“Yep. It’s getting pretty sad these days. Can’t even get on a elevator without someb’dy killin’ ya.”
The old guy sat down next to me on the rustic old bench where I was waiting for a streetcar to take me downtown. He appeared to be a lonely old chap, but he was clean shaven and well-dressed and I’ve never been averse to casual conversation, even with strangers.
“Excuse me?” I queried, not sure what he was referring to.
“Woman got herself killed t’other day. Oh, yeah,” he said, with a toothless grin. “Happened downtown, it did. Some poor woman got on the elevator with one a them smoker fellas and the mis’rable bastard breathed on her. Killed ‘er dead, he did, just like that.” He finished, snapping his fingers for emphasis.
“Yep. Third hand smoke is what done it. Only young she was too.” The old man shook his head in dismay, then continued, “Somethin’ ought’a be done about them smokers, that’s for sure. Foul, smelly bast . . . “
He stopped mid sentence, his eyes bulging like saucers, as I withdrew the pack of Putters Lights from my shirt pocket. Sweat was already beading on his forehead as I extracted a fag from the blue and white pack. He was visibly trembling when I put the fag between my lips and brought out my trusty Zippo.
“Ah, geez don’t do it, mister. Don't light it.” He groveled, “I’m sorry. I didn’t mean nuttin’ by it. I don’t wanna get dead.” Then, terrified and next to tears, he turned and ran for his life.
I flicked open the Zippo and brought the open flame to the end of my fag. ‘Why is he running?’ I thought to myself. He’s got at least 20 minutes before my secondhand smoke turns to third hand smoke and causes him to keel over.
A new “scientific study” by Dr. Jonathan Winickoff , warns the public that third hand smoke is hazardous to the health of both adults and children, but mostly children. In another week or two, the anti-smoker crowd will have people believing something called third hand smoke kills not only babies, but houseplants, household pets and all manner of living things.
By the end of the month, third hand smoke will be a bigger threat to humanity than atomic weapons. OK. OK. Maybe not as big as the atom bomb, but big. For sure, it will be even more deadly than secondhand smoke which is, in turn, more hazardous than first hand smoke.
And, e-v-e-r-y-b-o-d-y knows first hand smoke is very deadly stuff. Just ask anybody in the anti-smoker brigade. They’ll tell you. After all, that’s what started this whole nightmare.
Of course, as it turns out, the study wasn’t really a study, it was a telephone poll. And the hazards of third hand smoke weren’t really studied. What was studied was what people thought about third hand smoke. And, the truth be known, they didn’t really ask about third hand smoke per se, because they hadn’t invented it yet. So they just asked people if someone smoking in a room today would hurt you tomorrow. Or was it, if someone smoked in a room yesterday, could it hurt you today. No matter, it was something like that.
But, if that’s not confusing enough for you, third hand smoke, as it turns out, isn’t really smoke at all, it’s tobacco residue left over after the smoke is gone. Of course, after the smoke is gone it can’t really be called third hand smoke, because it’s not . . . smoke that is.
Dammit, now they’ve got me confused.
At any rate, due to the potential health hazards of young children eating, licking or absorbing infinitesimally small trace amounts of this solidified, once-upon-a-time secondhand smoke, tobacco contamination, anti smoker crusaders are now free to push government to ban smokers from all public and private spaces. Yes. Smokers. Did you expect them to ban cigarettes?
According to Winickoff: “For people who smoke, this is another important piece of factual evidence for them to attempt to quit smoking.” Uh-huh.
Factual? I think I may be sick.
For the real story behind this lapse into insanity, check out the article by Christopher Snowdon on Velvet Glove Iron Fist
“A new study says third-hand smoke may be dangerous.” – Toronto Star
Unfortunately for the fear-mongering, anti-smoker zealots at the Star, the “study” says nothing of the kind. The study turns out to be a phone poll on the attitudes and beliefs of the public as it pertains to the newly-coined phrase “third hand smoke”.
No conclusion on the toxicity, or even the existence, of third hand smoke was forthcoming from the poll.
In fact, Stanton Glantz, of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education at U of C, San Francisco said yesterday in an interview with Scientific American that he is not aware of any studies directly linking third-hand smoke to disease.
The lack of any balance in the inflammatory outburst by Stuart Laidlaw in the Star article suggests he may have written the piece directly from the press release, without taking the time to read the actual study. Laidlaw should at least make an effort to control his anti-smoker bigotry if he wants to maintain any credibility.
The discussion section of the alleged study points out the real purpose of this survey: “This novel finding is important because the thirdhand smoke concept could easily be incorporated into current and future tobacco counseling messages, tobacco control programs, policy initiatives, and guidelines.”
In simpler terms, the contents of the survey should be milked for its propaganda value in the continued persecution of smokers. The science is unimportant.
Dr. Michael Siegel, wrote on his blog yesterday: “The tobacco control movement's warnings to the public about the dangers of thirdhand smoke highlight once again that science is no longer driving the movement. Tobacco control practitioners are warning parents that even if they smoke outside the home, leaving a coat hanging on a door is going to expose their children to toxins and harm them due to offgassing of vapors from particulate matter that has settled on the coat during smoking. Yet there is no evidence that such very low levels of exposure to tobacco smoke residue constituents is harmful”.
Siegel is a well known anti-smoking advocate, an MD and a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University School of Public Health.
What Stuart Laidlaw and the Star refer to as a study, is little more than an exercise in propaganda by Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, lead author of the study and an assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School.
Laidlaw claims in his article that: “Researchers have found that third-hand smoke containing heavy metals, carcinogens and even radioactive materials lingers long after second-hand smoke has dissipated, and can be ingested by children crawling around a room.”
What researchers? Where is his proof that “researchers” have found third hand smoke to be hazardous, for that is the clear implication of his statement? Winickoff is quoted in the article as saying: "This is the first scientific study to use the term."
And, remember, such notables in the field of tobacco control as Siegel and Glantz say there is no scientific evidence to support the concept of health hazards from third hand smoke.
Winickoff’s survey is driven by the need to maintain pressure on smokers; to vilify those who choose to smoke in the eyes of the public and force them to quit.
Winickoff says: “Third-hand smoke is what one smells when a smoker gets in an elevator after going outside for a cigarette or in a hotel room where people were smoking. Your nose isn’t lying, The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: ’Get away.’”
I would add: “But, only if your brain is the size of a pea.”
Smoking is a serious public health issue. Wild exaggerations and deceptive “scientific studies” contribute nothing to the debate. Neither do sensational headlines and misleading articles in the press.
Disseminating such propaganda to the public is irresponsible journalism.
Angeline Webb, of the Canadian Cancer Society, is proclaiming a victory in the war on smokers. Ms. Webb claims Alberta’s Tobacco Reduction Act, banning smoking in all public places and workplaces, is having the desired effect and forcing smokers to quit.
She was reacting to the latest government fiscal data from Alberta, indicating a drop of $50 million in provincial tobacco tax revenue. The 5.6% drop in revenue may, or may not, be indicative of a decline in smoker prevalence. But, apparently, Ms. Webb sees this as evidence Alberta smokers are on the run . . . to the nearest drug store for the nicotine patch or a pack of that foul tasting gum.
Obviously, she hasn’t given much thought to the alternative explanation. And, there is an alternative explanation. Maybe the constant rise in tobacco taxes has finally reached critical mass and Albertans are running in the other direction; to the nearest dealer in contraband tobacco.
Over the past three years, Alberta’s tobacco tax revenue has increased annually; from $697 million in 2004/2005 to $890 million in 2007/2008. The constant increase in sin taxes on smokes makes Alberta’s one of the highest in the country, including Ontario. And, as might be expected, they have the highest price per pack in Canada.
By contrast, Ontario reached it highest level of tobacco tax in 2004/2005 when it extorted 1.45 billion dollars from smokers. According to figures provided by Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada (PSC), the amount collected in 2007/2008 had dropped to 1.22 billion. And, tobacco tax revenue in Ontario is in freefall.
But, no one in Ontari-ari-ari-o is proclaiming a victory for anyone but the smugglers and dealers in contraband tobacco products. Current estimates for contraband sales of tobacco in Ontario go as high as 50% of total tobacco sales.
Smoking prevalence in the province has remained stagnant for the past three years, as it has nation wide, suggesting something besides smokers kicking the habit is responsible for the declining tax revenues. In Ontario and Quebec, there is little confusion as to what that something might be.
Meanwhile, back in August, Michael Platt of the Calgary Sun reported on the latest smoking prevalence numbers by saying: “One-in-five Canadians smoked in 2005 and one-in-five Canadians smoke now. All indications suggest there will be one-in-five Canadians smoking three years from now, too. The survey shows the number of teens who smoke regularly isn't dropping, either”.
Rob Cunningham, of the Canadian Cancer Society, his vision apparently obscured by the blinkers mandated for anti-smoker crusaders, was recommending higher sin taxes to deal with the problem. "The Alberta government should move swiftly to increase tobacco taxes." Uh-huh.
That’ll solve the problem. Increase the profit margin for the distributors of contraband tobacco. It will help defray the costs of transporting black market smokes the roughly 1700 miles from source in Southern Ontario to new markets in Calgary. It will even make counterfeit smokes from China and South America, imported illegally through ports in British Columbia, more profitable.
Obviously the Canadian Cancer Society believes Alberta is different from the rest of Canada; not subject to the lure of cheap (tax-free) tobacco. But, if they don’t think that contraband tobacco is responsible for the biggest part of the decline in Alberta’s tobacco tax revenue, they’re dreaming in Technicolor. Or maybe they’ve just got their heads buried deeper in the sand than most Canadians. At any rate, Ms. Webb and the Canadian Cancer Society were patting themselves on the back for their contribution to what they believe to be a decline in smoking prevalence. On the other hand, Premier Ed Stelmach was whining about the “hefty deficit” faced by the provincial health department. A deficit estimated to be somewhere around 1.3 billion dollars.
That’s obviously bad news for the folks in Alberta. The government now has to find ways of generating revenue (or cutting costs) for health care. Increased sin taxes on tobacco won’t work; people will either quit or, more likely, switch to contraband. So they’ll have to find some other product to demonize and tax to death. Any bets on what may be next?
And, just in case the anti-smoker fanatics succeed in eliminating smokers from Canadian society, I wonder what contingency plans the government has to replace the billions in tax revenue now generated by smokers? No, Virginia, the savings in direct health care costs won’t offset the loss in tax revenue.
What’s that word again? Paradox?
High tobacco taxes are touted as the most effective means of reducing demand for tobacco products. In theory, increasing cost will force smokers to quit. And, also according to theory, higher taxes have the added advantage of putting the cost of cigarettes beyond the reach of teenage budgets, meaning fewer teens will be inclined to start smoking.
But theory is one thing; the reality, of course, is something completely different.
Ask the anti-smoker zealots why they aren’t pushing for all out prohibition and they’ll tell you it’s simply not an option. They’ll point to the lessons learned from the American prohibition of alcohol from 1920 to 1933. They’ll admit that the resulting lawlessness and violence is unacceptable. They know that the public would be no more inclined to support tobacco prohibition today than they were the prohibition of alcohol in the twenties and thirties.
And, yet they continue to push for piecemeal prohibition which is creating the exact same problems. Physicians for a Smoke-free Canada, the Non-Smokers Rights Association and a host of other charter members of the anti-smoker brigade, insist that prohibitive levels of taxation are the most valuable weapon in their arsenal to force smokers to quit.
They point out to recalcitrant politicians that Canada has an obligation, as a party to the FCTC (Framework Convention on Tobacco Control), to implement tax policies that promote “national health objectives.” Unfortunately, the WHO (World Health Organization), responsible for the treaty, doesn’t have to suffer the consequences stemming from the usurious levels of taxation imposed on tobacco users; Canadians do
The fact, which politicians of all stripes seem determined to ignore, is that high cigarette taxes have already created a thriving black market and a massive loss of tax revenue as smokers grow weary of paying the extortion demanded by their government.
It’s not that the problem of contraband was unexpected. Both politicians and the public should have been aware of the detrimental consequences of excessive taxation. The government was warned by law enforcement years ago that increasing tobacco taxes beyond a reasonable level would lead to a black market that would be both costly and very difficult to bring under control. Those warnings were ignored.
Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada estimate that contraband represented 40% of tobacco sales in Ontario in 2007. The most recent estimates suggest that contraband is almost 50% of the Ontario market. Governments are losing billions in tax revenue and the problem of contraband is beginning to spread across the country.
And, is it any wonder?
In 2004, the cost of manufacturing a carton of cigarettes (value brand) in Ontario was $12.53. That includes distribution, and profits at both the wholesale and retail level. Tax from various levels of government was $42.93. That’s 78% of the total cost of a carton of cigarettes. And, the average cost doesn’t include PST or the 2006 increase in provincial tobacco tax.
And, it was government, pressured by the anti-smoker lobby, which raised taxes to such punitive levels. It was government which created the huge profits to be harvested from the trade in contraband tobacco. And, it is government who must ultimately bear responsibility for the adverse consequences of this misguided tax policy.
Anti-smokers point to Canada’s First Nations as if they were responsible, demanding authorities increase enforcement efforts to get contraband off the streets.
But, by concentrating only on First Nations, they demonstrate that they have no real grasp of the problem and its costs. For example, Canada has become a lucrative market for counterfeit tobacco products; manufactured offshore, imported illegally and sold on the country’s growing black market. According to the RCMP, these counterfeit products originate primarily in China and South America.
Imperial Tobacco, Canada’s leading tobacco manufacturer, reports an alarming increase in theft of legal cigarettes, which then make their way onto the black market. Imperial Tobacco’s web site points out that in 2004, there were 17 times as many thefts as there were in 2003. Millions of dollars worth of cigarettes, millions of dollars in profits created for criminal elements as a direct result of punitive taxation.
Anti-smoker fanatics believe the problem can be remedied by forcing Canada’s First Nations to become tax collectors for the federal and provincial governments. It won’t work. The demand for cheap tobacco is too great. And, if Canada’s First Nations don’t fill it, then someone else will.
In Canada, it will be a criminal enterprise the likes of which has not been seen since the twenties and thirties. Count on it.
Additional reading: Patrick Fleenor - Wall Street Journal
“Yep. It’s getting pretty sad these days. Can’t even get on a elevator without someb’dy killin’ ya.”
