Bad public policy, plus the law of unintended consequences, can often lead to inadvertent scenes of jocularity.
For example, a cop stands at the side of the road writing up a ticket. A 20 year old driver has just been “busted” for smoking in a car with a minor under the age of 16 present. The law under which the driver is being charged was supposed to protect minors from the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke. But, while the cop writes up the ticket, the passenger, a 15 year old girl, gets out of the car and legally lights up a cigarette.
It was a bizarre situation. One MPP (Member of the Provincial Parliament) claimed it was simply a “glitch” in the law that should be corrected. Uh-huh.
The amendment to the Smoke Free Ontario Act, known as Bill 69, was originally scheduled for the fall session of the Legislature in October, 2008. But pressure from anti-smoker groups forced the Liberals to deal with the issue earlier by creating a sense of urgency; the same anti-smoker groups which comprised the OTN and OCAT, whose campaign was being funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion.
"Every day that goes by, there are people smoking in cars with kids," said George Habib, president of the Ontario Lung Association. Janice Willett, head of the Ontario Medical Association, said Ontario can't afford to drag its heels on the issue; “protecting children's health should be a top priority.”
The point is that, although these organizations should be free to petition the government for redress of any grievance they may have, their activities should not be funded with taxpayer dollars. And, the government should not rely solely on these organizations to formulate public policy.
But, that appears to be exactly what happened.
During debate in the Legislature, Dave Orazietti, who sponsored the amendment, rose to thank the various organizations for their help and support. Orazietti acknowledged that he had been “working with these stakeholders” for over a year. He did so without mentioning OTN or the fact that they were funded by the Ministry of Health Promotion.
Said Orazietti: “Clearly, public opinion on this and research that has been provided by many of the organizations I previously mentioned have been key in bringing to light the very severe and negative effects that individuals and young people experience in an automobile while tobacco products are being used.”
So, OTN was formed in 2000 by several of these organizations. They were funded by the Ministry for seven years. They conducted the research, lobbied individual members of the Legislature and shaped public opinion. The public was provided with only one side of the debate, which, for all intents and purposes, was over before it started.
The campaign of the OTN, conducted on taxpayer dime, became public policy.
The debate on the issue in the Legislature was farcical. One after another, with few exceptions, MPP’s from all parties rose in the Legislature to support Bill 69. And, it’s pretty clear from reading Hansard (written account of proceedings in the legislature) that protecting the children was not the only thing on the minds of the legislators.
France Gélinas (NDP) wanted an amendment to the legislation that would make the cut-off age 19, raising the spectre of an 18 year old driver being ticketed for smoking in a vehicle in which he was the sole occupant. Another amendment proposed by Ms. Gélinas was that the law be turned into “a health promotion vehicle”. Drivers would be given the option of paying the fine or taking smoking cessation classes.
And, perhaps Ms. Gélinas was anticipating the invention of third hand smoke when she said: “Also, second-hand smoke is absorbed into car furnishings and later let off as gases. We know that stale smoke is even more toxic than fresh cigarette smoke.” OK, maybe the ranting of the “stakeholders” in the OTN and OCAT influenced her judgment.
And just what other "very severe and negative effects" were brought to light by the OTN and individual member organizations.
Well, during the debate, Dave Orazietti provided some evidence that he had perhaps spent too much time listening to OTN propaganda. Said Orazietti; “Exposure to second-hand smoke in a car for an hour for a child is the equivalent of a child smoking between 17 and 35 cigarettes.”
He emphasized, “[t]'s the equivalent of a child smoking, in an hour, 17 to 35 cigarettes”, noting “the average child in Ontario spends 50 minutes a day in an automobile.” Bullshit and bafflegab.
The few MPPs who dared question the need for Bill 69 were heckled and jeered; dissent was not to be tolerated. The intrusion on personal liberty and parental autonomy was never considered. No one was prepared to oppose a measure designed to “protect the kids.”
Admittedly, I haven’t read the entire debate on this issue. But, from what I have read, the anti-smoker cult is leading our politicians around by the nose. The public record is full of the same gross exaggerations and distortions of science being touted by the “stakeholders”; the anti-smoker extremists.
Smokers are being openly discriminated against in areas such as employment, housing and medical care.
The government provides funding to lobby groups to conduct their de-normalization campaigns. The lobby groups demand the government impose draconian bans to further ostracize smokers. And, the smokers themselves are expected to foot the bill, in the form of confiscatory tobacco taxes.
To hell with them and the horse they rode in on. This is one smoking taxpayer who won’t pay their extortion while being relegated to the status of second class citizen. It’s the least I can do to preserve freedom and democracy.
Read part of the March 12, 2008 “Debate” in Hansard.
In 2006, Dalton McGuinty and his Liberals passed the Smoke Free Ontario Act. The Act banned smoking in all public places including bars, casinos and restaurants.
On Feb. 7, 2007, Premier McGuinty said making it illegal for parents to smoke in a car with their kids was a slippery slope that could infringe on people's rights.
An article in the Canadian Press noted that McGuinty wasn’t interested in banning smoking in cars carrying children under the age of 16. “If the province bans smoking in cars with kids”, McGuinty said, “banning smoking in houses and apartment buildings could be next”.
A year later, on Feb. 27, 2008, in an article in the Toronto Star, McGuinty had a change of heart and changed his mind, saying: "I've committed to them to take a second look at it."
McGuinty was referring to a private member’s bill introduced in the Ontario Legislature in October, 2007 by Liberal backbencher Dave Orazietti to ban smoking in cars carrying minors under the age of 16. The bill was strongly supported by Ontario’s Minister of Health Promotion, Margaret Best. McGuinty claimed he was being lobbied heavily by Best and Orazietti to support the bill.
"We have heard from Ontarians on this issue and we are taking decisive action," said Best. "The proposed ban is the next logical step in our efforts to protect Ontarians from the dangers of tobacco use." A slip of the tongue perhaps; the bill was publicly touted as a means to protect children from the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke, not to protect smokers from themselves.
The ban was approved on June 16, 2008, and became effective January 21, 2009 (Weedless Wednesday).
None of the three, McGuinty, Orazietti or Best, mentioned that the impetus for the ban legislation came from the Ontario Tobacco-free Network (OTN) which was funded by . . . the Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion.
OTN was created in 2000 as a provincial interagency network consisting of the Canadian Cancer Society, Ontario Division (CCS), the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario (HSFO) and The Lung Association (TLA). Their website claims the Ministry provided the funding while the three member organizations plus the Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco (OCAT) provided “support in kind”.
The three “charity” organizations are the same organizations forming the principal membership of OCAT.
OCAT was formed in 1992 by five leading anti-smoker organizations; The Canadian Cancer Society Ontario Division, The Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario, The Non-Smokers' Rights Association, The Ontario Lung Association and The Ontario Medical Association. Its purpose was to secure passage of Ontario's Tobacco Control Act (TCA) which evolved into the Smoke Free Ontario Act.
The OTN mandate was to lobby for the introduction of bans on tobacco displays (power walls), smoking in cars transporting minors under the age of 16 and smoking in multi-units apartments buildings. The OTN website says: “While the founding partners remain committed to their ongoing tobacco control work, the OTN has achieved its mandate and with a sense of accomplishment closed its operations on July 31, 2008.”
So, McGuinty publicly anguishes over the possible infringement of people’s rights. But, quietly, behind the scenes, his Ministry of Health Promotion was funding a specially created lobby group to pressure both him and his government into passing the very legislation which was ostensibly causing him so much concern.
The OTN was, in fact, the equivalent of a posse of hired guns, bought and paid for by the provincial government to lobby itself (the provincial government) and put the screws to a sizeable minority (20%) of its citizens. And worse, the bulk of the evidence on which the politicians relied to support the various bans was also provided by these same organizations.
Public policy was, and is, being formed, not by elected government officials, but by activist groups and lobbyists with access to those government officials. These non-governmental organizations bring considerable influence to bear on government to legislate conditions they deem necessary to advance their cause; de-normalizatising, degrading and demeaning smokers.
And, they’re doing it with tax-payer dollars; tens of millions of taxpayer dollars. And, at the very least, 20% of those taxpayer dollars are provided by the targets of the anti-smoker de-normalization campaign; smokers. (In all likelihood, smokers provided all the funding for OTN activities through the usurious levels of taxation placed on tobacco products by senior levels of government.)
And, what should also be troubling to all Ontario taxpayers, smokers in particular, is the contention of the OTN that it had “achieved its mandate”. Two of their objectives have met with success; the ban on cigarette displays and the ban on smoking in cars transporting minors in cars.
One initiative, however, remains unresolved, at least to the satisfaction of the anti-smoker cult. The OTN also had a ban on smoking in multi-unit dwellings on their wish list. Or maybe they have inside information which has not yet been made known to the public.
Is this the year McGuinty changes his mind about smoking in the privacy of your own home?
The OTN website will remain active until at least March 31, 2009.
Are reporters being duped by publicity hungry researchers in public health, or are they deliberately disseminating misinformation to an unwitting public?
Unfortunately, the facts support the latter proposition; that the press has assumed a role as the propaganda arm of the anti-smoker cult. A preponderance of the evidence points to the complicity of the press and other mainstream media in the distribution of misinformation, calculatingly designed to deceive the public.
George Bush stumbled over the old saw that says: “Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.” The press has completely ignored that admonition. And, since they continue to be fooled by the same shoddy science and biased research, one can only assume they are duplicitous in its distribution to the public.
Let’s look at one example.
In April, 2003, researchers issued a press release touting a study, funded by the National Cancer Institute, which claimed that a smoking ban in Helena, Montana had cut the heart attack rate by 60%. The press jumped all over the story. The study was promoted as conslusive evidence that smoke-free policies not only protected people from the dangers of secondhand smoke in the long term, but had an immediate positive effect and reduced heart attacks.
The problem was that the study had never been peer reviewed or published in any reputable medical journal. In other words, no one was given an opportunity to evaluate the data to see if they supported the claims being made by the researchers.
When the study was eventually peer reviewed and published a year later, the flaws became all too apparent. The data and the methodology simply didn’t support the conclusions reached by the authors.
But, the public had already been led to believe that “science” had “proven” that smoking bans could reduce heart attacks in the short term. The press, seemingly, had reported the story directly from the press release, without corroborating the data, totally ignoring the fact that the study had been neither peer reviewed, nor published.
The press had been fooled. Copycat studies began cropping up on a regular basis. Following the same procedure as the Helena study, in a process that has come to be known as “science by press release”, each new study was released to the press prior to peer review or publication. Pueblo, Colorado; Bowling Green, Ohio; Scotland, Ireland and France.
And, by the time the data was made public and found to be a lot less than convincing, the damage had already been done. The initial press coverage ensured the public was left with the erroneous impression that smoking bans were saving lives and therefore worth the intrusion on personal liberties which they represented.
The conclusions presented in the Helena study were incorrect, as were the others. But, with the help of the press, anti-smoker crusaders were free to milk the deficient studies for their propaganda value until the flaws were detected. Studies later found to be flawed are seldom reported in the papers.
The press was fooled not once, not twice, but many times over. Or, perhaps, they were simply reluctant to let the facts get in the way of a good story. In either case, the public was misled.
Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at Boston University and himself an antismoking activist, has referred to “science by press release” as “the new Tobacco Control approach to disseminating junk science”. (September 11, 2007)
A study in Scotland had drawn the same conclusions as the Helena study. A press release was issued prior to peer review or publication. Just like in Helena, the press covered the story without substantiating the underlying data. And, just like Helena, the study was shown to be sadly lacking.
Author Christopher Snowdon does a thorough analysis of Scotland’s Miracle Study on his web site.
Recently, Dr. Siegel, who is also critical of the study, challenged anti-smoking groups to publicize the two-year follow-up results of trends in heart attacks or acute coronary syndrome in Scotland since the smoking ban went into effect. He is offering the first group to do so a $200 donation to their organization. (December 02, 2008)
He is unconcerned about possibly of paying out the $200 donation. He notes in his December 2 article: “Because as I have learned, these anti-smoking groups aren't truly interested in getting out the facts. They are interested in putting out information which is favorable to their cause. The goal is not scientific accuracy or integrity. It is putting out information to support the agenda.”
Pretty tough words. But, the press appears to be quite willing to act as the unofficial Propaganda Ministry of the anti-smoker cultists. Scientific credibility and integrity have been usurped by bullshit and bafflegab.
That’s not a healthy situation for any true democracy. Late news:
In a pre-emptive strike against science by press release, Christopher Snowdon (Velvet Glove, Iron Fist) has recently analyzed data from England relating to heart attack admissions following the implementation of their smoking ban in 2007. The smoking ban had no effect on England's heart attack rate, casting even more doubt on the already suspect studies from Helena, Pueblo, Scotland, etc.
Is scientific research losing all credibility? Are we really supposed to take seriously the proliferation of “scientific studies” that seem to crop up on a regular basis? Is the press to blame for a growing skepticism of “the science” behind the seemingly endless array of public health hazards?
A few weeks back, the buzz was about a “study” ostensibly showing that something dubbed third hand smoke was dangerous to kids. The authors of the study were trying to convince people that tobacco smoke residue settling on the floor and furniture was a serious health hazard. Some toddlers apparently lick the floors, eat the furniture and thus consume copious quantities of arsenic and cyanide.
Within days of publication of the study, one “Ask The Doctor” type on the internet was advising parents to have Granny and Grandpa shower and change their clothes after smoking, before allowing them to give their grandchildren a hug.
Newspapers across the country reported on the alleged hazards of the newly invented third hand smoke as if it were the biggest threat to mankind since the bubonic plague. It was one of the most egregious examples of irresponsible, fear-mongering journalism to come down the pike in many years.
Yet, incredibly, there isn’t a single shred of evidence showing that so-called “third hand smoke” is a significant health hazard to children of any age.
The third hand smoke scare generated by biased researchers and a complacent press didn’t last long. Mention the term “third hand smoke” today, less than a month after the public proclamation of its deadly affects, and all but the most zealous anti-smokers will break into a grin. Even the more ardent anti-smoker crusaders eschew the term, referring to it instead as “room aged smoke”.
But, if the third hand smoke study strained credibility, what are we to make of the newest “scientific study” which ABC greeted with the headline: “ Living near fast food ups stroke risk .” Uh-huh. A new study reports that people just living in neighbourhoods where fast food restaurants are plentiful may have a higher risk of stroke than those living in neighbourhoods with fewer fast food joints.
Apparently, the relative risk is 13% greater in areas with 33 fast food restaurants or more. And for each additional fast food joint in the neighborhood, the chance of stroke is increased by 1 percent. The research study was presented at the International Stroke Conference in San Diego.
But, what exactly does the study prove? Does it show that eating too many burgers increases the risk of stroke?
Well, no. Dr. Lewis Morgenstern, lead author of the study, explains: "I can't tell you that anybody who had a stroke in this study has ever had a burger in their lives. But I can tell you that these neighborhoods on the whole have factors that increase the risk of stroke."
Well, then, does the study show that living near a fast food restaurant is the cause of strokes?
Well, no. Not, exactly. The headline, “Living Near Fast Food Ups Stroke Risk”, turns out to be somewhat, er . . . misleading. (As Gomer Pyle might have said: “Surprise. Surprise. Surprise.”)
The “scientific study” is actually pure speculation by a group of researchers with too much time (and money) on their hands. Their logic runs like this.
E-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y knows that eating fast foods can lead to obesity. A profusion of fast food joints in any given neighbourhood might encourage people to make poor dietary choices and eat more fast foods with high-fat, high-salt content which may contribute to obesity. Obesity, in turn, may increase the risk of stroke.
Therefore, living close to a fast food restaurant may increase the risk of stroke. Quad erat demonstratum.
And, if you buy into this bullshit and bafflegab, please get in touch with me before you spend another dime. I still have several oceanfront properties available in the Alberta badlands.
Frankly, I think funding for scientific research could be better spent on solving the more important mysteries of the universe. So, here are some ideas for “scientific studies” by researchers with too much time and money on their hands.
How many square feet of third hand smoke contaminated floor would a toddler have to lick to ingest as much arsenic as can be found in a glass of plain, ordinary tap water?
Is there an association between hugs from a smoking Grandma or Grandpa and childhood deaths from hydrogen cyanide poisoning? Is there a definitive dose/response relationship? Will keeping grandkids at a distance and blowing kisses mitigate any hazards?
Is the relative risk of stroke greater for those living near McDonald’s, Wendy’s or Burger King?
Is Gomer Pyle a real person or is he, like the lung cancer/heart disease risk from secondhand smoke, a figment of someone’s over-active imagination.
Additional reading: Living near fast food joints can kill
Bad public policy, plus the law of unintended consequences, can often lead to inadvertent scenes of jocularity.
