Smoking, secondhand smoke & self-righteous bigots

Rose Marie Borutski, of Surrey, BC, claims she’s developed asthma and a smoker’s cough since moving into a housing complex where she was “forced to assimilate with smokers”. So, she and a dozen other tenants in the 257 unit building have filed a complaint with the BC Human Rights Tribunal, alleging discrimination due to secondhand smoke exposure from other tenants.

Says Borutski: “I now use an inhaler to help me breathe. I need to take it each morning and at night before I sleep. Smoke drifts in from people smoking in the suites below, from people smoking outside, it comes in through the ventilation system. Everywhere we turn there’s smoke.”

Ms. Borutski and her dirty dozen are suing the Kiwanis Club (the owner), the management company (Crescent Housing Society) and BC Housing. The parties named in the suit (including the province, which provides the subsidy), supposedly, want it dismissed.

Borutski has suggested the building be split into two parts, with smokers on one side and non-smokers on the other.

Janet Furcht, manager of the non-profit, says the segregation solution is unworkable. Management can’t force tenants to move against their will and can’t afford the cost of moving tenants even if they agreed to move willingly. And, they can’t afford extensive modifications to the ventilation system.

But, if they can’t afford to move people around, and they can’t afford to install proper ventilation, what possible action could they take to resolve Borutski’s alleged health concerns?

Aye, and there’s the rub. For the only other solution is to demand smokers quit smoking in their home. And, the landlord took the first step in that direction last August, introducing a no-smoking policy that prohibits new tenants from smoking in their suites or on their balconies.

And that’s why I have no sympathy or concern for the bigoted Ms. Borutski and her fellow whiners. I simply don’t believe them. They propose to justify their open hostility to smokers with exaggerated or non-existent health concerns. They’ve bought into the secondhand smoke hysteria propagated by the anti-smoker movement and they’re all too willing to join in the persecution of smokers.

For the last couple of years, anti-smoker fanatics have been holding meetings across the country to discuss ways and means of making multi-unit dwellings smoker free.

Various members of the anti-smoker cult have been lecturing landlords on the high costs of maintenance they claim are associated with smoking tenants. They’ve been spreading fear among non-smokers, encouraging them to “protect” themselves from secondhand smoke by forcing smoking neighbours to quit or be thrown into the streets.

They are not interested in compromise solutions. Nothing less than the complete capitulation of the smoking public will suffice.

But, they’re providing absolutely no evidence that secondhand smoke is anything more than a controllable nuisance in such situations.

The objective, of course, is to force smokers to quit by threatening their housing. They’re looking for legal precedent they can use to pressure government into passing legislation which openly discriminates against smokers.

The intention of Borutski et al is not to protect themselves from the alleged hazards of secondhand smoke. They may have lodged the complaint against the landlord; but smokers are the real target.

Borutski moved into the subsidized building eighteen months ago, knowing there were smokers living there. At least, a reasonably prudent person should have known there would be smokers in the building, because 20% of the adult population still smokes. Still, she chose to move into the building, knowing full well she would be “forced to assimilate with smokers.”

One must assume the woman moved into a subsidized apartment for the same reason that most people, including smokers, move into such units; because she couldn’t afford a decent place to live otherwise. Now, she wants the building owners, and those providing the subsidy, to deny those tenants who choose to smoke the same privilege.

The anti-smoker crowd has chosen subsidized housing to further their efforts to establish “smoker free” housing precisely because the residents are primarily low income earners, seniors, etc. They are dependent on the decent, affordable accommodation which social housing provides. And, if confronted with a choice of smoking or being tossed into the street, well . . .

Oh, and just how do I conclude that Ms. Borutski is a bigot?

Well, I could say her reference to being “forced to assimilate” with smokers was my first clue. But then, nobody wants to live next to one of “them”.

Or, I could say that her proposal to segregate smokers provided some insight into her character. Of course, she just wants the building segregated. It’s not as if she wants smokers removed to some remote location in the BC interior, surrounded by barbed wire. At least, not yet.

But, the simple truth is, I used the same scientific methodology used by anti-smoker extremists to establish the hazards of secondhand smoke in the first place.

I made a calculated guess based on inconclusive evidence and baseless assumptions and declared it to be fact. Hell, if the process is good enough for Health Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Health Propaganda, and the hate-mongers in the anti-smoker brigade, it’s good enough for me.

I’ll have more to say on this subject in my next post.

Selling addiction without the smoke?

Has anyone ever wondered why the nicotine patch, or nicotine gum and lozenges, are referred to as "nicotine replacement" therapy? After all, they don’t really replace the nicotine; it’s simply being delivered by alternative methods.

And, if nicotine is addictive, as the anti-smoker brigade claims, then providing nicotine via any method is unlikely to reduce dependence. The addiction to nicotine would remain whether it’s delivered by a Camel Filter, a lozenge or a mint flavoured gum.

The anti-smoker crowd would have you believe that nicotine is every bit as addictive as heroin. But, would anyone recommend using heroin to help wean an addict off that drug? Of course not; they use methadone as a substitute for heroin, to help break the cycle of addiction. Why would anyone believe that providing nicotine to an addict would be any more successful in helping them kick a nicotine habit?

Still, the patch and nicotine gum are being touted by the anti-smoker brigade as a way to reduce or eliminate smoking, despite the highly questionable success rate of these pharmaceutical nicotine products . And, if people get hooked on the gum or the patch, so what? Nicoderm, Nicorettes, etc. are far less hazardous to the consumer than cigarettes. Or at least, that’s what they tell the public.

All anti-smoker groups and charities promote pharmaceutical nicotine. In fact, they’re among the biggest boosters of NRT products. And, that includes Health Canada, the Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion and a host of other government heath services across this country and in countries around the world.

The patch, gum and lozenges, were introduced as smoking cessation aids; available only with a prescription. Then, thanks to the help of anti-smoker activists, they were made available over the counter.

Now nicotine gum and lozenges, and even the patch, are being marketed as a supplement to cigarettes. Smokers are being told to quit if they can and if they can’t, they can substitute pharmaceutical nicotine in those situations where smoking is not permissible. It all adds up to big bucks in sales for the drug companies.

In Britain, there are suggestions from public health to make NRT products tax free. And, they’re proposing legislation to ensure they remain tax free so that they can better compete with tobacco products. There are proposals to make nicotine gum and lozenges more readily available, in convenience stores and vending machines. And, at the same time, they’re reducing the number of outlets where tobacco is sold; banning sales in pharmacies and vending machines.

The simple truth of the matter is that the drug companies have become direct competitors of the tobacco industry; both selling nicotine products, each vying for market share to enhance their bottom line. And the government has chosen sides; bowing to the demands of anti-smoker zealots and trying to foist overly expensive gum and lozenges on smokers.

This kind of government interference in the marketplace is unheard of in most democratic societies. If governments were serious about eliminating smoking and its alleged hazards, it would bring in prohibition. Instead, they’ve chosen to punish smokers, to reduce them to secondhand citizens while continuing to extort billions in tax dollars. And, they're openly pushing product for the drug companies.

The anti-smoker campaign of de-normalization is being funded in large measure by the pharmaceutical industry. Governments also make a sizable contribution to anti-smoker efforts using money confiscated from smokers via excessive tobacco taxes.

Smoking bans and punitive taxes put pressure put on smokers to quit. The more pressure put on smokers, the greater the profit potential for the drug companies through sales of their own nicotine products. And the more the drug companies profit the more funding there is available for the anti-smoker brigade to continue their assault on smokers.

It’s become a vicious circle; one designed to force more smokers to make use of the nicotine products peddled by the drug companies. And, with the less than acceptable quit rate, they’re assured of a lot of repeat customers.

If smokers are really addicted to nicotine, and they really want to quit as the anti-smoker brigade claims, wouldn’t they be just as happy to get their fix from gum, lozenges, or any number of the other alternate nicotine delivery systems they keep trying to force on us.

Unless . . . people actually enjoy smoking. Do you think?

Are smokers evil & insane?

Anti-smoker rhetoric is obviously becoming more shrill and strident; in fact, it’s reaching an all time high. And, if January is any indication, smokers are in for a rough ride in 2009.

First there was the third hand smoke nonsense, with the insinuation toddlers were at risk from smoke residue they licked off the floors smoking parents apparently never clean. The press ate that one up, with headlines from coast to coast, and a brand new hazard has been created. A brand new public menace for which smokers, of course, are responsible

Then there were attempts by the anti-smokers to scuttle the TICAP conference in Brussels and silence freedom of speech and freedom of association. The mainstream press, the unofficial cheerleading wing of the anti-smoker movement, ignored the European Union’s assault on democracy.

Then, there was Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) putting down smokers as baby killers and such and inciting hatred against those of us who choose to smoke. John Banzhaf, leader of the fanatical anti-smoker group, was quoted as saying:

"Smokers pollute the air the public and their children are forced to breathe with toxic carcinogenic fumes, inflate taxes and the costs of health insurance, start the blazes which are the major cause of residential fire deaths, kill thousands of their own children every year, and are a major contributor to litter on beaches, streets, and elsewhere. Isn't it time we stopped tolerating if not encouraging this outrageous behavior and harm to the public."

I keep wondering when Banzhaf will start advocating frontal lobotomy as a means of controlling a smoker’s undesirable behaviour?

If you’re a smoker and into self-flaggelation you can read about it and find a number of links on Dr. Michael Siegel’s blog, Tobacco Analysis. Siegel thinks the Tobacco Control movement may be “going off the deep end.” Uh-huh. I think that’s called understating the case.

And then . . . earlier this week, Dan Hawkins of Harrison, Arkansas, recent appointee to the state Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Advisory Committee, declared his belief that 70% of cigarettes are smoked by people who are mentally ill.

Something tells me smokers down in Arkansas are in deep shit.

Hawkins further claims that: “30 percent of smokers have an Axis II personality disorder, i.e., they not only have one or more serious psychiatric illnesses, but may also be bad people.”

Rep. Dan Greenberg, of Little Rock, revealed the contents of Hawkins e-mail, which was addressed to members of the State’s House of Representatives. In an article in the political blog, The Arkansas Project, Greenberg said “When you start talking about the high incidence of criminality and insanity among smokers, I think that’s probably not the message that (Governor) Mike Beebe wants to send out.”

The article was entitled: “Beebe Appointee: Smokers are Evil and Insane (And Lawmakers Who Disagree are Stupid, Corrupt and Just Like Nazis)” Catchy little title. The text of Hawkins e-mail is available here.

As might be expected from an anti-smoker fanatic, Hawkins saved some of his vitriol for legislators who don’t fully agree with the anti-smoker message. Says Hawkins: “According to the unbiased medical epidemiological research literature, pro-tobacco legislators have both lower-rated intelligence & integrity.” Yeah. That’s sounds like he's saying they’re stupid and corrupt.

And, he’s apparently got a scientific study to back up his claim. But, then, don't they all.

Hawkins wants to sue, and possibly jail, any legislator who doesn’t support anti-smoker initiatives. “Explorations are currently underway to see if legislators, in their lifetime(s), can be held legally accountable (both civilly & criminally) for pro-tobacco (pro-death for profit) votes injurious to the public health.”

Says Hawkins, who has a PhD from some Cracker Jack company or another: “I describe here some of the worth of increasing the state cigarette sales tax increase.” Huh? All this ranting and raving is in support of an increase in a proposed sales tax increase on smokes.

I guess the Governor must really want this tax increase if he’s willing to appoint this attack dog to the Tobacco Prevention and Cessation Advisory Committee. There’s no mistaking where he stands.

But, does the Guv really plan on letting him run around unattended?

Anti-smoker brigade - teaching kids to hate

A couple of posts back, I noted that the education of young people, as it pertains to smoking and secondhand smoke, has, in fact, turned into a blatant form of indoctrination. Youth groups across Canada are apparently being used by the anti-smoker brigade to preach a message of fear and hatred of smokers. And, as with most anti-smoker groups, the information they present to the public is something less than reliable.

Butt Ugly, for example, claims that the equivalent of a bus load of children dies every day, out in Alberta, from exposure to secondhand smoke. It’s a preposterous claim, of course and easily disproved.

But, the point is, someone is feeding this erroneous information to our kids. Deceptive statistics and bald-faced lies are becoming quite commonplace on websites designed to appeal to youngsters. And, young people are being recruited to go out and spread this misinformation to their peers and the public at large.

Another site, similar to the Butt Ugly site in Alberta, has been brought to my attention. The youth group is called the Oxygen Commandos, and it operates in Quebec. According to their web site, "commando teams mobilize to unmask the dangers of second-hand tobacco smoke by performing short street-theatre scenes unannounced in public places".

Among the more questionable statements on their web site is that: “The concentration of toxic substances in second-hand tobacco smoke is much higher than in the smoke inhaled directly by smokers.”

This claim suggests that those exposed to secondhand smoke, since they are exposed to higher concentrations of toxins, are at even greater risk from smoking related illness than smokers. A little bit of common sense tells us this claim can hardly be true. If it were, we would be seeing far greater number for deaths due to secondhand smoke than we see for smoking related diseases attributed to smoking. That’s obviously not the case.

Then, there’s this little gem: “In Canada, second-hand tobacco smoke is the third leading cause of death after smoking and alcohol abuse.”

This claim is patently absurd. Secondhand smoke doesn’t even make the top ten in Statcan mortality tables for 2002. Ranking well above estimates for secondhand smoke as a cause of death are Septicaemia (1,489), Nephritis (3,437), Parkinson’s disease (1,664), Alzheimer’s disease (5,515) and any number of other, non-tobacco related diseases.

Health Canada puts estimated deaths from secondhand smoker exposure at 831, based on those same 2002 mortality tables from Statcan. And, those are statistical deaths, estimated by Health Canada. Clearly, secondhand smoke is not the third leading cause of death in Canada. In fact, there is no conclusive evidence that secondhand smoke kills anyone.

But, maybe they mean that secondhand smoke is the third leading cause of “preventable” death in Canada.

According to the Industrial Accident and Prevention Association (IAPA), accidents don’t just happen, they’re caused. Therefore, one must assume that all accidents are preventable.

And, once again referring to Statcan mortality tables, Transport accidents (including motor vehicle accidents) accounted for 3,165 deaths in 2002, non-transport accidents accounted for 5,585 deaths (including 1, 016 from accidental poisoning) in the same year.

Whether or not suicide is preventable is debatable, but certainly some form of intervention might have reduced the number of suicides (3,650) in Canada in 2002.

Another claim on the site states: “The poisoner (the smoker) regularly serves this noxious cocktail (secondhand smoke) to between 55 per cent and 70 per cent of non-smokers.”

Such highly inflammatory language encourages young people to think of smokers as murderers and worse; to see smokers as somehow less than human and undeserving of either consideration or compassion.

The question is whether this is the kind of message we want to send to our young people; that people whose behaviour does not conform to their own may be de-normalized, denigrated and demeaned.

Do we want our kids to grow up believing that it’s all right to pervert the truth if they believe the cause is just and the outcome desirable? Do we want the state, and their proxies (mercenaries) in tobacco control, preaching that hatred and intolerance are acceptable behaviour?

The site notes that the Oxygen Commandos are funded by the Tobacco Control Program, Health Canada and the Nicorette and Nicoderm Donation Campaign in partnership with the Canadian Council on Tobacco Control.

But, the really strange thing is the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. “The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the official policies of Health Canada.”

I wonder why Health Canada felt the web site warranted a disclaimer?

Incidentally, Butt Ugly didn't respond to my e-mail suggesting their claims were a little exaggerated.