Stand FAST

Plain packages

2012-01-01T01:26:00.003-05:00

Anti-smoker zealots would have us believe that all tobacco control initiatives are about public health; if smokers can be coerced into quitting their filthy habit, then the cancer “epidemic” and dozens of other “tobacco related” diseases would simply disappear. But honesty and integrity are not characteristics I normally associate with the anti-smoker crowd.

The latest gambit in the campaign to force smokers to quit comes from the land down under.

Australia has launched legislation that will require tobacco products to be sold in plain packaging beginning in December 2012. Under the plain packaging legislation, all tobacco products will have to be sold in ugly olive-green packages, plastered with graphic health warnings, with the product name in standardized lettering.

It is believed that plain packaging will make cigarettes less attractive to young people, improve the effectiveness of health warnings and diminish the perception that some brands are ‘safer’ than others. According to the zealots, making the cigarette package as nondescript and unappealing as possible will reduce smoking uptake amongst children and young people. Uh-huh.

Of course, there’s no way the effectiveness of this, or any other single tobacco control initiative, can be evaluated. Have fewer kids taken up the smoking habit because cigarettes are hidden from view or because laws prohibiting sales of tobacco to minors, on the books in Canada for over a hundred years, are finally being enforced?

Do cigarette packages, adorned as they are with repulsive graphic health warnings, really encourage children and young people to start smoking just because a small portion of the package comes in a pretty shade of blue or a company logo?

British American Tobacco (BAT) has launched a court challenge to Australia’s plain packaging legislation. This angers the anti-smoker zealots who prefer the industry to roll over and play dead.

Australia’s Health Minister, Nicola Roxon, said in a statement: "Let there be no mistake, big tobacco is fighting against the government for one very simple reason - because it knows, as we do, that plain packaging will work.”

The simple truth is that neither she, nor her government, can possibly know any such thing.

Australia is the first jurisdiction in the world to contemplate such legislation, and that legislation is not scheduled to become effective for another year. So there is no precedent on which to base her claim that the government knows plain packaging will work.

But, despite the lack of evidence demonstrating any merit in such legislation, anti-smoker zealots are already pushing for similar laws in other jurisdictions, including Great Britain and Canada.

In Canada, cigarette advertising is conspicuous by its absence, cigarette displays are prohibited at point of sale and the sale of any tobacco products to minors is illegal. The elimination of company trademarks, logos or colour schemes is unlikely to make cigarettes any less appealing to children (or young people). Even adults don’t get to see the pack until after they’ve paid for them.

Of course, the kids might develop a nicotine “addiction” from the flavoured nicotine gum or lozenges which are sold over the counter with no age restrictions. But, that’s for another post.

And, it’s hard to see how plain packaging would make the graphic warnings on cigarette packs any more effective. They’re already as ghoulish and grotesque as a scene from The Texas Chainsaw Massacre or some other slasher flick.

And, the packs will still require a modifier indicating whether the contents are regular, light, extra light or menthol. Whether the smokes are marked Peter Jackson Lights, Peter Jackson Blue or Peter Jackson Number 2 will make little difference. The distinction between regular and light cigarettes will always be there because smokers want, and are entitled, to know what they’re buying. So, there is little to be accomplished on that front.

Plain packaging? Bullshit and bafflegab at its finest.

Return of The Old Rambler

2011-12-22T13:35:00.002-05:00

I guess it’s about time I gave readers of this blog (at least those who haven’t deserted me) an explanation for my lengthy absence and the lack of a timely response to their e-mails; 386 unanswered e-mails in one account and 522 in the other.

The simple truth is that I’ve had neither the energy nor the inclination to sit down at my computer long enough to even check my email accounts, let alone post to my blog. A lengthy hospitalization (over three months) can be both debilitating and depressing.

Obviously, rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated, although it was ‘touch and go’ for awhile. Nor have I been soaking up the sun on some remote island in the South Pacific. In fact, a vacation on some snow covered island in the frozen reaches of the far north would have been preferable to where I did spend the summer and a good part of the fall. Hospitals are no place for rest and relaxation.

I knew I was in deep shit when I woke up back in June with some sweet young thing asking me if I knew my name or where I was. I answered, in a barely audible whisper, “Huh?”

“Do you know where you are?” she persisted.

“Hospital,” I wheezed, after giving the question some serious thought. “CABG” (coronary artery bypass graft)

“That’s right.” She smiled, “Now, can you tell me your name.”

I did the Socrates routine and answered her question with one of my own. “How in fuck does a guy get run over by a truck in the middle of an operating room?” Her raised eyebrow suggested she was in no mood for humour. So I told her who I was even though I suspected she already knew. I was in no position to be combative.

Bypass surgery is fairly commonplace these days; some might be tempted to say routine. But it does come with some considerable risk attached. The surgery itself went well, or so I’m told. It was an infection, a touch of pneumonia and fluid on the lungs which kept me in the intensive care unit for five weeks. I’m still trying to figure out how you get an infection, especially a contagious one, in such a sterile environment.

At any rate, I spent five weeks with nothing to eat or drink that wasn’t pumped through a tube. And weeks after that eating solid foods pureed to the point of liquidity and drinking fruit juice thickened to the point where you had to drink it with a spoon. Did you know that they can even thicken water?

Of course, it wasn’t all bad. I did manage to shed 35 pounds. But, it’s a weight loss regimen I wouldn’t recommend to everyone. In fact, I wouldn’t recommend it to anyone, even the fanatics in the anti-smoker brigade.

But I’m not going to spend a lot of time crying in my beer. I was sick. And, thanks to some very capable and dedicated medical professionals, I’m now on the road to recovery.

The cardiac surgeon seems happy with the outcome and I’m happy I’m still on the green side of the grass. Even the nurse I overheard confide to a colleague, “He’s not going to make it,” seemed pleased to be wrong. And it will come as no surprise that I’m as pleased as a pig in shit that she was. Wrong that is.

It has not been a pleasant experience. And, it’s taken a toll both physically and mentally. But it’s time to shake off the lethargy and get on with the business of living. And that includes making regular posts to this blog.

I’ll be out of town over the holidays, spending time with my kids and grandkids. But, hopefully, I should be able to start making regular posts in the New Year.

Until then, I’d like to wish everyone a Merry Christmas and the best of luck in the New Year.

Can we make smoking safer by reducing TSNA?

2011-05-26T15:06:00.003-04:00

A new “scientific” study from anti-smoker researchers concludes:”We found no indication that any meaningful attempt was made to reduce or at least control TSNA levels in the new varieties of the popular brands Marlboro and Camel introduced over the last decade. In light of the recently granted regulatory authority to the FDA over tobacco products, regulation of TSNA levels in cigarette tobacco should be strongly considered to reduce the levels of these potent carcinogens in cigarette smoke.”

The researchers are calling for the US FDA to dictate a reduction in the levels of TSNA (tobacco specific nitrosamines) in cigarettes. This follows a WHO (World Health Organization) proposal to mandate a lowering of selected “toxicants” in cigarette smoke published in the journal Tobacco Control in 2008.

Study authors are claiming that higher levels of TSNA in cigarette smoke are associated with a higher risk of cancer, and that reducing TSNA will have an unspecified beneficial affect. “Modification of tobacco curing methods and other changes in cigarette manufacturing techniques could substantially reduce the levels of tobacco-specific nitrosamines (TSNA), a group of potent carcinogens, in cigarette smoke.”

The inference is that reducing the levels of TSNA in cigarettes will reduce the alleged health risks of smoking; that mandating lower levels of TSNA will, in fact, result in safer cigarettes.

The problem, of course, is that the specific chemicals, or chemical compounds, (the toxicants) responsible for the alleged risks related to tobacco smoke are unknown. So, following the logic of the anti-smoker crowd, there can be absolutely no scientific evidence that reducing or even eliminating specific constituents in tobacco smoke will reduce its overall toxicity.

If the specific constituents in tobacco smoke responsible for lung cancer are unknown, it follows that no safe level of exposure to those unknown constituents can be determined.

In fact, that is just what the US Surgeon General has stated unequivocally; that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. And, if there's no safe level of exposure, just how in hell will forcing the cigarette companies to reduce levels of specific tobacco constituents improve public health?

The researchers are highly critical of the tobacco companies, blaming them for their failure “to reduce or at least control TSNA levels.” But, obviously, if there is no such thing as a safer cigarette, as the anti-smoker zealots contend, then reducing the levels of some chemicals in tobacco is a complete waste of time, effort and money.

This latest study ignores the fact that it was anti-smoker zealots who were responsible for the termination of research into potentially less hazardous cigarettes. In fact, for 30 years, the anti-smoker cult has categorically rejected the possibility.

In the late seventies, the Smoking and Health Program was administered by the National Cancer Institute in the US; charged with the task of developing a less hazardous cigarette. Among those researching the possibility of less hazardous cigarettes were such notables as Gio Batta Gori and Ernst Wynder, both of whom opposed smoking.

Dr. Gori, who received the U.S. Public Health Service Superior Service Award in 1976 for his efforts, maintained that a less harmful cigarette could be developed. He did not envision a “safe” cigarette, but rather a safer cigarette, one which would reduce the risk(s) associated with smoking even though it might not eliminate those risks in their entirety. Focusing on harm reduction, Gori asserted, could substantially reduce the morbidity and mortality for which tobacco was thought responsible.

In 2002, Gori wrote: “One-fifth of humanity smokes with little indication they might soon quit, too many public and private interests benefit handsomely from the trade, and an illegal market stands eager to fill an uncontrollable demand should taxes and prices be set too high or should cigarettes be made illegal. Hence, the sensible and ethical public health policy would be to continue efforts to persuade smokers to quit, and to consider ways to reduce the risks for those who keep on smoking.”

Unfortunately, Dr. Gori's harm reduction approach to tobacco use was discarded in favour of the zealots zero tolerance policies and research on less hazardous cigarettes was terminated circa 1980 when the prohibitionists announced they could end smoking by the year 2000.

So how can the WHO and the anti-smoker zealots insist, on the one hand, that less hazardous cigarettes are neither feasible nor desirable, while on the other advocating a reduction of TSNA and other toxicants, ostensibly to facilitate some kind of health benefit to smokers?

If the anti-smoker crowd were genuinely concerned about the health of smokers, they would embrace the concept of harm reduction. They would actively promote all products with the potential to reduce the alleged hazards of smoking, including snus and the electronic cigarette, not just those products on offer from the pharmaceutical industry.

Instead, the anti-smokers stridently attempt to discredit those tobacco products, with dishonest claims and blatant misrepresentation of the facts.

This latest study, and the proposals from the WHO which preceded it, must be considered disingenuous at best. Just more bullshit and bafflegab from the disciples of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker.

Smoking is . . . is not, an addiction

2011-05-23T10:55:00.003-04:00

There's been a lot written about smoking and addiction on the blogs and websites dedicated to such issues this past week. It's actually a difficult subject to discuss because there's no longer any real definition of addiction; the meaning has become rather vague, lost actually, with the parameters seemingly changing to suit the occasion.

John Banzhaf, one of the high priests of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker, has pontificated that smoking is not an addiction. The addiction, he claims, is to nicotine. And, since nicotine addicts can get their fix from any number of sources or delivery systems, including the patch, gum or electronic cigarette, then smoking becomes a choice.

And, it naturally follows that, if smoking is a choice, then it is fair and reasonable to discriminate against smokers by refusing medical treatment, among other things.

Anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel, takes exception to Banzhaf's decree, claiming that smoking is indeed an addiction; smokers are as much in need of the rituals involved in smoking as they are in the hit of nicotine.

Siegel's main concern is that, if smoking is viewed as a choice rather than an addiction, then legal action against the tobacco companies, dependent as they are on the proposition that people don't quit because they can't, becomes that much more difficult. The contention that the tobacco companies compel smokers to use their product by making it addictive becomes a somewhat specious argument.

If nicotine is the addiction, and there are other sources of nicotine available, then the case against the tobacco companies goes up in smoke. The anti-smoker strategy of painting smokers as the helpless victims of “big tobacco” falls apart and smokers become the authors of their own misfortune.

In the US, the patch became available by prescription in 1992, and over the counter in 1996. Other alternative nicotine delivery systems have been developed and marketed since then. So, if nicotine is addictive, then Banzhaf has a point. And, the smoker has ample access to an alternative supply of nicotine. In addition, there are now a number of relatively safer tobacco products available, including the electronic cigarette and snus. Plug (chewing tobacco), cigars and pipes have also been shown to be less hazardous in comparison to cigarettes.

So, can either smoking or nicotine be properly considered an addiction?

Reviewing the smoking prevalence statistics from Health Canada's last SAMMEC report, we find that 44% of Canadians over the age of fifteen (roughly 8 million) are former smokers. So, if either smoking or nicotine is an addiction, obviously neither requires a herculean effort to break. Certainly neither is in the same league as heroin or cocaine addiction.

To me, that suggests the anti-smoker claim that 75% or 80% or 120% of smokers want to quit but simply can't because of their addiction is just so much bullshit. If they really wanted to quit, they'd join the 8 million Canadians who have already done so.

As a layman, I have to rely on common sense to distinguish between addiction and habit. For example, if I run out of smokes and knock on my neighbours door to beg a fag, I'm entertaining a habit. If I kick in his door, beat him about the head with a blunt instrument and take his fags, then I'm feeding an addiction.

That may be considered a simplistic analogy, but the scientific (medical) definition of addiction has become meaningless. I read of addictions to chocolate, sex, Big Macs, computer games and pale ale, among other things. The growing list of addictions has become something of a joke. Every time I read about some new addiction, I find myself wondering just what the fuck they're talking about.

No two people are alike. Like their fingerprints, each individual is unique. Some will have a much more difficult time in giving up their habit(s) than others. But, that does not make them addicts. Some people will use addiction as an excuse for not giving up a habit, but it's just as likely that they haven't really made the commitment required to quit successfully. Because, deep down, they don't really want to quit smoking, or eating chocolate or drinking pale ale.

So, it appears that one faction of the anti-smoker cult wants to paint nicotine as the culprit. That way they can lobby government to promote NRT (nicotine replacement therapy) as the cure for “nicotine dependence” and provide free NRT for those poor helpless souls who, according to the zealots, just can't quit any other way. And, greater sales of NRT will, not coincidentally, put a smile on the faces of their financial backers in the pharmaceutical industry.

In addition, if nicotine is the addiction, they can continue to attack all forms of nicotine delivery from alternative tobacco products such as the electronic cigarette and snus. To the anti-smoker cult, pharmaceutical nicotine is the only acceptable form of nicotine.

The opposing faction wants the act of smoking itself identified as the addiction. Going down that road leads to more legal action against the big, bad wolf as symbolized by the tobacco industry. They can continue the charade that smokers, because of their addiction, are simply incapable of free choice.

Neither construct fits the classical definition of addiction; both do a disservice to smokers who may actually want to quit. Those individuals are being convinced by anti-smoker zealots that quitting is hopeless without the intervention of the cult; that the road to salvation (giving up the habit) lies only in following the dictates of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker.

Dictates . . .dictator . . . anti-smokers . . . that's why I'll never be a former smoker.

Kentville – No smoking Down in the Valley

2011-05-19T08:11:00.003-04:00

Kentville is a small town in the picturesque Annapolis Valley in Nova Scotia with a population of about 6,000. I haven't been down that way in years. Better make that decades; time flies when you're having fun.

In a recent news article, Bob Gee, owner of Mader’s Tobacco Store in Kentville, said freedom of choice is being limited, with regulations slowly eroding constitutional freedoms and rights. He was, of course, talking about the plethora of anti-smoking legislation passed by the province in recent years by gutless politicians folding under intense lobbying by the lunatic fringe of the anti-smoker cartel.

I've written several articles over the past couple of years to update the status of Bob's fight with the province over the tobacco displays in his shop. Back in 2007, Gee was ordered, under Nova Scotia's Tobacco Access Act, to cover up the tobacco displays in his store. He refused.

In 2008, he was charged with improper storage and display of tobacco products. Bob entered a plea of not guilty, thereby initiating a lengthy, and ongoing, legal battle with the province.

To the best of my knowledge, the constant delays have originated with Crown persecut . . . er, prosecutors, who always seem to need more time to prepare their case.

Last year, Provincial court judge Claudine MacDonald ruled that the provincial legislation breached Gee's right to freedom of expression under Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question now before the courts is whether the law is a reasonable means of protecting some compelling public interest which would override Gee's right to freedom of expression.

In October of 2010, the crown was still asking for more time to prepare their case. Bob's next court date is scheduled for June of this year. Unless, of course, the Crown needs still more time to prepare. I believe it was William Gladstone who used the the phrase: “Justice delayed is justice denied.”

Maybe the Crown is just trying to wear him down. They have all the time in the world, and all the power of the state behind them. And, the province certainly has much deeper pockets than he has.

But, Bob does not seem intimidated by the power of the state; men of principle seldom are. He shows no sign of capitulation, despite the odds.

Back in March, Bob Gee wrote a letter to Kentville Mayor Dave Corkum and town council criticizing a recent by-law banning smoking on all town-owned and -leased property, including streets and sidewalks. “Kentville’s bylaw does not reflect the larger issue at hand, which is really about how we as individuals educate ourselves, our families and one another so that the freedom to choose does not become hindered through a state of dictatorship.”

He noted that he has provided a service to the public and government by collecting over $20 million in (sales) taxes over the 35 years his shop has been in operation, and that he has conducted his family-run business in a way that gives back to the community. “It saddens me to realize that this same consideration was not returned to us and many of the customers that support us and the Town of Kentville when the town council decided to put this by-law into effect.”

And, he noted the government's reluctance to make tobacco illegal, but instead to set rules and regulations on smokers. Punishing rules meant to denigrate and demean, I might add. And, he has a valid point.

If smoking causes the damage the government and the anti-smoker zealots claim, then they are criminally negligent in the discharge of their duties and as much responsible for any morbidity and mortality attributed to smoking as the tobacco companies. If smokers are the victims of the tobacco companies, as the anti-smoker cartel maintain, then the government has a responsibility to end the victimization, not profit from it through the imposition of punitive sin taxes.

And, if the anti-smoker zealots want to punish the tobacco companies, why are they insisting that smokers and small business owners who cater to them pay the price.

Dave Reid, owner of another Kentville shop, DM Reid Jewellers, sees smoking, as a matter of choice - not something you can legislate. “Businesses pay the consequences for the decision if customers are staying away from town,” he said. “There was no consultation before making the decision.”

“How far do we go to legislate lifestyle?” he asks. “They have to use common sense and be realistic.”

Mayor Dave Corkum says the by-law isn’t an attack on smokers, but that “Kentville” just doesn’t want people smoking on town-owned property. Kentville . . . the whole damn town? And, the litter issue seems to be on everyone's mind these days. The mayor also notes that town staff don’t enjoy picking up cigarette butts. Maybe he should consider public ashtrays. Or . . .

Maybe smokers should take their business a few miles up the road; to Wolfville, maybe. Somewhere they'll be treated like the decent, hard-working people they are instead of being segregated like refugees from a leper colony.

They just don't want people smoking on town property? Shit.

New York smoking ban; a ban too far

2011-05-16T21:54:00.004-04:00

A recent New York Times op-ed piece by Dr. Michael Siegel has drawn over 400 comments to the online version of the article. Dr. Siegel is a professor of community health sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health and an enthusiastic anti-smoking advocate.

In his article, Siegel expresses his opinion that the smoking ban in city parks and on city beaches, which becomes effective May 23 in New York City, is carrying things a little too far. And, in that at least, he's right.

Smoking is still a legal activity. Smokers are taxpayers too and have as much right to use the parks and beaches as anyone else. And, there is scant scientific evidence to justify such a ban on public health grounds. Even anti-smoking activist Siegel admits: “. . . no evidence demonstrates that the duration of outdoor exposure - in places where people can move freely about - is long enough to cause substantial health damage.”

But Siegel's opposition to the New York City smoking ban is not based on the injustice to smokers which it represents. Instead, he is concerned that the reasoning used to justify the outdoor ban “runs the risk of a backlash that could undermine the basic goals of the anti-smoking movement.” Uh-huh.

For example, Michele Bonan of the American Cancer Society says “We think the risk is greater than Siegel implies” and asks why “we” should take any risk at all. After all, she notes: “more than 80 percent of New Yorkers don’t smoke, and two-thirds support outdoor smoking bans”.

Of course, following that logic means that as long as two-thirds of non-smokers support herding smokers onto box cars and shipping them off to re-education camps, then it's a perfectly acceptable solution to the smoker problem.

The City's Health Commissioner, Thomas Farley, notes that: “Parks and beaches are special places, built and maintained with tax dollars for the benefit of all New Yorkers. Glass bottles that can break, amplified sounds and alcoholic beverages are prohibited, not because this would save lives, but to keep parks and beaches safe and enjoyable for everyone. Smoking doesn’t belong there either.”

So, the smoking ban isn't meant to save lives, but to protect some non-smokers from something they perceive as an annoyance; and an opportunity to punish smokers for their reluctance to submit to the tyranny of the majority and give up their habit. Parks and beaches are special places; special places that are to be reserved for non-smokers.

Other reasons enumerated to support the ban are equally frivolous. Thomas Farley: “Children in parks or on beaches should be learning how to play baseball, bike or swim, not how to smoke.”

So children are to be protected, not from any real hazards of secondhand smoke exposure in the great outdoors, but rather, from the very sight of a smoker. Like watching a character smoking a cigarette in a movie, a child seeing a smoker light up in a park might be lured into a lifetime of sin and depravity. Watching wanton acts of violence or sexual promiscuity, on the other hand, have no affect and are perfectly permissible.

Such anxieties are not driven by real science; they are founded on an irrational fear of cigarette smoke and unbridled hatred of smokers; fear and hatred encouraged and blatantly promoted by the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker which perceives smoking as an immoral act.

But, it is neither the vilification of a sizable minority of the population, nor the malicious persecution of smokers which apparently disturbs Dr. Siegel. “To make matters worse, in trying to convince people that even transient exposure to secondhand smoke is a potentially deadly hazard, smoking opponents risk losing scientific credibility.”

The Surgeon General's claim that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke is absurd. Even the discredited EPA report released in 1992 is predicated on an assumption of a lifetime of chronic exposure to secondhand smoke. Transient exposure such as might be encountered in a park or on a beach has never been demonstrated to be a health hazard; simply a nuisance to some non-smokers.

Thus smoking bans in the outdoors are based on scientific evidence which has likewise been manipulated to the point of absurdity.

Dr. Siegel's real fear is that the public, confronted with this outrageous persecution of smokers, might recognize the absurdity of smoking bans in outdoor environments and begin to question not just the science behind the fatuous smoking bans in outdoor environments, but the entire body of evidence supporting smoking bans in general.

And, they may find out that his claim that the anti-smokers have science on their side is a distortion of the truth; that the scientific evidence is neither as clear nor unequivocal as he implies.

To be fair to Dr Siegel, it should be noted that he has criticized many misrepresentations of fact from tobacco control researchers on his blog, The Rest of the Story. And he has been vilified by his colleagues in the tobacco control movement for doing so. The “movement” does not tolerate dissension within its ranks.

In this instance, however, I must question his motivation.

And, if protecting the public from the health consequences of secondhand smoke was the objective, then there were (are) compromises available which could have achieved that result without the blatant bigotry directed at smokers. But smoking bans are not intended to protect public health; they are intended to punish smokers.

The problem was (is) that the High Priests of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker demand capitulation, not compromise.

E-cigs are out in the land down under

2011-05-10T12:10:00.004-04:00

Sophie Dwyer, Executive Director of the Health Protection Directorate of Queensland (Australia) Health recently advised Queenslanders that:“E-cigarettes are illegal in Australia.”

They are illegal because they contain nicotine. And, nicotine is classified as a dangerous poison. Says Ms. Dwyer: “If used inappropriately – or if children get hold of the liquid nicotine – the consequences can be fatal.”

A May 5, 2011 press release from Queensland Health notes that: “The World Health Organisation’s International Program on Chemical Safety advises that 10mg of liquid nicotine can kill a child within five minutes of them swallowing it.”

It's true of course. Pure nicotine is indeed poisonous. That's why farm workers harvesting tobacco wear protective clothing to protect them from exposure and the green tobacco sickness which it may cause. And, there can be little doubt that precautions are needed to protect children from accidental consumption.

The problem with the warning from Ms. Dwyer and Queensland Health is the means by which they seek to accomplish their goal of “protecting the children”.

The fact is that there are any number of consumer products which could have serious consequences if “used inappropriately” or “if children get hold of them”. These include most common household cleaners, prescription and over the counter drugs, beauty products, etc.

Even my tube of toothpaste contains the warning, “Do not swallow. Children under the age of six should use only a pea sized amount and be supervised while brushing.” There is an additional warning on most labels to get medical help if more than a pea sized amount of toothpaste is accidentally swallowed.

But we don't ban toothpaste, despite the fact that it contains a poison, fluoride. Nor do we ban Easy Off oven cleaner, prescription drugs or aspirin; all of which could cause serious harm or death to children and adults alike if common sense is not applied in their use or if precautions aren't taken to keep them out of reach of inquisitive toddlers.

The electronic cigarette is designed for adult use. The cartridges used with the device contain a dose of nicotine approximating the dosage found in nicotine replacement therapy sold by the pharmaceutical industry.

According to Dwyer, “They (electronic cigarettes) contain vials of liquid nicotine, which is a very dangerous poison.” But, that's a dishonest statement which highlights the disingenuous nature of her argument.

Electronic cigarettes do not contain vials of liquid nicotine; at least, not any I've ever seen.

As noted previously, the cartridges contain measured amounts of nicotine. The liquid vials are purchased separately by “vapers”, as users of the e-cig refer to themselves, looking to save money by refilling their empty cartridges. But, if it's the vials of liquid nicotine which are causing all the concern, then why not simply ban the sale of liquid nicotine and allow the electronic cigarette, with the prepared cartridges, to be sold to those adults who choose to use them?

Another less than honest claim by Ms. Dwyer is that: “There is no evidence e-cigarettes are effective in helping people to quit smoking.”

While there may be no formal clinical trials demonstrating the efficacy of the electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation, there is a substantial body of anecdotal evidence suggesting that the electronic cigarette is an effective tool to help people quit. In addition, many prominent anti-smoking advocates promote the device, both as a harm reduction tool and a means of achieving smoking cessation. .

Even the New Zealand Ministry of Health recently acknowledged publicly that electronic cigarettes are "far safer" than smoking tobacco. So why do they consider the e-cig an unapproved medicine and regard their distribution as an offence?

One statement by a Health New Zealand spokesperson sheds some light on the matter, “It (the electronic cigarette) does raise issues about the social approval of such devices and does run counter to one of the objectives of the [Smokefree Environments] Act and this bill, which is to de-normalise smoking." Uh-huh.

The objective of Health New Zealand is not to rescue smokers from the alleged hazards of smoking; it's to denormalize smoking and turn smokers into social outcasts. The anti-smoker crowd obviously sees the electronic cigarette as an impediment to that goal.

Meanwhile, back in Australia, Ms. Dwyer is busily shilling for the drug barons. “There are a range of safe products people can use to help them quit smoking, including nicotine patches, gum, lozenges, inhalers or sub-lingual (under-the-tongue) tablets.”

Uh-huh. Nicotine is poisonous. Nicotine is a menace to children. Nicotine is evil. You must buy only government approved nicotine from your government approved nicotine pusher. We insist. The law is on our side; because we make the law. And, the law says smokers are to be punished.

According to the press release, “Queensland Health is committed to making Queenslanders Australia’s healthiest people . . .” Uh-huh.

There appears to be no end to the bullshit and bafflegab being spread by the anti-smoker cartel!

Ban smoking in movies to save lives

2011-05-05T14:21:00.003-04:00

Hyperbole is defined as an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally. Of course, with comments originating from anti-smoker fanatics it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between hyperbole and plain old bullshit.

Take, for example, the following statement: “God knows how many film-goers died from watching Lauren Bacall smoke.” Are we really expected to believe the sultry siren from the age of the silver screen caused untold numbers of mysterious movie deaths just by blowing a little smoke?

No. I don't think so. That's an obvious exaggeration; an extravagant statement. And, just as obviously, it's not intended to be taken literally (or seriously). It's hyperbole. Surely the Guinness people would have kept a tally if movie-goers were kicking the bucket in great numbers while watching Lauren Bacall light up on screen. Hell, it would have been front page news if even one movie buff had died from watching the sexy screen star caressing her Winston's.

But why single out Bacall? Does she deserve all the blame for any mysterious movie deaths which may have previously passed without notice. Was it only Bacall's surreal cigarette smoke which surreptitiously slipped from the screen to slay unsuspecting movie-goers. I mean, God only knows how many film-goers died from watching Bette Davis and the chain-smoking characters she often portrayed. If watching someone smoking on screen really killed people, then, together, those two would have qualified as a weapon of mass destruction.

At any rate, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health apparently has a new study which claims “the very sight of a character lighting up on the screen is enough to encourage a new generation of smokers.”

Shit. More hyperbole. I think.

But, I don't believe many teenagers sit up to the wee hours of the morning, being led astray by Bacall or Davis; lured into a lifetime of degradation as chain-smoking cigarette fiends? Nor do I believe watching Bacall on the small screen has the same deadly impact as watching her from front row seats in a real theatre.

So, perhaps the hyperbole prone Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health is talking about more recent films.

Yes. That must be it. They recently handed out their Ashtray award for the Quebec film with the most scenes of smoking on screen. The award, intended to communicate the disapproval of the anti-smoker zealots for on-screen antics involving smoking, went to a film titled “Les amours imaginaires”, directed by Xavier Dolan (who also co-starred in the film).

Dolan, in his early twenties, is considered one of the most gifted of the current crop of young Québécois film makers. His first feature, “J’ai tué ma mère”, won several awards at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival. It also won Dolan the Toronto Film Critics Association Jay Scott Prize for emerging talent.

None of which matters to the censors of the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health. To the anti-smoker zealots the quality of a film is not based on the truth and humanity which it reveals, or the number of laughs it produces, but rather the number of tobacco occurrences in the film.

And it's not at all surprising they have a scientific study to support their argument.

The scientific study, conducted by researchers from Université du Québec à Montréal, counted 116 “tobacco occurences” in the film which they estimated, with great scientific precision, at one occurrence every 59 seconds. Uh-huh. One tobacco occurrence every 59 seconds. They counted them. On their fingers and toes. Which suggests the film was reviewed by at least six scientific cigarette censors. Or, maybe they used a specially modified scientific calculator.

At any rate, after rigorous scientific analysis, the Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health, which commissioned the study, concluded that “by glamorizing smoking, the movies encourage teens to smoke”. Uh-huh.

In addition, after reviewing a similar study of American teens, carefully extrapolating the data to the Quebec population and allowing for potential confounding factors such as language and the consumption of French-Canadian pea soup, the council estimated that “about 40% of young Quebec smokers start the habit because of what they have seen in the movies.”

It is unclear whether or not the “young Quebec smokers” were ever exposed to Lauren Bacall or Bette Davis movies. When asked, most of the kids responded: “Who?”

Also unclear is the number of tobacco occurrences to which a teenager must be subjected before trotting off to the nearest First Nations reserve to get his/her first fix of the noxious weed, then plummeting into the depths of depravity and ultimate death caused by their newly acquired addiction.

However, it has been rumoured that the US Surgeon General plans to announce that there is no safe level of exposure to on-screen tobacco smoke. One over-zealous zealot named Whinnykoff proclaimed alarmingly “If you can see it; it can kill you. Third, er . . fourth, er . . . fifth hand smoke is even more deadly than active smoking. Be afraid. Be very, very afraid.”

The Quebec Council on Tobacco and Health is quick to point out that they are not calling for outright prohibition of smoking in the movies, but rather they contemplate giving movies which depict smoking an automatic “18A” rating. Given that, in La Belle Province, this rating is usually reserved for hardcore pornography, this would place Casablanca (with Lauren Bacall), and “Les amours imaginaires” (with Xavier Dolan), in the same classification as Deep Throat (with Linda Lovelace) and Debbie Does Dallas (with Bambi Woods).

How I know the names of the stars in the latter two movies is in no way germane to the issue. But, I should note that they surfaced only after serious scientific research.

I have only one question . . . who are these fucking clowns?

E-cigs a “tobacco product”; help or hindrance

2011-05-01T13:52:00.003-04:00

Anti-smoking activist Dr. Michael Siegel noted on his blog (The Rest of the Story) a few days back that the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) in the US has decided not to appeal a ruling by the DC Court of Appeal. That ruling declared that electronic cigarettes were to be regulated as tobacco products, rather than drug delivery devices; the drug, of course, being nicotine.

This could be good news for the hundreds of thousands of smokers who have successfully used the e-cig to cut back on their smoking habit or quit smoking altogether. Unfortunately, I believe it's premature to begin celebrating in the streets.

The reason for my (very) cautious optimism is that the FDA has yet to clarify how they will regulate this new “tobacco” product. And, it could be several years before FDA guidelines are actually put in place.

The pharmaceutical industry has invested heavily in anti-smoker campaigns intended to demonize tobacco in all its forms, as well as denormalizing and stigmatizing tobacco users. Their payoff has been increased sales (and the enhanced profits generated by those sales) of smoking cessation products; the nicotine patches, gums, lozenges, inhalers, etc.

They will not take kindly to any competition which might jeopardize their return on those investments.

And, while the FDA may have to justify any restrictions placed on the electronic cigarette, the anti-smoker zealots are under no such restraints. For example, they have already convinced legislators in several jurisdictions in the US, to include electronic cigarettes in their smoking bans. They have accomplished this objective despite the fact that there is little or no evidence of any deleterious effect whatever from using the e-cig.

They oppose the device, not because of any real hazard associated with the it, but simply because it looks like users are smoking. And, of course, if smokers are permitted to substitute the e-cig for pharmaceutical nicotine, funding from the drug lords in the pharmaceutical industry for their war on smokers may not be as bountiful as it has been in the past.

I noted in a previous post on the subject that one of the reasons the anti-smokers were unwilling to accept the electronic cigarette as a legitimate means of smoking cessation was that they hadn't yet figured out how to extort tax revenue from the users. And, since the zealots also depend on money extorted from smokers through sin taxes (and, in the US, the Master Settlement Agreement) to fund their war on smokers, that source of funding is also threatened.

If smokers turn to the electronic cigarette in any great numbers, to cut back or quit, tobacco sales will decline thus adversely impacting tax revenue and consequently the finances of the anti-smoker cartel. With the electronic cigarettes now designated a “tobacco product”, the anti-smokers can press for sin taxes to be imposed on the sales of the devices, even though many anti-smoking advocates consider the e-cig a far less hazardous product than real tobacco cigarettes.

Another point to consider is the marketing methods used to generate sales of the e-cig. The product has been sold primarily through the internet with orders delivered through the mail. Mail orders sales of tobacco products have been severely restricted in recent years. And, some credit card companies have even refused to handle such transactions.

This provides another opportunity for the zealots to delay the introduction of the e-cig into the open market. Of course, that may change if the e-cig is permitted to be sold through regular retail outlets..

In Canada, a number of convenience stores have begun carrying a line of e-cigarettes. Unfortunately, the cartridges must remain nicotine free. Health Canada has restricted the sale of nicotine to a format and dosage consistent with the nicotine products sold by the (legal) drug industry.

On a personal note, I invested in an e-cig about four months ago from a local convenience store. My original e-cig was confiscated by Customs and Excise Canada because the carts contained nicotine. But, even without the nicotine, I've managed to cut back from a pack and a half of native brand cigarettes a day to a large pack a week. And, no, I have no intention of quitting.

My cardiologist is still screaming bloody murder, but I can live with that.

It's unfortunate that Health Canada has elected to join forces with the anti-smoker crowd in their efforts to eradicate tobacco and those who choose to use it. They should focus more on reducing the harm tobacco allegedly causes although I don't see that happening any time soon..

Did I say unfortunate? That's an understatement. I consider what they're doing fucking criminal.

In addition, retailers will not be permitted to promote the “theraputic” properties of the e-cig, or advertise the device as a less hazardous substitute for cigarettes, at least, not without the prior approval of the FDA. And, since that will not be acceptable to the anti-smoker crowd, FDA approval should not be expected anytime in the near future.

The facts are that regulating the electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product may not be as beneficial as some people expect. Tobacco is, arguably, the most heavily regulated product in history, and it is definitely the most heavily taxed in most jurisdictions. Tobacco products, including reduced risk products such as the electronic cigarette and snus, are anathema to the zealots.

So, there's one thing of which we can be sure; the anti-smoker fanatics will continue their vehement opposition to the electronic cigarette (and all other forms of harm reduction tobacco products). Because it's a “tobacco” product. Because it so closely resembles smoking. Because it represents a threat to their funding sources. Because it interferes with their overall objective.

They're fanatics driven by an unhealthy obsession with eradicating tobacco and tobacco users, especially smokers.

Non-smoking bars lose business . . .

2011-04-27T00:04:00.004-04:00

Anti-smoker zealots have persuaded gullible politicians that smoking bans are needed to protect the public from the hazards of secondhand smoke; hazards which may, but most likely do not, exist. They have convinced legislators that no economic damage would ensue from the implementation of smoking bans, that there would be no additional costs to society for enforcement and that there would be no political fallout because the majority supported the imposition of smoking bans and other punitive action against smokers.

Of course, anti-smoker zealots have been known to stretch the truth. Hell, they've even been known to flat out lie.

Public nudity, like smoking, is frowned upon. But, those who find that activity pleasurable are accommodated. They can join a nudist camp where they can socialize with like-minded individuals. Strip clubs, open to the public, cater to those with more prurient interests. Those who find such activity offensive can choose not to be exposed through the simple expedient of not attending such facilities.

No such accommodation is afforded smokers.

Through the legal device of the smoking ban, ordinary citizens have been turned into lawbreakers as they seek to avoid the punishment meted out for publicly engaging in what is an otherwise legal activity. Or, in the case of bar owners and their staff, the penalties imposed for allowing their clientele to engage in a legal activity.

At any rate, Sheriff Todd Nehls wants the lawbreakers out of Dodge. And the lawbreakers he's most interested in are the bar owners and bartenders who allow patrons to smoke in their establishment.

According to Nehls, blatant disregard of the statewide smoking ban will no longer be tolerated in the taverns of Dodge County, Wisconsin. He's ordered his deputies to make unannounced bar checks to catch the culprits and issue citations, thus turning the Dodge County Sheriff's Department into the Dodge County Bureau of Smoker Harassment.

The Wisconsin smoking ban, like most such bans, was to be self-policing. That is to say the bar owners and their staff were to be pressed into service as unofficial “smoke police”, without remuneration and with no clear direction as to how they were expected to carry out the responsibilities with which they were charged. Questions of liability, in almost all cases, have been completely ignored.

For example, if a police officer or other law enforcement official is injured in the line of duty, he or she is provided with a pension and health care coverage. But, will the same coverage be extended to the 130 pound waitress who is injured in an altercation with an uncooperative patron who defiantly lights up despite the proliferation of no smoking signs and the absence of ashtrays?

Will the state, which has unilaterally imposed the responsibility for law enforcement functions on bar owners and their staff, provide similar compensation if those civilians are injured carrying out the duties imposed on them by the state?

Who will be liable if a patron is seriously injured in an altercation with over zealous bar staff who attempt to eject uncooperative clientele? Will the state absolve bartenders and wait staff of any liability if they are sued for assault or use of excessive force?

Remember, this obligation to enforce a state law is being imposed on civilians, without their consent, without compensation of any kind and with no training in proper police procedure or law enforcement. Bar owners and bar staff are expected to comply with the law or be subjected to financial penalties without defining what compliance, for any practical purposes, actually means.

Is it enough to remove ashtrays and post signs? To orally inform patrons that lighting up on the premises is illegal? Are they required to stop serving uncooperative clientele? Should they call the police?

Bar owners are faced with a simple ultimatum: stop your clientele from smoking in your establishment or be penalized.

According to Sheriff Nehls: “We now have this rivalry of bar owners turning in other bar owners. That’s what the fight is about now. You’re either a business that complies with the law and has no business as a result or you’re breaking the law to get more business. And we’re going to bring that to an end.” Huh? They have no business as a result of enforcing the smoking ban?

That's an open admission that smoking bans do adversely affect the bottom line; that given a choice, smokers will choose to patronize bars which allow smoking. Non-smoking custom could likewise be free to patronize bars which prohibit smoking. Those who choose not to be exposed to secondhand smoke need never enter the doors of an establishment which allows smoking.

Of course, if the bars which adhere to the law are losing business to those which don't, then the the anti-smoker argument that most bar patrons prefer a non-smoking environment is a demonstrable lie. Otherwise, those establishments which ignore the smoking ban would be losing business to the smoke free venues.

Prohibition, by whatever name, has been shown to be counter-productive. The prohibition of alcohol in the US from 1920 through 1933 did not eradicate drinking. Prohibition, smoking bans. A rose by any other name.

Perhaps it's fitting to give the last word to John D. Rockefeller, Jr., a staunch supporter of prohibition: “When Prohibition was introduced, I hoped that it would be widely supported by public opinion and the day would soon come when the evil effects of alcohol would be recognized. I have slowly and reluctantly come to believe that this has not been the result. Instead, drinking has generally increased; the speakeasy has replaced the saloon; a vast army of lawbreakers has appeared; many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a level never seen before.”

Uh-huh.

Government profits from kids smoking

2011-04-20T22:55:00.003-04:00

The Spanish flu was a pandemic which killed an estimated 50 to 100 million people as it swept around the world in 1918/1919. In a few short years, the death toll in Canada alone was estimated at 50,000. It is considered one of the deadliest natural disasters in human history.

The anti-smoker zealots claim there are 37,000 tobacco related deaths each and every year in Canada. If those numbers are believed, then the death toll from tobacco far exceeds the estimates of death due to Spanish flu.

And, the government response to this purported mayhem? Tax the victims into extinction and sue the pants off those allegedly distributing the virus while allowing the body count to climb. Uh-huh.

Newfoundland is one of those Canadian provinces that passed “enabling” legislation in anticipation of a lawsuit against the country's tobacco companies. The Tobacco Health Care Costs Recovery Act, passed by the Newfoundland Legislative Assembly in 2001, paved the way for legal action against the tobacco companies to recover the the health care costs the government asserts were incurred in the treatment of tobacco-related illnesses.

This “enabling” legislation allows the province to sue the tobacco companies directly. It also allows the province to dictate the rules of procedure, including the rules of evidence, to be followed by the (provincially appointed) courts where the case will be tried. Enabling legislation, however, should not be seen as an attempt to stack the deck in favour of the government. Although there are clearly advantages to having the dealer on your side, Newfoundland was merely following the lead of other provinces and providing the house with a slight edge.

In February of 2011, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador announced it was prepared to proceed with the lawsuit. And, although they haven't specified how much money they're seeking in the statement of claim, it is expected to be a billion dollar lawsuit.

And, that makes it difficult to ignore the hypocrisy inherent in the government's action.

According to Physicians for a Smokefree Canada (PSY), Newfoundland spent roughly $95 Million on direct health care costs in 2006. In the same time frame, 2005/2006, they confiscated $116 million in tobacco taxes from the province's smokers, not including sales taxes.

The fact is that Newfoundland's tobacco consumers have already reimbursed the province for direct health-care costs, allegedly incurred due to tobacco use, on an annual basis. And, the same situation holds true for every other province in Canada.

On a nation wide basis, the combined provincial and federal revenue from sin taxes on tobacco was $7.09 billion in 2005/2006 (excluding provincial sales taxes and goods and services tax). Physicians for a Smokefree Canada estimates nationwide direct health care costs attributed to smoking at $4.35 billion in 2006.

Any way you look at it, in Newfoundland and in every other jurisdiction in the country, Canada's tobacco consumers are paying more than their share of health care costs.

Of course, you're not likely to learn that from newspaper or magazine articles on smoking. Most such articles, coming as they do from the main stream media, follow the “party line” of the anti-smoker zealots; portraying smokers as a financial burden on the health care system.

And, there seems to be another popular misconception among members of the general public; the belief that “smoking related” diseases are exclusive to smokers. For example; “I think the decision to smoke tobacco is the choice of each person, and the province should no longer foot the bill for smoking related illnesses. Then in turn, no lawsuit would be necessary.”

In fact, there is no such thing as a smoking related disease which can only be caused by smoking. Ischemic heart disease is referred to as a smoking related disease although only about 13% of the 40,000+ deaths annually are attributed to smoking.

So what the writer is actually proposing is that “the province should no longer foot the bill” for smokers, despite the massive amounts of revenue they contribute to government coffers.

While browsing through the “fact sheets” on the PSY website to check my figures, I came across another interesting tidbit; one to which I hadn't really given much thought.

The anti-smoker zealots are constantly berating the tobacco companies for marketing their product to children. And, that may or may not be the case. I suspect that claim, like most of the propaganda provided by the zealots, is something of an exaggeration.

But has it crossed anyone's mind that governments also profit from the sale of cigarettes to school-age children; that they make many times the profit from that demographic than the tobacco companies. Uh-huh. Someone at Physicians for a Smokefree Canada has taken the time to calculate the dollar amount spent by "school-age children" on tobacco.

“Based on Health Canada’s estimate that tobacco companies make $4.43 in profit on each carton of cigarettes sold, and that retailers make $3 on each carton of cigarettes sold, industry revenues that result from young Canadians smoking totals $14 million per year, or more than $50 per school-aged smoker.”

The kicker: “Provincial and federal governments collectively receive $83 million a year in revenue from tobacco taxes on cigarettes smoked by young Canadians, representing about $380 for each of the 220,000 young Canadian smokers identified in the survey.”

And, incidentally, PSY estimates that only 10% of the cigarettes smoked by the “young people” in their survey came from First Nations “contraband”.

Imagine?

First Nations: Scapegoats for flawed tax policy

2011-04-11T16:54:00.003-04:00

More whining from those who want to blame others for the consequences of badly flawed tax policy initiated at the insistence of anti-smoker zealots for the sole purpose of persecuting smokers.

Michel Gadbois is senior vice-president of the Canadian Convenience Stores Association. And, Gadbois believes that tobacco taxes are unjustly punishing law-abiding, taxpaying tobacco retailers, because the punitive sin taxes are driving business away from the members of his association.

He's right, of course; at least in part. But, extortionate sin taxes on tobacco are really intended to punish law-abiding, taxpaying tobacco users . . . smokers, in other words. Unfortunately, convenience store owners and other tobacco retailers have become collateral damage in the anti-smoker crusade to eradicate smokers and all things related to tobacco.

It's no secret that convenience stores, especially the smaller, independently owned corner stores, are highly reliant on sales of cigarettes and other tobacco products to generate adequate levels of income to remain in business. And, as sin taxes on tobacco soar, more and more smokers are turning to unregulated, untaxed product from other sources. In Canada, that means tobacco products manufactured on, or distributed through, First Nations reserves.

According to an article written by Gadbois, and published in the Calgary Herald contraband tobacco sales have “devastated the convenience store industry” forcing more than 2,300 corner stores, mostly in Ontario and Quebec, to close over the last year. In addition, claims Gadbois, illegal sales were the cause of more than $2 billion in lost tax revenue in 2009.

Gadbois warns of a similar fate befalling convenience store operators in Alberta and other provinces if sales of untaxed tobacco products are allowed to continue. “Alberta and the other western provinces will face the same fate if this activity goes unpunished.”

The recent seizure of cigarettes from the Montana First Nations in Alberta is a “step in the right direction”, claims Gadbois, but fails to resolve the issue. More drastic action is required. He seems particularly chagrined that the manufacturer (Rainbow Tobacco) and the band chief of the Montana First Nations have initiated legal action and are seeking redress through the courts for what they consider an illegal seizure by provincial authorities in Alberta.

So, he wants Ottawa and the provinces to declare war on Canada's First Nations. He wants them punished in the mistaken belief that this will stop the flow of contraband and save thousands of convenience stores which rely on “legal” tobacco sales for substantial portions of their income.

Gadbois concludes his whine saying: “Look for leadership among those who recognize the problem and intend to extinguish the contraband trade once and for all.”

Obviously, Gadbois is not among those who “recognize the problem”.

The problem originates, not with the manufacture and sale of untaxed contraband, but with the usurious levels of sin taxes intended to force smokers to give up the habit. Contraband tobacco is merely a response to those punitive levels of taxation.

Canada's First Nations did not create the demand for cheap tobacco; demand was created by government's insistence on treating smokers like cash cows to be milked whenever they needed an unsympathetic source from which to extort additional revenue. The trade in contraband flourishes because smokers, in ever increasing numbers, are fed up with the constant tugging at their teats.

The fact is that the “man in the van” has followed the imposition of excessive sin taxes, meant to punish smokers and control their behaviour, wherever that particular brand of extortion has been introduced. It's a global phenomenon.

It's the glaring disparity between the cost of production and the legal selling price of a pack of smokes (roughly 80% of which is tax in one form or another) which represents the massive profits available to those engaged in the contraband trade. And the greater the disparity, the greater the potential for profit.

A confrontation with Canada's First Nations will not “extinguish the contraband trade once and for all”. With the kind of profits to be made from this government folly, there will always be someone waiting in the wings to take up the slack and reap the rewards inherent in what is a flawed and ill advised public policy.

Canada's First Nations simply make a convenient scapegoat for the problems created by anti-smoker venom.

Bans - kids playing, happy meals and fruitcakes

2011-04-06T15:40:00.006-04:00

At first glance, it appeared it might be an April Fool's Day gag. But, then again . . .

The headline certainly sounds pretty ominous, not to mention a little silly: “HOA Wants Kids Banned From Playing Outside”. Uh-huh. A Florida homeowners association is going to vote on a proposal to ban children from playing outside.

According to an online article from News4Jax, a Jacksonville news outlet, the proposal states that "minor children will be under the direct control of a responsible adult at all times." No more sending little Johnny out to play, without Mommy and Daddy.

The proposal would also ban the game of tag, skateboarding, Big Wheels and “loud or obnoxious toys” on "common property," presumably whether there was an adult present or not.

The board of the homeowners association claims the proposals are all about child safety. The complex of 48 townhomes has no playground for the children and they have little space to play other than the parking lot. Of course, if it's about child safety, why do they specifically propose to ban “loud or obnoxious” toys?

But then, this is how it always starts. First, it's a ban on kids playing in public, then it's a ban on kids playing in the parks, or maybe even in the privacy of their own homes. And, eventually, they'll progress to the final solution, a ban on heterosexual sex. No sex, no kids . . . no problem.

They're banning all kinds of things these days, for the good of the children, of course.

In November of last year, San Francisco banned toys included with Mac Donald's Happy Meals. The city's Board of Supervisors wanted to protect the kids from turning themselves into chubby little cretins and contributing to the obesity “epidemic” which is apparently sweeping America. But, just how many calories can there be in a plastic figurine of Ronald Mac Donald or Hamburglar?

And, I wonder, do burgers and fries from Wendy's, or the A&W, represent a lesser degree of risk to children's health because they don't come with toys?

In the US, they're getting so ban happy, they're even trying to ban bans. Uh-huh. OK, to be more accurate, they're banning some bans.

The Arizona legislature recently passed legislation to ban cities or counties in that state from banning any kind of incentive offered by restaurants, including toys, contests, coupons, trading cards, coloring books, admission tickets, ride tokens and crayons.

Apparently, Arizona's politicians don't want anyone stupidly banning toys in . . . er, with? happy meals and, by extension, making them look stupid. Of course, the powerful and corrupt junk food lobby may be pressuring Arizona's lawmakers so they can continue to addict kids to their deadly junk food fare.

And, then there's smoking. Smokers have been banned from lighting up in public places, private places, outdoor places and imaginary places. No, Virginia, the world of Pandora, the setting of the movie Avatar, is not a real place. But then, the Na'vi aren't trying to ban smoking. It's the anti-smoker zealots in the real world who are trying to ban smoking in the imaginary world of the movies.

OK. So maybe the anti-smoker zealots have no connection to the the real world. They live in an Alice In Wonderland World, which, like Pandora, is an imaginary world. Unfortunately, they're trying to ban smoking everywhere in the real world, as well as their imaginary world. They want all worlds for themselves, the greedy bastards.

And, I wonder which world the homicidal healer hails from; you know, the doctor from Dallas who delights in running down smokers. I kid you not.

Apparently, a Dallas psychopath, euphemistically referred to as a physician, was unhappy with the rate at which smokers were (allegedly) killing themselves and decided to help one smoker give up his unhealthy habit. Unfortunately, the doctor's treatment included ending another unhealthy habit, most often referred to as breathing, by running the smoker over with his car.

The 54-year-old doctor, Jeffrey Reed Thompson, is free on $5,000 bail after being charged with aggravated assault with a vehicle. It is only a rumour that Thompson plans to enter a plea of self defense, claiming the smoker was jeopardizing the health of his two door Mercedes by blowing secondhand smoke on it's windshield.

I really hate to jump on the ban bandwagon, but maybe it's time for a ban on anti-smokers passing themselves off as sane, rational people.

Should we be grateful for anti-smoker abuse?

2011-03-31T11:27:00.003-04:00

What do governments do when faced with crippling deficits and the need to either reduce spending or raise taxes? Well, they polish up the hobnails and put the boots to the sinners. Smokers are an exceptionally popular target these days.

New Brunswick's Finance Minister, Blaine Higgs, is trying to persuade smokers in that province they shouldn’t turn to the black market following a recent 45% increase in provincial tobacco taxes. Last week, the debt ridden province raised the level of legalized extortion on a carton of smokes from $23.40 per carton to $34.00 per carton. The government hopes to extort an additional $44 million annually from the province's smokers.

The increase in provincial sin taxes will bring the price of a carton of cigarettes in New Brunswick to roughly $90.00, over 75% of which is tax imposed by one level of government or another. This is generating some concern that New Brunswick's smokers may take to buying contraband. Or, perhaps in the interests of accuracy, we should say there is concern that more smokers may switch their allegiance to contraband tobacco products.

A Globe and Mail article quotes Higgs: “I’m asking all citizens to do their part. If they’re going to smoke, we’d like for them to pay taxes legally.” Uh-huh.

First they divide the population into opposing camps and endorse an anti-smoker campaign to denormalize the smaller of the two groups; smokers. Then they pass laws to drive smokers into social isolation, relegate them to the status of second class citizens, confiscate a substantial portion of their wealth, allow their paid mercenaries in the anti-smoker industry to encourage and promote discrimination against smokers, discrimination which would not be tolerated against any other identifiable minority . . . and they promote this unbridled hatred of smokers under the pretext of protecting public health.

And, of course, smokers should be thankful for the punishment meted out by the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker and their altar boys at all levels of government. It's for their own good, after all.

It's also fucking infuriating.

Yes, they admit, punitive tax increases impose a serious financial burden on the poor. But if they're forced to choose between eating and buying cigarettes maybe some will be forced to give up the cigarettes. And, the zealots have pronounced that “good”, motivated as they are by their alleged concern for the welfare of smokers.(And, if you believe the anti-smoker zealots, or their political lapdogs, are really interested in the welfare of smokers, I still have some oceanfront property in the Alberta badlands for sale.)

Of course, those feeling the financial pinch might just opt to take advantage of the $50 to $60 a carton savings available from making their tobacco purchases on the black market and apply those savings to their food budget.

I made my choice years ago. I've been waging my own quiet protest against the tyranny of the anti-smoker zealots, saving thousands of dollars in the process and I haven't been bitten in the ass by a single terrorist.

Go ahead. Ask me if I feel guilty. You silly fool.

There's little doubt contraband cigarettes pose a growing problem across Canada. In Ontario, for example, it's estimated that somewhere between 40% to 50% of all tobacco sales are contraband.

A few days before Higgs announced his latest round of confiscatory tobacco taxes, a 53 year old Bas-Caraquet (New Brunswick) woman was fined $55,000 after the Mounties executed a search warrant and found 520 cartons of contraband smokes believed to have been acquired somewhere “up the line” in Quebec or Ontario. Was the government trying to send a message?

By some estimates, only between 3% and 10% of the underground trade gets stopped. But I think that may be something of an exaggeration. And, every time they increase sin taxes on tobacco, they increase the profit margin for those engaged in the underground economy.

No. I do not consider bootlegging tobacco a criminal activity. The real criminals are the politicians in Ottawa, Queen's Park and other provincial capitals across Canada who view smokers as a cash cow.

No apologies.

Odds and ends and anti-smoker rhetoric

2011-03-22T13:31:00.006-04:00

Although I'm still working to fulfill other commitments, I figured I should take the time to write a post to let those who care know that I'm still alive and kicking. I should be back to writing blog entries on a regular basis in a week or so.

With everything that's happening in Japan, Libya, Egypt, Yemen, etc., it's amazing how the anti-smoker zealots manage to maintain any level of press coverage. But, they do.

According to an article in the Windsor Star, an 11 member panel of experts has unanimously agreed that evidence now exists to link second-hand smoke to breast cancer. The article also notes, however, that: “Studies on the possible relationship between cigarette smoke and breast cancer have been inconsistent, with some showing an increase in risk and others not.”

The experts reached their conclusions after reviewing “all available evidence” from studies which showed no consistent results. And they call that science?

One of the panelists, University of Toronto public health expert Dr. Anthony Miller, is quoted as saying: "On average, it would be about a 50- to 70-per-cent increase in risk, depending on how much women smoke." Such scientific precision.

Of course, if studies linking active smoking and breast cancer show inconsistent results, one has to wonder how Miller can then claim that: "Even moderate exposure to passive smoking, such as living or working with a smoker early in life, increases a woman's risk of breast cancer when she is in her 30s, 40s and 50s." No 30 year latency period for breast cancer I suppose. Did they unanimously agree that passive smoking was more hazardous that active smoking?

Or maybe it's just another example of anti-smoker bullshit and bafflegab?

Everybody in Canada knows that smoking kills 37,000 Canadians a year, more than all deaths due to suicides, homicides, HIV and car accidents combined. That's a scary and often repeated statistic.

But how's this for a statistic. IHD (Ischemic Heart Disease), excluding deaths attributed to smoking, kills more Canadians every year than smoking related deaths due to oropharyngeal cancer, oesophageal cancer, stomach cancer, pancreatic cancer, laryngeal cancer, lung cancer, cervical cancer, urinary tract cancer, renal cell carcinoma, bladder cancer, acute myeloid leukemia, pulmonary circulatory disease, cardiac arrhythmias, cerebrovascular disease, atherosclerosis, pneumonia, influenza, fire related deaths and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease combined. Uh-huh.

And, only about 30% of deaths from smoking related diseases are attributed to smoking.

Aren't statistics fun?

How about this one? Although the average life expectancy in Canada is roughly 80 years, less than 13% of the Canadian population had actually survived past 65 years of age when the last smoking attributable mortality tables were prepared based on 2002 data. Yet, roughly 70% of all deaths attributed to smoking occurred after the age of 65.

Statistics may be fun, but growing old sure as hell isn't. Shit, I passed 65 almost two years ago. I could kick the bucket any day now. Maybe I should quit smoking. Just in case.

Naw. Fuck it.

In Scotland, Professor Candace Currie, director of the child and adolescent research unit at Edinburgh University, claims drinking, drug use and smoking among schoolchildren has fallen to the lowest level in two decades. Says Currie: “Some people have suggested the ban on smoking in public places supported this decline, as there are fewer people visibly smoking.” Uh-huh.

But, I wonder how a smoking ban which applies only to adults managed to cause a decline in underage drinking and cannabis use? Strange.

And, I wonder how truthful the kids are when answering such surveys.

“Yes Miss. I swipes a couple fags from the old man's pack a Player's every day. An', every Friday me an' Frankie pools our money an' picks up a bottle a 999 from the bootlegger before heading out ta da dance at the Odd Fellows Hall.”

Of course, maybe the kids are more honest today than when I was a kid.

On a slightly different topic, Joe Warmington in his column in the Toronto Sun today, quotes a Toronto City Councilor: “It just makes no sense for this (the sex trade) to continue without the city capitalizing on the tax revenue from it . . . “ Uh-huh.

Prostit . . . er, sex trade workers, like smokers, drinkers, gamblers, the overweight and the couch potatoes also need saving apparently.

And, if the government can make a few bucks from regulating the "industry", and creating a safe working environment for the girls (and boys) peddling their as . . . er, services, then why not?

After all, they do it for the smokers, drinkers, gamblers, the overweight and the couch potatoes. (Sometimes I wonder if anybody but we sinners are paying to keep the fucking government afloat.)

At any rate, it seems there's a lot of money to be made saving sinners these days.

Candy flavoured smokes – here's the truth

2011-03-10T15:44:00.009-05:00

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Albert Einstein

Apologies for the lack of posts recently, but other commitments have been demanding a great deal of my time. Things should settle back to a more regular routine in the next few weeks.

According to Canadian MP (Member of Parliament) and New Democratic Party health critic Megan Leslie. "Health experts agree that flavoured tobacco [products] are consumed by young Canadians as a stepping stone to consuming non-flavoured tobacco products . . . these things target young people." Uh-huh.

The inference, of course, is that little cigars are being marketed to children, which is a gross misrepresentation of fact. Because, whether flavoured or not, little cigars and other tobacco products are not being marketed to children. In fact, it's against the law to sell tobacco products to anyone under 19 years of age.

In most provinces in Canada, as in many other jurisdictions, 19 defines the age at which children legally become adults. And, that status allows them to sit in a bar and have a beer with friends who have also reached the age of majority. At 19, young adults can enter into legally binding contracts, serve in the Canadian Forces . . . and legally purchase tobacco products. It's quite legal for the kids of any age to lift a smoke from mom's purse and smoke it in front of the local high school.

Ms. Leslie's euphemistic use of the term “young people” to infer that little cigars are being marketed to children is disingenuous at best. Bullshit and bafflegab at its political best.

At any rate, Ms. Leslie has introduced a private member's bill to tighten the rules around the sale of flavoured little cigars.

By “tightening the the rules”, Ms. Leslie is referring to a federal ban on the sale of flavoured little cigars, passed in October, 2009 by Stephen Harper's Conservatives. The manufacturers of little cigars merely changed the product, altering the size slightly and removing the filters, to comply with the new law.

But, the facts are that the bill approved by the Harper government was based on lie. And the bill recently introduced by Ms. Leslie is being sold to the public based on the same litany of lies.

In announcing her bill, Ms. Leslie used a campaign slogan from a new anti-tobacco advocacy group, “cancer shouldn't come in candy flavours”. Catchy little shibboleth. "It's marketing to kids," she said.

But, let's look at the bill, and its intent, logically, without the emotionalism of the 'save the children' argument, to determine if the claim that these products are being marketed to children has any merit in the real world.

With few exceptions, advertising of tobacco products is almost non-existent in Canada. No cigarette (or little cigar) commercials on TV or radio. No billboards on the lawn of the junior high school proclaiming the joys of smoking cherry flavoured little cigars. No tobacco sponsors of sporting events or rock concerts.

You will, however, find lots of advertising for alcoholic beverages, especially beer, the perennial favourite of “young people” across Canada. In fact, I suspect many “young” Canadians are as familiar with some beer commercials as they are with the national anthem. There are even some young people who think a beer commercial is the national anthem.

And, there's lots of advertising for drugs, especially smoking cessation products that carry a warning to consult a doctor immediately if you should start thinking about throwing yourself in front of a fast moving train. Of course, jumping in front of a fast moving train will likely guarantee that you'll kick the smoking habit and remain smoke free for the rest of your life. The downside is that the rest of your life may be limited to a few brief minutes.

The point is, without advertising, it's pretty damn difficult to market anything to anybody.

In September, 2008, Harper promoted his bill to ban candy flavoured little cigars by holding up colourfully packaged little cigars. "These products are packaged as a candy, and this is totally unacceptable," Harper was quoted as saying. "This can't continue." Huh?

What the fuck does it matter how products are packaged? It's illegal to sell tobacco products to children, no matter how pretty a package they come in. And, children are not likely to see the pretty packages at any rate.

At the end of May, 2008, months prior to the passage of the bill banning flavoured cigars and their pretty packages, convenience stores and other retail outlets selling cigarettes and tobacco products were required to have those products hidden from view. Tobacco displays, referred to as "power walls" by anti-smoker zealots, had to be covered so that neither children nor adults are subjected to the sight of those ugly cancer sticks in the pretty packages.

So the only time the children are exposed to the pretty candy-like packages is when some politician holds them up for the TV cameras to show the public how much the pretty packages look like candy wrappers. Unless, of course, the kids are digging the pretty packages out of the garbage when adult smokers are through with them.

"Despite the ban, you can still find flavoured cigarillos on store shelves today." Leslie told the CBC. And, she's absolutely right.

But, she forgot to mention that children can't see them; it's illegal. Children can't buy them; that's also illegal. So banning little cigars because they come in pretty packing which might appeal to children is just plain stupid. Because the only people permitted to see, or buy, the pretty fucking packages are adults.

So, banning the legal sale of little cigars to adults, whether they come in pretty packages or not, will do nothing to prevent underage children from experimenting with tobacco products.

Sometimes (often), it seems that the anti-smokers zealots are overly eager to prove Einstein's observation that human stupidity is infinite.

Helping smokers to an early grave with Champix

2011-02-19T00:39:00.005-05:00

A recent article in the Toronto Star claims the province is considering placing smoking cessation drug Champix (and possibly Zyban), on the list of drugs covered under OHIP (Ontario Health Insurance Program).

Diane McArthur, who runs the Ontario Public Drugs Programs Division of the Ontario Ministry of Health, confirms that an “expert advisory committee” has given the green light to the anti-smoking drug Champix and a study of Zyban, another smoking cessation drug, is already underway. The Drug Programs Division is responsible for making decisions on what drugs will be covered under the provincial health plan.

It's estimated that covering the smoking cessation drugs under OHIP will cost Ontario taxpayers $20 million annually.

NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products such as the patch, nicotine gum and lozenges, are not being considered for coverage under the health plan, but the Ministry of Health Propagan . . . er, Promotion announced recently that free nicotine replacement therapy would be available through family health teams to “help” up to 20,000 smokers over the next two years.

At any rate, both Champix and Zyban are reported to have serious side effects, including depression and suicidal ideation.

In June, 2008, Health Canada warned that Champix had caused “unusual feelings of agitation, depressed mood, hostility, changes in behavior or impulsive or disturbing thoughts, such as ideas of self-harm or of harming others, in some users.”

It should be noted that, among the thousands of lawsuits pending against the manufacturers of these drugs are hundreds of cases alleging actual suicides from the use of both Zyban and Champix.

And, in addition to warnings from Health Canada, and the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration), the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) banned pilots and air traffic controllers from using Chantix, as Champix is known in the US. It has also been banned for use by commercial drivers.

Of course, according to the anti-smoker cartel, which likes to depict smokers as social misfits with no redeeming qualities, the risk that a smoker might leap off a tall building or throw themselves in front of a fast moving train is perfectly acceptable. But then, to the anti-smoker zealots, any risk is apparently preferable to engaging in some vile, anti-social habit like smoking.

God save us from those who want to save us from the evils of tobacco, even when faced with the possibility that they may be saving some of us right into an early grave.

The Star article by Tanya Talaga was surprisingly even-handed; not at all what I'm used to from the main stream media, especially from the somewhat liberal-minded Toronto Star. There was no editorializing about the inflated body counts the zealots attribute to smoking. And, even the exaggerated health care costs associated with smoking were attributed to an unidentifiable “they”, as if the author wanted to disassociate herself from the highly suspect claim. “Smoking costs the provincial health system $1.6 billion a year, they say.”

But, what really surprised me was a column by Rosie DiManno the day following Talaga's article. “The argument that smokers put undue strain on our health system has no traction with me, not until universal medical care is denied to piehole-stuffing fat people, the promiscuous, the bareback riders, the booze-hounds, the drug addicts and anyone else whose lifestyle choices put them at risk.” Huh?

What the fuck? This woman comes across like an unrepentant smoker. How did she get a pro-smoking column past the Star's cens . . . er, editors.

Says Rosie: “I’ll pass on the prescription meds, thanks — already have a drug cabinet full of those. But smokes are a one-size-fits-all antidote for what ails you: Depression, anxiety, panic attacks, obesity, mania, anorexia, obsessive-compulsive disorder and deadline freak-out-itis.”

Shit. No doubt about it, the woman's got bal . . . er, backbone. And she seems even more pissed off at the extremists than I am. She's just more articulate than I am at expressing her displeasure. But then, that's why she gets paid the big bucks.

The anti-smoker crowd will likely be calling for her head for some of her remarks.

“Lacking the gumption to make tobacco products utterly illegal yet ever greedy for the impost they collect off the top — which is why sensible people buy their darts from guys who come into the bar toting inventory from the Indian reservation free market — bureaucratic nico-Nazis, adjusting their halos of righteousness, have perfected the practice of suck-and-blow: Smoking bad, smokers’ money good.

They know full well that we, the hounded constituency of tobacco-lovers, will continue to buy cigarettes, regardless of price. Thus, they can simultaneously take the high road — spending oodles on anti-smoking campaigns that have had negligible impact — and the low road, which is to exploit smokers as cash cow.

It’s an endless circle that . . . (ooh, perfect smoke ring I’ve just exhaled here) . . . gives the illusion of efficacy, which, boosted (or not) by the tsunami of junk science smoking studies, justifies spending more money and constantly expanding the hobnailed anti-smoking brigades: $33.8 million lavished on cessation programs and research since 2005.”

Wow. You go, girl. You can read Rosie's column here. Smokers and pro-choice advocates will enjoy it.

As for adherents of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker . . . well, who really gives a fuck?

Expanding the “No Smokers Need Apply” policies

2011-02-14T13:43:00.004-05:00

In my last post, I asked what additional deterrents [to curtail the smoking habit] would be considered acceptable by anti-smoker fanatics. And, the answer appears to be that there are no limits to the malicious mistreatment of the smoking community at which the zealots will balk.

In his latest blog entry, Dr Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University School of Public Health, reports the latest outrage perpetrated against the smoking community. Siegel, a strong anti-smoking activist, says: “. . . this policy has nothing to do with health. It is, instead, a policy based purely on ideology.”

He's talking about an article which appeared in the Saturday edition of the Tacoma (Washington) News Tribune bearing the headline : “Franciscan: Health system will no longer hire tobacco users.” According to the author, John Gillie, "Tacoma’s Franciscan Health System is adding a qualification for prospective employees beginning next month: They must be tobacco-free.”

But, both the headline and the opening remarks are deceptive and misleading.

As it turns out, it is not just smokers who are to be barred from employment, but anyone who tests positive for cotinine, a metabolite of nicotine, in a compulsory urine test. And, the source of the nicotine exposure doesn't matter to the anti-smoker health freaks at Franciscan.

Since cotinine can be detected in even very small trace amounts, the draconian policy to be implemented on March 1, will bar employment even to those using NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) products such as the patch or nicotine gum. The exposure can also result from use of smokeless tobacco products such as snus, or the electronic cigarette.

But, even more incredibly, cotinine may also be present due to secondhand smoke exposure. So, if a job applicant lives with a smoker, or perhaps associates with smokers on a regular basis, he/she will find their application rejected.

This is neither a misinterpretation, nor an exaggeration of the policy; it is a fact openly acknowledged on the Franciscan Health System website: “A positive test for nicotine, regardless of the source, will eliminate a job candidate from employment consideration.”

The anti-smoker fanatics have gone from banning smoking on the job, to denying employment to smokers who smoke at home, and now they're prepared to dictate to smokers who may be trying to quit, and even non-smokers, with whom they may associate.

Are non-smokers married to smokers expected to throw their spouses (or significant others) into the street before applying for employment with Franciscan? Should they tell lifelong friends who smoke to stay to fuck away, because they don't want to jeopardize their job prospects in the health care field?

Do these perverted lunatics really intend to ban from employment, not just smokers, but anyone who condones smoking by associating with them?

It's fucking outrageous.

And, it's all perfectly legal. The News Tribune article, quoting an employment attorney, notes: “Washington isn’t one of the 29 states that have passed legislation banning tobacco use as a hiring criteria. And it’s unlikely that a person rejected for employment because of tobacco use could successfully sue.”

But, legal does not equate with moral. Unless, of course, you're an adherent of the Holy Church of the Anti-smoker. As noted by Dr Siegel in his blog entry: “Clearly, the policy is motivated instead by an ideology which demonizes nicotine, regardless of its source. This is a religious-like policy that has absolutely no public health basis.”

Imagine. Even staunch anti-smoking advocates like Dr. Siegel can see past the dogmatic intolerance of these bigoted bastards at Franciscan.

Lewis Maltby, author (Can They Do That) and president of the National Workrights Institute, citing the slippery slope argument, told the New York Times: “There is nothing unique about smoking. The number of things that we all do privately that have negative impact on our health is endless. If it’s not smoking, it’s beer. If it’s not beer, it’s cheeseburgers. And what about your sex life?”

Franciscan spokesman Gale Robinette said Franciscan has no plans to go beyond tobacco use. But, if such is the case, one has to ask, “Why not?”

If the Franciscan Health System really wants “to encourage healthful living, to set a good example in the communities it serves, to improve employees’ health and to save money,” how can they ignore job applicants with other unhealthy lifestyle behaviors or conditions such as obesity, the consumption of alcohol, unsafe sex, and lack of physical exercise?

Why are these oppressive tactics directed exclusively at smokers?

And, the only reason that similar tactics have not been directed at other groups is that the public has not been fully programmed to fear, and in turn, to hate other groups to the same degree as smokers. The denormalization of smokers is almost complete. The campaigns against the overweight and obese and drinkers are still in their infancy.

May the fleas of a thousand camels infest their fucking armpits.

Smokers need not apply

2011-02-13T19:17:00.003-05:00

Last Thursday, the New York Times published an article which questioned the practice of refusing to hire smokers, even when they engaged in their habit off the job. The article, “Hospitals Shift Smoking Bans to Smoker Ban” by AG Sulzburger, points out that many employers, especially those in the medical profession, are adopting policies which exclude smokers from employment.

But the “No Smokers Need Apply” policies are not restricted to new hires. In some instances, employers are demanding that smokers quit their habit or face the prospect of unemployment. In some cases, employers are demanding urine tests, intended to detect traces of nicotine, a perfectly legal substance, from those seeking employment and, in some cases, from those who may already be employed who want to keep their job.

These employers, which include the American Lung Association, the American Cancer Society and a growing number of hospital and health care facilities, believe they have a right to dictate what activities employees may indulge in their free time.

The anti-smoker zealots justify these gross intrusions into the personal lives of potential employees (and existing employees) by pointing out the need to “increase worker productivity, reduce health care costs and encourage healthier living.”

The Times article insinuates that the shift from smoke-free workplaces to smoker free workplaces is a new phenomena. “The policies reflect a frustration that softer efforts — like banning smoking on company grounds, offering cessation programs and increasing health care premiums for smokers — have not been powerful-enough incentives to quit.”

But, in fact, the uncompromising vindictiveness of the zealots has been characteristic of the euphemistically named “tobacco control” movement from the very beginning. They have carefully crafted a propaganda campaign which portrays smokers as social misfits - addicts, aggressively spreading their contagion to a non-smoking population and jeopardizing the lives of children.

And, despite the fact that their war on smokers is built on a foundation of lies and scientific deception, their message of bigotry and intolerance seems to have taken root. The discriminatory tactics used to harass a significant smoking community (20% to 25% of the adult population), now appear acceptable in the larger community of non-smokers, judging from some of the comments to the Times article.

For example, “I'd LOSE IT if I found out that a smoker came anywhere near my newborn. I don't care if he or she washed hands. I don't even care if he or she was wearing a coat and then removed it. I don't want third-hand smoke near my infant's lungs. I'd love to give birth at a hospital with a no-smokers-employed-here policy.”

Only someone suffering from some kind of anxiety disorder could write such drivel? An irrational fear of third hand smoke, no less.

Another comment notes: “As a physician, I have concluded that many people who continue to smoke – or start smoking – in spite of ostensibly knowing the risk, do so because they don’t have a tangible deterrent that is significant enough to motivate them otherwise. These new policies are significant – I hope they work!”

Yes. That's all smokers need, a deterrent to force them to quit. But, how far are these anti-smoker fanatics willing to go?

If the smoking bans don't work, if depriving smokers of a place to live is not sufficient deterrent, if refusing to provide medical coverage to those who continue to engage in that sinful habit doesn't force them to quit, if usurious levels of tobacco taxation haven't eliminated smoking, then what additional deterrents would be considered acceptable? Anti-smoker goon squads assaulting smokers? Compulsory electroshock therapy? Re-education camps?

Comments agreeing with the “No Smoker” policy ignore, or dismiss outright, the slippery slope argument, claiming that smoking is not like any other lifestyle choice .Secondhand smoke, they claim, represents a health hazard to those exposed. Other lifestyle choices, like obesity, do not.

But, what they fail to grasp, is that these policies are not being implemented to protect the health of other employees. The stated intent is to cut health care costs and increase productivity; to generate additional profit for employers. The "healthier living" angle is just a smokescreen to justify the unwarranted discrimination against smokers.

And, if employers can save money by refusing to hire smokers, they can almost certainly save money by refusing to hire the overweight and obese, social drinkers and alcoholics alike, those engaging in unconventional sexual behaviour, and a host of other activities.

Roughly two years ago, the Cleveland Clinic stopped hiring smokers. Clinic CEO, Dr. Delos Cosgrove told the New York Times that if he could he would choose not to hire obese people. Responding to criticism over his remark, Cosgrove said obesity represents a major social, economic and medical problem that should be given the same priority as efforts to curb tobacco use.

No smoker policies are being promoted by anti-smoker zealots. That this insane experiment in social engineering is being led by health care professionals is nothing short of disgusting.

But, smokers are merely the first target group. And anyone who believes otherwise should take their head out of their ass and give it a shake.

Japan: next target of anti-smoker zealots?

2011-02-08T00:02:00.005-05:00

I was bouncing around on the net recently, not knowing where I was going or what I might find when I got there, when a headline in the sidebar of one site caught my eye: “ Will Japan Ever Have a Smoking Ban” Following the link took me to a site called “The Faster Times.”

According to its own promo, “The Faster Times is an independent collective of journalists and writers who are looking to create a new model for the newspaper.” It's an interesting concept.

The author, Daniel Krieger, was praising those jurisdictions which had enacted smoking bans, and waxing eloquent about turning ashtrays into flower pots or some such. Reflecting on the virtues of smoking bans, and the apparent lack of same in Japan, prompted him to pose the question: “So why is it that Japan, a country so advanced in so many ways, still hasn’t gotten its act together when it comes to meaningful tobacco laws?”

By “meaningful tobacco laws”, Krieger obviously means the discriminatory anti-smoker laws, common in North America and Europe, which force smokers into social isolation, deny them employment, housing and would even deny appropriate health care. He appears to be somewhat chagrined with the more reasonable anti-smoking laws enacted thus far in Japan.

Unlike North America and Europe, smoking is still permitted almost everywhere in Japan. And, although smoking has been restricted in some environments, designated smoking areas are usually available.

And, while the anti-smoker zealots elsewhere are busily dictating how small business owners should run their business, Japan, for the time being, is content to allow them to make their own decisions on whether or not to impose smoking bans.

Some big name global chains, Starbucks, for example, bans smoking in all its stores. McDonald's Japan plans to ban smoking at some of its stores and banned smoking at its 298 restaurants in Kanagawa prefecture in March, 2010. Kentucky Fried Chicken banned smoking at one branch in Shibuya, Tokyo in July, 2010. And, many independent restaurants and bars have opted to go smoke free.

Most of the trains and subway platforms in Japan prohibit smoking, mostly because they are so crowded that it's simply impossible to light up safely. And, at least one prefecture, Chiyoda-ku, banned smoking while walking on crowded, busy streets in November, 2002. And, the last article I read on the subject suggested that less than 25% of hotel rooms were designated as non-smoking.

The purchase and smoking of cigarettes is restricted to persons over the age of twenty, the age of majority in Japan. But there are no bans on the display of cigarettes or other tobacco products in retail outlets. Cigarettes can be bought in tobacco stores, convenience stores and vending machines, although purchase from the latter is only possible with a Taspo (tobacco passport) card which verifies the holder's age.

Just as a curiosity, it was estimated in 2006, that Japan had over 500,000 cigarette vending machines. But, it should be noted that almost anything in Japan can be purchased from a vending machine, including beer and alcohol.

But, comparatively speaking, there are few anti-smoking laws and none as restrictive, or discriminatory, as the anti-smoker laws found in North America and Europe.

So, what's behind Japan's more liberal attitude to smoking and smokers?

The first thing that has to be recognized is that the smoking prevalence rate in Japan, although declining, is still among the highest in the world. In 1966, it was estimated that over 83% of Japanese men smoked, and the latest figures suggest that slightly over 36% of men continue to enjoy the habit. Smoking prevalence among women is quite low, somewhere between 9% and 15%, depending on who's quoting the figures.

In addition, the most recent study I've found on the subject, Ohida et al, 2001, notes that: “The prevalence of cigarette smoking among physicians was 27.1% for men and 6.8% for women.”

The second point that has to be considered is that the anti-smoker crusaders have yet to infiltrate the government to any great extent, perhaps due to the very high smoking rates which, undoubtedly, includes a number of politicians. And, without the full support of the government, financially and otherwise, anti-smoker propaganda campaigns become largely ineffective.

The most commonly cited reason for the failure of anti-smoker crusaders to win the support of government, is the role government (and politicians) play in the industry. Until 1985, the tobacco industry was a government-run monopoly. And, they are still heavily involved in the industry, with the Ministry of Finance controlling just over 50 percent of Japan Tobacco, the world's third largest tobacco company.

However, the anti-smoker group, the Japan Society for Tobacco Control, is working hard to change Japan's image as a smoker's haven. Their goal is to “educate” the public about the dangers of smoking, coerce smokers into quitting, and pressure politicians to implement smoking bans to “protect” non-smokers from the (largely non-existent) hazards of secondhand smoke.

Dr. Manabu Sakuta, head honcho of the Japanese anti-smoker group, following typical anti-smoker rhetoric, paints all those opposed to his group's efforts to de-normalize smokers as allies of the tobacco industry: “Japan Tobacco uses their in-pocket famous doctors, Diet members (Japanese legislature), Ministry of Finance bureaucrats, mass media, and even ordinary smokers” to work toward stifling regulation.

Shit. Everybody but Sakuta and his anti-smoker bunch is on the payroll of Japan tobacco. Including the mass media.

Which brings us to the third reason for the more tolerant attitude towards smokers and smoking in Japan. Unlike North America and Europe, the anti-smoker crusaders do not have control of, and are therefore unable to censor, the mass media . . . at least not yet.

Krieger notes in his article: “Although Japan Tobacco insists the solution lies in harmonious separation between smoking and non-smoking areas, Sakuta feels that a strictly enforced ban along the lines of New York or London is the only way to go.” In other words, why use a conciliatory approach to the smoking issue when you can easily resolve the problem by battering smokers upside the head with a sledge hammer?

Sakuta and his Japan Society for Tobacco Control and “its members that number in the thousands” want to dictate public policy on smoking issues to Japan's population of 127 million. They may face an uphill battle, but then again . . .

Did you know that Japanese lawmakers set a maximum allowable waistline size for anyone age 40 and older? And, Japan has one of the world’s lowest rates of obesity - less than 5 percent, compared to nearly 35 percent for the United States.

Shit. Maybe they were just giving their obesity epidemic priority.

SHS: little white lies or scientific fraud

2011-02-03T11:11:00.006-05:00

A report prepared by a European group called the Smoke Free Partnership, completed in 2006, examined mortality allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure in 25 nation states of the European Union. The report, titled “Lifting the smokescreen: 10 reasons for going smokefree”, concluded that “Second-hand smoke exposure kills and harms health”, noting that “Every worker has the right to be protected from exposure to tobacco smoke”.

The conclusions, of course, were not unexpected. The report was intended to convince politicians and policymakers in individual states in the European Union to commit to comprehensive smoking bans and other smoke free policies. And, the EU report was indeed used to justify the smoking bans recently imposed throughout Europe, including the ban implemented in France.

For years, anti-smoker zealots have used the “threat” of secondhand smoke to support the need for smoking bans in the workplace, including restaurants and bars.

Mortality statistics, deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke, are frequently quoted in anti-smoker propaganda released through the main stream media. As often as not, the news stories appear to be written directly from the press releases issuing forth from the fanatics in the anti-smoker movement. The extravagant, often outrageous, claims made by the zealots are seldom challenged by the media.

Robert Molimard is professor emeritus of physiology and coordinator of the DIU of Tabacologie to the Faculty of Medicine Paris-South in France. A renowned tobacco researcher (tabacologist), Molimard took note of some discrepancies in the report which highlighted the number of deaths in France attributed to passive smoking.

Of particular concern to Professor Molimard were two tables presented in “Lifting the smokescreen”. The first asserted that there was a total of exactly 5,863 deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke exposure in France in 2002. (identified as Table 6 in the report)

That's the figure most often used by anti-smoker zealots and their allies in the media, often rounded off to 5,000 or 6,000 passive smoking deaths. And, the inference is that these passive smoking deaths are among those who have never smoked.

However, Professor Molimard was quick to see the subterfuge; that the majority of those deaths occurred among smokers. “But what do we see when we revisit this study? We see that these 5,863 deaths include a majority of smokers!” he maintained in one interview. Uh-huh. Smokers are killing themselves with their own secondhand smoke, apparently after first having killed themselves by smoking. Or, perhaps they were killed by smoking after having already being killed by secondhand smoke.

At any rate, it's this frightening distortion of reality which clearly demonstrates the extent of the deceit perpetrated by the extremists.

This grossly inflated statistic points out another deception of the zealots. Looking at the chart we can see that, of those 5,863 deaths, it's apparent that only 314 of the alleged deaths occurred in the workplace, and only 25 in the hospitality sector.

But, there's more to the deception. Table 7 in the report estimates that deaths attributable to passive smoking among non-smokers is only 1,114, of which only 113 are allegedly due to passive smoking in the workplace. And, only six of those are ascribed to the hospitality sector.

But, the deception doesn't stop there. As noted by Professor Molimard: “And since ex-smokers represent approximately 40% of people who don’t smoke -- 48% and 52% [of non-smokers] are never smokers -- we then realize that the number of true non-smokers, who have never smoked, who will have a risk because of passive smoking in bars, hotels, restaurants, discotheques, these places where it is absolutely imperative to stop smoking because of the risks to the staff -- estimated using a scoop as a measuring tool -- is 2. ” Uh-huh.

So, the passive smoking deaths, as estimated in the EU report, included both smokers and former smokers. In addition, the vast majority, 5,574 of the 5,863 deaths allegedly due to secondhand smoke in the workplace, occurred not in the workplace, but from exposure in the home environment. Incredibly, only six were attributed in the hospitality sector. And, rough calculations by Professor Molimard suggest that fewer than half of those were never smokers.

France is a country of roughly 62 million people, with a smoking prevalence rate of between 21% to 27%, depending on who's quoting the figures. Yet, the anti-smoker zealots managed to convince their politicians that extremely restrictive anti-smoker legislation, which focused primarily on bars and restaurants, was needed to protect workers in the hospitality industry from secondhand smoke.

It's difficult to determine who is most at fault, the anti-smoker zealots who manufacture these fraudulent statistics to support their utopian goal of a smoker free society, or the brain dead politicians who blindly accept them without question.

And, the misrepresentation is not limited to France or the European Union.

It is a scenario being played out throughout the developed world. The economic costs, the loss in revenues experienced by restaurants, night clubs, bars, etc., occasioned by smoking bans, is ignored. The loss of jobs in the hospitality industry is ignored. The stigmatization of smokers, their social exclusion, and the blatant discrimination directed at them, is routinely ignored.

In France Professor Molimard, an anti-smoking advocate, is publicly trying to bring the deception to an end. But, as he notes in his interview: “My chances of success are very limited. “

And, he has a point - as long as the lies and deceit of the anti-smoker zealots go unchallenged in the main stream media, whether it's in France, the US, Canada, Great Britain or elsewhere around the world.

Notes:
The English version of an interview with Professor Molimard, translated by Iro Cyr, is available on the CAGE (Canadians Against Government Encroachment) website. The charts used in this blog entry came from the CAGE blog.

There's also a a second article by Molimard, discussing the same subject matter, on the CAGE blog. Beliefs, Manipulation and lies in the Tobacco Issue

The quit or die tactics of anti-smoker extremists

2011-01-30T15:13:00.003-05:00

The state of New York is currently considering legislation which would ban e-cigs in that state, “until the FDA approves electronic cigarettes as a smoking cessation device.” Unfortunately, in December 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the FDA could not regulate e-cigarettes as drugs or devices. The ruling dictated that e-cigs must be regulated as tobacco products.

So, why do politicians and anti-smoker organizations want to deny smokers alternatives that could save lives? After all, these people claim the war on smokers is being waged to protect the public health. Shouldn't they be welcoming every opportunity to reduce the health risks associated with smoking, rather than confining their activities to the complete elimination of tobacco use in any form?

Tobacco harm reduction (THR) is a concept based on the reality that smoking is unlikely to be eliminated any time in the near future. Even the prohibition of tobacco will not eradicate smoking. Although some might quit, it would, as likely as not, simply drive tobacco use underground.

Therefore, it makes sense to reduce the harm ostensibly caused by smoking, by encouraging smokers to switch to demonstrably less hazardous tobacco products such as snus, or even alternative nicotine delivery systems such as the electronic cigarette.

Since it is the chemicals in cigarettes, formed primarily through combustion, which have been identified as the source of the health risk, reducing exposure to those chemicals would obviously reduce the health burden allegedly due to smoking. Clearly, substituting less harmful tobacco products, or electronic cigarettes, for the real thing has the potential to lessen the morbidity and mortality associated with smoking.

Yet, harm reduction is opposed by the anti-smoker crowd as vehemently as they oppose smoking. The question is why?

It's not as if there is no scientific evidence showing the potential benefits of non-combustible tobacco products like snus as compared to smoking cigarettes. The research is actually quite extensive. The problem, I would suggest, is that research into tobacco harm reduction receives little or no attention in the main stream media. And, lacking media attention, the public is largely ignorant of the fact that there are other options available if they should choose to quit smoking.

In Canada, for example, snus is not available from convenience stores or other traditional retail outlets, although you may find it in a few specialty shops dedicated to tobacco products. But, the majority of Canadians buy their cigarettes from the corner store, or when they gas up their vehicles.
In addition, advertising restrictions prevent the tobacco companies from promoting snus as a less hazardous, or safer, tobacco product.

The Canadian consumer remains oblivious to the fact that there is an alternative to the nicotine patches, gums and lozenges being promoted by the anti-smoker crowd as the only acceptable path to smoking cessation and eventual salvation.

Most Canadian consumers are likewise ignorant about the potential benefits of electronic cigarettes as an alternative to smoking.

Last fall, at a party celebrating my sister-in-law's sixtieth birthday, her brother was reflecting on the difficulty he was having in quitting. When I brought up the subject of electronic cigarettes, I was met with blank stares from everyone within earshot. No one knew what the hell I was talking about.

Health Canada had already banned the device on the grounds that they had not been proven safe. Or, to be more accurate, they banned the sale of the nicotine cartridges used with the e-cig. In Canada, nicotine may only be sold (or prescribed) in the form of patches, gums and lozenges, or the nicotine inhalers sold by the pharmaceutical industry. A very convenient law – for the drug lords.

I have suggested several times on these pages that the motivation is primarily monetary.

Governments are reluctant to give up the lucrative revenue generated by sin taxes on tobacco products. In Canada, tax revenue from tobacco exceeds 8 billion dollars annually. In the US, sin taxes on tobacco are used to balance state budgets while avoiding general tax increases or a reduction in services.

Anti-smoker organizations are anxious to deliver potential customers to their financial backers in the pharmaceutical industry. And, every smoker they can coerce into quitting represents a potential customer for the (legal) drug lords. Provided, of course, there are no other alternatives to which they might turn.

But, although the politicians and anti-smoker groups fear losing control of the nicotine market, there is yet another reason for the constant attacks on alternative methods of nicotine delivery. That is the pure vindictiveness of anti-smoker extremists such as ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and the ANR (Americans for Non-Smokers Rights) to name but two.

For extremists such as these, the healths hazards associated with smoking are merely a convenient excuse, a subterfuge, to justify their attacks, not just on smokers, but anyone using tobacco products of any kind. And, more recently, their particular brand of vitriol is being directed at e-cig users, not because it's a tobacco product, but because it contains nicotine and it closely resembles smoking.

Strange behaviour for those ostensibly acting in the best interests of public health.

MaineCare shouldn't pay. Let poor smokers die?

2011-01-27T14:30:00.002-05:00

In their capacity as the new whipping boys (and girls) for everything wrong with the western world, smokers, this time in Maine, may soon be faced with yet another egregious assault on their health (and personal autonomy) by their elected representatives. And, this time smokers may literally face a life or death ultimatum; either conform to the demands of anti-smoker zealots and quit smoking or be denied medical care through the state medicaid program. Uh-huh.

Newly elected State Senator, Thomas Saviello said Friday he decided to introduce a bill to keep people receiving MaineCare from receiving benefits at the suggestion of a constituent who works in a rural health care clinic. Saviello says the unidentified female constituent is “troubled when she sees MaineCare patients who have respiratory problems and smoke heavily, because taxpayers are subsidizing treatment for illnesses that could be avoided.”

MaineCare is the state’s name for Medicaid. Funded by both state and federal money, it provides free medical and dental care to low-income residents. In 2009, it was estimated that approximately 270,000 Maine citizens were enrolled in the program, which has an annual operating budget of roughly $2.4 billion. Most of the funding is provided by the federal government, with Maine taxpayers paying roughly $1 billion.

By definition, those on the medicaid program are among the most financially disadvantaged residents in the state. Refusing MaineCare benefits to smokers could effectively deprive them of medical care in potentially life threatening situations. Is Saviello seriously proposing to jeopardize the lives of Maine residents, who obviously can't afford private health care, simply because they smoke?

In an AP article by Glenn Adams, and carried by several newspapers in Maine, Saviello claims he's "not out to punish smokers or tell them how to live their lives." Huh?

How can this deranged proposal be construed as anything but punishment for failing to conform to lifestyle behaviour deemed appropriate by anti-smoker zealots? Does the Senator realize that smoking is still a legal activity? That his plan would penalize the most vulnerable in the population for engaging in a legal activity? I wonder how many smokers voted for this morally bankrupt idiot?

This is the most cowardly, and callous, assault on smokers since Jane DeVille Almond, a British nurse and anti-smoker zealot, told a radio audience that smokers should have to quit or be denied medical procedures offered to the non-smoking public under Britain's NHS (National Health Service). When quizzed by the host of the radio program about what should be done if smokers needing heart surgery couldn't afford to pay the medical costs from their own pocket, the nurse responded: “They'll just have to die, then, won't they.”

It's unclear just how much (if any) serious consideration he's actually given to his proposal since the Senator has released no details on the bill he intends to introduce in the State Senate. But, despite the fact that his proposal is meant to reduce the costs associated with smoking related diseases, among smokers at least, Saviello acknowledges that he has no idea how much money might be saved by denying medical treatment to smokers, although he “suspects” it could be pretty significant.

I guess Maine's smokers should be thankful none of his “troubled” constituents suggested herding smokers into boxcars and shipping them off to some isolated re-education camp where they could be experimented on with Chantix and other "smoking cessation" drugs.

Saviello's proposal is just one of several pieces of anti-smoker legislation to be introduced in Maine's new legislative session.

Rep. Les Fossel wants to raise the minimum age to possess tobacco from 18 to 21, in an effort to reduce teen smoking rates. Rep. Anna Blodgett is sponsoring a bill to bar smoking in private clubs such as the Elks and the American Legion, which are apparently exempt from the current smoking ban. The lung association wants legislation to discourage youth smoking; they're lobbying for a $1.50 increase in Maine's cigarette excise tax.

Of course, this is all just idle speculation until (unless) Saviello actually comes up with a bill and introduces it formally in the legislature. So, we'll put a hold on the crucifixion . . . for now.

And, of course, there's always the possibility that the senator might change his mind. He's been known to do that. Saviello served four (two-year) terms in Maine's House of Representatives, first as a Democrat, then an independent, before being elected to the State Senate as a Republican in last November's election.

But, his political affiliation doesn't really make a lot of difference. Whether he's a 'publican, a 'dependent or one of Demuddercats, I suspect he'll still be an anti-smoker bigot.

A world full of risk

2011-01-22T18:03:00.005-05:00

I wasn't researching anything in particular; just catching up on some of my favourite blogs and following links I thought might be of interest. One link caught my eye, and following up on it took me to the Science Daily web site.

The Science Daily piece was titled “Being Overweight Just As Risky To Health As Being A Smoker”.

According to the article “Obese adolescents have the same risk of premature death in adulthood as people who smoke more than 10 cigarettes a day, while those who are overweight have the same risk as less heavy smokers, according to research published on the British Medical Journal website.” Uh-huh.

Apparently, being overweight at the age of 18 increases the risk of premature death by just over a third, while being obese more than doubles the risk. The gist of the article was that, unless you wanted to kick the bucket prematurely (what, exactly, does premature mean, I wonder), you'd better sign up for a membership at Jenny Craig's.

Then, just as I was prepared to move along, I spotted another link to an article titled: “Be Overweight And Live Longer, German Study Suggests.” Since this article appeared to contradict the one I'd just finished reading, I had to check it out.

The second article noted: “Contrary to what was previously assumed, being overweight is not increasing the overall death rate in the German population. Matthias Lenz of the Faculty of Mathematics, Computer Science, and Natural Sciences of the University of Hamburg and his co-authors present these and other results in the current issue of Deutsches Ärtzeblatt International.”

The German Study claims that being overweight does not increase death rates (premature or otherwise), although obesity does increase them by 20%. Fortunately, the study also notes that, as people grow older, obesity makes less and less difference.

Since I'm only 8 or 10 pounds overweight, the apparent contradictions in these two studies don't really bother me. I'm getting too old to die young, at any rate. And besides, I'm already destined to die of a smoking related disease.

So, I think I'll believe the German study. That way, I can have the occasional beer without worrying that I'll pack on the pounds and die prematurely. It's nice to have a choice in these matters.

But, the subject matter seems to be of great importance to some young people. For example, another article on the same website is entitled: “Reducing Suicidal Behaviors Among Adolescents.”

This one, by Inas Rashad, an assistant professor of economics at Georgia State University, claims that adolescent girls who perceive themselves as too fat are more likely to commit Hari-Kiri than girls who are, in fact, overweight. “Although studies have shown a link between obesity, depressive disorders and suicidal behaviors, Rashad and Dhaval Dave of Bentley University, analyze these indicators in conjunction with an individual's perception of their weight.”

The article notes: “The study revealed that body dissatisfaction had a strong impact on all suicidal behaviors for girls and was generally insignificant for males.”

Another article on the same topic, “Teens Who Think They’re Overweight More Likely To Try Suicide”, tends to agree. Well, almost.

Monica Swahn, Ph.D.,lead author of the second study, noted that: “Our findings show that both perceived and actual overweight increase risk for suicide attempt.” The only discrepancy is that the Swahn study concluded that the “association was as strong for boys as for girls, contrary to what the researchers had originally expected.”

So, being overweight may, or may not, shorten your life. But, just thinking you're overweight might cause you to jump off a tall building or throw yourself in front of a subway train. Interesting.

Apparently, there are risks every where. It's enough to make a man want to lock the doors, park his ass in his favourite armchair and let the rest of the world go by.

But, then again, that might not be such a good idea. There's another study on the Science Daily site which claims: “More Time Spent Sitting Linked to Higher Risk of Death; Risk Found to Be Independent of Physical Activity Level”. Uh-huh. A study which claims too much sitting can kill you.

Researchers “found that more leisure time spent sitting was associated with higher risk of mortality, particularly in women. Women who reported more than six hours per day of sitting were 37 percent more likely to die during the time period studied than those who sat fewer than 3 hours a day. Men who sat more than 6 hours a day were 18 percent more likely to die than those who sat fewer than 3 hours per day. The association remained virtually unchanged after adjusting for physical activity level. Associations were stronger for cardiovascular disease mortality than for cancer mortality.”

Now, there's a potential confounder I'll bet the EPA and the US Surgeon General never took into consideration in their secondhand smoke studies. Imagine. The excess mortality among spouses being attributed to secondhand smoke exposure may have been due to an excess of female couch potatoes in the cohort exposed to secondhand smoke.

Ain't science grand?

Smoking statistics and 18 holes of golf

2011-01-17T17:10:00.002-05:00

“Numbers don't lie.”

If I had a nickle for every time I heard (or read) that claim over my lifetime, I'd be able to play a damn sight more golf in my retirement than I currently do - in my dreams. Although the claim has a ring of truth, and many people will nod in agreement, it can easily be proven to be untrue.

But, since I don't really know how often I've heard someone make the claim that numbers don't lie, I'd have to calculate (or assume) the number of times I've heard the phrase. So, let's assume that I heard the “Numbers don't lie” claim once a day, on average, every day since I was five years old. Uh-huh. That's an unrealistic assumption, but it will serve to illustrate my point.

So, that's five cents a day for every day over the past 62 years. (365 X .05 X 62) or $1,130.50. That's not a lot of money.

Now, if I go out golfing on a sunny summer morning, I'd likely spend $40.00 (a conservative estimate) for green fees; another $20 to rent a golf cart, and yet another $15 for a few drinks or a bite to eat at the 19th hole.

We'll ignore minor costs, like the replacement cost for balls lost in various water hazards, or those lost in the deep woods on the occasional hook. And, then there's the balls lost when those perfect tee shots inexplicably disappear from the middle of the fairway. We'll also ignore the cost of a new three-iron every time I wrap the old one around a tree because I couldn't break 90; which is roughly 75% of the time. That is to say that I fail to break 90 some 75% of the time, not that I wrap my three-iron around a tree every time I fail to break 90.

At any rate, I expect to spend about $75 every time I go out to play. So, if I've saved roughly $1,130 in nickles and if I spend an average of $75 when I play; and, if I live to average life expectancy, then I might be able to afford an extra day of golf a year over the remainder of my lifetime. That's a lot of “ifs” and it doesn't add up to a lot more golf.

And, what if my basic assumptions were wrong? For example, what if I only heard that phrase every second day. Then my nickle a day savings would be reduced by half and I would only be able to afford an extra game every second year during my retirement. That's not even worth the effort of searching my pockets for a nickle every time someone claimed that numbers don't lie and stuffing it into a piggy-bank for 62 years.

And, what would happen if inflation drove the cost of a game of golf up to $90 a day. Obviously, I would be able to afford even less time on the golf course. That might do wonders for my blood pressure, but it would do little to improve my golf game.

In addition, there's always the possibility that some unexpected event might also affect my calculations. For example, if I had gone out to play a game of golf to celebrate my retirement and gotten run over by a bus load of Moose Lodge members arriving for their annual tournament. Then I would have derived absolutely no benefit from all those nickles I'd squirreled away every time someone claimed that “Numbers don't lie.”

I know what you're thinking. Just where in hell is he going with this little analogy?

The point is that if I take into consideration all the factors which might affect my calculations, the whole exercise can be seen for the absurdity it is.

And, the same holds true, I suspect, for the statistics bandied about by the anti-smoker zealots. Estimated numbers lacking adequate quantification. Deliberately ignoring confounding variables in their analysis and interpretation of data. Throw in a fistful of ifs, mights and maybes. And then pass the results off on an unsuspecting public as honest science. All of which is likely the reason we see such a lack of consistency in the results of the many secondhand smoke studies that have been conducted over the years.

Now it seems they don't even want to go through the motions of conducting (or exploiting) fraudulent scientific studies to mislead the masses. Instead, they want the politicians to ignore the science and pass legislation based on popularity polls conducted by anti-smoker fanatics.

From the Montreal Gazette: "A new study is urging lawmakers not to let science get in the way of sound policy when it comes to laws on children's exposure to second-hand smoke in cars. Smoking in cars carrying children should be banned whether or not science can prove exactly how risky it is, according to an article penned by Ray Pawson of the University of Leeds and published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal."

Science should not get in the way of sound policy? What the hell does that mean?

In pushing for a ban on smoking in cars carrying children in seven Canadian provinces, the anti-smoker fanatics emphasized, repeatedly, the claim that smoking in a car is 23 times more toxic than smoking at home; a statement that has been disproved.

Now, caught in a lie, the anti-smokers zealots want policymakers to ignore the science. Apparently, the science should only be considered if it favours the anti-smoker crusade.

Said Rob Cunningham, of the Canadian Cancer Society. "This issue has unstoppable momentum. These laws have enormous public support and they have been easily adopted with all party support in provincial legislatures."

Of course, most anti-smoking laws enjoy public support only because of the fear-mongering bullshit and bafflegab disseminated by the fanatics with the sole intention of misleading the public and influencing gullible politicians.

Shit. The temperature's below zero and there's about three inches of snow on the ground. I can't even work out my frustration on the golf course.

Is the US Surgeon General a liar?

2011-01-13T00:37:00.003-05:00

Anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel announced the winner of his 2010 Tobacco Control “Lie of the Year” award in December . This year's recipient, the Office of the United States Surgeon General, was announced with little fanfare and no press coverage via an article on Siegel's blog, Tobacco Analysis.

According to Siegel's article: “The Surgeon General's office takes the award for disseminating widely throughout the media the blatant lie that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and that inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke causes cancer.”

Of course, if the office of the SG is disseminating a lie, then US Surgeon General Regina Benjamin is a liar.

Last week, Siegel noted that the ANR (Americans for Non-smokers Rights) was claiming that "there are virtually no health disparities between active and passive smoking." In other words, the risk of heart disease associated with secondhand smoke is the same as the risk from active smoking. The ANR was a runner-up in Siegel's Tobacco Control Lie of the Year Contest.

According to Siegel, “These false claims are damaging because they undermine decades of public education about the hazards of active smoking. They represent a lie that is every bit as false as anything the tobacco industry has fraudulently asserted in the historical annals of tobacco industry lies and deception.”

In October, 2009, a “committee of experts” from the US Institute of Medicine, in a study sponsored by the CDC, claimed: “Smoking bans reduce the risk of heart attacks associated with secondhand smoke.”

The committee concluded that: “Although there is no direct evidence that a relatively brief exposure to secondhand smoke could precipitate a heart attack, the committee found the indirect evidence compelling. Data on particulate matter in smoke from other pollution sources suggest that a relatively brief exposure to such substances can initiate a heart attack, and particulate matter is a major component of secondhand smoke.”

Dr. Siegel headlined his blog entry: “Institute of Medicine report's conclusions on smoking ban effects are defied by its own assertions; study conclusions, press release severely biased.”

According to Siegel, “ . . . the report draws conclusions that are essentially meaningless from an epidemiologic and clinical perspective. What the report does is take important questions and distort them so much that the answers no longer have any meaning.” That sounds very much like a lie.

Some very interesting remarks. The Office of the Surgeon General is guilty of a blatant lie; remarks made by the ANR represent a lie as big as any made by the tobacco industry; an IOM report distorts the science beyond all meaning.

Now, if those accusations were being bandied about by some insignificant blogger like the Old Rambler, then the main stream media would perhaps be justified in their failure to comment on the rather dubious honour Siegel bestowed on the Surgeon General and Americans for Non-smoker's Rights.

But, the accusation didn't originate with some lowly blogger expressing his opinion and exercising his right to freedom of speech. The allegations of dishonesty come from a medical doctor and a staunch anti-smoking advocate; a professor on the faculty of Boston University School of Public Health. And, charges that the Surgeon General and the ANR are playing fast and loose with the truth and deliberately deceiving the public is not something that should be taken lightly.

Yet, the main stream media ignore the lies and misrepresentations of fact.

In his latest blog entry, Siegel points out more dishonesty from the anti-smoker zealots. This time it's ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) which is claiming that electronic cigarettes are deadly “due to the nicotine, propylene glycol, carcinogens, and other toxins delivered to the user. ASH also implies that the electronic vapor can be deadly to non-users.”

After explaining why those claims are dishonest, Siegel notes: “I do not criticize ASH for promoting a ban on vaping on airplanes. However, I strongly criticize ASH for supporting such a ban by lying to its constituents and by grossly distorting the science.”

Do any of these anti-smoker zealots tell the truth?

In closing his article, Siegel notes: “Coming on the heels of my revelations that a large number of other prominent, national anti-smoking organizations are lying to the public (including the FDA, Surgeon General's office, and Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights), this story makes it compellingly clear that the scientific integrity of the anti-smoking movement is imploding.” Uh-huh.

All those lies, and, still not a peep from the main stream media. A compelling argument could be made that the media is complicit in the deception(s) being perpetrated by the anti-smoker fanatics and the dehumanization of those who choose to smoke.

And what should we make of this comment in the Oneida Daily Dispatch. “New York State tobacco control advocates . . . are descending on Albany to educate New York leaders about the important role tobacco use prevention and cessation have in preventing youth initiation and reducing healthcare costs.”

For politicians in any jurisdiction to be “educated” by the lying bastards in tobacco control . . . now, that's a scary thought.

Health warnings on Twinkies?

2011-01-05T09:33:00.003-05:00

Back in September, 2010, Canada's federal health authority, Health Canada, advised its provincial counterparts of its intention to postpone the introduction of new regulations requiring tobacco companies to display new graphic warnings on cigarette packs. Health Canada spent an estimated 3.6 million taxpayer dollars on studies and focus groups over the last six years or so, analyzing the potential benefits of larger, more grotesque warning labels on smoking prevalence rates.

In addition to new graphics, the cigarette packs were to include a proposed toll-free smoking cessation help line.

Anti-smoker zealots were, of course, outraged at the delay and began a public campaign to persuade politicians to implement the new warnings immediately. They claim bigger, more gruesome warnings will cause at least some smokers to think twice about their habit and perhaps quit.

According to Gar Mahood, Executive Director of the Non-Smokers Rights Association, “the renewed and improved warnings will, over time, prevent tens of thousands of tobacco deaths." Uh-huh.

Rob Cunningham, of the Canadian Cancer Society, echoed similar sentiments. "Implementation of the new, larger package warnings will be an important achievement, and will reduce cancer and other tobacco-related diseases in Canada.”

And, Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada claim: “Large health warnings also reduce the attractiveness of cigarette packages and help create an environment where smoking is less acceptable.”

The health warnings currently used in Canada were introduced in 2001 and were ostensibly designed to inform the public about the harmful effects of smoking, such as an increased risk for lung cancer and heart disease, as well as the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke. But, in fact, that has never been their real function.

The graphic images were actually meant to “encourage” smokers to quit by providing a constant reminder of the alleged health hazards of smoking. But, most smokers have become desensitized to the warning labels. So, the anti-smoker zealots have been pushing Health Canada to force tobacco companies to display larger, more shocking images on their cigarette packaging in the hope that the negative imagery might persuade a few more smokers to give up the habit.

A group of eight anti-smoker organizations, hinting that the government had caved in to pressure from the tobacco industry, sent a letter to Canada's Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, pointing out that Health Canada's own research shows larger graphics could cause some smokers to quit. “The research commissioned by your department shows clearly that the larger the warning, the greater the positive impact it will have on its intended target audiences.”

But . . .

Hamish Marshall, in an article in the National Post, questions the research used to support the anti-smoker contention that larger warning labels will have a significant impact on smoking prevalence. In fact, Marshall states unequivocally that the Health Canada research is “deeply flawed.”

Marshall is identified in the Post article as the chief research officer of Abingdon Research, and notes that previously he was responsible for government research in the Prime Minister's Office. One must assume he has some expertise in conducting polls and surveys.

Marshall contends that, to avoid something called "social desirability bias" , “good researchers ask their questions in ways designed to obscure the point of view of the client, providing an environment where the respondent feels safe offering "unpopular" opinions.”

However, says Marshall: “The Health Canada studies are a master lesson in doing just the opposite. They seemed to be trying to introduce as much social desirability bias as possible into their results. “ Ouch.

In other words, the surveys were manipulated to solicit answers favourable to the proposed policy of incorporating larger health warnings on cigarette packs. Having already made up their mind that new health warnings should be larger and more pornographic, Health Canada commissioned the study so they could claim public support for the new health warnings.

After pointing out many of the flaws he sees in the research, Marshall concludes his article with a little advice to Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq : “Rather than listening to her bureaucrats' advice, the Health Minister would be well advised to do some research of her own: a full investigation into the research practices of Health Canada. “ Uh-huh.

Unfortunately, that advice will fall on deaf ears.

And, I wonder . . .

Since the government has assumed the right to dictate graphic design of cigarette packaging for the tobacco companies, when will they legislate graphic warnings on Cola? Twinkies? Shotgun shells? And, just how in hell will they convince the black market to display the new warnings on the 50% of cigarette sales in Ontario estimated to be contraband?

All the best; see you in the new year

2010-12-31T15:46:00.003-05:00

Some of you have noted that I've been taking a bit of a respite from my blog recently. I wish I could tell you that I spent the holidays someplace warm and cozy, maybe somewhere in the Caribbean. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

Without going into a lot of detail, I wound up spending Christmas in hospital. Not a pleasant experience. But, they finally chucked me out, with a nifty new gadget for monitoring my blood glucose levels and an even niftier new gadget for injecting insulin. Sometimes you just can't win for losing.

So, I guess the first order of business should be to offer a belated Christmas greeting to readers old and new, and extend my best wishes for the coming year.

But, since I didn't get to spend a lot of time with the kids and grand-kids over Christmas, I'll be spending the first few days of the New Year out of town enjoying their company. That means I'll be away from my computer for several more days.

But, I'll be back to blogging sometime in the first week of the new year. Don't forget to drop by.

Regards,
Matt

A single cigarette could kill you . . . Honestly?

2010-12-15T13:05:00.004-05:00

The (December 9, 2010) press release from the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the latest report from the US Surgeon General, Regina Benjamin. But, anyone living in the real world, as opposed to the Alice in Wonderland creation of the anti-smoker fanatics, will see the press release for what it is; blatant fear-mongering.

The press release issued by HHS and the “fact sheet ” issued by the OSG (Office of the Surgeon General) appear designed to support the most fanatical claims of the anti-smoker cult. They are, by and large, propaganda documents meant to encourage anti-smoker hysteria rather than legitimate attempts to inform the public about the potential health hazards of smoking.

For example, the press release notes: “Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and could trigger acute cardiac events, such as heart attack.” Uh-huh. Welcome to Fantasy Land, ladies and gentlemen; please check your hat, coat and common sense at the door.

Smokers only develop heart disease after many years of active smoking. As noted by anti-smoking activist, Dr. Michael Siegel: “Even active smoking does not generally lead to heart disease unless you smoke for many years. Thus, it is simply untrue to assert that brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease.”

Dr. Siegel claims, in the same article, that the press release “may be correct in suggesting that a brief exposure to tobacco smoke could cause a heart attack (although only in someone with preexisting heart disease).”

Of course, this is conjecture, not scientific fact. But, the preexisting condition would have to be severe. Theoretically, brief exposure to secondhand smoke might trigger a hearth attack in such an individual. But, so might any number of other factors; eating a heavy meal, emotional upset, excitement, smoke from a bar-b-que, taking a vigorous shower, etc.

Simply walking to the corner store in excessively hot or cold weather, or during a smog alert, could conceivably trigger a heart attack in someone whose health has already been compromised by heart disease.

So, the odds of someone actually dying from a heart attack after only a brief exposure to secondhand smoke are likely comparable to the chance of being struck by lightning. And, given the scare tactics and hyperbole in this latest propaganda effort from the US Surgeon General, we can't discount the fact that some poor schmuck with a serious heart condition might die of fright just from seeing someone light a fag.

The fact sheet from the Surgeon General claims that: “There is no safe level of exposure to tobacco smoke. Any exposure to tobacco smoke – even an occasional cigarette or exposure to secondhand smoke – is harmful,” before going on to note that: “You don’t have to be a heavy smoker or a long-time smoker to get a smoking-related disease or have a heart attack or asthma attack that is triggered by tobacco smoke.”

Ah . . . finally. A grain of truth.

For the facts are that you don't have to be a smoker to get a smoking related disease or have a heart attack. The last SAM (Smoking Attributable Mortality) report prepared for Health Canada shows there were 40,627 deaths from IHD (Ischemic Heart Disease) in 2002, but only 5,343 were “attributed” to smoking.

The Surgeon General's report lends credence to the empty-headed rhetoric of the anti-smoker cult by disparaging tobacco products which could reduce the harm associated with smoking. “The overall health of the public could be harmed if the introduction of novel tobacco products encourages tobacco use among people who would otherwise be unlikely to use a tobacco product or delays cessation among persons who would otherwise quit using tobacco altogether.”

Novel tobacco products? Like Snus? The electronic cigarette? The SG, it seems, would rather fight than let smokers switch.

And, the fact sheet contains the compulsory plug for NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) and smoking cessation drugs provided by anti-smoker allies in the pharmaceutical industry. “Smokers often make several attempts before they are able to quit, but new strategies for cessation, including nicotine replacement and non-nicotine medications, can make it easier.”

The press release from HHS notes: “Fortunately, there are now more effective ways to help people quit than ever before. Nicotine replacement is available over the counter and doctors can prescribe medications that improve the chances of successful quit attempts.”

Nothing like providing a little free publicity for the drug czars.

Now, to be clear, I haven't read the entire report. But, judging from the press release and the fact sheet provided by the OSG, I expect little more than a rehash of the same, venomous anti-smoker rhetoric we've heard from the fanatics over the past decade or so. In fact, both the press release and the fact sheet could have been written by any number of anti-smoker fanatics, and probably was.

But there are other things about the latest SG's report which I find troublesome.

For example, this is number 30 in a long string of reports (beginning in 1964) on the smoking issue. Given First Lady, Michele Obama's commitment to fighting obesity, might that not have been a more current theme for Dr. Benjamin's first major report?

OK. OK. That was a snide remark. I simply couldn't resist. And, Dr. Benjamin does seem to have all the qualifications to fill her position. A medical degree, a masters in business administration, honours and awards galore. And, as noted in her biography, “some of her numerous board memberships include the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the . . .”

Oh, shit.

Anti-smokers . . . immoral and irresponsible

2010-12-11T01:06:00.003-05:00

Last year, two distributors of e-cigs sued the FDA over their efforts to regulate the product as a drug delivery device. The two companies were granted an injunction barring the FDA from having US Customs seize shipments of e-cigarettes manufactured outside the country, most notably China.

The FDA, under heavy pressure from anti-smoker zealots, appealed the ruling. A number of anti-smoker organizations filed a brief of Amicus Curiae supporting the FDA appeal. Amicus Curiae, literally “friend of the court”, is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it.

Anti-smoker groups supporting the FDA included the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Washington Legal Foundation, the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, the American Heart Association, the American Legacy Foundation, the American Lunch Association, the American Medical Association and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.

Earlier this week, a US Appeals Court ruled that the FDA must regulate electronic cigarettes as a tobacco product, rather than a drug delivery device. Essentially, the ruling means the FDA can oversee the marketing of e-cigs, but not ban their sale as the zealots were demanding.

The anti-smoker crowd, of course, is up in arms over the ruling. And, several are clamoring for the FDA to appeal the decision to the US Supreme Court.

What is apparent, is that neither the media nor the politicians seem interested in why the fanatics seem so determined to deprive smokers of an alternative to conventional cigarettes; one which could offer significant protection against the death and disease they attribute to smoking. After all, if smoking is a public health issue, shouldn't the anti-smokers crowd be embracing alternatives with the potential to greatly reduce the morbidity and mortality allegedly due to smoking?

One reason the anti-smoker forces are so vehemently opposed to the electronic cigarette is the belief that smokers will turn to e-cigs to cut back on smoking or quit rather than using NRT products (the patch, nicotine gum and lozenges, etc) sold by their partners in the pharmaceutical industry. They don't want the massive amounts of funding, invested by the drug companies for the war on smokers, jeopardized.

A second reason is that many of the fanatics are driven by their pure, unadulterated hatred of smoking and, by extension, smokers. They believe that the electronic cigarette will undermine their attempts to denormalize smokers. If smokers can use the e-cig to thwart their draconian smoking bans and punitive taxation, they may not be “encouraged” to quit.

The anti-smoker crowd believe e-cigarettes will addict new “nicotine” users (including children); former smokers may resume nicotine use through e-cigarettes, or; current smokers may attempt to use e-cigarettes for smoking cessation instead of FDA-approved products provided by the drug companies.

Also of concern to the zealots is the fact that “vaping”, as those inclined to use the e-cig refer to it, so closely resembles smoking. If smokers should switch to e-cigs in great numbers, public sightings of the imitation fags might make it more difficult for the zealots to convince the public that smoking is an abnormal behaviour.

In short, they view the e-cig as a threat to their utopian dream of a “smoker free” society.

But . . . despite punitive tobacco taxes, smoking bans, and open discrimination against smokers, there is a significant number of the population in the US, Canada and around the world who continue to smoke. And, it is unrealistic to assume that they can be forced into quitting any time in the near future.

The “perfect solution fallacy” assumes that a perfect solution to a problem, in this case the morbidity and mortality associated with smoking, exists, and that any solution which does not resolve the problem in its entirety should be rejected because some part of the problem would still exist.

The zealots have taken a legitimate public health concern, smoking, and insist that the perfect solution is to have smokers quit. Unfortunately, to the fanatics, it has become the only acceptable solution, and they are prepared to use whatever means, fair or foul, to force smokers to give up their habit . . . for their own good, of course.

The anti-smoker position is completely devoid of logic or reason.

If the objective is to reduce the the morbidity and mortality associated with smoking, how can they object to a product which has been shown to reduce the use of conventional cigarettes, and helped many quit smoking entirely? How can they, in good conscience, ignore the significant health benefits which might accrue from substituting a product which has been stripped of the thousands of potentially toxic chemicals allegedly found in conventional cigarettes.

And, it has to be pointed out that this is not the first tobacco product with the potential to reduce the death and disease associated with smoking which has become a target of the zealots.

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that snus, and other smokeless tobacco products, may be much safer alternatives to smoking. Yet, the anti-smoker crowd has committed to opposing these products simply because they won't eliminate the professed problem in it's entirety.

The “quit or die” philosophy adopted by the fanatics runs counter to the stated objective of reducing the harm allegedly caused by smoking. Harm reduction, apparently, is not a concept with which the anti-smoker fanatics are familiar.

It's insane. The anti-smoker position is unethical, immoral and irresponsible; driven by an irrational hatred of smokers. Depriving smokers of acceptable alternatives to smoking is counter-productive and may be causing more death and disease than would otherwise occur.

So, why do politicians and policy makers continue to support their unholy crusade?

Are electronic cigarettes safe? A health risk?

2010-12-06T08:24:00.003-05:00

The press release declares: ”Electronic Cigarettes Are Unsafe and Pose Health Risks, UC Riverside Study Finds”.

The headline suggests the findings of a scientific study, conducted at UC (University of California) Riverside’s Stem Cell Center, are both definitive and unequivocal. “Electronic cigarettes are unsafe and pose health risks.” That's an explicit statement which leaves little room for doubt. The sub-heading, however, goes on to note that: “Safety evaluation of e-cigarettes is urgently needed, researchers say.” Huh?

Safety evaluation is urgently needed? That's not quite as clear cut or conclusive as the assertion that e-cigs are unsafe. So which claim is true? Do e-cigs pose health risks or not? And, the answer is . . . maybe yes, maybe no.

The press release quotes Kamlesh Asotra, a research administrator at UC TRDRP (Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program) which funded the study: "Justifiably, more information about the potential toxic and health effects of e-cigarette vapors is necessary before the public can have a definitive answer about the touted safety of e-cigarettes. Hopefully, in the near future, scientists can provide firm evidence for or against the claimed 'safety' of e-cigarettes as a nicotine-delivery tool."

But, if more research is needed, how did the scientists who conducted the study reach the conclusion that “Electronic cigarettes are unsafe and pose health risks.” Well, actually, they didn't.

The press release quotes Prue Talbot, whose lab conducted the research. "However, there are virtually no scientific studies on e-cigarettes and their safety. Our study – one of the first studies to evaluate e-cigarettes – shows that this product has many flaws, which could cause serious public health problems in the future if the flaws go uncorrected."

So, in summary, the study concluded only that flaws had been identified in the product which could cause unidentified public health problems at some future date if the flaws went uncorrected. And what “flaws” were identified by this scientific study.

The study concluded that “batteries, atomizers, cartridges, cartridge wrappers, packs and instruction manuals lack important information regarding e-cigarette content, use and essential warnings; E-cigarette cartridges leak, which could expose nicotine, an addictive and dangerous chemical, to children, adults, pets and the environment; Currently, there are no methods for proper disposal of e-cigarettes products and accessories, including cartridges, which could result in nicotine contamination from discarded cartridges entering water sources and soil, and adversely impacting the environment; and the manufacture, quality control, sales, and advertisement of e-cigarettes are unregulated.”

However, on closer inspection, the actual “hazards” identified appear to be rather trivial and easily remedied. In fact, some appear to be somewhat fatuous.

For, example, the contention that e-cig cartridges leak and could expose children to “nicotine, an addictive and dangerous chemical.” I've had only limited experience with the e-cig; Health Canada confiscated the additional cartridges I ordered, so I said to hell with it and went back to buying the real thing from the local First nations reserve. Much to the chagrin of my cardiologist, I might add.

But, in my brief experience, I've never had a cartridge leak. I suspect that some could leak, especially those designed to be refilled manually by the user. But the study seems to suggest that all cartridges leak which I firmly believe may be a misrepresentation of the facts.

At any rate, even the most innocuous of drugs, such as common aspirin, can be hazardous to children. And, responsible parents should not leave any hazardous material within reach of inquisitive youngsters. And that includes prescription and over the counter medications, household cleaning supplies, e-cigs and accessories and, yes, tobacco products, including matches and lighters.

The claim that “there are no methods for proper disposal of e-cigarettes products and accessories, including cartridges”, seems equally silly. How do you dispose of any other battery? How do people dispose of prescription medications when they're of no more use? What about pharmaceutical nicotine products, like gum or the patch? Do e-cigs really represent a unique challenge when it comes to putting them in the garbage?

Should quality control and safety standards be developed? Yes, by all means. Should further studies be done to consider the long term health effects? Yes, unequivocally. But, regulation should be based on science, not the fear-mongering propaganda which this “scientific study” represents.

The simple fact is that the anti-smoker brigade, led by the WHO (World Health Organization), has entered a partnership with the pharmaceutical industry. The drug companies provide financial support for anti-smoker initiatives and the fanatics protect the profits of the drug companies by ensuring they're the only available resource for smokers who want to cut back or quit.

“The strength of the Partnership Project lies in the fact that it has brought together three major pharmaceutical companies, Glaxo Wellcome, Novartis Consumer Health and Pharmacia & Upjohn, all manufacturers of treatment products for tobacco dependence, to support a common goal that will have a significant impact on public health.”

Clearly, it's in the best financial interests of the anti-smoker lobby (and big pharma) to ensure the drug companies maintain their monopoly on the NRT (Nicotine Replacement Therapy) market. And, one way to do that is to discredit, and demand prohibition of, products which offer competition to their partners in the pharmaceutical industry.

Some prominent physicians and researchers, including many who are vehemently opposed to smoking, believe e-cigs have the potential to save lives, by helping smokers cut back, or perhaps quit entirely. Anti-smoking activists, like Dr. Michael Siegel, consider e-cigs safer and more healthy than conventional cigarettes.

As Siegel noted in a recent article: “I truly believe that the WHO is blinded by an ideology that views the very act of doing something that looks like smoking as evil, regardless of its actual safety. Electronic cigarettes could potentially save millions of lives throughout the world, since they appear to be much safer than cigarettes and to be an effective tool for smoking cessation .”

Yet anti-smoker zealots, including the WHO, are doing everything in their power to dissuade use of a product which might be of great benefit to smokers looking to give up the habit.

Of course, it's not about the money

Note:
For more information on electronic cigarettes visit the Tobacco Harm Reduction website operated by Carl V. Phillips and his research group.

Anti-smokers boost tobacco sales promotions

2010-12-03T12:32:00.002-05:00

Just what in hell gives NGOs (Non-Governmental Organizations) the right to intrude on the affairs of legal business concerns? Who gave them the right to dictate what choices will be available to adult consumers? And, why should their lobbying activities be funded with taxpayer dollars?

Earlier this week, a CBC news report suggested that Imperial Tobacco, Canada's largest tobacco company, had initiated a “price war” for cigarettes in the Maritimes.

Apparently, Imperial Tobacco has introduced a discount program, called the expansion preferred pricing program, to some retailers in Nova Scotia. As a result, some Imperial cigarette brands are being sold for as much as 50 cents less per package in some stores across the Maritimes.

But, what has some people riled is that the Imperial program is not open to all retailers across the region. Sid Chedrawe, a convenience store owner in Dartmouth, N.S., told CBC news: "You are only given the opportunity to join this program by invitation and there's just something that seems at odds with fair competition rules that we have here in Canada."

JTI-Macdonald Corp., one of Imperial's competitors, advised its retailers that the program may contravene Canada's Competition Act, warning: "You will lose those adult consumers seeking the lowest-priced cigarettes unless you drastically reduce your own profit margin in what is the fastest-growing segment."

And, they may have a point. Certainly, those retailers who have been offered a chance to participate in the program will have an advantage over those who weren't provided the same opportunity. If some retailers can sell for 50 cents a pack less, then they will likely attract more business. And, since the discounts will be available only on Imperial products, Imperial will gain a bigger market share.

But, although some retailers and competing tobacco companies may be upset, it is an issue for those involved. If Imperial's actions contravene the Competition Act, there are legal remedies available to injured parties.

But, why is the Canadian Cancer Society involved in the dispute. They don't even have a horse in the race. Yet, the CBC article saw fit to include comments from this “charity” which receives a significant amount of funding from Canadian taxpayers.

"The Canadian Cancer Society supports a total ban on all promotional measures put forth by the tobacco industry that are intended to increase tobacco sales and thus consumption," said Maureen Summers, executive director of the Nova Scotia division. "We will be working with our national public issues office to move this issue forward to see what we can do with provincial and federal governments in terms of strengthening the Tobacco Act and legislation that would restrict this kind of activity and promotion from the tobacco industry."

So, the Cancer Society wants to ban all promotional activity by the tobacco industry, but they're opposed to banning tobacco?

The tobacco industry, like all other legal business enterprises, exists to make a profit. If the damage caused by tobacco is so great, then the society should be moving to ban it. Anything less is hypocritical bullshit.

But, at least the Cancer Society didn't base their objections to Imperial's promotion on a need to “save the children”.

In the US, CTFK ( Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids) has attacked a new sales promotion by RJ Reynolds, the makers of Camel, one of the bigger selling brands in the US.

Matthew L. Myers, President of CTFK, claims in a statement: “It is deeply disturbing that RJR is using the good name and hard-earned reputation of these great American cities to market deadly and addictive cigarettes, especially in a way that blatantly appeals to children.” Huh.

Myers is referring to an RJ Reynolds promotion for Camel cigarettes, called the Break Free Adventure. The sales promotion, scheduled for December and January, involves specially designed cigarette packs bearing the names of US cities and landmarks. The campaign apparently offers “Thousands of Prizes”, under conditions which aren't exactly clear.

And, the reason the conditions aren't exactly clear is that I can't get into the Camel website to find out what it's all about. To get into the site, you have to provide personal information such as as name, address , zip code, email address, birth date, etc., for age verification purposes.

But, not to worry, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids provides the graphics for the campaign on their website, without all the rigamarole. In fact, their web site and the news media in the US are doing a far better job of advertising the promotion than the tobacco company.

But to Myers, the new Camel promotion points to a need for more money for NGOs like his own to combat the evil influence of the tobacco industry.

“This campaign also underscores the need to step up the implementation of proven measures to reduce tobacco use. These include effective regulation of tobacco products and marketing, including the graphic cigarette warnings unveiled this week by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration; well-funded tobacco prevention and cessation programs nationally and in every state; higher tobacco taxes; and smoke-free workplace laws.”

How strange. Not a mention of banning tobacco.

The call for tobacco prohibition will come . . . eventually. But, for now, anti-smoker groups are content to extort all the money they can from the tobacco companies and smokers. Then, they'll simply find another target.

Yeah, I know. You don't believe in the slippery slope argument. Have you heard that San Francisco has banned giving away free toys with “unhealthy” happy meals?

Fighting the haze of secondhand smoke drivel

2010-11-25T17:05:00.005-05:00

A special feature in the Toronto Star titled “Smoke get in your eyes - and lungs” was published on Saturday. The on-line edition declares “Tenants and condo dwellers fighting haze of second-hand smoke.” Uh-huh.

“Fighting a haze of secondhand smoke.” Such colourful language. You can almost see the vast cloud of secondhand smoke ferociously forcing its way through solid walls to prey on unsuspecting non-smokers, making life miserable and putting their very lives in jeopardy.

I was out of town over the weekend and I didn't see the Star article until I was handed a copy at a meeting in our own co-op last night.

The article, by Laura Eggerton, begins: “Pamela Schuller thought she was moving her children to a healthy, family-friendly environment when she moved into the Bain Apartments Cooperative in Toronto’s Riverdale neighbourhood.”

But then, in 2003, one of those filthy smokers moved into the lower unit of her stacked townhouse. And her children began complaining the apartment “stunk of smoke and they couldn’t breathe.” Naturally, Schuller became concerned about her health and the health of her children.

And, although she'd heard about such problems, “it was the first time Schuller realized the smoke was putting her health and that of her children at risk.” So, she joined an anti-smoker campaign.

The article goes on to note: “For the next five years, as a member of the Smoke Free Living Initiative at the Bain Coop, Schuller did what a growing number of tenants and condo dwellers are doing across Canada — she fought to get a non-smoking policy in her building. A year ago, with the help of others in the cooperative, she succeeded.”

So the tenants at Bain passed a bylaw stating that whenever both households in a stacked pair of units agree to non-smoking status and submit their request for that designation in writing to the co-op office, the units will be declared smoke-free. A completely voluntary approach to resolve the issue? Or, is it?

If both parties could agree voluntarily that the units should be non-smoking, why was there a need for a by-law? And, what happns if both tenants agree that the units should be designated smoking units?

One interesting thing about the the Star article is that it does not explain how the by-law resolved Schuller's concerns for the health of her children, or if, in fact, the problem was resolved. Did she reach some kind of agreement with those offensive smokers? Did the nasty smokers move out? Was her unit sealed against the diabolical intrusion of secondhand smoke into her personal space? How was the health of her children compromised in the first place? Did they suffer from some preexisting medical condition which made them especially sensitive to tobacco smoke? Is she still being inundated by secondhand smoke?

The article addresses none of these questions. Schuller had served her purpose as a lead-in to a propaganda piece about the healths hazards of secondhand smoke and the need for legislation to protect poor unfortunate non-smokers. Legislation which would make it easier to throw 88-year old seniors into the street.

At no point in the article does the author question the alleged health hazards of secondhand smoke. They are simply assumed to exist. And, a veritable who's who of Canadian anti-smoker activists are quoted, starting with Neil Collishaw, the research director at Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada.

Can you guess what his quote was? Sure you can. “There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke,” said Collishaw.

“There’s going to be a lot of work done by many at the local level to encourage social housing landlords and other landlords to go smoke-free,” said Michael Perley, director of the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco. Perley was a member of the Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group which recommended that the Ontario government amend the Residential Tenancies Act so landlords could more easily enforce no-smoking clauses in leases.

“I think we’ve gone as far as we’re prepared to go right now,” said Premier Dalton McGuinty. “There’s only so much government can and should do.” Of course, he's facing an election campaign in the coming year and he's a little concerned about the Premier Daddy nickname he's already earned.

“It’s a sensitive issue when you’re talking about people’s homes,” said Pippa Beck, a policy analyst with the Non-Smokers Rights Association. Beck has been touring the country for the past couple of years trying to convince landlords that no smoking policies are perfectly legal and they don't have to worry about discriminating against smokers.

“You don’t need to go very far to find out about the dangers of smoking,” says Evelyn Robertson, a nurse and president of Newtonbrook United Church/Taiwanese United Church Non-Profit Homes in North York, which bans smoking anywhere on the property. “We believed it was our responsibility, as a board, to set a policy that would create a healthy environment.”

But, while the article is heavy on quotes from anti-smoker fanatics, it's completely devoid of any real evidence. And, the reason for that is simple. There is none. Not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the amount of secondhand smoke which might penetrate solid walls or otherwise migrate from one unit to another represents a serious health threat to non-smokers. In fact, the evidence that secondhand smoke presents a serious health threat in any situation remains highly controversial.

Nor was any evidence presented as to the extent of the problem. How many people are affected? Under what conditions? Was any thought given to alternate measures to resolve the problem?

Instead, the author relies on quotes from fanatics that there is broad public support for no smoking policies, as if that were justification for the campaign of discrimination directed at smokers.

And, if you don't believe this kind of lopsided, yellow journalism appeals to the hate mongers, consider this quote from the comments section following the on-line version of the article.

“I would say . . . lets have dedicated rent building just for smokers and other building dedicated for non smokers only. The government should take all taxes off cigarettes/tobacco products and give smokers a deduction for smoking on their income tax filing. This would be in Canada best interests to give them every opportunity possible to Kill themselves. I would sit back and have the time of my life watching them die.”

The only difference between that comment and Eggerton's article is one of degree. And the fact that Eggerton uses slightly better grammar.

Asthma rates decline due to less cigarette smoke?

2010-11-18T14:24:00.006-05:00

There was an interesting headline in the Globe and Mail on Wednesday; it read: “Asthma rates decline among children; Statscan cites less cigarette smoke “

The article, by Jill Mahoney, claims that: “So few parents now smoke that there were not statistically significant differences in asthma rates between kids in smoking and non-smoking households between 2006-07 and 2008-09,” before going on to quote from the StatCan article: "This suggests that . . . adult smoking rates have become low enough that parental smoking has ceased to be [a] major cause of asthma in young children." That's quite a leap in logic.

But, there are a few problems with this “suggestion”. For example, according to the Asthma Society of Canada, the causes of asthma remain unknown. “Asthma is not contagious. While its causes are still unknown, researchers have determined that asthma can be caused by both hereditary (inherited) and environmental factors.”

So, in fact, parental smoking has never been identified as a “major” cause of asthma. Even the last US Surgeon General's report stated that evidence implicating secondhand smoke as a cause of asthma is merely suggestive.

And, the truncated quote from the StatCan article omits the claim by study author, Eleanor Thomas, that “reduced exposure to cigarette smoke contributed to declines in asthma over time.”

The full quote from the Statcan article reads: “Again, this suggests that reduced exposure to cigarette smoke contributed to declines in asthma over time, and that adult smoking rates have become low enough that parental smoking has ceased to be major cause of asthma in young children.”

That's two misleading claims based on that single quote, because Thomas is saying simply that the evidence suggests SHS exposure may have contributed to the alleged decline in asthma rates. But to do so, she ignores decades of previous data.

Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada has a chart showing that smoking prevalence began to decline in 1965 for men and about ten years later for women. Smoking prevalence rates have continued to fall for both men and women since 1975.

A “ fact sheet” from the Asthma Society notes that there was a dramatic increase in the incidence of asthma, beginning in 1980, which didn't level off until sometime after 2000. The Globe and Mail article points out this increase: “Researchers in western countries have generally found that asthma rates among children increased steadily for several decades before levelling off or even declining.”

The Asthma Society fact sheet also notes a dramatic increase in asthma rates during this period: “The prevalence of asthma among adults (15 years of age and over) has been increasing over the last 20 years. 1979 asthma incidence was 2.3 per cent, in 1988 it was 4.9 per cent, and by 1994 it had increased to 6.1 per cent of the population. “

Just to make it clear, asthma rates had been steadily increasing at the same time that smoking prevalence had been falling. And, declining rates of smoking prevalence, coupled with smoking bans in public places, including public transportation, should have resulted in reduced exposure to SHS beginning around 1975. Shouldn't we have seen at least some slight decline in asthma rates during that time frame, rather than such a sizable increase (roughly 165%).

Yet we have a claim by the study author that her study “suggests” that reduced exposure to cigarette smoke contributed to declines in asthma over time.

The real question is why the incidence of asthma went up in the first place. Smoking can't be tagged as the cause of the phenomenal increase in asthma rates between 1979 and 2000/2001; smoking prevalence was declining during that same period.

And, claiming that Thomas was only considering asthma rates for children ages 2 to 7 won't justify the claim that reduced exposure to SHS contributed to the recent decline. As noted in her article, “The prevalence of asthma among children aged 2 to 7 rose steadily until 2000/2001 and then fell.” Asthma rates were increasing across the board, in all age groups.

The Globe and Mail article includes another quote from the study: "A wide range of environmental factors, including reduced exposure to cigarette smoke, may have contributed to these trends."

That's an accurate quote from the study summary.

However, there's another quote in the body of the StatCan article which elaborates: “A number of environmental factors may be related to the recent declines in childhood ear infections and asthma: changes in the population structure; changes in diagnostic practices; decreases in the prevalence of respiratory allergies; improvements in air quality; changes in hygiene practices (particularly, in child care settings); and reductions in children’s exposure to cigarette smoke at home. An investigation of most of these factors is beyond the scope of this paper, but the possible role of exposure to cigarette smoke can be considered.”

So, the evidence, as related by Thomas and the Globe and Mail, is only one of many potential factors which may have contributed to the decline. What should we make of this study and the blaring headline that declining rates of asthma in children are the result of reduced cigarette smoke?

No investigation was made to explain the tremendous increase in asthma rates at the same time smoking prevalence was declining. No investigation was conducted to determine the role of the numerous other factors which may have contributed to the apparent decline among children between 2 and 7 years old. They were “beyond the scope of this paper”.

No comparison was made between asthma rates pre-1980, when smoking prevalence was high and almost all kids would have been exposed to SHS. The comparison was made between rates of asthma in 2000/2001, when the increase in asthma rates had apparently peaked, and 2006/2007 when the first downward trend was noted.

It's difficult to believe that the decline in smoker prevalence from 1975 onwards had no affect on the incidence of asthma until 2006/2007, and then, only among those aged 2 to 7.

Objective science? Or a blatant attempt to justify smoking bans and smoker denormalization? You be the judge.

New study: No evidence linking SHS and lung cancer

2010-11-15T11:54:00.003-05:00

“There's no safe level of exposure.” That's the oft repeated mantra of anti-smoker zealots warning of the alleged dangers of secondhand smoke exposure. The quote, attributed to former US Surgeon-General, Richard Carmona, is usually expressed with all the reverence due a religious text.

The evidence is conclusive; unambiguous; proven beyond a reasonable doubt . . . or so say the zealots. But what's the scientific reality?

A new Canadian study finds no evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke contributes to lung cancer. The study, conducted in Toronto, Ontario, states: “Among never smokers in our population, we observed no association between either exposure to ETS at home or at the workplace and lung cancer risk.“

The study, was published online, at BioMed Central, in June of this year. The authors included researchers from several prestigious organizations, including the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine, Princess Margaret Hospital (Toronto's most well known cancer treatment facility), Women's College Health Research Institute and Mount Sinai Hospital Family Medicine Clinic, all based in Toronto.

A study from such reputable sources must have generated a fair amount of media attention, at least here in Canada. Right? And, perhaps it did.

But, if it did . . . well , maybe “I got stoned and I missed it”, to quote an old song by Dr. Hook and the Medicine Show from back in the seventies.

At any rate, I didn't hear about the Canadian study until I followed a link to a Danish blog a few days ago. Uh-huh. I had to go half way round the world to find out what's happening in my own back yard.

The blogger, journalist Klaus Kjellerup, quotes lead author of the study, Darren Brennner of the University of Toronto: "Passive smoking at home and at work has been investigated in numerous studies, but results have been small and insignificant. A meta-analysis of 34 studies show 20% increased risk, but only 7 of the 34 studies showed significantly increased risk.”

Brenner was apparently referring to the 1993 meta-analysis conducted by the US EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) which was branded a blatant fraud by US District Court Judge, William Osteen, in 1998. The EPA study is among a relative handful of studies which found a (very) small relative risk between SHS and lung cancer/heart disease, but only after manipulating data to conform to their predetermined conclusion.

In fact, as noted often on this blog, the vast majority of studies on the subject find no relationship between lung cancer and SHS. Some (the IARC study conducted on behalf of the WHO) even found a negative association between SHS exposure in kids and lung cancer in later life, suggesting a protective effect from childhood exposure.

Author and epidemiologist, Geoffrey Kabat, claims in his 2008 book, “Hyping Health Risks”, that the danger of passive smoking (secondhand smoke) is a matter of politics and faith - not scientific evidence. "There are few scientists who believe that passive smoking can cause fatal diseases." Huh?

Kabat, together with James Enstrom, published one of the largest studies to date (British Medical Journal, 2002) on the effects of secondhand smoke exposure, finding no correlation between SHS and lung cancer or heart disease. He and Enstrom were subjected to harsh and malicious personal attacks after publishing their study.

"It is basically consistent with what we already know. But the study is interesting because it measures a variety of risks against each other, " Kabat commented on the Canadian study in an interview with Kjellerup. "It confirms the risk relationship between lung cancer and exposure to a variety of hazardous substances and factors in the work environment - and it confirms that passive smoking plays an insignificant role in lung cancer."

Back in June, Denmark’s Minister for Health, Bertel Haarder, was quick to backtrack on a quote attributed to him by Kjellerup, following a hearing on smoking in Copenhagen. “I do not believe that passive smoking is dangerous. I am a non-believer in that theory.”

Haarder, without denying the statement, explained that the quote was taken out of context: “I didn’t know I was being interviewed. We were just standing and chatting – so I don’t think it’s fair that it is being put forward as a ministerial statement.”

“What I am asking, is that journalists tell me when I am being interviewed so that I can be sure that what I say is reported in the right context . . . I had a chat with some people in which I said that passive smoking cannot be as harmful as active smoking and that you cannot put the two on the same footing.” Uh-huh.

Is the Danish Health Minister afraid that expressing a privately held view , “I do not believe that passive smoking is dangerous,” might lead to political retribution? Did he perhaps fear he might be subjected to the kind of personal attacks directed at Kabat and Enstrom?

In a shocking interview with LeParisiene, Dr. Phillipes Even, the former president of the prestigious Necker Research Institute in France, stated unequivocally, “Clearly, the harm [of secondhand smoke] is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.”

When asked why he didn't speak up earlier, Professor Even explained that his position as a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, included an obligation to remain consistent with official policy. “If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.”

That the vast majority of studies find no statistical link between secondhand smoke and chronic diseases such as lung cancer and heart disease, is a fact little known to the majority of the population in the US, Canada and other nations where anti-smoker zealots control the agenda.

And, they're unlikely to learn the facts while the anti-smoker booster club in the main stream media chooses to disseminate anti-smoker rhetoric and propaganda unchallenged. They're unlikely to learn the facts when the media ignores conflicting scientific evidence, in effect, refusing to publish dissenting views.

And, they're unlikely to learn the facts when prominent scientists can be intimidated into silence.

Geoffrey Kabat says: "There are few scientists who believe that passive smoking can cause fatal diseases." The latest study from Canada seems to confirm the view that secondhand smoke does not contribute to lung cancer.

But, the public will never know as long as the main stream media continues to present only one side of the argument.

Obesity as an “infectious” disease . . . serious science?

2010-11-09T09:37:00.004-05:00

It appears that obesity has reached epidemic proportions in the US and could infect 42% of the population sometime within the next 40 years. Yes, the key word is infect. "It looks like obesity is becoming more infectious," said Alison Hill, a graduate student at the Harvard-Massachusetts Institute of Technology Division of Health Sciences and Technology, during an interview with Reuters. Uh-huh.

And, of course, they have a “scientific study” to support their prognostications, the findings of which are reported in the Public Library of Science journal PLoS Computational Biology.

According to an article in Reuters, “U.S. government researchers in January said 68 percent of U.S. adults are considered overweight, having a body mass index or BMI of 25 or higher, and a third are obese, having a body mass index of 30 or higher.”

The Reuters article, by Julie Steenhuysen, notes that: “Being overweight or obese raises the risk of heart disease, diabetes, some cancers, arthritis and other conditions,” before going on to note that: “Obesity-related diseases account for nearly 10 percent of medical spending in the United States or an estimated $147 billion a year.”

What's that you say? It's nobody's business if some overweight junk food junkie wants to eat themselves into an early grave.

But, that's where you're wrong, friends and neighbours. What about the economic burden placed on the rest of society? That $147 billion will likely triple in size when lost productivity, caused by fatties calling in sick after eating too much the night before, is taken into account. And, weren't you just told that your fat friends could infect you with their, er . . . fat contaigon?

Did you think this was a joke?

Another scientific study, also from Harvard, reported in 2007 that if someone's friend becomes obese, that person's chances of becoming obese increase by more than half. According to Hill, the study is based on the idea that obesity can spread like an infectious disease and people can catch it from their friends. Huh? An infectious disease? Like swine flu or typhoid, maybe? And they have a scientific study to prove it?

Isn't science grand? And, I'll bet you dollars to donuts (preferably from Tim Horton's) that Ms. Hill made the infectious disease claim with a straight face.

But, this must be serious stuff. US First Lady, Michele Obama, noted at the launch of her “Let's Move”, multi-billion dollar anti-obesity campaign, in February, 2010, "The physical and emotional health of an entire generation and the economic health and security of our nation is at stake."

The economic health and security of the nation?

OK. I believe maybe she over-stated the case just a trifle.. But, I think the First lady was recommending school programs to encourage healthy eating and promote physical activity, thereby reducing the number of kids (”nearly one in three children in America”) thought to be overweight or obese.

However, I don't believe she intended to advance the proposition that the kids should drop their plump friends for fear of becoming infected with the “fat virus”. Unfortunately, when the fanatics start churning out their questionable scientific studies, legitimate public health concerns often take a back seat to gross exaggeration, sickening silliness and outright bullshit.

The lunatic fringe is always ready to climb aboard the bandwagon promoting the latest public health scare. They just love to tell other people how to live their lives. For their own good, of course.

Recently, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to pass a law that prohibits giving away free toys with unhealthy meals for children. The idea is to “promote healthy eating habits while combating childhood obesity”. No more Happy Meals, lest the kids start putting on the pounds and infecting their friends and classmates.

Earlier this summer, the Center for Science in the Public Interest threatened to sue McDonald's if it didn't stop using Happy Meal toys to “lure” children into its restaurants.

A couple of weeks back, Ontario's Minister of Health Propaganda, Margaret Best, threatened to have KFC's new sandwich, the “Double Down” prohibited in Ontario because of it's high fat, high sodium content.

The Robert Wood Johnston Foundation is reducing the amount they spend on denigrating and demeaning smokers. Instead, they've committed $500 million to combatting obesity. And, they probably won't stop until the kids are hunkered down behind a dumpster, surreptitiously gorging themselves on black market Twinkies and washing them down with contraband Coca-Cola.

The pharmaceutical industry will be laughing all the way to the bank as demand grows for appetite suppressants and anti-fat vaccines in the wake of the new war on obesity.

But, if the science proves that obesity is a communicable disease . . .

Obesity may well be a legitimate public health concern. But suing fast food joints and banning happy meals is not going to resolve the problem. Neither is junk science.

Enough of the bullshit and bafflegab; time to add “scientific credibility” to the long list of oxymorons.

Mike & Molly – Overweight couples on TV

2010-11-04T11:04:00.004-04:00

“So anyway, yes, I think I'd be grossed out if I had to watch two characters with rolls and rolls of fat kissing each other . . . because I'd be grossed out if I had to watch them doing anything. To be brutally honest, even in real life, I find it aesthetically displeasing to watch a very, very fat person simply walk across a room - just like I'd find it distressing if I saw a very drunk person stumbling across a bar or a heroin addict slumping in a chair.”

The above comments, penned by a writer called Maura Kelly, came from the on-line version of Marie Claire, a women's magazine. Kelly was commenting on the CBS sitcom "Mike & Molly," about a couple who meet at an Overeaters Anonymous group and begin a relatioship. Huh? They've got a 12 step program for the overweight?

The show, which has apparently done well in the ratings, has also drawn complaints for its abundance of fat jokes.

I must admit, I've never seen or even heard of the show or it's stars, Melissa McCarthy and Billy Gardell. I don't watch all that much TV, and when I do, I'm most likely watching the History channel, one of the news channels or one dedicated to old movies. I do make an exception for the many incarnations of “Dr. Who”, but that's neither here nor there.

Mike and Molly has also drawn criticism from some viewers who are not comfortable watching intimacy between two plus-sized actors. Hence the article by Ms. Kelly in Marie Claire, where she notes: ”And while I think our country's obsession with physical perfection is unhealthy, I also think it's at least equally crazy, albeit in the other direction, to be implicitly promoting obesity!”

Wow. And I thought sitcoms were about entertainment. Forgive my naivety.

After offering that “I'm happy to give you some nutrition and fitness suggestions if you need them”, Kelly closed her article with the line: “What do you guys think? Fat people making out on TV - are you cool with it? Do you think I'm being an insensitive jerk?”

Her readers apparently responded in the affirmative.

In an update to her blog post on Marie Claire, Ms. Kelly offered an apology of sorts: “I would really like to apologize for the insensitive things I've said in this post. Believe it or not, I never wanted anyone to feel bullied or ashamed after reading this, and I sorely regret that it upset people so much.”

Unfortunately she goes on to clarify what she meant in her original blog entry.

“I would like to reiterate that I think it's great to have people of all shapes and healthy sizes represented in magazines (as, it bears mentioning here, they are in Marie Claire) and on TV shows - and that in my post, I was talking about a TV show that features people who are not simply a little overweight, but appear to be morbidly obese”. Uh-huh.

The woman apparently suffers from “foot-in-mouth” disease.

Another blogger, Rosie Schwatz, at Enlightened Eater, chastised Ms. Kelly for her article, noting however that the article may have had some positive benefits: “The good news is that it ignited a firestorm of controversy. Judging people by how they look and how much they weigh may finally be recognized as unacceptable.”

I think Ms. Schwartz may be a little premature in her conclusion.

Is she perhaps unaware of the anti-obesity campaign initiated by Michelle Obama? Does she know that the Robert Wood Johnson foundation recently committed $500 million to fight the “epidemic” of obesity? Is she familiar with the intentions of some public health zealots to model their anti-obesity efforts on the “successful” tactics employed in anti-smoker campaigns?

Ms. Schwartz believes “It's time to drop the fat bashing.” I agree. But . . .

I've seen what's happens when public health officials declare an epidemic and decide to help people for their own good. Hell, I'm a smoker.

And, the anti-fat fanatics are already crawling out from under their rocks; lawsuits against fast food joints for “causing” obesity, calorie counts on restaurant menus to remind the overweight of the harm they may be doing to themselves, taxes on sugary soft drinks to combat the epidemic and, eventually, the denormalization of the obese, those poor helpless junk food addicts so desperately in need of society's help to become normal, healthy human beings.

If the treatment afforded smokers is any indication, then the overweight and obese may be in for a rough ride. They don't deserve it, but then neither do smokers.

Smoking, greedy governments and hypocritical lawsuits

2010-11-01T10:18:00.003-04:00

Alberta's Justice Minister, Alison Redford, recently announced that the provincial government would be filing a lawsuit against the tobacco industry.

Similar lawsuits have been filed in three other provinces; British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick. The statements of claim seek to have the tobacco industry compensate the governments of those provinces for the alleged health care costs incurred for treatment of smoking related illness.

Les Hagen, executive director of Alberta's incarnation of Action on Smoking and Health, believes that's a fantastic idea. "This industry has really been getting away with murder for decades and it's time for them to be held accountable for an enormous impact on our quality of life."

The governments involved and anti-smoker zealots like Mr. Hagen, are obviously looking for a settlement similar to the US Master Settlement Agreement (MSA). In that case, state governments in the US agreed to a $245 billion settlement with the tobacco companies, to be paid over 25 years.

The gimmick was that the settlement cost the tobacco companies nothing. It allowed the tobacco companies to pass the costs on to consumers, in fact creating a hidden tax on tobacco which was collected by the companies and then passed on to state governments.

In simpler terms, it was a con job. The government could pass off the settlement as a major rebuke of the tobacco industry and make it look like they were really taking care of the tobacco “epidemic,” but . . .

The tobacco companies continued selling their product and raking in their profits, state and federal governments continued to collect their punitive tobacco taxes, the anti-smoker zealots got their cut of the action and the only ones to take a real hit were tobacco consumers.

It's expected that all ten Canadian provinces will eventually join those which have already filed lawsuits. The costs to the tobacco companies, if any of these lawsuits are successful, could be well in excess of a hundred billion dollars; more than enough to bankrupt all three of Canada's major tobacco companies.

To put those numbers in perspective, Canada's three major tobacco companies earn an estimated one billion dollars a year in profits. That means, over the past ten years, they've made roughly ten billion dollars in profits. There's simply no way that the tobacco companies could afford to stay in business and pay the enormous amounts being demanded by the provinces.

And, according to Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada, provincial and federal tax revenues over the past ten years were approximately $ 61.8 billion, roughly 6 times the profits made by the tobacco companies. It's highly questionable whether the provinces and the feds are prepared to give up that kind of steady income by sending the tobacco companies into receivership.

So, unless the provinces are intentionally setting out to bankrupt the industry, the only plausible objective of these lawsuits is to emulate the smoke and mirrors con game perpetrated by state governments in the US with the Master Settlement Agreement.

Les Hagen intimates at such a scenario when he notes: "At some point when this hits a critical mass or tipping point, the industry will probably come forward with some proposals which may or may not be acceptable to provinces." Uh-huh.

And, here's a little more food for thought; something that's seldom, if ever, noted in the mainstream media.

If the tobacco companies were earning a profit of one billion dollars a year, they would have earned a maximum of $60 billion since 1950. But, there's no evidence the industry was making that much money until recently, even during the 50's, 60's and 70's when smoking prevalence was at its highest.

Which means government has likely generated more tax revenue ($61.8 billion) from the sale of tobacco products in the last 10 years than the tobacco companies have earned in profit in the past 60.

According to Health Canada, smoking “kills” 37,000 Canadians a year. The government's response to this alleged slaughter? The stigmatization of smokers through smoking bans in bars, restaurants and other “public” places, hiding tobacco displays from public view and the implementation of punitive, ever increasing tobacco taxes.

Combined federal and provincial tax revenue for the 2007/2008 fiscal year were just under $7 billion dollars (excluding sales taxes). That means the government extorted roughly $190,000 from smokers for every Canadian who was allegedly “killed” by smoking. And, now they're demanding that the tobacco companies cough up even more money.

Can you spell h-y-p-o-c-r-i-t-e-s?

Update – Previous Post:
Philipina Schergevitch, the octogenarian who was turfed from her Calgary home when the seniors complex she was living in went “smoke free”, has found other accommodation. Her family apparently found suitable housing elsewhere for the 88 year old smoker.

The Bishop O'Byrne Housing for Seniors Association deserves a kick in the ass for their despicable treatment of this elderly woman. And hardly a peep in protest from the main stream media. Disgusting.

88 year old smoker to be thrown into the street by housing association

2010-10-25T09:59:00.008-04:00

I've written several articles over the past couple of years about the treatment afforded seniors at the hands of anti-smoker fanatics. I've expressed my concern for the elderly and infirm in senior's homes forced outside to have a cigarette in the severe, inhospitable weather conditions that are so much a part of Canadian winters.

In 2007, a worker at a Manitoulin Island (Ontario) long-term care home was charged with, and later acquitted of, criminal negligence causing death in the case of a resident who died of exposure after he was forced to go outside, in minus 16 degrees Celsius cold, to have a smoke. Murray Miles Patterson, 65, a resident of the Manitoulin Lodge in Gore Bay died Jan. 17, 2007 at an area hospital.

The Smoke Free Ontario Act allows the creation of designated smoking rooms in long-term care facilities and psychiatric hospitals. Unfortunately, most facilities have decided not to build them, forcing many elderly, frail and often sick long-term smokers who can't, or won't, kick their habit to smoke outside.

Health Minister George Smitherman suggested at the time it was a "copout" to blame the government's anti-smoking law for the death. Smitherman is an ass and his response itself is the cop out.

Now, Calgary based Bishop O'Byrne Housing for Seniors Association is planning to evict an 88 year old woman because she's a smoker. Philipina Schergevitch, has been a resident of the Francis Klein Centre, which is operated by the association, for the last ten years. The life long smoker, who has been smoking since she was fifteen, has been told her lease will not be renewed; to pack up and find alternate living accommodation by the end of the month.

Myrt Butler, the association's chief administrative officer, said the board of directors voted five years ago to implement a no-smoking policy in all of its Calgary units. In 2009, residents were given one-year notice there would be a ban on smoking in suites, effective July 31, 2010. Short-term leases were signed with smoking tenants so they could either adjust or find alternative housing.

Tenants are allowed to smoke in designated exterior areas, Butler said.

How compassionate of them; how caring; how fucking condescending. To demand that elderly seniors either quit or do their smoking outside, exposed to the elements and all the adverse health consequences that entails for an individual of advanced years; colds, flu, pneumonia. This is incoherent, irrational thinking, devoid of any sense of proportionality.

The Non-Smokers Rights Association, the Canadian Cancer Society, and the other anti-smoker bastards are likely rubbing their hands in glee at the thought of putting the boots to an 88 year old smoker. After all, that's why they exist; to make life as miserable as possible for smokers, and damn the consequences.

And, what about the government?

According to neighbour, Carol James, "These are independent apartments, subsidized for low-income seniors and they have to find something like it, but there's very little out there."

If these are subsidized units, then the subsidy is likely provided by some level of government. Will the government agency responsible do anything to prevent this travesty of justice. Or does the government believe this is an appropriate mechanism to “motivate” seniors to give up their smoking habit?

The evidence used to justify smoking bans in multi-unit rental buildings is rooted in studies of prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke, usually over a lifetime, and the onset of chronic diseases like lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. The amount of secondhand smoke required to generate even a minute elevation in risk has never been accurately measured in those studies. And, the evidence is nowhere near as conclusive as claimed by anti-smoker zealots.

Anti-smoker fanatics rely on the preposterous claim that there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. They argue the extreme, and nonsensical, position that, if you can smell, it could kill you. They scour apartment buildings for those who claim to be severely affected by even the tiniest exposure to SHS. And a dumbed down media dutifully disseminates their propaganda as if it were the norm.

But there has never, repeat - never, been a study on the health effects from secondhand smoke drifting through solid walls, through plumbing or electrical fixtures or air vents. The amount of exposure required to cause adverse health effects of any kind under these conditions has never been measured. The number of people adversely affected has never been quantified.

If landlords want to ban smokers renting apartments because a small number of residents consider it a nuisance, they should be free to do so. But, they should not be invoking public health concerns to justify their bigotry. The evidence simply doesn't exist.

Throwing an 88 year old woman into the streets offers some insight into the real motivation of the power hungry bastards in the anti-smoker “movement” and their politics of fear. They simply hate smokers.

All Canadians, smokers and non-smokers alike, should be expressing their indignation at this travesty. It will take only a few minutes of your time to tell the bigots at Bishop O'Byrne Housing for Seniors Association what you think about this outrage, committed in the name of “public health”.

As for the anti-smoker fanatics and their lap dogs in the press . . . fuck'em.

Send them an Email:
Francis Klein Centre - Email: francisklein@shaw.ca
Bishop O'Byrne Housing for Seniors Association - Email: carrollplace@shaw.ca

Read some of my previous comments on this subject.
Throw smokers into the street say anti-smokers
Secondhand smoke travels through solid walls
Secondhand smoke and multi-unit dwellings

Update:
A few bloggers in the UK have picked up on this story and plan to send a letter of protest to Bishop O'Byrne Housing for Seniors Association. You can find details at the The Smoking Doctor or F2C Scotland. If you want to sign the letter of protest, you can send your name and email address to richwhite@smokescreens.org. Or write your own email and send it to one of the addresses given above.

Anti-smoker zealots neither normal nor legitimate

2010-10-21T16:38:00.003-04:00

Ontario's anti-smoker zealots are calling for dramatic new initiatives intended to force smokers to give up the habit. These measures include smoking bans in multi-unit rental buildings, smoking bans on bar and restaurant patios, in city parks, licensing and limiting the number of retail outlets permitted to sell tobacco products, and a host of others draconian initiatives intended to denigrate, demean and “de-normalize” those who choose to use tobacco products.

“I think we’ve gone as far as we’re prepared to go right now,” said Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, in response to a 44 page report prepared by TSAG. “There’s only so much government can and should do.”

Margaret Best, Ontario's Minister of Health Propaganda, echoed the premier's sentiments to some degree; "We are not looking at any further bans with respect to smoking at this point in time. " However, she noted that, although the proposal to extend smoking bans to patios, doorway areas and rental units is not likely to become a reality, the government is willing to consider the report's other recommendations.

The less than enthusiastic response by the premier and the health propaganda minister is likely due to the fact that a provincial election is scheduled for October of next year. McGuinty and his crew have acquired a reputation for their attempts at socially engineering personal behaviour. They aren't anxious to antagonize a sizable part of the electorate, Ontario's two million smokers, with yet another draconian exercise in behavioural control.

A government-appointed advisory panel called TSAG (Tobacco Strategy Advisory Group) compiled the report entitled “Building On Our Gains, Taking Action Now: Ontario’s Tobacco Control Strategy for 2011-2016.” The panel included representatives from the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Non-Smokers' Rights Association, Ontario Medical Association, Ontario Lung Association, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario and the Ontario Public Health Association among others.

The advisory panel notes in their report: “It's time to renew and extend Ontario's tobacco control strategy with a focused, aggressive campaign to 'de-normalize' and 'de-legitimize' the tobacco manufacturing industry.” Uh-huh.

Does this mean that tobacco farmers are not to be considered normal or legitimate? How about convenience store owners who rely on tobacco sales for a substantial portion of their income? Are the working men and women employed directly by the tobacco companies no longer paying their taxes and contributing to the economy? How about those employed on the periphery of the industry; the paper manufacturers, printers, truck drivers, wholesalers, etc. Is it really acceptable to discard these workers as not normal or legitimate?

If the tobacco industry is neither normal nor legitimate, what should we make of provincial and federal governments who profit so handsomely from the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products? According to Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada, the federal and provincial governments confiscated 6.97 billion dollars in sin taxes for fiscal 2007/2008. That's actually down from the record high of $7.65 billion set in fiscal 2003/2004. Compare those numbers to estimated health care costs nationwide of $4.36 billion, also estimated by Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada, for 2006.

Should we consider the politicians who support these usurious levels of tobacco taxation abnormal or illegitimate? Should we not save some public vitriol for these governments who make many times more money from the sales of tobacco products than the tobacco companies themselves earn in profits?

And let's not forget the anti-smoker cartel.

The advisory panel also wants increased tobacco control funding, noting that the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines recommend a jurisdiction of Ontario's size spend at least $100 million. The province currently spends $42.8 million on tobacco control, down from $60 million annually in both 2007-2008 and 2008-2009.

In effect, the anti-smoker parasites want to feather their own nest with money extorted from smokers well into the forseeable future. “Further increases in price can potentially decrease the harm caused to the health of Ontarians and provide a source of dedicated revenue for a comprehensive tobacco control system.”

The hypocritical bastards want to de-normalize the tobacco companies, and by extension those who use tobacco products, while at the same time demanding that smokers pay their often exorbitant salaries and fund activities intended to denigrate and demean those they claim they want to help; those they claim are the victims of the tobacco companies.

They hype the alleged death and destruction caused by tobacco use, and whine about the associated health care costs, while demanding, and as often as not getting, their cut of the action.

Hypocritical bastards.

And, they admit that their efforts to date have had little or no real influence on tobacco consumption.

“Until recently, smoking rates declined in all age groups in Ontario. This is no longer the case. After years of decline, according to the 2008 Canadian Tobacco Use Monitoring Survey, there has been no statistically significant change in the percentage of current Ontario smokers aged 15 years and older since 2005.

The prevalence of smoking dropped substantially during the 1980's, and while it continued to decline in the 1990’s, the rate of decline began to slow. In recent years, smoking rates have stopped decreasing across North America, and have even started to rise for the first time in some population segments.”

They refuse to acknowledge that their draconian smoking bans and punitive tobacco taxes are part and parcel of the problem, despite a wealth of evidence to the contrary.

"Tobacco control measures such as advertising bans, public awareness campaigns, and point-of-sale display bans have had the cumulative effects of denormalizing traditional cigarette brands, stripping them of the social significance they once had. As big tobacco company brands have been denormalized, there has been growth in demand for 'no-name' cigarettes and discount brands. This bourgeoning demand has been filled by the contraband market through baggies [clear plastic bags of loose cigarettes] and Native brands of cigarettes."
The Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Anti-Contraband Policy Measures: Evidence for Better Practice, June 2009.

But, rather than follow a more reasonable, more pragmatic course of action, they demand more and more money for law enforcement to contain the contraband problem which they and their political cronies created.

According to the anti-smoker fanatics, the tobacco manufacturing industry is neither normal nor legitimate. The money they generate, on the other hand, is as pure as the driven snow. Ask any politician or anti-smoker zealot.

Did I mention what a hypocritical bunch of bastards they are?

Protecting kids from the sight of cigarettes

2010-10-17T18:49:00.002-04:00

Bob Gee was back in court earlier this month. Gee is the owner of Mader's Tobacco Store in Kentville, Nova Scotia and has been fighting a provincial tobacco regulation which bans tobacco displays. Gee was ordered, under the province’s Tobacco Access Act, to remove his tobacco displays in January, 2007. He refused.

In March, 2008, he was charged with improper storage and display of tobacco products. Gee entered a plea of not guilty claiming the tobacco regulation violated his right to freedom of expression.

Those charges were later stayed while the province amended the law to allow retailers to display their tobacco products through a catalogue which could be viewed by consumers when making tobacco purchases. Presumably, the government believed that by allowing Gee to display his tobacco product line via a catalogue, they were no longer violating his right to freedom of expression.

Gee still refused to take down his tobacco displays and, in July, 2009, he was once again charged with improper storage and display of tobacco products.

Earlier this year, a provincial court judge ruled that the law did indeed violate Gee's right to freedom of expression. That was back in August. The ruling placed the onus on the province to prove that infringing on Gee's right to freedom of expression is reasonable and for the public good.

On October 7, lawyers for the attorney-general and the Crown told Judge Claudine MacDonald they needed more time to prepare for the case. Just another of many delays requested by, and granted to, the Crown. The new date for the hearing is June, 2011.

The outcome of the case could have far reaching consequences. Bans on so-called point of sale displays have been implemented in all provinces across Canada. Should the Crown be unable to convince the court that bans on tobacco displays are, in fact, in the public interest, then all of those bans are could be compromised.

Rob Cunningham, of the Canadian Cancer Society, claims the case is a public health issue. "These laws remain very important for public health. All 13 provinces and territories in Canada have legislation banning tobacco displays."

Provincial court judge Claudine MacDonald has already ruled that displaying a product conveys a meaning and can therefore be regarded as an "expressive activity" protected by Canada's Charter of Rights. The question remaining is whether the law is a reasonable means of protecting some compelling public interest which would override Gee's right to freedom of expression.

The reasoning behind the bans, put forth by anti-smoker zealots like the Canadian Cancer Society, is that the tobacco displays encourage kids to start smoking. The zealots claim that even the sight of a cigarette package will entice kids to adopt the smoking habit. But, there's absolutely no evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support that contention.

Other countries have considered tobacco display bans but rejected the idea because the evidence was speculative and not proven to reduce smoking rates. Two such countries were Denmark and Sweden, where bans on point of sales displays were debated in their respective parliaments earlier this year.

“Canada has introduced a so-called point of sale display ban on tobacco, which means that the packs are not allowed to be visible. This does not mean that there has been any noticeable effect on consumption. Some provinces have even seen an increase.” (Jan R Andersson, Swedish MP, June 15, 2010)

“If there was a clearly documented effect from putting all tobacco in boxes behind dark curtains, we could maybe consider it, but we do not believe that the few countries who have implemented something similar can document any real effect.” (Bertel Haarder, Danish Minister of Interior and Health, May 27, 2010)

And, in the absence of any evidence, how can it be considered reasonable to prohibit a retailer from displaying a legal product line?

Nor is there any evidence to suggest that an adult trying to quit smoking will break down at the mere sight of a pack of smokes and take up smoking again. Cigarettes, clearly, are not an impulse item.

Junk food, however, in the form of candy bars and soda pop, are impulse items. And, over the last couple of years, childhood obesity has been identified as a serious public health issue. But, would it be considered reasonable to force grocery stores or corner stores to hide the pop, candy bars and potato chips lest children be tempted to buy them and risk becoming obese?

Anti-smoker zealots were very successful in convincing gullible politicians that it was morally objectionable to have tobacco products displayed where they could be seen by children; that legislation was needed to eliminate the remote possibility that tobacco displays might encourage kids to pick up the habit. Politicians, eager to score a few cheap brownie points with their constituents, were quick to buy into the emotional appeal of “protecting the children.”

The courts, on the other hand, will be looking for evidence. And, the courts will hear both sides of the debate; not just the one-sided argument presented by anti-smoker fanatics and the press.

The sale of tobacco products to minors is illegal. That's a justifiable prohibition. Protecting children from the sight of a cigarette pack, however, is neither justified nor reasonable.

Bob Gee, at 66, says he just wants to retire and turn the business over to his son. The province of Nova Scotia is probably just wishing he'd go away.

Health warnings to provoke “discomfort and disgust”

2010-10-13T11:44:00.005-04:00

The Canadian government has postponed plans for graphic new warning labels on cigarette packs. And, that, of course, has got anti-smoker groups pissed off.

"I would have expected that large warnings would be announced by now . . . the government hasn't really given a clear reason why and I can't conceive of a good reason why," said Rob Cunningham of the Canadian Cancer Society.

Graphic warnings on cigarette packs have been required in Canada since 2001. Anti-smoker zealots claim the current labels are no longer effective and need to be made even more repulsive and pornographic if they are to be successful in coercing, er . . . encouraging, smokers to quit. And, of course, they have to be made much larger since smokers are apparently too blind to read the existing messages.

Currently, the labels cover half the surface of the pack, front and back, with messages reminding smokers of the health risks of smoking and urging them to quit. We must assume the graphic warnings are directed exclusively at smokers, since cigarette packs are hidden from view in retail outlets selling cigarettes and other tobacco products to adult consumers.

The federal government decision to shelve plans for larger, more graphic labels was announced in September.

"Health Canada continues to examine the renewal of health warning messages on tobacco packaging but is not ready to move forward at this time," a spokeswoman told Reuters in a September 29, 2010 article.

The government apparently wants to concentrate on the fight against contraband which is costing senior levels of government hundreds of millions in lost revenue from tobacco taxes annually.

Unfortunately for the government, the tobacco companies are also losing money due to ever-increasing sales of contraband.

Imperial Tobacco spokesman Eric Gagnon claims contraband tobacco costs the industry between $875 million and C$1 billion a year. "The biggest tobacco problem in Canada today is contraband. So increasing a health warning on a product that already has a 50 percent health warning -- and is also hidden from public view -- is not a public health initiative."

And, the tobacco company's support of Conservative government efforts to control contraband has allowed the loyal opposition to accuse the government of pandering to the tobacco industry and protecting industry profits. "This government is listening to the business lobby, the tobacco lobby," said Liberal MP, Ujjal Dosanjh, a former federal Minister of Health.

The government announcement prompted a nasty rebuke from anti-smoker zealots at Montreal's Concordia University. An article from the Concordian also questions the governments motives. “After millions of public dollars were spent on this campaign, how is it that the plan could simply be scrapped? And for what? To aid tobacco companies in the war against contraband cigarettes, which will essentially lead to putting more money in their pockets?”

The article by Lindsay Sykes asks: “Is it fear of the discomfort and disgust these images will invoke in people that has this plan being taken off the table for now? Isn't that the purpose of these images, after all; to be a preventative measure for future smokers and a motivation to quit for those who already smoke?”

Of course, larger, more disgusting images might also motivate more smokers to buy contraband. There are no warning labels on the clear plastic bags sold from the trunk of a car. And, they're a damn sight cheaper than the “legal” variety.

To end on a more humourous note, the federal Liberals recently launched a proposal to provide funding for Canadians providing essential home care to family members so they wouldn't have to quit their jobs.

The Liberals introduced their billion dollar home-care plan with a glossy brochure which featured a photo depicting two generations of a happy, smiling family. Unfortunately, one of the family members was enjoying a cigarette during the photo shoot.

Maybe the the photographer was a smoker who saw nothing abnormal about a guy having a quick puff while having his picture taken.

The faux pas, however, did not escape the attention of Prime Minister Stephen Harper . “I look at this brochure where on page six the Liberals talk about health care and on page four they promote somebody smoking,” he chided. Ouch.

No wonder the Liberals were so quick to take issue with the governments decision to delay those graphic warnings. They had to show they were just as tough on smokers as those other fellas.

Piecemeal prohibition – the anti-smoker agenda

2010-10-06T10:33:00.003-04:00

The anti-smoker brigade and their allies in government will tell you at every opportunity that smoking is the single biggest cause of preventable death worldwide. The question which immediately arises is why the zealots don't simply lobby for outright prohibition on the manufacture and distribution of tobacco products?

And, the short answer is that it's all about the money.

For example, the anti-smoker cult in the US is lamenting a substantial loss of funding as governments at the state level reduce the amount of financial support provided to the anti-smoker zealots. “Overall funding on tobacco control is down because of dramatic cuts in state spending in recent years,” Matthew L. Myers, president of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, told the New York Times in July, 2010.

The Times article also noted that, according to a report prepared for the anti-smoker fanatics, state funding for anti-tobacco programs dropped to $567 million last year, from $717 million two years earlier, a 21 percent decline in anti-smoker spending in just two years. The report bears the logos of the biggest players in the anti-smoker industry; the Cancer Action Network, the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, American Heart Association, the American Lung Association, and of course, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

And, there can be little doubt that anti-smoking has morphed into an industry. A cute little chart in the report shows that state governments confiscated 209.3 billion dollars from tobacco consumers from 2000 to 2010, while spending “only” 7.04 billion on “tobacco prevention”. That doesn't include the additional billions from federal excise taxes.

Nor does the spending on tobacco control include spending by the federal government or foundations such as the Robert Wood Johnston Foundation, the Legacy Foundation or funding provided by the pharmaceutical industry.

It's clear that full scale prohibition would have an immediate and dramatic adverse impact on tax revenue for governments at all levels. In truth, governments have become addicted to the revenue generated by tobacco taxes. The anti-smoker cult simply can't afford to antagonize their political allies by demanding full scale prohibition and jeopardizing that tax revenue.

In turn, the loss in tax revenue would have an adverse impact on the funding levels of the the anti-smoker zealots and compromise their ability to conduct their denormalization campaign against smokers.

There are additional negative consequences to outright prohibition of tobacco products which might make it unacceptable to government: the resulting job loss in the tobacco industry and small business enterprises (convenience stores, for example) dependent on tobacco sales for substantial portions of their income, the prospect of a flourishing black market, and the strong possibility of a public backlash against such draconian infringement on personal liberties.

The immediate financial and social consequences of prohibition could be catastrophic. And, there would be no resulting compensatory benefit from savings in health care costs for decades, if they materialize at all.

This leaves the anti-smoker fanatics, and the blinkered governments which support them, in a very difficult position. Despite their ultimate goal (the eradication of smokers), they can't afford the social and economic disruption which would result from outright prohibition.

So, they continue their efforts to denormalize smokers and make smoking unacceptable in the eyes of the general public, while they consider the ways and means of achieving their ultimate objective.

These problems are acknowledged in a recent research paper from Singapore: “Thus, although the endpoint of a total ban is highly desirable, the political reality is that it is only by a phased, long-term introduction that such a ban is likely to be achieved.”

And, their solution?

“We propose, alongside current under-age bans, the introduction of laws banning the provision of tobacco to any citizen born in or after a specific year, suggesting the year 2000 as it is convenient for recall by all parties. The proposal introduces the concept of tobacco-free generations that will never legally be able to take up the harmful habit of smoking, at any age.”

Uh-huh. As far as smoking is concerned, no one born after 2000 would ever reach adulthood; they would never be legally permitted to buy or use tobacco – ever.

The authors of the paper believe such a gradual approach to prohibition would eliminate the current obstacles to achieving their utopian smoke free society. “Our proposal minimizes immediate hardship to tobacco stakeholders. Those currently legally smoking maintain the legal right to continue.”

It's a novel idea; stripping future adults of their rights while they're too young to appreciate the difference. But if that idea seems a little over-the-top, the fanatics are also exploring other alternatives.

For example, another proposal mentioned in the research paper would ”transfer responsibility for manufacturing and supplying tobacco to an enterprise with the mandate to achieve a timetabled reduction in tobacco”.

According to that proposal: “The elimination of profit driven behaviour from the supply of tobacco would enhance the ability of public health authorities to reduce tobacco use.” Uh-huh. Just nationalize the tobacco industry, turn it over to some unidentified non-profit (anti-smoker) authority and let them gradually choke off the supply of tobacco.

Many years ago, we used a process, most often referred to as brainstorming, as a problem-solving technique. The idea was simply to consider all possible solutions to a problem, no matter how preposterous. But, those potential solutions considered too far-fetched usually wound up in the discard bin.

Obviously, to the anti-smoker fanatics, no solution to the “tobacco problem” is too radical.

Bloomberg's smoking ban and his lies of omission

2010-09-20T14:19:00.004-04:00

New York City mayor, Michael Bloomberg, and city health officials are proposing a smoking ban in city parks and other outdoor areas. A Globe and Mail article, announcing the proposed ban notes: “Officials cited a May, 2007, Stanford University study that found a person sitting within three feet of a smoker outdoors can be exposed to levels of secondhand smoke similar to indoor levels.”

The Stanford study has been identified by WeHo, a West Hollywood news organization, as the first peer reviewed, scientific study on detecting outdoor secondhand smoke levels in exposed persons. Outdoor Tobacco Smoke, or OTS, is a phrase apparently coined by the authors of the Stanford study to refer to secondhand smoke in an outdoor environment.

The study noted that there was a “lack of empirical data on outdoor tobacco smoke (OTS) levels” which impeded OTS exposure and risk assessments. Simply put, there was no scientific evidence that exposure to secondhand smoke in an outdoor environment represents any significant health hazard. Without accurate data, there can be no reliable assessment of the health risks posed by exposure to OTS. The ridiculous claim that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS has no credibility.

Still, despite the lack of data, the study concluded: “Based on our results, it is possible for OTS to present a nuisance or hazard under certain conditions of wind and smoker proximity.”

But, those “certain” conditions were never mentioned by the mayor, or city councilwoman, Gale Brewer, the sponsor of the proposed ban. And, those conditions strongly suggest that there's no need, from a public health standpoint, to ban smoking outdoors. The study notes:

“The overall average OTS respirable particle concentration for the surveys of public places during smoking was approximately 30 g/m3. OTS exhibited sharp spikes in particle mass concentration during smoking that sometimes exceeded 1000 g/m3 at distances within 0.5 m of the source. Some average concentrations over the duration of a cigarette and within 0.5 m exceeded 200 g/m3, with some average downwind levels exceeding 500 g/m3.”

Distances within a half metre (0.5m) of the source? That means a non-smoker would have to be within 20 inches of a smoker to be exposed to the highest amounts of particle mass concentration, or the average concentrations noted in the study. How many people would feel comfortable allowing a stranger in such close proximity in a park setting, whether that stranger was smoking or not?

Why would a non-smoker remain in such close proximity to a smoker long enough to increase risk? And, remember, the alleged risks associated with secondhand smoke exposure are based on prolonged daily exposure over several decades.

And, it has to be noted that those spikes in particulate matter were not only confined to a space within 20 inches of the source, but they existed only when downwind of the smoker. For, the study also notes that: “OTS levels in a constant upwind direction from an active cigarette source were nearly zero.”

In other words, if a non-smoker was within kissing distance of a smoker, and the prevailing wind was blowing in his/her direction and the smoker was exhaling smoke directly in his/her face, they might be exposed to volumes of secondhand smoke similar to those found indoors.

In addition, the Stanford study actually points to the means by which a non-smoker could avoid any exposure to secondhand smoke. “OTS levels also approached zero at distances greater than approximately 2 m from a single cigarette.” Uh-huh.

Two metres is roughly six and a half feet. To avoid any exposure to the particulate matter in secondhand smoke, all a non-smoker would have to do is take a few paces in the opposite direction. That's right. The non-smoker could simply walk away.

So, although the study concluded that, “During periods of active smoking, peak and average OTS levels near smokers rivaled indoor tobacco smoke concentrations,” it's clear those levels could be reached only if the non-smoker is in extremely close proximity to, and downwind from, a smoker.

And, even then, there is little or no data to suggest that the amount of exposure would be sufficient to actually cause harm. A similar study, published by University of Georgia Athens (UGA) researchers in November, 2009 found “increased levels of SHS in the study subjects, but not levels considered to be risky”.

So, the New York City health department's claim that “57 per cent of nonsmoking New Yorkers have elevated levels of cotinine, a byproduct of nicotine, in their blood” means absolutely nothing. Elevated levels can only determine that a non smoker was exposed to secondhand smoke at some time during the past two to three days; not that the levels of exposure are prolonged or sufficient to demonstrate a legitimate health concern.

It's clear that the evidence does not support the contention that exposure to secondhand smoke in an outdoor environment represents any kind of health hazard to non-smokers. Which means the proposed ban in New York City parks, and those in other jurisdictions which have already imposed similar bans, have absolutely nothing to do with public health.

But, that's not really surprising.

The WeHo news article referenced above, notes: ”Half a dozen LA County municipalities have banned smoking near their outdoor dining facilities, with a few banning it from publicly-owned property - sidewalks, medians etc. - across their city entire. All did so citing public health concerns, but none did so based on scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (SHS) near an outdoor area poses a health risk.”

The Stanford study used to support New York's proposed outdoor ban provides very flimsy evidence on which to base such an intrusion on personal liberties. It does not support the theory that secondhand smoke in an outdoor environment is a health hazard, except possibly under the most extreme scenarios. And, even then the potential risk is negligible.

But, smoking bans in parks and on beaches have been passed, and are being promoted, in jurisdictions across the US and Canada despite the lack of any relevant scientific evidence.

Instead, they're based on the same bullshit and bafflegab employed by anti-smoker fanatics for decades. Propaganda by any other name . . .

Are non-smokers too dumb to avoid secondhand smoke?

2010-09-16T19:03:00.005-04:00

New York City's mayor, Michael Bloomberg, is proposing a smoking ban for the city's 29,000 acres of parks and 14 miles of beaches. Apparently, the mayor thinks that non-smokers are simply too dumb to avoid secondhand smoke on their own, even in the wide open spaces of Central Park. At least, that's the inference to be drawn from claims made by “officials” announcing the proposed ban.

According to a Globe and Mail article, “Officials claim they are basing the proposed law on claims that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can pose health risks”.

But, what, exactly, do they mean by “brief exposure” and what possible “health risks” might result from this brief exposure?

Since the unnamed officials gave no definition of “brief”, we shall assume that they mean a period of time which is short or fleeting in duration. But, we'll have to use our imagination to determine exactly what they mean by “health risks”. Will “brief” exposure cause non-smokers to break out in a rash? Lose their lunch? Die of fright?

And, who is likely to be susceptible to the health risks posed by this brief exposure? Is a twenty year old jogger likely to die of a heart attack while jogging past a smoker? How about a sixty year old jogger?

No?

OK, maybe an 80 year old jogger suffering from emphysema, lugging an oxygen tank and jogging very, very slowly? Well, maybe. But, then, what the fuck is an 80 year old, suffering from emphysema and dragging an oxygen tank, doing jogging in Central Park?

The Globe and Mail article also notes: “Officials cited a May, 2007, Stanford University study that found a person sitting within three feet of a smoker outdoors can be exposed to levels of secondhand smoke similar to indoor levels.” Huh? Does the person have to be sitting before keeling over from the effects of secondhand smoke? Are they safe if they're standing?

Is Central Park usually that crowded that users are sitting within three feet of one another? That really would be one crowded park. Just how in hell would an 80 year old jogger, suffering from emphysema and dragging an oxygen tank, manage to weave his way through all that pedestrian traffic?

Now, I must confess that I've never been to New York City. The closest I've ever come is visiting the in-laws in Jamestown, NY and Boston, Mass. So, obviously, I've never visited Central Park.

But, I saw the original “Death Wish” with Charles Bronson, and Central Park was painted as a pretty scary place; full of muggers, rapists . . . and, apparently, smokers. So I have a few questions.

If a twenty year old jogger encountered a man wearing a balaclava and brandishing a knife in Central Park, wouldn't his/her first impulse be to run, preferably in the other direction, to avoid being mugged or raped?

Let's face it, that mugger is probably an alcoholic crackhead and likely a smoker to boot. It should be easy to outrun him. So, running away would seem to be the prudent course of action, in most cases. Of course, the 80 year old dragging his damn oxygen tank would be just plain fucked, but life has it's little ups and downs.

The point is that Central Park covers an expanse of 843 acres; roughly 2.5 miles long and a half mile wide. That translates to 1.31 square miles; over 36 million square feet. Why would a non-smoker have to be within three feet of a smoker if they didn't want to be? Why couldn't he/she just walk (or run) away?

And, if non-smokers can just walk away and avoid the risk of exposure to secondhand smoke, there's no need for a smoking ban. Unless . . . non-smokers are just too fucking dumb to stay away from smokers and avoid the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke.

No other inference can be drawn.

And, Mayor Bloomberg and his “officials” seem to be reading from different pages of the anti-smoker manual. Says the mayor: “The science is clear: prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke, whether you're indoors or out, hurts your health.”

Actually, the science is not as clear about the effects of prolonged exposure to secondhand smoke as the mayor suggests. As a matter of fact, it's still a highly controversial topic. And, at any rate “officials” say the proposed legislation is intended to protect non-smokers from brief exposure to secondhand smoke, not prolonged exposure.

But, if there's no compelling reason for a non-smoker to be sitting, standing or hanging upside down from a tree, within three feet of a smoker and exposing themselves to the alleged hazards of brief exposure, there's no need to be exposed for prolonged periods. Not in a park the size of Central Park.

The mayor's proposed legislation is obviously not about any threat to public health. The mayor, like most followers of the anti-smoker cult, simply doesn't want smokers seen in public places. Someone might get the impression that smoking is a normal behaviour.

The mayor should drop his proposal to ban smoking in the parks and on the beaches. He would probably save more lives if he banned 80 year old joggers suffering from emphysema and dragging oxygen tanks from the damn park.

FDA moves to protect pharmaceutical profits

2010-09-14T00:34:00.004-04:00

Over the past several decades, a long list of anti-smoker laws has been enacted to curtail smoking. Draconian smoking bans and punitive levels of tobacco taxation have been implemented, with but one objective: to force smokers to quit their “vile, self-destructive” habit.

In North America, Public health groups (tax exempt, anti-smoker lobby groups) in the US, including Tobacco Free Kids, Action on Smoking and Health, the American Cancer Society, etc., and their Canadian counter-parts, have pursued that objective with a single-minded fanaticism. The public is subjected to a constant barrage of anti-smoker propaganda claiming that each new anti-smoker initiative will result in thousands, or tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands of lives saved.

In Canada, banning smoking in public places, we were told, would save lives; graphic warnings on cigarette packs would save lives; punitive levels of government approved extortion (jokingly called taxation) would save lives. And, more recently, smoking bans outdoors, in parks and on beaches and golf courses, we're told, will save lives.

Yet, despite all these life-saving, anti-smoker initiatives, the number of smoking related deaths inexplicably continues to grow.

Recently, the CMA (Canadian Medical Association) recommended that provincial governments fund nicotine replacement therapy to encourage more Canadians to quit smoking and presumably, save lives.

But, if nicotine replacement therapies offered by the pharmaceutical industry will save lives, won't similar products available from alternative sources do the same thing? And, if a product was introduced to the marketplace, with the potential to greatly reduce tobacco consumption; one which was much more acceptable to smokers as a nicotine delivery system, then why would anti-smoker zealots seek to curtail its use? Is that not counter-productive?

The electronic cigarettes or e-cig has become popular among smokers wanting to reduce consumption of traditional tobacco cigarettes, with many users claiming the device has helped them to quit smoking entirely.

Yet, the US FDA (Food and Drug Administration) recently sent warning letters to some companies selling electronic cigarettes, and a manufacturer of the liquid nicotine used in the devices, claiming they made unproven health claims and threatening to shut them down if they didn't stop claiming that the e-cig was effective at reducing consumption or in some cases quitting outright.

But, why should it matter?

In a letter to the Electronic Cigarette Association, the FDA said the actions against the companies were not meant to be seen as a larger effort to ban the electronic devices. However, FDA actions to date belie the truth of that claim. The FDA has intercepted shipments of the device at customs and released a highly biased and dishonest study claiming the devices contain dangerous carcinogens.

FDA compliance lawyer Michael Levy noted there are several FDA-approved smoking cessation aids available on the market and the agency is working with several manufacturers for approval as a drug-delivery device. Said Levy, "We are interested in finding out whether e-cigarettes can be proven safe and effective."

The “approved” smoking cessation aids to which Levy refers are those offered by the pharmaceutical industry; the patch, nicotine gum and lozenges and the nicotine inhaler. And, of course, the controversial Chantix. And, proving that the electronic cigarette is safe and effective to the satisfaction of the FDA and the Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC), with their strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry, may take a very long time.

And, while clinical trials take place, drug companies will maintain their monopoly on alternate nicotine delivery systems. Anti-smoker zealots can, and will, continue their efforts to demonize electronic cigarettes with the same propaganda methods used to demonize smokers. Some states in the US have already included the e-cig in their anti-smoker legislation, banning use of the device anywhere smoking is prohibited.

Health Canada has already taken similar action and banned the e-cig.

The zealots are dependent on massive amounts of funding from the pharmaceutical industry to sustain their war on smokers. Perhaps that's why they seem determined to suppress any challenge to the monopoly enjoyed by the drug companies in providing alternate nicotine delivery systems. Any threat to drug company profits also threatens funding to the anti-smoker crowd.

Clearly, the anti-smoker fanatics are promoting the interests of the pharmaceutical industry to the detriment of the smokers they claim to be helping. And, in the process, they're showing once again, that, as often as not, it's not about public health; it's about the money.

Yeah. I know what you're thinking. So what else is new?

Smoking . . . always about the money

2010-09-09T17:00:00.006-04:00

It seems everybody wants to make money off smokers these days, especially cash strapped governments. State governments in the US, provincial governments in Canada, and federal governments around the globe are turning to smokers to generate additional tax revenue in these trying economic times.

In North America, Great Britain and Europe, governments tell the public that usurious sin taxes are for a smoker's own good. This government sponsored extortion, the politicians tell us, is an act of kindness meant to “encourage” smokers to quit the evil, injurious habit. Uh-huh.

Of course, regressive sin taxes, more often than not, are counter-productive. Contraband tobacco has become a serious issue in Canada (and around the western world), for example. It's estimated that in Ontario, over half the cigarettes sold are contraband. In Quebec, contraband is estimated at 40% of the cigarette market.

Readily available contraband means retail outlets suffer from declining legal sales, putting jobs at risk. It makes cheap tobacco products available to minors who would be unable to purchase cigarettes from legal sources. And, it means governments can rely on only a fraction of the tax revenues their usurious tax policies were expected to generate. As law enforcement budgets escalate, tax revenue declines and ordinary Canadians become outlaws as they seek respite from confiscatory tax policy.

Politicians take refuge from any criticism of their discriminatory tax policy by citing public health concerns.

The truth is that governments spend millions on anti-tobacco campaigns, but that's a mere pittance compared to the billions they extort in tobacco tax revenues. In fact, the anti-smoker group Physicians for a Smokefree Canada estimated Canadian governments at all levels took in over seven billion dollars in tobacco taxes in the fiscal year 2007/2008.

That's a lot of money. And, it's money the government can't afford to lose. Assuming 5 million smokers in Canada, that's an average of roughly $1,400 annually extorted from every Canadian smoker. And, if that tax revenue were lost, it would have to be made up from other sources.

Distributing that tax burden across a Canadian population of 33 million would mean a tax increase of roughly $210 for every man woman and child in the country. A family of four would be paying somewhere around $840 per year in additional taxes. And, those believing that a reduction in health care costs would offset the need for those taxes are dreaming in technicolor.

And, it's the massive amount of tax revenue purloined from smokers that's behind government's refusal to prohibit sales of tobacco rather than ban smokers from all manner of social interaction, although politicians will deny it. And, it's why the anti-smoker fanatics aren't screaming for a prohibition on tobacco.

A clear demonstration of this hypocritical bullshit and bafflegab was seen in the North Dakota legislature back in January, 2003. That legislative body voted, 88 to 4, against a bill proposing to ban tobacco sales in the state. Anti-tobacco groups testifying against the tobacco ban included the North Dakota Medical Association, American Heart Association, American Cancer Society, American Lung Association, North Dakota Public Health Association and North Dakota Nurses Association. Uh-huh.

The North Dakota episode should cause everyone to question whether the war on smokers is really about public heath. And, evidence that smoking is not the public health issue the anti-smoker fanatics claim, was available as far back as 1975.

The 3rd World Conference on Smoking and Health, held in New York in June, 1975, recommended: “That it be recognized by all organizations and associations concerned with smoking and health that the campaign against smoking is political and economic in character and requires decisions based on political and economic factors.”

And, as the hypocritical stance of the North Dakota legislature and their anti-smoker minions demonstrated in 2003, prohibition of tobacco is simply not politically or economically expedient. Government would lose massive amounts of tax revenue and the anti-smoker zealots would lose their livelihood. So, the government and their taxpayer funded mercenaries in the anti-smoker brigade continue their charade, denouncing smokers while raking in the cash.

But, there are some politicians who appreciate the contribution of smokers to the national economy. The Russians, for example, are calling on citizens in that country, where 65% of men smoke and the average Russian consumes 18 litres of alcohol annually, to smoke and drink more because the government needs the tax dollars.

Russia's finance minister, Alexei Kudrin, explained recently that higher consumption would raise tax revenues so that more could be spent on social services. Says Kudrin: “If you smoke a pack of cigarettes, that means you are giving more to help solve social problems such as boosting demographics, developing other social services and upholding birth rates.” Huh?

The Russian government has announced pending increases in sin taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. But, at least they're being honest about the purpose of the increases. They want the money.

Unlike Canadian politicians, and others in the western world, they're not hiding behind a “public health” scam to pick the pockets of smokers.

Smokers “personna non grata” in Vancouver

2010-09-05T15:40:00.004-04:00

The city of Vancouver, British Columbia has effectively become a “no smoking” zone. As of September 1, 2010, smoking is prohibited in every park and on every beach in Vancouver. Anyone caught smoking in the city's 224 parks or 18 kilometres of beaches is subject to a minimum fine of $250, up to a maximum of $2,000.

The provincial Tobacco Control Act already bans smoking in indoor public places, work places, private places, near public and private doorways, open windows, and air intakes. Sounds like a fun place . . . as long as you're not a smoker. Of course, if you're a smoker who enjoys being treated like a social leper, you may feel right at home.

According to an article by Mark Hasiuk in the Vancouver Courier, “This new bylaw, which outlaws a legal activity in a city of 570,000, was crafted and enacted solely by the seven-member park board - an entity few Vancouverites know anything about.”

And, that's not as unbelievable as it sounds.

The Vancouver parks board is, in fact, the only one of its kind in Canada, with a measure of autonomy which exceeds any other in the country. It oversees the Vancouver park and recreation system which includes more than 224 parks (roughly 3,200 acres) featuring community centres, swimming pools, skating rinks, fitness centres, racquet courts, golf courses, pitch & putt courses, food concessions, marinas, miniature railway, children's farmyard, and street trees.

Hasiuk's article quotes comments from Aaron Jasper, a board commissioner, who claims the board heard from health care professionals that secondhand smoke, even on a breezy beach, represents a health hazard. Jasper also noted the environmental impact from discarded cigarette butts, and claimed that: "Forest fires are a grave concern." Huh? Forest fires in Vancouver. Can you spell bullshit? How about bafflegab?

On April 19, 2010, the Vancouver Parks Board passed a resolution to the effect: “That the [parks] Board instruct the General Manager to consult with the Director of Legal Services to seek amendments to the City of Vancouver Health Bylaw and Parks Control Bylaw to prohibit smoking in all parks and beaches”.

The motion was approved after the presentation of a staff report which stated: “With acceptance that no level of exposure to second-hand smoke can be considered safe, reducing such exposure remains a key component of health promotion by the World Health Organization, Health Canada, the Province of British Columbia, and VCH (Vancouver Coastal Health)”.

The report also pointed out the relatively low smoking prevalence rates in BC, noting : “The experience of many other jurisdictions is that smoking regulations are less challenging to implement and enforce in areas where non-smokers are represented by a large percentage of population, as in the Lower Mainland”.

In other words, smokers in BC represent such a small percentage of the population (less than 15%) that their concerns could be ignored with impunity and little political fallout. Or, as Mark Hasiuk noted in his article, “Persecuting smokers, today's unclean among us, requires no courage. They make easy targets.”

As usual when passing anti-smoker legislation of this kind, public consultation was kept to a minimum.

Park board staff collected public feedback through an online survey conducted in the fall of 2009. The objective of the survey was to gauge the level of support for a new policy on smoking in city parks. The survey focused on asking readers if they supported establishing "no-smoking" areas in beaches, playgrounds, playing fields, trails, and other “undesignated” park spaces.

A total of 608 responses were received in the city of roughly 570,000; roughly one tenth of 1% of the population. But that was more than enough to determine that 90% of the population favoured a comprehensive smoking ban. Uh-huh.

Of course, several anti-smoker delegations made presentations at the meeting; the Clean Air Coalition of BC, the Canadian Cancer Society (BC/Yukon), Vancouver Coastal Health, some outfit called Air Space Action on Smoking and Health, the Great Canadian Shoreline Clean Up and half a dozen individuals whose affiliation was not given.

In the face of this overwhelming support for a smoking ban, the resolution was approved unanimously by the seven members of the parks board.

And, on June 22, 2010, Vancouver city council passed the required amendments which authorized the Board of Parks and Recreation to enact by-laws to regulate smoking in parks “for the care, promotion and health of people in parks.”

Establishing no smoking areas in parks might be considered reasonable in some circumstances; around children's play areas, or petting zoos, for example. But, designating an entire park system a no smoking zone goes far beyond what is required to protect the public from the alleged, and grossly exaggerated, hazards of secondhand smoke.

There will be no designated smoking areas anywhere in the park system. Not a single acre of the 3,200 acres of parkland will be set aside for smokers. Not even a few measly square yards of the 15.5 million square yards in the park system will be made available to accommodate smokers. They're simply not welcome.

But then, as noted in the minutes of the board meeting where the by-law was approved: “Just in case there are caveats about this policy, it is well established that there is no safe level of tobacco smoke.”

A large portion of the park boards revenue (60 million dollars worth) apparently comes from municipal taxes. Some of those tax dollars come from smokers. But smokers are told they are unwelcome. And, no, tax rebates for smoking taxpayers were not mentioned in the anti-smoker legislation.

In reality, the by-law is designed to punish smokers, not protect public health. The intent is to demean and denigrate those who choose to engage in a perfectly legal activity; to turn them into social outcasts in the hope that a few of them will quit.

Said Aaron Jasper of the parks board: "Our job is to make sure that everyone can have enjoyment of our parks and public spaces." Uh-huh.

Everyone, apparently, but smokers.

Smoking imagery in movies causes kids to smoke

2010-09-01T21:44:00.003-04:00

A recent press release from Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada (PSY) claims that 44% of Canadian teenagers 15 to 19 years of age who smoke, do so because of exposure to smoking in the movies. Uh-huh. Just seeing Bruce Willis or Sigourney Weaver light up on screen is “causing” tens of thousands of Canadian teenagers to become depraved nicotine addicts; destined for death . . . eventually.

The made for media report, released August 19, estimates that 130,000 teenage Canadians who currently smoke were “recruited” by their exposure to smoking in the movies, and that 43,000 will die prematurely from smoking. The study offered no prognostication for the remaining 87,000, but I think we can safely assume that they too will die . . . eventually.

The report, commissioned by PSY, is titled: “Tobacco Vector: How American movies, Canadian film subsidies and provincial rating practices will kill 43,000 Canadian teens alive today — and what Canadian governments can do about it.”

The anti-smoker cult claims seeing actors smoke in movies sends the message that smoking is normal and even commonplace. This, in turn, encourages young people to have a more positive view of smoking and smokers. And, that is simply unacceptable. Kids must be taught that smokers are filthy, foul smelling degenerates.

The report makes the incredible assertion that: “If young people were not exposed to smoking in movies, there would be about 130,000 fewer Canadian teenagers smoking.” And, of course, 43,000 deaths could be prevented over the next 70 years or so. Uh-huh.

Statistics, properly used, can be a wonderful tool. But . . .

Unfortunately, statistics can also be manipulated to mangle the facts and obscure the truth. Used by the unscrupulous, they can be a deliberately deceptive propaganda tool.

For example, Table 1 (page 1) in the PSY study notes that 13.8% (304,000) of teenagers between 15 and 19 are current smokers. Of that number, 44% (134,000) are caused by exposure to smoking imagery in the movies according to study author Jonathan Polansky.

Both the table and the study itself focus on the 44%, suggesting that a very large percentage of teenage movie goers are corrupted by on screen smoking. But, that's not the case. The data suggests that only 6% of teens will become “established” smokers because they've been “exposed” to smoking imagery in the movies. And even that number is highly speculative.

Think about it! Use a little common sense and don't be buffaloed by the bullshit and bafflegab. Only 13.8% of the teenage population are current smokers and less than half that number (roughly 6% of the total teenage population in that age group) are susceptible to the threat allegedly posed by on screen smoking.

But, that means only 1 in 16 teens exposed to on screen smoking adopted the habit. Does that really suggest the problem is kids seeing someone light up in the movies? Why weren't the other 15 influenced by watching those same movies? Are they somehow immune to smoking imagery? If 1 in 16 drivers who drove red cars ended up in an accident, would it be hailed as proof that red cars caused accidents?

Or, are we expected to believe that the 87% who didn't become smokers, or the 7% who were motivated to experiment with cigarettes for other reasons, were never exposed to smoking in the movies? On television? Were the 6% who took up smoking after seeing actors light up on screen exposed to smoking only in the movies? Did they never see adults or their peers smoking in the real world? Were they never offered a cigarette by friends or relatives?

As is usual with anti-smoker studies of this kind, a careful reading results in more questions than answers.

The Canadian study is not, in fact, a new study. To come up with their estimates, they simply applied the data from studies conducted in the US to the Canadian population. Those studies counted the number of “tobacco incidents” (the appearance of tobacco use, a tobacco product or a brand trademark) in a motion picture. By conducting a survey of what movies teens had seen, they were able to establish a correlation between the number of tobacco incidents and the teens who became “established” smokers. An established smoker is defined as anyone who smoked more than 100 cigarettes in his/her lifetime.

So, we have a study which suggests that 1 in 16 (roughly 6%) teenagers will become established smokers solely through exposure to on screen smoking imagery. The other 94% are apparently unaffected by seeing people smoke in films. There can be no comparison done to to determine how many teenagers who have not been exposed to smoking in the movies or on television will become established smokers, because no such animal exists.

In fact, we have a bunch of anti-smoker fanatics demanding censorship of film based on little more than idle speculation.

Seeing actors smoke on screen may cause kids to view smoking as normal or even common place. But, then again, the reality is that roughly 20% of the population smoke. And, removing smoking scenes from movies denies that reality.

But, I wonder . . .

If smoking imagery in the movies can entice kids to smoke, how many slasher movies would a teenage boy have to see before donning a mask and chasing girls with a butcher knife a la Michael Meyers? Or go berserk with a chain saw?

Teaching intolerance . . . spreading hate

2010-08-26T08:45:00.004-04:00

“We were going down the street grabbing cigarettes from people and running off. It was so funny." So says one of a group of young thugs in the UK calling themselves the “Ciggy Busters”.

According to an account in the Medway Messenger, film director Margherita Gramegna, the artist in residence at the Hundred of Hoo Comprehensive School, set the students the task of devising a film about smoking. According to Gramegna, the students considered most anti-smoking commercials too tame and ineffective.

“Some of the students were smokers themselves and said that they didn’t think the current anti-smoking adverts actually worked. They thought that Chatham, in particular, needed a stronger impact - something on the street - something that could resonate better than an advert you see polished up on the telly. The final idea was to go out and literally ambush smokers and take their cigarettes off them. The adverts don’t work, so we are going to make you stop smoking.”

Ambush smokers and steal their fags? Force them to stop smoking? Huh?

So, this was apparently a school project; under (alleged) adult supervision. Just what the fuck are they teaching kids at the Hundred of Hoo Comprehensive School these days? How to be good little Nazis?

And, that's perhaps the most disgraceful aspect of this entire story. The teacher (?) and the school apparently encouraged these youngsters , providing them with video equipment, funding, and one assumes time off from their arduous school day, to accost responsible adults, with their message of intolerance and bigotry.

And, of course, the local congregation of the Holy Church of the Anti-Smoker were there to offer support.

Gramegna said she proposed the film to her students after speaking to a friend in the Public Health Directorate who said the high level of smoking was a problem for them. Support also came from “A Better Medway”, a joint initiative between the council and NHS Medway, that encourages healthy living and which partly funded the project.

In the Medway Messenger article, the author, Ruth Banks describes the students as “gutsy”. “Gutsy students from Medway have been snatching shoppers’ cigarettes, in an effort to persuade them to kick the habit.”

Gutsy? Assault and theft by self-righteous young thugs is considered gutsy? Harassing those who choose to use a perfectly legal product is gutsy? What in hell are these people thinking?

According to organizers, it was just another school outing; as innocent as a trip to the zoo. The victims, they said, were willing participants. Well, maybe not all. But, most smokers, we're told, reacted with good humour.

Said Gramegna: "I knew we could not really go and film in public and attack people in that way and take goods off of them, so we devised a cunning plan. We planted some people and we started with them. People were watching and following us and at the end we tried with some other people and they were very happy." Uh-huh.

Rachel Noxon, Medway's tobacco control strategic coordinator, said that the exchanges between students and smokers were "carefully stage-managed".

“We were going down the street grabbing cigarettes from people and running off. It was so funny."

Sounds like some of the kids didn't fully understand that it was all just make believe. Or was the “cunning plan” meant to cover the asses of the imbeciles who concocted this “learning experience” in case some disgruntled smoker smacked one of the kids upside the head? “Oh, we were just having some fun with those filthy smokers, constable. There was no need for violence.”

Video footage of the students having fun harassing and ridiculing smokers was available on You Tube, until the filming became a matter of controversy. It is no longer available. Did the video make it clear that this was a “carefully stage managed” event? Was there a “Don't try this at home” disclaimer? Or might other young people view the harassment and intimidation of smokers as acceptable behaviour? Might they think it “cool” to accost smokers and steal from them? Might they be encouraged to copy the behaviour?

The anti-smoker freaks will say they were merely providing a lesson in social activism or, trying to show the kids that the use of tobacco in modern society is no longer acceptable.

Unfortunately, they are also teaching them that intolerance and bigotry are perfectly acceptable, even admirable, character traits as long as they're attacking a government sanctioned target group. Maybe someone should explain to those “responsible” adults the difference between education and indoctrination.

Over-reaction? Maybe. But nothing like the over-reaction which would likely have ensued had I been one of those confronted by this marauding bunch of brain-washed youngsters and their brain dead mentors.

Additional Reading:
Big Brother Watch
Freedom 2 Choose

NS law violates freedom of expression . . . but

2010-08-24T00:07:00.005-04:00

They say you can't fight city hall. But one Nova Scotia shopkeeper is trying to do just that.

OK, OK. He's fighting the provincial government, not city hall. But, that's a minor technicality. Fighting government at any level is usually a losing proposition. So you have to admire a man (or woman) with the courage to stand his ground and challenge laws he believes intrude on his constitutional rights.

Bob Gee is the owner of Mader Tobacco Limited in Kentville, Nova Scotia.

A little over two years ago (May,2008), Gee was charged under the Tobacco Access Act with improper display and storage of tobacco products in his shop. That's serious stuff. There's a $2,000 fine for the first conviction, escalating to $5,000 for a second offense and $10,00 for any subsequent conviction.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges in June, 2008, claiming the legislation violated his right to freedom of expression. Legal maneuvering by the crown resulted in several adjournments, until, in April, 2009, the crown announced it was staying the charges.

Unfortunately for Gee, the government also took the time to amend the legislation. The reworded law still requires store owners to keep tobacco products hidden from public view, but now allows them to display their products in a catalogue. The catalogue may be viewed by customers wishing to purchase tobacco products, but must be kept closed at all other times.

Obviously, the government felt that by allowing shopkeepers to “express” themselves via a catalogue, they could avoid the constitutional challenge.

Gee chose not to use a catalogue, believing it unreasonable to have to cover up his tobacco products, which are still legal, in a specialty tobacco shop where minors are not permitted. According to Gee, using a catalogue didn't solve the problem; the amended law still violates his right to freedom of expression, so he kept his tobacco products in full view behind the counter.

The smoke police descended on Gee's shop like a pack of hungry wolves moving in for the kill and issued two warning letters before laying charges once again under Nova Scotia's Tobacco Access Act.

But, in a a decision Wednesday in Kentville provincial court, Judge Claudine MacDonald agreed with Gee. MacDonald ruled that displaying a product conveys a meaning and can therefore be regarded as an "expressive activity" protected by the charter. Her broad interpretation of what freedom of expression means, also suggested that the purpose of the Tobacco Access Act was "to restrict freedom of expression."

But, Gee is not off the hook just yet.

The province will still have an opportunity to argue that, despite infringing Gee’s constitutional rights, the legislation is reasonable and in the public good. A hearing will be held in early October to hear their argument. And, of course, if the crown is unsuccessful, they can still file an appeal in the Nova Scotia Supreme Court or even the Supreme Court of Canada.

And, therein lies the reason that fighting city hall is, more often than not, a losing proposition. The provincial government, with unlimited funds available from taxpayers, can carry on their vendetta for years. Small businessmen like Bob Gee, on the other hand, must bear the burden of their own legal costs which, in Gee's case are about $20,000.

Bob Gee must play David to the government's Goliath. And, he has to fight without a slingshot.

And, while Bob Gee is being dragged ever so slowly through the legal system, the legislation remains in effect.

Graham Steele, the acting minister of health promotion and protection, claims "We have a strong argument demonstrating the importance of this legislation. It’s a key piece of our work to reduce smoking rates and improve the health of Nova Scotians." Uh-huh.

But, let's face it, the idea that simply hiding cigarettes from public view will encourage adults to stop smoking or prevent kids from experimenting with cigarettes borders on lunacy. There is absolutely no statistical evidence to suggest that bans on so called “power walls” have any affect on smoking rates.

Maybe someone should point out recent claims by Health Canada that more teenagers use marijuana on a regular basis than smoke cigarettes. And, on my recent trip to the east coast, I didn't see any marijuana on display at the local convenience store.

In reality, the ban on tobacco displays in stores is just another confidence trick sold to gullible politicians by anti-smoker zealots.

Rob Cunningham, a lawyer for the Canadian Cancer Society, noted that all provinces and territories prohibit the display of tobacco products, as if that somehow justified the display ban. My kids used to push the same faulty logic; “Oh, come on Dad, everybody else is doing it.” I didn't buy it from them either.

If Steele really wants to “reduce smoking rates and improve the health of Nova Scotians”, all he has to do is have his government declare tobacco a prohibited substance. That should end the tobacco problem once and for all. Right?

But, I'm giving odds that won't happen anytime soon.

Enstrom (and science) under attack . . . again

2010-08-21T10:25:00.003-04:00

In 2003, a study published in the prestigious British Medical Journal (BMJ) declared no association was found between secondhand smoke and lung cancer or chronic heart disease mortality among non-smokers.

The findings of James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat were highly controversial because they contradicted the existing consensus (the popular view) that secondhand smoke caused lung cancer and chronic heart disease. In fact, the study was greeted as heresy by anti-smoker crusaders.

The BMJ was flooded with letters from anti-smoker activists criticizing the journal for publishing the study. Enstrom and Kabat were assailed because their research had been completed with funding from the tobacco industry. Treated as traitors to the cause, they were attacked on a personal, rather than a scientific level. The relative merits of the scientific evidence presented by these two reputable and respected researchers were barely discussed.

So fierce was the attack on Enstrom and Kabat that it prompted two researchers, Sheldon Unger and Dennis Bray, to write a paper entitled “ Silencing the Science”. They concluded that scientific debate is being stifled for political motives rather than the advancement of science.

And, there is a growing body of evidence to suggest that Unger and Bray have a solid case; that legitimate research is being suppressed when it does not conform to commonly held theories. In fact, there is evidence that some research is being squelched, not by contesting its scientific validity, but by ad hominem attacks on those who conduct the research.

Some scientists appear fearful of publishing or otherwise expressing public opposition to the general consensus for fear of retribution from vindictive colleagues who will not tolerate dissenting opinion.

For example, in May of this year, Professor Phillipe Even, former president of the reputable Necker Research Institute in France, publicly expressed his doubts about the real harm of secondhand smoke, saying: “Clearly, the harm [of secondhand smoke] is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.”

When asked why he had not spoken out earlier, Professor Even noted: “As an official, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was given the obligation of confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I had to pay the consequences.”

And, the consequences can be severe: loss of research funding, character assassination and loss of reputation, difficulty having research published and even dismissal from employment. If well-respected scientists like Professor Even can be intimidated into remaining silent on such matters, it suggests that significant pressure is being brought to bear to stifle legitimate scientific debate to advance political goals.

Recently, Professor Enstrom was dismissed from his position at UCLA School of Public Health; a position he has held for 34 years. Officially, his firing had nothing to do with the 2003 study by he and colleague Geoffrey Kabat on the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke. The primary reason given for his firing was that his research was “not aligned with the [Environmental Health Sciences] department's mission” to explore the relationship between environmental exposures to toxic air contaminants and human health.

Enstrom published a paper in 2005 that showed no evidence of premature deaths in California due to exposure to PM 2.5, microscopic specks of particulate matter thought to kill thousands in California each year. CARB (California Air Resources Board) is in the process of setting stringent regulations covering diesel exhaust for the trucking industry. The rationale for the regulations is numerous studies which claim PM2.5 from diesel exhaust is life threatening.

Once again, Enstrom's research conflicts with the commonly held (popular) view. And, once again, he is under attack for publicly iterating those views. In his own defense, Dr. Enstrom stated: “My work isn't about being politically correct, it's about honest research and being faithful to the science."

In an article on his blog, Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University School of Public Health, notes: “Dr. Enstrom was denied the opportunity to present his side of the story to the faculty. He was not permitted to present his research on fine particulate matter and mortality. He was not permitted to testify in his own defense. This is a breach of both due process and justice.”

In fact, several who have written articles commenting on this case have noted that a secret vote, taken among faculty members in his department, resulted in Enstrom's removal.

But, it should not be forgotten that Enstrom has been under attack since his 2003 study on secondhand smoke was published in the BMJ. Despite his strong anti-smoking sentiments, he has been branded a lackey of the tobacco industry and efforts have been made to have some funding sources (yes, the tobacco industry) refused at UCLA.

And, there was a rather telling comment from one his colleagues.

Beate Ritz, a leading air pollution scientist at UCLA, has apparently admitted that she hadn't even read Enstrom's latest report on air pollution. But, based on his 2003 findings that second-hand cigarette smoke doesn't kill people, she said she knows him "for letting his interpretations go beyond the data and his personal biases to be strong enough to not allow for a balanced and appropriately cautious interpretation of the numbers."

It is neither unfair, nor unreasonable to suggest that Enstrom's 2003 study on secondhand smoke was partially responsible for his dismissal; that some petty dictators were simply waiting for an excuse to punish Enstrom for breaking ranks with the anti-smoker element at UCLA and the wider academic community.

I know what you're thinking. Just why in hell should anyone give a rat's ass that some highbrow research scientist got the sack? The political machinations within the scientific community don't mean jack to the man in the street.

Wrong.

Scientific research is increasingly being exploited by special interest groups and politicians as the basis of public policy formation. This is especially true in the case of public health policy. And, if the science isn't open to debate; if legitimate research is dismissed simply because it doesn't conform to popular theory, then society as a whole suffers.

And, if pressure, no matter how subtle, is being applied to researchers to tailor their findings to popular theory as espoused by those with power and influence, then the science becomes corrupted; scientific credibility is diminished.

Bad science results in bad public policy. And that affects everyone. Ask any smoker as he/she stands outside, exposed to the cold and damp, to enjoy a fag.

Back to the bullshit of the anti-smoker cult

2010-08-16T09:54:00.003-04:00

For the past few weeks, I've been enjoying a holiday on Canada's east coast; in case anyone is wondering why I haven't posted to my blog recently.

I'd almost forgotten just how truly beautiful Cape Breton Island is, especially during the height of summer. As one might expect on an island, it's practically impossible to travel for any more than an hour without coming into contact with a large body of water, either the North Atlantic which surrounds the island, or the Bras d' Or Lake which runs through the island's centre. The constant sea breeze makes the summer heat much more bearable than that experienced in Ontario, for example.

And, the natural beauty of the surrounding landscape provided the perfect complement to the meeting and greeting of family and old friends. In addition, the weather co-operated beautifully, adding immensely to the enjoyment of my first visit “home” in eight years.

I spent most of my time at my younger brother's place in the town where I grew up after coming from Scotland well over half a century ago. But, the highlight of the trip was a four day “family reunion”.

My sister-in-law had rented a boy scout camp situated at the base of Kelly's Mountain on the shores of the Bras d' Or. It was an ideal location, centrally situated as a jumping off spot for day trips to just about any tourist attraction on the island, including the Cape Breton Highlands National Park.

Having grown up on the island, I eschewed most of the day trips; the Alexander Graham Bell Museum, the Fortress of Louisburg, the Miners Museum, etc. I was content to sit on the back porch of the bunk house/mess hall and break open the odd beer (Alexander Keith's finest), while puffing away on a Putter's Light (imported from Ontario's First Nations) and shooting the breeze and swapping stories with my siblings and other family members.

The scout camp, in addition to the picturesque setting, had one additional advantage. Isolation. It was a mile or more in any direction to the nearest signs of “civilization”.

In any sizable gathering of family, this can be of great importance, especially when the family members are prone to party with some abandon. And, every night, with the youngsters tucked safely in their beds, we lit up the camp fire, broke out the guitars and yingle sticks, cracked a few brew and partied to the wee hours of the morning.

Perhaps it's a sign of age, but I realized the first night that I would no longer be among the last to leave the smoldering remains of the camp fire. The lying bastard who described old age as the “golden years” deserves a kick in the ass.

And, the trip resulted in an unexpected benefit. Despite gorging myself on an array of fresh sea food and quaffing a significant quantity of pale ale, I somehow managed to shed eight pounds.

I suggested in one of my last posts before heading out to the coast that, if I could get access to a computer, I might continue writing a regular column during my trip. That obviously hasn't happened.

It's not that I didn't have access to a computer. There were over half a dozen laptops, with their little wireless connections to the net, available at any given time. The younger generation can't seem to function without the damn things. So, I could have written an article or two . . . if I'd wanted. But, the truth is, I didn't even bother to read the blogs that usually comment on the upside down world of the anti-smoker.

I was having too good a time to let myself be distracted by the antics of the lunatic fringe.

But, the holiday is over. I'm back in the big city. And, the first blog site I visited on my return was that of anti-smoking activist, Dr. Michael Siegel. He was commenting on a new ordinance enacted by the Middletown (New York) City Council which could make smoking in a park a criminal offense resulting in jail time. Uh-huh.

It's the kind of anti-smoker bullshit that brings the anger bubbling back and makes a man want to start writing letters to the brain dead politicians who pass these ridiculous laws, and posting caustic comments on a blog dedicated to counteracting the propaganda efforts of the the anti-smoker crowd.

So, just a few observations on my visit to the coast.

The anti-smoking laws in Nova Scotia are similar to the rest of Canada, meaning smoking in pubs, clubs and bingo halls is verboten. Sin taxes are more punitive than most provinces, with smokers spending up to $15 in government sponsored extortion for a pack of 25. Fortunately, I paid a visit to Canada's First Nations before heading out to the coast. Forewarned is fore-armed.

Smoking in vehicles carrying minors (anyone less than 19 years of age) is, of course, cause for a fine. I didn't get an answer to my question about what happens to an eighteen year old smoker who is also the driver. Do they charge the driver for subjecting himself to the bogus hazard of secondhand smoke? Or, is the 18 year old driver exempt if his passengers are 19 or older?

I suspect that the scout camp where we spent four days with family was probably considered a public space under the anti-smoker rules. The odd thing was that, despite the fact that there were no “No Smoking” signs in evidence at the camp, and there was no one around to enforce the rules even if signs had been posted, no one lit up indoors.

A testament to common courtesy (and common sense) or the result of the thorough indoctrination by the anti-smoker cult? It's debatable, I suppose.

Although roughly half the adults present were smokers, they confined their smoking to the back porch, or the fire pit. Nor was there any evidence of litter. Butts were placed in two large cans at either end of the porch or thrown into the pit. It was amazing how easily potential conflict between smokers and non-smokers was resolved and made a non-issue.

Of course, we also had a camp free of the bullshit and bafflegab of the anti-smoker zealots..

At any rate, it was a great holiday.

Lung cancer, smoking & statistical chicanery

2010-07-25T16:09:00.012-04:00

The Lung Cancer Alliance (LCA), as noted in my last post, claims the majority (60%) of new lung cancer cases in the US occur among former smokers, with roughly 21% occurring in current smokers and 18% among those who have never smoked. The information is provided in a neat little chart on their website.

I noted in a previous post that the same site claimed that former smokers (45 million) in the US now outnumbered current smokers (40 million), suggesting this was a recent phenomenon in the US. I really didn't give the numbers much thought. If 35% of lung cancer cases occurred in an estimated 21% of the population (smokers), and only 15% among never smokers (55% to 60% of the population), then it still indicated a strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer.

But, these latest figures from LCA gave me pause. The gap between lung cancer cases among current smokers and never smokers appeared to be narrowing as the number among former smokers increased.

And, although the fact that former smokers outnumber current smokers may be a recent phenomenon in the US, (is that possible?) it certainly isn't in Canada. Data from Health Canada's last report on smoking attributable mortality clearly shows that former smokers far outnumber current smokers in every age bracket.

But, Health Canada data doesn't tell us how many current, former or never smokers die from lung cancer. They speak only of smoking attributable deaths and those ostensibly from other causes.

To be sure, extrapolating data from the US to Canada can be a hazardous proposition, as Health Canada found out a couple of year ago. In 2008, they were forced to revise their smoking attributable deaths downwards from roughly 47,000 to 37,000 because the US data they were using was not appropriate for the Canadian population.

Still, I thought it might be interesting to apply the numbers from the Lung Cancer Alliance to the Canadian mortality data from StatCan to see if a reasonable estimate could be made as to the number of lung cancer deaths in each of the three smoker classifications in Canada.

Not surprisingly, applying the Lung Cancer Alliance estimates to the Canadian mortality data paints an entirely different picture than the one presented by Health Canada's smoking attributable mortality figures, as noted in Chart 1.

It's not that the total smoking attributable deaths varied by a huge amount In fact, using the Lung Cancer Alliance percentages actually increases the estimates given by Health Canada by roughly 4%. Of course, the LCA calculations would be reduced somewhat since a small portion of those current and former smokers would be expected to die whether they smoked or not, reflecting the numbers expected in a never smoking population.

But, what was most perplexing was the ratio between deaths among current and former smokers when using the LCA percentages. In fact, those ratios practically eliminated the strong correlation between smoking and lung cancer. The number of lung cancer deaths among current smokers would be only slightly higher than the number among never smokers, despite similar population sizes. Which, in turn, brings into question the anti-smoker claim that “men who are current smokers are 23 times more likely to die of lung cancer than men who have never smoked.”

And, it also suggests that quitting smoking is not the deterrent to lung cancer the anti-smoker crowd claims.

I know what you're thinking. That's ridiculous. But, before dismissing this possibility as unrealistic balderdash, perhaps we should have a look at the smoking attributable mortality report from Health Canada and what it shows.

Almost 99% of all lung cancer deaths in Canada (2002 data) occur after the age of 45. But, at no time after the age of 45 is the percentage of former smokers less than double the number of current smokers. And the ratio between former smokers and current smokers increases cumulatively as the population ages. You may be a smoker for 5, 10 or 20 years, but you're a former smoker for life.

Looking at the male component in the age group between 45 and 59, we see that former smokers already outnumbered current smokers by roughly 2 to 1, as can be seen in Chart 2. In the age group between 60 and 69, where 28% of lung cancer deaths occur, the ratio between former smokers and current smokers is almost 4 to 1. In the age group between 70 and 79, where 36% of lung cancer deaths occur, the ratio is 7 to 1. And, in the age group 80 and over, where 20% of lung cancer deaths occur, the ratio is a whopping 9 former smokers for every current smoker.

The ratios are only slightly less for the female population, ranging from almost 2 to 1 between the ages of 45 and 59 to a high of roughly 6.5 to 1 in the population 80 and over.

Given these high ratios between former and current smokers, is it really unreasonable that former smokers might account for 50% to 60% (and, possibly more) of lung cancer deaths in Canada? Think about it.

In 2002, roughly 56% of lung cancer deaths were among the population aged 70 or older. In that same population, former smokers outnumbered current smokers by at least 7 to 1 for men, over 4 to 1 for women, and in the over 80 crowd, the ratio was 9 to 1, for men and 6.5 to 1 for women.

Common sense would suggest that the vast majority of those deaths occurred among former smokers, many of whom would have quit decades earlier.

So, just what conclusions can be drawn from this highly speculative foray into the maddening world of smoking attributable mortality.

And, the answer is: absolutely none. I'm neither an epidemiologist nor a statistician. And, this little exercise, as previously noted, is highly speculative. It is also postulated on the belief that smoking related statistics are grossly exaggerated and manipulated to the point where they're totally unreliable, which may introduce an element of bias.

But, it sure as hell raises a lot of questions which deserve answers. And, unfortunately, I don't expect that any will be forthcoming from either Health Canada or the rest of the anti-smoker crowd.

Of course, that's just the opinion of a rapidly aging old rambling man.

Anti-smoker funding, yes; lung cancer research, no

2010-07-23T00:22:00.006-04:00

According to an article in the Hamilton Spectator, the stigma attached to lung cancer patients could “seriously impede attention and research funding on the disease”. Dr. James Gowing, a doctor and co-chair of the Cancer Advocacy Coalition of Canada (CACC), noted in the article that: "It [lung cancer] gets 3 per cent of the total research funding for all cancers, and yet it is the No. 1 killer."

The funding disparity can be attributed to a tendency to blame the victims for their disease. Anti-smokers claim that smoking causes 85 percent of lung cancer deaths, so lung cancer generates little public sympathy.

The Lung Cancer Alliance echos the concerns of Dr. Gowing, noting: “Lung cancer kills more women than any other cancer - nearly 200 women each day. Most die within a year of diagnosis. Yet lung cancer remains the “hidden” women’s cancer - little known and rarely discussed. It is the least funded cancer in terms of research dollars per death of all the major cancers, and one of the only cancer where patients are routinely blamed as responsible for their condition.”

To put what the Lung Cancer Alliance is talking about into some context, 62.5% of lung cancers among women were attributed to smoking according to Health Canada's last report on smoking attributable mortality. And, that figure is likely a gross exaggeration. That means that at least 37.5% of lung cancer deaths among Canadian women were caused by something other than smoking. And, there's not a lot of research funding dedicated to finding out what that something might be.

The facts are that massive amounts of funding that might otherwise go into legitimate research on lung cancer is going to anti-smoker campaigns, in the belief that if people will simply stop smoking, then lung cancer can be eradicated.

But, is that a reasonable assumption? Or are anti-smoker estimates of “smoking attributable” deaths obfuscating the true extent of the disease among never smokers and masking other potential causes of lung cancer? Are anti-smoker efforts to link smoking to lung cancer (and every other disease imaginable) siphoning off funds which might be better spent on legitimate research into the other causes and possible treatments of the disease?

The public has been led to believe that smoking is “the” cause of lung cancer. That, if smokers quit, they can escape the ravages of that dread disease. But, there is evidence to suggest this may not be the case.

A Nov. 21, 2008 article in Science Daily, states: “Smoking is the biggest risk factor for developing lung cancer, even after quitting for long periods of time. "More than 50 percent of newly diagnosed lung cancer patients are former smokers," said Emily A. Vucic, a graduate student at the British Columbia Cancer Research Centre, Vancouver, B.C. "Understanding why some former smokers develop lung cancer is clearly important to the development of early detection, prevention and treatment strategies."”

The Lung Cancer Alliance estimates an even higher percentage of former smokers among new cases. A chart on their website claims 60% of new lung cancer cases are former smokers, 20.9% are current smokers and 17.9% are among those who have never smoked. The remaining 1.2% presumably represents the fraction for which smoking status was unknown.

The fact that the overwhelming majority of new cases of lung cancer are among former smokers may be an indication that smoking attributable deaths are grossly exaggerated in that segment of the population.

A former smoker is defined as someone who has smoked more than 100 cigarettes in his or her lifetime and who has not smoked within the past year. This means that old John, who smoked ten a day the summer he worked on Uncle Matt's farm 30 years ago, is considered a former smoker. And, should he contract lung cancer, he will become a smoking attributed death, despite the fact that he quit 30 years ago, after only a brief fling with the demon weed.

But, is it really reasonable to assume that, because he smoked a carton or two of Player's Filter thirty years ago, that smoking “caused” his lung cancer? Is it reasonable to assume that an individual who smoked a pack a day during his freshman year at college before quitting has the same risk of developing lung cancer (or any other cancer, for that matter) than someone who has smoked a pack a day for fifty years? For, it is those assumptions on which smoking attributable mortality statistics are based.

And, if those aren't reasonable assumptions, then shouldn't some research be dedicated to finding out the real cause of those lung cancers?

Shouldn't some research funding go to finding out what caused the 22% of lung cancer deaths in Canada which are not attributed to smoking? According to Dr. Ping Yang, M.D., Ph.D., a Mayo Clinic genetic epidemiologist, 30% to 40% of lung cancers in Asian countries are among never smokers. Something other than smoking is obviously causing those deaths. Shouldn't someone be trying to find out what?

In a study titled “Lung Cancer Incidence in Never Smokers” by Heather A. Wakelee et al, it is noted that: “Clinical observations suggest that the percentage of never smokers among lung cancer patients may be increasing; however, it is unclear whether this apparent trend represents an increase in lung cancer incidence among never smokers or the increasing prevalence of never smokers in the general population. The growing number of never smokers in the United States and other countries underscores the importance of understanding the epidemiology and biology underlying lung cancer in this population.”

The anti-smoker brigade is waging a moral crusade against smokers. Any public health benefits which may accrue from their denormalization campaign is purely coincidental. They want the public to believe they've already found both the cause and the cure of lung cancer. Any evidence to the contrary is unwelcome news.

But, consider the facts. After four decades of anti-smoker activism, the number of lung cancer deaths in Canada continues to climb. Maybe it's time that someone with the expertise took a more critical look at those smoking attributable death statistics and what they may be hiding.

I'll continue this ramble in my next post. Hopefully, I'll be able to access a computer somewhere on Canada's east coast where I plan to spend the next few weeks.

The strange world of the anti-smoker

2010-07-13T09:24:00.005-04:00

Surfing the web looking for new and interesting perspectives on the antics of the anti-smoker crowd can be depressing at times. The mind can handle only so much bullshit and bafflegab before shutting down in self defense. That's why it's such a break to come across more off beat news stories related to smoking.

For example, the Georgia man who broke out of jail, broke into a convenience store and stole fourteen cartons of cigarettes, then tried to break into jail again. No one should have to endure that kind of nicotine fit.

The obsessed anti-smoker
According to austriantimes dot at, an obsessed anti-smoker (is there any other kind?) dangled his neighbour from a third floor apartment balcony when the neighbour refused to put out his cigarette. Quipped a police spokesman: "The smoker dismissed the idea that smoking was bad for the health - it seems the anti-smoker had other ideas and wanted to prove a point."

Let's face it, this type of behaviour is totally unacceptable. The anti-smoker fanatics should stick to water-boarding and sensory deprivation.

Charging young people with possession
A proposal to make it illegal for youngsters to use or possess tobacco in Nebraska is being supported by both the American Cancer Society and Reynolds American. Uh-huh. Even the tobacco companies have jumped into bed with the anti-smoker zealots. Of course, that can only mean one thing; smokers are about to get screwed.

Under a bill introduced by State Senator, Arnie Stuthman, youngsters under age 18 could be charged with infractions for using or possessing cigarettes or other tobacco products. The penalty for a first violation would be a $100 fine. A second violation within two years would be $200 and a third violation in that time period would be $300. The bill doesn't stipulate what happens to the kids if mom and dad refuse to pay the fine.

Kids charged under the proposed law could get themselves out of trouble by providing evidence against the people who sold or gave them the tobacco. Uh-huh. Don't worry kid. Your mother/father/brother will be out in no time. Just tell us what we need to know and you can walk away a free boy.

Calling Sherlock Holmes
The body of a man found dead from smoke inhalation following a fire in a townhouse complex was sitting in a classic yoga position. Police were baffled by the positioning of the body, but believe the fire may have been caused by a cigarette smouldering on the bed's mattress, which was covered by an electric blanket. Uh-huh.

So the guy lights up a fag, drops it on the bed and assumes the lotus position for a little quiet contemplation. He goes into a trance so deep he doesn't realize the bed is on fire and he wakes up dead, er . . . he's dead before he wakes up. Just another smoking related death.

It will be interesting to see what the Coroner's Inquest comes up with for this one. Assuming of course they have such things down under. Maybe they'll be able to answer a few questions. Was the electric blanket plugged in? And, just what the fuck was in that cigarette?

Police said that the fire was not suspicious. Huh?

Fake tobacco smells
Anti-smokers, and even some non-smokers, find the smell of burning tobacco offensive. But some smokers in the Netherlands apparently miss the odour of the evil weed. Who wants to wake up and smell the coffee if its not mingled with the unmistakeable aroma of good tobacco. Coffee without the fag is just not natural.

Which may be why Rain Showtechniek, a Dutch company, now sells fake cigarette smells to Dutch bars and cafes. Company spokesman, Erwin van den Bergh, says: "People find that smells such as Mocha coffee, Havana cigars or cigarettes can be about good moods and different ideas of living well.”

Van den Bergh also suggests there are other good reasons to use the fake smells, like to mask the reek of sweat and stale Beer.

I wonder if the stuff is available through mail order. There's an anti-smoker fanatic at the local Legion who would make an ideal candidate for a practical joke. I could smear her favourite chair with the fake smell and watch her work herself into a frenzy trying to figure out what lout had the audacity to light up and foul her airspace.

Customers desert smoke-free restaurant
The Chinese have the world's highest rate of smoking prevalence. A state owned company has a virtual monopoly on the tobacco trade. Prior to the Olympics held in that city a year or so back,. Beijing authorities had written to 30,000 restaurants asking them to voluntarily put smoking bans in place. There were apparently no takers.

Well, OK, there was one. Meizhou Dongpo, a restaurant chain serving the spicy fare of southwest Sichuan province, apparently lost about 80 percent of its clientele after going smoke free in October, 2008.

"We figure that if we're going to die, at least we're going to die honorably," Guo Xiaodong, deputy director of the restaurant chain, was quoted as saying in a Reuters article.

I guess no one told them about the need for a “level playing field” before going smoke free.

Pig’s blood in cigarette filters?
A recent study in the Netherlands reports it has identified 185 different industrial uses of a pig, including the use of its haemoglobin in cigarette filters.

According to the Money Times: “During the course of the research, at least one cigarette brand sold in Greece was confirmed streamlined with pig’s blood to make the product fairly effective in blocking harmful chemicals before they could enter a smoker's lungs, said Simon Chapman, University of Sydney Professor in Public Health.”

Chapman fears the findings could be problematic for Muslims, Jews and vegetarians who refrain from pork consumption due to religious beliefs.

The Greek cigarette brand in question was not identified.