-smoking nags either. And do you think all inclusive bans would be the answer to that? Even during segregation blacks were afforded their own separate but unequal facilities. The state attorney's office in at least two Florida counties declared a ban on hiring smokers, proudly proclaiming publicly that it is discrimination but too bad. Yet they support an all-inclusive ban in Florida to deny the rights of bar owners to hire only smokers and will not allow owners to exercise their private property rights to allow customers to smoke in their own facilities and allow us to congregate in peace where we would be accepted? More dupicity in their arguments. What they mean is, "I don't want to be around you, but I don't want you to be anywhere on your own out of sight either."

John wrote, "All other arguments aside, I've never understood why smokers can't avoid littering, but anybody can look around almost anywhere and find cigarette butts even in the cleanest urban areas. Perhaps if the smokers were more civil and respectful when exercising their habits they wouldn't get such a bad rap."

Nice generalization. It's one anti-smokers always fall back on to try ot paint us all as a great evil that must be crushed. Charlie Manson, Jeffrey Dalmer, and David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz committed murders, so lets lock up all white guys for they all must be murderers. Maybe we should close down Walmart because of all the Walmart bags on the side of our roadways? There are litter laws on the books in nearly every locale I can think of. They obviously can't enforce that very well, now can they? But they can add new laws such as smoking bans which are equally unenforceable? Yes, that's smart.

John, you don't even know what the root causes of all these societal problems are. All you're doing is pointing a finger at the designated scapegoat just like all good followers who have bought into the massive media campaign promulgated to divert your attentions from the real problems we face. The EPA has transformed from a government watchdog set up to protect us from polluters of shared resources into this mediocre bureaucracy to stick their nose into local social issues and practice behavioral control of the masses. And you say they have no vested interest other than to "protect" you. You don't like smoke in a bar, go to a non-smoking bar. There are no non-smoking bars in your area, then tell the owners of those that exist so they can see the unfilled demand. Hell, be an entrepeneur and start one yourself to rake in the obscene profits from the burgeoning unfilled demand that anti-smokers insist is out there. Unless, of course, you had your heart and mind set on being a rocket scientist. Wouldn't want to deny you your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by forcing you to cater to unfilled market demands, would we?

Steven:

I never said the Sodomy laws were cute. I think that they are stupid. I think that I have been very clear in that - more than once.

My point is that as much as I find laws pertaining to personal behavior abhorrent - it is not up to the SCOTUS to "fix" it. That isn't their job.

The whole point of my post was that WE need to stand up here and stop this crap.

I don't want anyone telling me I can't smoke what I want, fuck who I want and drink a beer after I'm done.

Fuck that.

We are the people. Not 9 dinks on the SCOTUS. Not 100 assholes in the Senate that are mostly lifers that don't give a crap unless we jerk them off with enough cash.

We need to stand up and say "HEY, STOP THIS CRAP"
Stop telling us how free we are, then, legislating which way we should wipe our asses after you've fucked us.

Before we even get to the second hand smoke issue, let's look at a quote from your post in the other thread:

"Funds from the MSA go to those orgs trying to denormalize and demonize us smokers."

Translated, these funds go to anti-smoking organizations. Everybody agrees smoking is dangerous and addictive, therefore the government, according to what you have said, has required big tobacco to charge existing addicts additional fees to fund programs designed to dissuade people from smoking. Do you believe there should be no programs at all to provide information about the dangers of smoking? Should the tobacco industry do as it will without any supervision?

You agree smoking is bad for the smoker, challenge their tactics and also say this is racketeering. Again, translated, you are saying that an industry that creates a harmful and addictive product and its addicted customers are being extorted. I suppose those paying extra taxes on cars that don't meet certain fuel economy standards are also being extorted? I thought people chose to smoke and they know the dangers.

Wow, what stretch. I suppose in your perfect world smokers would pay no additional taxes and we would have no anti-smoking organizations at all.

Now, on to second hand smoke-

What is your argument exactly?

First, I hear second hand smoke is not bad and all information presented by existing studies is false or inconclusive. Your friend says it's not out of dislike, so I suppose you must mean it is out of pure inability to conduct a correct study. Then you say "the EPA has transformed from a government watchdog set up to protect us from polluters of shared resources into this mediocre bureaucracy to stick their nose into local social issues and practice behavioral control of the masses." But it's not out of dislike according to Mr. McFadden, so you say it's for reasons of extortion or social control. They are trying to control people not to smoke. Why would they try to do this?

So, again the big conspiracy theory. I feel like you've watched a few to many episodes of the X-Files.

John writes, "Everybody agrees smoking is dangerous and addictive, therefore the government, according to what you have said, has required big tobacco to charge existing addicts additional fees to fund programs designed to dissuade people from smoking. Do you believe there should be no programs at all to provide information about the dangers of smoking? Should the tobacco industry do as it will without any supervision?"

Yes, tobacco use has risks associated with it, primarily from overindulgence. But it is not certain death is not all-inclusive. Many smokers live to ripe old ages and die of natural causes. Just a few for example: Eubie Blake lived to be 100, George Burns - 99, Jean Calment from France - 122.

No, everyone doesn't agree smoking is stongly addictive. Nicotine was thought to be only mildly addictive and still is by many. Anti-smoking orgs liken it to be more addicting than heroin or cocaine. However, the habitual elements of the activity were thought to be the stronger compelling element than the pharmacological ones prior to the 1986 Sturgeon General's report which changed the definition of addiction to specifically include tobacco use. The overwhelming majority of smokers quit without the need of smoking cessation aids or nicotine replacement devices. Just the thought of pharmaceutical companies putting nicotine in patches to break a "nicotine habit" is ludicrous. Do we give unsupervised heroin addicts smaller doses of heroin to wean themselves off the addiction? What patches attempt to do is break the hand to mouth habit, not the pharmacological addiction.

Anti-smoking programs do more than just educate today. They preach hate. A 13 year old boy was killed in Florida last year by a 15 year old who hunted him down because he thought the younger kid was supplying cigarettes to the 15 year old kid's younger brother. An 18 year old pregnant woman was shot in Louisiana last year by an anti-smoking zealot because she refused to put out her cigarette. He didn't do that deliberately, intending to shoot into the air, but the gun misfired and when it did fire, the bullet struck the woman in the shoulder. Outcomes effected by the hate campaigns? No one can say for sure, but people didn't normally cross the street to shriek at smokers. Such events are commonplace these days.

No one is against teaching and printing info. It's the lies and the hate and the illegal political actions. Also, smokers are paying the way, and lung cancer research is the lowest funded than any research on other cancers. "Charitable" orgs, like the American Heart Association, are also spending money to lobby for bans and other legislative action, which is stretching if not already crossed the 501(c)(3) rules which grant them their tax exempt status.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

John writes, "You agree smoking is bad for the smoker, challenge their tactics and also say this is racketeering. Again, translated, you are saying that an industry that creates a harmful and addictive product and its addicted customers are being extorted."

John, have you ever read the MSA? Again, the states have certain provisions to inhibit competition to help the big tobacco oligopoly maintain market share. This competition includes smaller companies that were not in existance during the period that big tobacco committed the acts alleged in the lawsuit. Therefore they had NO liability. I don't know what business you're in, but say for arguments sake that you owned a stationery store. Let's say you run a legitimate, fair and honest store. Now imagine if your dirty, thieving, lying competitor settled with the state for a multi-million dollar amount that would have driven him into bankrupcy. Imagine they allowed him to pass off the penalties in the form of higher prices to his customers. Then imagine they forced you to put a corresponding percentage of the price increase into escrow for 25 years to ensure you couldn't undercut your competitor's prices. What would you call that?

The tobacco companies didn't "create" tobacco, mother nature did. It was around long before there were any tobacco companies. Anti-smokers say tobacco companies manipulated the "free-base" nicotine content to "hook" smokers. Whether that's true or not, I don't know for sure, but testing done by the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland showed that the pure additive-free tobacco in American Spirit had the highest percentage (36%) of free-base nicotine identified in the tests, while other major brands had 10% or less. That surprised the sientists, and I saw a remark in regards to that in one of the news reports when I first heard about it. In looking for the link to write this, I noticed the fact that American Spirit tested the highest did NOT make it into the American press releases in the links that I've found so far, except one on CBS news. It can be found in the Telegraph from the UK. That sure has all the appearances that the American people are being manipulated by the press. Here's the words from the American Spirit manufacturer on that phenomenon:

http://www.nascigs.com/DHTML/section_FAQ/sfntc_faq_13.htm

Now you can keep on beating a dead horse, but the few facts I've provided so far are as plain as the nose on your face. I can go on and on about things like the Northeastern University's Tobacco Control Liabilities Project which has massive conferences of all the trial lawyers to sort out tobacco litigation strategies. Their conference last April was originally entitled "How to Win a Giant Tobacco Verdict". Several days later, after they realized the perception of that, they changed it to read "How to Win a Just Tobacco Verdict", which is what it reads today.

http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/conference/18th/

You want to talk more about conspiracies?

Oh, and this is cute.

http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/box/index.html

John, one of the reasons I wrote my book was because I grew tired of arguments where the person on the other side kept seeming to jump from point to point while ignoring earlier points that had been dealt with and then coming back to them later as though they had not been dealt with.

I am not saying you are doing exactly that, although that is my "feeling" about it. I do want to apologise for not being more specific about the site I sent you to: try this link: http://www.nycclash.com/philly.html

The last item at the top is the "Environmental Toabcco Smoke Table" and a slightly updated version of that table forms part of one of the Appendices in my book. You seem to be interested nenough in this subject that I actually WOULD recommend you get a copy... you might be surprised at how coherent the other side of the coin sounds when it's fully presented.

One final point I *do* want to make about your comments above because it seems to be repeated several times despite my attempts at clarification: The main motivation of the mainstream hhealth establishment organizations in pushing smoking bans comes from their belief, which I do not contest, that smoking is bad for one's health. Although they initially resisted widespread bans (The American Cancer Society actually refused to ban smoking in its offices in the early 1970s on the grounds that such a ban would be "too dictatorial")they eventually realized that such bans and the social stigmatization and denormalization of smokers was a powerful weapon and one that should be used and promoted in their war on smoking. Individual activists and smaller Antismoking groups often have other motivations as well... ranging from a desire to control others to plain and simple things like hate and greed. Again, I examine all that in my book.

As for the conspiracies you keep speaking of, don't dump the idea into the X-Files too fast. A couple of years ago the 11th World Conference on Smoking and Health was held in Chicago. It brought together 5,000 Antismoking activists from 175 countries and smokers were forced to pick up the bulk of the $10 MILLION dollar price tag. At this conference they laid out plans stretching 10 years into the future for decreasing smoking around the world: smoking bans were seen as one of the major successful approaches to be pushed, particularly when combined with worldwide tax increases.

- Michael
www.Antibrains.com

Mr. Lockjaw02

Red Herring #1

((Yes, tobacco use has risks associated with it, primarily from overindulgence. But it is not certain death is not all-inclusive. Many smokers live to ripe old ages and die of natural causes. Just a few for example: Eubie Blake lived to be 100, George Burns - 99, Jean Calment from France - 122.))

Your message as a counterpoint to my assertion that tobacco is bad for one's health: A few people live long lives even while smoking, so all of the reports you read are wrong and tobacco is really okay except when you overindulge.

My message: Wrong! Sample size. Next....

With regards to a previous message about the life expectancy of people in Japan and the number of smokers there- wrong!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/462680.stm

Red Herring #2

((No, everyone doesn't agree smoking is stongly addictive. Nicotine was thought to be only mildly addictive and still is by many. Anti-smoking orgs liken it to be more addicting than heroin or cocaine. However, the habitual elements of the activity were thought to be the stronger compelling element than the pharmacological ones prior to the 1986 Sturgeon General's report which changed the definition of addiction to specifically include tobacco use. The overwhelming majority of smokers quit without the need of smoking cessation aids or nicotine replacement devices. Just the thought of pharmaceutical companies putting nicotine in patches to break a "nicotine habit" is ludicrous. Do we give unsupervised heroin addicts smaller doses of heroin to wean themselves off the addiction? What patches attempt to do is break the hand to mouth habit, not the pharmacological addiction.))

So what? Of course now you’re saying it’s not addictive and those studies are also flawed. It is still addictive, even if it the addiction is a combination of pharmacological addiction and psychological addiction.

Red Herring #3

((A 13 year old boy was killed in Florida last year by a 15 year old who hunted him down because he thought the younger kid was supplying cigarettes to the 15 year old kid's younger brother. An 18 year old pregnant woman was shot in Louisiana last year by an anti-smoking zealot because she refused to put out her cigarette. He didn't do that deliberately, intending to shoot into the air, but the gun misfired and when it did fire, the bullet struck the woman in the shoulder. Outcomes effected by the hate campaigns? No one can say for sure, but people didn't normally cross the street to shriek at smokers. Such events are commonplace these days.))

A few examples of people losing control of their emotions is supposed to derail the anti-smoking campaigns? Sample size. Next....

((It's the lies and the hate and the illegal political actions.))

What’s illegal? Who is lying? Your friend said the studies were not falsified, which would be illegal and lying. So, what illegal activity is going on? Nobody has answered my questions yet about the EPA being misguided.

Red Herring #4

((Also, smokers are paying the way, and lung cancer research is the lowest funded than any research on other cancers. "Charitable" orgs, like the American Heart Association, are also spending money to lobby for bans and other legislative action, which is stretching if not already crossed the 501(c)(3) rules which grant them their tax exempt status.))

So what? Of course they are lobbying, that’s a big part of what started this debate. People lobby for their interest. Thank you for pointing out the obvious and trying to confuse the subject by voicing your opinion about their stretching of tax status. If they aren't breaking the law, who cares? What does this have to do with anything we are discussing?

((John, have you ever read the MSA?))

No, because you already told me what you believe to be wrong with it, and I disagree with your opinion. You describe it again below with an analogy. I understand it only to the degree you have described it.

Red Herring #5

((Again, the states have certain provisions to inhibit competition to help the big tobacco oligopoly maintain market share. This competition includes smaller companies that were not in existance during the period that big tobacco committed the acts alleged in the lawsuit. Therefore they had NO liability. I don't know what business you're in, but say for arguments sake that you owned a stationery store. Let's say you run a legitimate, fair and honest store. Now imagine if your dirty, thieving, lying competitor settled with the state for a multi-million dollar amount that would have driven him into bankrupcy. Imagine they allowed him to pass off the penalties in the form of higher prices to his customers. Then imagine they forced you to put a corresponding percentage of the price increase into escrow for 25 years to ensure you couldn't undercut your competitor's prices. What would you call that?))

This is conjecture on your part, as I see it as not helping the big tobacco companies so much as it prevents entry into the market, which is meant to stop any growth in the industry. Additionally, it passes the costs along to you the smoker. I have no problem with that. You pay extra for a luxury that is harmful to people’s health. The money goes to promote discontinuance of that activity.
Any benefit to the large players is a byproduct of this agreement, because supply is now somewhat fixed along with the increase in the prices. You still didn’t address my question about taxing vehicles that are not fuel efficient. I applaud this strategy.

Red Herring #6

((The tobacco companies didn't "create" tobacco, mother nature did. It was around long before there were any tobacco companies. Anti-smokers say tobacco companies manipulated the "free-base" nicotine content to "hook" smokers. Whether that's true or not, I don't know for sure, but testing done by the Oregon Health and Science University in Portland showed that the pure additive-free tobacco in American Spirit had the highest percentage (36%) of free-base nicotine identified in the tests, while other major brands had 10% or less. That surprised the sientists, and I saw a remark in regards to that in one of the news reports when I first heard about it. In looking for the link to write this, I noticed the fact that American Spirit tested the highest did NOT make it into the American press releases in the links that I've found so far, except one on CBS news. It can be found in the Telegraph from the UK. That sure has all the appearances that the American people are being manipulated by the press. ))

How does this support your argument? Mother Nature created tobacco. So what? Oh my! An article left something out? That must mean only one thing- conspiracy!

Red Herring #6

((Now you can keep on beating a dead horse, but the few facts I've provided so far are as plain as the nose on your face. I can go on and on about things like the Northeastern University's Tobacco Control Liabilities Project which has massive conferences of all the trial lawyers to sort out tobacco litigation strategies. Their conference last April was originally entitled "How to Win a Giant Tobacco Verdict". Several days later, after they realized the perception of that, they changed it to read "How to Win a Just Tobacco Verdict", which is what it reads today.

http://www.tobacco.neu.edu/conference/18th/
You want to talk more about conspiracies?))

Wow, plain facts that are nothing but red herrings. The lawyers have a strategy? I would hope they do if somebody is paying them. I suppose if they had a strategy for suing the makers of harmful toys that could mean only one thing – conspiracy against toy manufacturers!

Your arguments are laughable and avoid the points I’ve made. You still don't address the questions I pose. Honestly, have you taken the time to read what you’ve written? You digress with each keystroke.

Mr. McFadden:

I don't feel you are addressing my questions. Perhaps the answers are in your book, but I've asked them here.

Contrary to what was said earlier, you do have a financial interest in this subject, and I am beginning to feel you are only here to promote your book the subject.

I see your entire argument to be based on the idea that anti-smoking groups are using unfair tactics to pursuade people not to smoke. You claim them to be unfair because their studies are inaccurate or lies.

You have yet to explain why they are lying if not for general disklike for smokers, but your website's homepage boldly declares "Why would they lie?" I suppose you will argue they are afraid, but I say they have every reason to be afraid of smoking. I see no reason the EPA would lie. If smoking and second hand smoke were not harmful, the government and the economy would only benefit from the business.

I'd be interested to read the book, but it's certainly not worth the price listed for me to read continued claims that second-hand smoke is really okay and the EPA is out to get us.

Really, this is a joke. I don't believe smokers to be demons, but I do believe them to be bad people if they litter their cigarettes about my city or fill my breath with their fumes in a public place against my wishes.

Having written a book and devoted some time to the subject at hand, you have maintained a regular but inconsistant argument. There are contradictions in what you have written, and you have not answered any inconvenient questions I posed.

1984 is past. The EPA maintains second hand smoke is bad and I agree with their explanation. My observations are objective, and I see no reason they would state otherwise and I see no conspiracy in play.

John wrote:

With regards to a previous message about the life expectancy of people in Japan and the number of smokers there- wrong!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/462680.stm

((er, John? Did you read the article? It in no way contradicts what I said. The only mention of Japan in that article is about the "predictions" made for the future. Since the Japanese male population has been smoking heavily for the last 50 years it would seem that their present-day longevity carries more weight than a prediction made in an article with a pronounced Antismoking slant to it.))

Mr. McFadden:
I don't feel you are addressing my questions. Perhaps the answers are in your book, but I've asked them here.

((That's true, and I've spent a great deal of effort in answering them here. I was simply stating that to REALLY see the answers in a depth that might answer your concerns, a 380 page book with 600+ references might serve better than disjointed back and forth communications.))

Contrary to what was said earlier, you do have a financial interest in this subject, and I am beginning to feel you are only here to promote your book the subject.

((John, if you Google me as Cantiloper you'll find that I've posted upwards of 2,000 messages on this subject to net newsgroups over the past 10 years. The book was something I just got into doing the year before last. If my book sales increased by a factor of 1,000x or so, I *might* break ten cents an hour for my time. Given that lawyers on the other side are known for getting ten thousand dollars an hour for theirs I kind of doubt I'm choosing to argue my side for the money.

I see your entire argument to be based on the idea that anti-smoking groups are using unfair tactics to pursuade people not to smoke. You claim them to be unfair because their studies are inaccurate or lies.

((Yes! That's a good 80% or more of my argument, although I'm not claiming so much that the STUDIES are lies, as I claim that their interpretation, presentation, and use are lies. For example, the 1998 WHO multinational study, perhaps the largest international case-control study ever done in the area, found NO significant association between secondary smoke and lung cancer in general, and actually found a PROTECTIVE effect for children: children of smokers got 22% less lung cancer as adults than matched children of nonsmokers. How was this study presented to the public however? "WHO Study: Passive Smoke DOES Cause Lung Cancer!" If you want to see the actual official abstract of the study, please see my earlier link to clash/philly.))

You have yet to explain why they are lying if not for general disklike for smokers, but your website's homepage boldly declares "Why would they lie?"

((John, I really do NOT know what to say to this. I have said, at LEAST three times, VERY plainly: Health organizations believe that smoking is bad for the health of the smoker, THEREFORE they have created this fear of secondary smoke because they see it as one of the most effective techniques in reducing smoking itself. ))

I suppose you will argue they are afraid, but I say they have every reason to be afraid of smoking. I see no reason the EPA would lie. If smoking and second hand smoke were not harmful, the government and the economy would only benefit from the business.

((And again, I have NEVER, not ONCE, not ANYWHERE said ANYTHING about "smoking not being harmful." Yet you've repeated variations of this in almost every post. I have no idea how to say it more clearly.))

I'd be interested to read the book, but it's certainly not worth the price listed for me to read continued claims that second-hand smoke is really okay and the EPA is out to get us.

(( It might be worth it for you to read and understand more fully the rationale and facts behind those claims about secondary smoke. As for the EPA, once again you're using a fallacious argument: I've NEVER said the "EPA is out to get us." ))

Really, this is a joke. I don't believe smokers to be demons, but I do believe them to be bad people if they litter their cigarettes about my city or fill my breath with their fumes in a public place against my wishes.

((Again, no argument on the litter. Smokers and corpse eaters who throw their butts and packaging on the street should be fined and treated with equal contempt. As for public places... if a private business, such as a bar, wishes to allow smoking, you, as a free citizen should have every right in the world to choose a different business to hang out in. I would never seek to deny you that right... can you have equal consideration?))

Having written a book and devoted some time to the subject at hand, you have maintained a regular but inconsistant argument. There are contradictions in what you have written, and you have not answered any inconvenient questions I posed.

((I don't feel I've been inconsistent, nor do I feel I've avoided answering any "inconvenient questions." How about in your response to this you post 3 such questions you feel I've avoided, number them, and I'll try to either answer them specifically or show where I've answered them already.))

I may not get back here for a day or two, but I'll look forward to posting again. **MANY** thanks to Dean for providing a forum such as this: it is MUCH more civil than alt.smokers, and **MANY** thanks to Rosemary for starting this interesting thread.

And HAPPY THANKSGIVING to all!

:)
Michael

Rosemary:
"Congress Passes Law Banning Extra-Marital Sex, Smoking, and Reinstates Prohibition"

You say the above could happen; I would agree it "could" happen. If you are in any way claiming that it would be constitutional I would have to disagree.

Looking over the U.S. constitution I don't see any grant of power to Congress to pass legislation of ANY nature regarding these subjects. Yes, I know they do such things regularly -- that just means our judges are not active enough in striking the crap down (they often go well out of their way to twist things to give the crap the appearance of constitutionality). It also means that most (all?) of the senators and congressmen have no Honour in any sense of the word that is useful.

So the question is: Do you think such acts would be constitutional? If so, where in the U.S. constitution do you read such a grant of power?

Of course, if you are referring to a statute enacted by a state legislature then constitutionality would be dependent of the state constitution only. It would appear the Federal constitution would have no bearing on the matter (excepting prohibition -- it is explicitly endorsed: Amendment 21, section 2); the U.S. congress and the Federal judges would have no authority to intervene in the matter. (If anyone thinks they would: Please point out the exact text of the U.S. constitution that grants such power.)

Without regard to the above, I agree that it is WAY past time to say, as you put it, "HEY, STOP THIS CRAP".

Bob

It's funny, the examples comparing smoking to loud boomboxes and public nudity are actualy very interesting. The really key difference is that fine, upstanding, morally righteous, good citizens and pillars of the community are ALSO - smokers. Those same people are highly unlikely to engage in either of the other behaviors. Hence why public smoking is as sticky a topic as it is. Regular folks do it. We can't possibly legislate against those people!?! (oh the outrage)

Sorry, but yes. Smoking is disgusting. PERIOD. Have you ever cleaned the inside windows in a bar ? You should try it. People who smoke stink, literally. It's gross and I don't think you will find a single non-smoker that would argue that it isn't, and even LESS likely to find a former smoker that would argue that it isn't gross.

You should be free to do what you want with your body. And to me that includes assisted suicide, currently illegal drugs, and sodomy. But when it infringes on others, that's where I draw the line. The simple fact is smoking has been viewed as an acceptable habit for a LONG LONG time, and otherwise perfectly normal, law abiding, and moral people do it. Oh, and they CANNOT stop. For even a half hour to sit down and eat.

That doesn't change the fact it's gross and people who don't smoke shouldn't be subjected to it in a public or defacto public place, including restaurants and bars.

BRAINS vs. ANTIBRAINS

This will be a long post, but a comprehensive explanation meant to show readers the TRUTH about second hand smoke. Please notice I have referenced dates and times of the quotes I used to prevent Mr. McFadden from accusing me of any foul play-

Mr. Michael McFadden (antibrains) and I have been engaged in an extended colloquy about second hand smoke. Many facts have been presented. Before I ask the 3 questions Mr. McFadden has graciously offered to answer, let me first review the facts presented so far:

Mr. McFadden agrees-

Smoking is harmful to the smoker’s health:

“Antismokers believe strongly, and in my view probably quite correctly, that smoking is bad for people's health.” Michael November 25, 2003 @ 7:18 PM

And he does not trust the big tobacco companies:

“I don't expect moral behavior from Big Tobacco any more than I expect it from Big Auto, Big Pharma, or Big Food though: corporations are ALL into covering their legal butts and stockholder profits.” Michael November 25, 2003 10:44 PM

The EPA agrees with Mr. McFadden that smoking is harmful to a smoker’s health:

“it is indisputable that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer in humans, and there is no evidence that there is a threshold below which smoking will not cause cancer.” http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/strsfs.html

And they have also proven that the smoke from a cigarette hurts more than just the smoker:

“although secondhand smoke is a dilute mixture of mainstream" smoke exhaled by smokers and sidestream" smoke from the burning end of a cigarette or other tobacco product, it is chemically similar to the smoke inhaled by smokers, and contains a number of carcinogenic compounds.” http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/strsfs.html

And:

“there is considerable evidence that large numbers of people who do not smoke are exposed to, absorb, and metabolize significant amounts of secondhand smoke” http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/strsfs.html

The EPA also does not trust the big tobacco companies:

“A recent high profile advertising and public relations campaign by the tobacco industry may confuse the American public about the risks of secondhand smoke.” http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/strsfs.html

So they are sure to be very clear about their position on the matter:

“EPA believes it's time to set the record straight about an indisputable fact: secondhand smoke is a real and preventable health risk.” http://www.epa.gov/iaq/pubs/strsfs.html

Michael partly agrees with what the EPA has to say:

“Do cigarettes emit poisons into the air? Sure they do.” Michael November 25, 2003 01:44 PM

But not completely:

”Are the amounts they admit in any sense commensurate with the normally accepted use of the word "poison" to describe them? Of course not” Michael November 25, 2003 01:44 PM

Michael's claims the real facts are quite the opposite:

“The same sort of thing holds true for virtually every other chemical in smoke. They do NOT exist in normal situations at levels that OSHA or the EPA have EVER found to be dangerous to workers” Michael November 24, 2003 01:01 AM

Contrary to common sense and despite scientific proof, he thinks they are up to something sneaky:

“Health organizations believe that smoking is bad for the health of the smoker, THEREFORE they have created this fear of secondary smoke because they see it as one of the most effective techniques in reducing smoking itself.” Michael November 26, 2003 11:01 PM

Apparently, it’s not just the EPA, but many “health organizations” have conspired together to make people afraid of secondary smoke by creating studies and misrepresenting them to the public:

“The fear of secondary smoke and the creation and misrpresentation [sic] of studies supporting that fear is simply a tool to that end.” Michael November 25, 2003 @ 7:18 PM

According to Michael, some events have happened in the past that have caused these “health organizations” to band together to do such a thing:

"As for the conspiracies you keep speaking of, don't dump the idea into the X-Files too fast. A couple of years ago the 11th World Conference on Smoking and Health was held in Chicago. It brought together 5,000 Antismoking activists from 175 countries and smokers were forced to pick up the bulk of the $10 MILLION dollar price tag. At this conference they laid out plans stretching 10 years into the future for decreasing smoking around the world: smoking bans were seen as one of the major successful approaches to be pushed, particularly when combined with worldwide tax increases." Michael November 26, 2003 04:24 PM

And he believes they aren’t being nice about it either:

“they eventually realized that such bans and the social stigmatization and denormalization of smokers was a powerful weapon and one that should be used and promoted in their war on smoking” Michael November 26, 2003 04:24 PM

And it seems that for a long time, these groups haven’t like smokers very much:

“In 1975, at the 3rd "World Conference on Smoking and Health" Sir George Godber, the British Minister of Health, delivered the final address which concluded that in order to achieve a worldwide elimination of smoking "... it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to environmental tobacco smoke. This is the same George Godber who had earlier compared smokers in the home to having infestations of head lice. " Michael November 25, 2003 07:18 PM

Another part of this conspiracy seems to be manipulating the dictionary:

“according to the way Surgeon General Koop and cohorts deliberately fiddled with the meaning of the word in the late 1980s so as to allow them to define smoking as addictive it is now possible to change how addictive a substance is simply by changing its price tag. They've made a mockery out of the meaning of the word and we now have people addicted to sex and rock and roll in addition to drugs.” Michael November 24, 2003 06:26 AM

For some Orwellian use:

"The concept of addiction has a lot of nasty social uses when it can be defined to mean whatever those in power want it to mean. Orwell knew a lot about the power of word definition. Go back and read 1984 again... it's a VERY good book." Michael November 24, 2003 06:26 AM

I remember that book. It is a classic story written about a dystopia called “Oceania.” People often refer to it when they are trying to convince others the government is becoming to powerful. It certainly was a scary story.

Michael also explains why he thinks smokers shouldn’t be characterized as “addicted”:

“smokers do NOT generally smoke simply because of a physical "addiction" to nicotine” Michael November 24, 2003 06:26 AM

Because they are really only addicted to enjoyment:

"A lot of smokers ENJOY smoking… The cause of that enjoyment, whether it's taste, smell, playing with smoke rings, a caffeine-like jolt to the bloodstream, or whatever, is pretty irrelevant…they are addicted to the enjoyment of smoking and miss it when they cannot smoke” Michael November 24, 2003 06:26 AM

So he logically concludes his conspiracy is real because:

“Some people do better at deprivation of enjoyment or the resisting of urges than others. This game of simply defining nicotine and smoking as addictive was simply and deliberately motivated by the desire to produce a similar societal reaction against tobacco as had been done against heroin” Michael November 24, 2003 06:26 AM

But he says this knowing:

“30 years ago people knew that smoking was hard to give up” Michael November 24, 2003 06:26 AM

And ignoring a testimonial from one of Dean’s World’s other readers:

“smoking is addictive … I don't smoke to be "cool", and I doubt anyone above the age of 15 does. I smoke because I'm hopelessly addicted to cigarettes. I've attempted to quit many times (once I even succeeded for 6 months), and will continue to try quit probably until the end of my days (if I continue to be chronically unsuccessful).” dowingba at November 24, 2003 02:33 AM

Having even said it himself, I’m still not sure why he is arguing smokers shouldn’t be described as addicted. If smoking is harmful to them, and they find quitting smoking hard for any reason, then I still believe they are “addicted.” I rush to ask my old friend Merriam-Webster and find the following:

From Webster:

Main Entry: ad•dic•tion
Pronunciation: &-'dik-sh&n, a-
Function: noun
Date: 1599
1 : the quality or state of being addicted
2 : compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly : persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful

The word “addiction” clearly seems to apply. The definition even references nicotine. According to Michael, I really can’t trust Webster anymore, because some kind of conspiracy is in play. He says smokers can’t stop because they enjoy something about smoking, so they aren’t really addicted.

I think this sounds silly. I don’t see why so many people would conspire together and go to such much trouble just because they don’t like smokers. I let him know how I feel:

“For Mr. McFadden to argue that all anti-smoking is about general dislike fueled by years of falsified studies is absurd.” John at November 25, 2003 09:44 PM

So he tells us it is not because they "hate" or dislike smokers:

"It would be absurd, if indeed that was the argument I was making. It's not.” Michael November 25, 2003 10:44 PM

But then he contradicts himself the next day??:

“Antismoking groups often have other motivations as well... ranging from a desire to control others to plain and simple things like hate and greed.” Michael at November 26, 2003 04:24 PM

He also says the studies were probably legitimate, but they are being used incorrectly:

“I'm not claiming so much that the STUDIES are lies, as I claim that their interpretation, presentation, and use are lies.” Michael November 26, 2003 11:01 PM

…in order to get people to stop harming themselves by smoking:

“The main motivation of the mainstream hhealth [sic] establishment organizations in pushing smoking bans comes from their belief, which I do not contest, that smoking is bad for one's health.” Michael November 26, 2003 04:24 PM

Michael’s conclusion is that these organizations, knowing smoking was bad, studied it and only got part of the answers right. He agrees with the part about smoking being unhealthy, but he disagrees that the same smoke - as second hand smoke - causes any harm. He argues that the second hand smoke parts of the studies are invalid, and health groups have all agreed to knowingly lie about the results to promote smoking bans.

Oh yeah, and let’s not forget greed and power that apparently can be derived from lying about health studies and controlling smokers' destinies.

For these reasons, Michael thinks smoking and second hand smoke are unique issues and shouldn’t be related. Because he disagrees with the studies, he sees including the two together as a problem:

“Another problem I've seen here, and elsewhere, is the tendency of those arguing on the side of smoking bans to constantly mix up and confuse the issues of smoking itself with exposure to secondary smoke. Two VERY different issues, but those taking the Antismoking side of the argument in debates such as this seem to always like to bring the smoking and health debate language into debates about smoking bans as though the two were the same thing.” Michael November 24, 2003 05:29 PM

I wonder to myself- “If he’s right, then why does second hand smoke make me feel bad?” So I look on the internet and find volumes of information claiming second hand smoke is bad for me. I remember that according to Michael, all of these organizations are in on a big conspiracy to stop me from doing something that would hurt me. He says they are all lying. Then I find this information:

Documents show that as early as 1978, tobacco companies regarded public
concerns over second-hand smoke as the No. 1 threat to their future
profitability. So they began to devise what one document referred to as a
"multiple warhead system" to attack the enemy.

Big tobacco's shell game with the truth",
The Gazette, from Montreal,
Reporter William Marsden

So the tobacco industry planned to do something to prevent people from fearing second hand smoke, because that fear would cause them to lose a lot of money. Michael did say earlier that the tobacco companies “are ALL into covering their legal butts and stockholder profits.” Next I found this:

Confidential internal tobacco company documents released as a result of litigation in the US reveal the extent to which tobacco companies are concerned about the trend to ban smoking in public places and workplaces:
- Philip Morris estimates that workplace smoking bans cause smokers to quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average and reduce their tobacco consumption by 11-15%.

http://www.tobaccotoolkit.ca/Economicimpact.html

Nobody seems to trust big tobacco, not even Michael. I really don’t trust them either, because everybody agrees their product hurts people. Big tobacco sells a product they know kills people, so that must be a big part of the reason nobody thinks the industry is ethical. Consequently, I’m not surprised when I find out what they decided to do:

What tobacco firms are doing to block smoking bans
- Financing biased "scientific" studies refuting the evidence that second-hand smoke is harmful to health and claiming that smoking bans hurt business.
- Financing business front groups, such as the Canadian Hotel Association (CHA) and Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association (CRFA) and related provincial organizations to lobby against proposed smoking bans.
- Trying t