Denorm: Reduce Smoking Without Hypocrisy

By None
Published July 21, 2006

Politics - Federal

I flew directly to the heart of America last week to discuss an international public health epidemic with global health advocates and colleagues. 4,490 attendees focused on the world's leading cause of preventable death. The conference was the 13th World Conference on Tobacco or Health.

As a tobacco control advocate, I have always felt I was on the side of the angels. When people stop smoking they live longer, happier lives, insomuch as they will avoid a plethora of tobacco-related diseases, including several of the most virulent forms of cancer.

While tobacco control advocates might not always be single-minded in action, we share a single goal: the elimination of global death and disease due to tobacco use.

On the second day of the conference I headed out for lunch and encountered a shiny group of youth in fluorescent t-shirts, gathered outside the convention center's main doors. They were protesting our conference, carrying signs that read: "Fascism is worse than tobacco."

Antismoking as Fascism

This is their premise: as we health advocates grow increasingly successful at convincing political bodies to create legislation that protects public health in their jurisdiction, individual citizens of that jurisdiction may interpret this legislation as an intrusive use of elected power, and in some cases as discriminatory action on the part of their elected officials.

In the broadest sense, these protestors believe that neither public health advocates, nor the state, have any right to prohibit, or incite the prohibition of, the public sale or consumption of tobacco products. Their argument usually cites the fact that the tobacco industry is a legal industry in most places, a government-regulated industry, a taxed industry.

These protestors will often pose the following question in the interest of supporting their point-of-view: How can governments (national and provincial, federal and state) allow JTI MacDonald or Imperial Tobacco to make cigarettes in their jurisdiction (or import them) and then collect taxes on the sale of those cigarettes while at the same time vastly prohibiting the consumer enjoyment of those cigarettes?

Isn't this a classic example of having your cake and eating it too? Perhaps.

Moderate Resistance and Protest

For decades, Governments at all levels have neglected to characterize tobacco use as a public health crisis. More recently, legislative action being taken in jurisdictions across Canada to curb public tobacco use has met with moderate resistance and protest.

It is taking time to shift the public perception of tobacco use, but it is happening. Recent polling suggests Canadians are overwhelming in favour of national legislation that would ban smoking in public spaces and workplaces.

However, since governments have historically been complicit in the commercial advancement of the tobacco industry, they are apt to face criticism for now taking action to curb tobacco use, especially from the industry itself.

Big Tobacco is a well funded and vocal industry group, and they are not going to lie down while governments stigmatize their otherwise legal consumer product. So they send a group of young protestors to the conference in Washington and ask them to wear bright shirts, carry placards, and wait for the media to arrive.

Denormalization of the Tobacco Industry

Tobacco control advocates take note, because the tactic to resolve these protests is also going to win the bigger battle; namely, the elimination of death and disease due to tobacco use.

This strategy has been variously described among advocates of tobacco control, but it is best known as the denormalization of the tobacco industry, or denorm for short. Denorm is the systematic and coordinated process of exposing the ways in which the tobacco industry is unlike any other commercial industry.

In essence, denorm means reversing the efforts of the tobacco industry to model itself as a constructive economic contributor in communities around the world. This tactic has a variety of benefits, and before I proceed to describe its application to the direct example of the protests that I experienced, I want to give an overview of denorm's strengths.

Most important, denorm does not label smokers as a social pariah; instead it recognizes that they are, like everyone else, the victims of an industry that manufactures and markets addictive products. Denorm attempts to engage currently addicted smokers, rather than combat them.

What's more, it provides a compelling rhetorical tool to deal with the increasingly predatory tactics that the tobacco industry deploys to addict citizens in foreign markets where forward-thinking health legislation is non-existent. Denorm does not focus on changing individual behavior, it attacks the corporate culture that profits by addicting people to tobacco.

A Global Response to a Global Problem

Denorm is not explicitly local in its efficacy; it has global utility in the fight against tobacco death and disease.

We must think globally in order to stop the influence the tobacco industry has in developed countries like Canada and the United States. Local health legislation may curb tobacco use in our communities, but it does not reduce the economic growth potential for the tobacco industry worldwide.

Tobacco manufacturers have a business model with one objective: to replenish the ranks of people addicted to their products. Every day, tens of thousands of their customers die and thousands quit.

Unlike any other business, the tobacco industry manufactures a product that it knows will eventually kill most of its current customers, and their business model reflects that knowledge. The tobacco industry requires new customers every day in order to stay in business; it needs new markets and new customers daily.

Almost exclusively, those new customers are being found in the developing countries of Africa and Asia. This industry penetrates markets worldwide with the strength of annual profits of over US $400 billion.

It continues to normalize its presence in the developing world by funding schools, scholarships, housing projects, and by creating low-paying labor jobs. The goal is not explicitly to provide cigarettes to Africans, but to normalize the presence of their brands – to make Big Tobacco a part of everyday life in Africa.

Public Health Fascism v. Economic Fascism

So, is the public health fascism we find in Canada any different from economic fascism I have described in Africa? This is a thorny question.

You may want to reply to this post with your own opinion. I will provide this answer as a starting point: any action designed to influence the public that is not undertaken in the spirit of honesty and equality is truly fascist. By that measure, I think that public health legislation may be easier to swallow than the unfettered expansion of Big Tobacco.

Some disagree. For an alternative point of view please see MyChoice, an organization established to combat the implementation of smoke-free legislation in Ontario, Canada. This province's smoke-free public spaces policy, which came into full effect May 31, 2006, bans smoking in almost all of Ontario's public spaces and work places (bars, restaurants, beaches, legions, etc.).

It is a very progressive piece of health policy, one which MyChoice spokesperson Nancy Daigneault has described as social engineering or social marketing. Speaking to the Ontario Libertine Party this past January, Ms. Daigneault claimed, "The test of how far governments can intrude [in the private lives of citizens] is currently being conducted against smokers."

She added, "No other law-abiding group of adults in Canada are subjected to the kind of ads, campaigns and personal restrictions now being used against smokers."

Demonizing Smokers

Ms. Daigneault makes a compelling argument. In part, this is because of the shortcomings of the Ontario government's own tactics for marketing tobacco control and tobacco control policies. Those tactics reside in a prolonged multimedia campaign designed to demonize people in Ontario who are (or are at risk of becoming) addicted to tobacco products and nicotine.

This campaign, entitled Stupid.ca, preceded the implementation of the smoking ban by several years. The provincial government is still using it. The problem with the Stupid.ca campaign is that it focuses most of its energy directly on deterring smokers. It does little to expose or implicate the tobacco industry and thus does not create a common enemy for smokers and public health advocates alike.

Stupid.ca is inherently adversarial, but its cynicism is focused towards the people of Ontario. Ultimately, the ads gave credence to the claims being made by MyChoice that the government of Ontario is a fascist dictator. Sound familiar?

Washington D.C., the host of the 13th World Conference on Tobacco or Health, is also set to welcome its own smoke-free legislation in January 2007. The new legislation would be similar to the province-wide policy in Ontario, or the ban recently realized in New York City.

Aside from being the nexus of political power in America, Washington is situated next to one of the country's most historic tobacco-growing regions. In fact, the old port at Gerorgetown in Washington D.C. was originally established to service Virginia State tobacco-growing communities.

The presence of the tobacco industry in Washington is not unnoticed. While the death knell has sounded for the tobacco-growing industry in both Virginia and Ontario, the residual economic importance of these regions for the tobacco industry at large is still quite high.

A Photo-op, not a Debate

When MyChoice started up in Ontario, it was quickly pointed out that the Canadian Tobacco Manufacturers' Council (CTMC) was funding every aspect of the project. MyChoice made little effort to publicize this fact, but it could also do little to disguise it.

The CTMC is comprised of Imperial Tobacco Canada Limited, Rothmans, Benson & Hedges Inc., and JTI-Macdonald Corporation. It is the tobacco industry's main lobby association in Ottawa and was founded in 1963, shortly after Canada began its first national non-smoking campaign. It is expected that similar front groups are active in the United States.

When the youth group in front of the Washington Convention Centre was invited to participate in the conference, they declined. Moments later, they disbanded. It was apparent that they were more concerned with an orchestrated photo-op than they were with the content of the conference (nominally the focus of the protest).

What's more, we weren't likely to pay them to attend the conference. Now I may be precariously close to speculation, but I don't think it's unfounded when I say that this group of well-scrubbed teenagers were unlikely pro-tobacco advocates or civil libertarians. They had the organization of a flash-mob, and were far less engaged than anyone I have ever suspected of hating fascists.

Denorm Strategies

Had they chosen to enter the Conference, I wish they would have attended the late Saturday session on denorm, chaired by my Canadian colleague, Garfield Mahood. Gar is a leading expert on the denorm strategy. (I invite you to examine some of his writing (PDF) on the subject.)

This session surveyed several jurisdictions' experience with denorm strategies: how support was mobilized, how governments were educed to become proactive, and why it so important to be industry-centric when we talk about the spread of tobacco in our communities and around the world.

Most people today are cynical about corporate culture and it is more likely that they will mobilize politically on an issue that is framed in those terms. Tobacco has been around for a long time, and people need to understand why that is the case.

There is a growing body of evidence that shows the tobacco industry is one of our worst corporate offenders for child labor, predatory marketing, tax evasion, smuggling, eco-terrorism, and pollution. It is not like any other industry.

However, we cannot expect that fact to manifest itself with the vast public. Not when the same industry spends billions of dollars on ad hoc third world development, political contributions, deceptive marketing and bribes.

Denorm Works

I will conclude with one of the most stunning examples of government-sponsored denorm I have seen to date. The Norwegian government began a television campaign in 2003 that is certainly at the verge of keeping up with tobacco industry marketing, reducing youth smoking ion Norway by 50% from 2002 – present.

I hope to see something similar in Canada one day. You can access the ads online; please take a moment to watch a few that are available in English.

66 Comments

Read Comments

By R. Love (anonymous)
Posted July 21, 2006 15:37:47

Your argument is very well thought.

For myself I agree that the best defense against the proliferation of tobacco in Canada (and the world) involves some creative social engineering.

Programs such as stupid.ca are VERY effective in permeating into the culture of a younger generation of Canadians. Making smoking "uncool" is a tactic that has some merit in deterring young "would be" smokers.

It is hard to watch a movie/TV show nowadays for more than 20 minutes without seeing a cigarette in somebody’s hand.

We are constantly bombarded with images of smoking that have the greatest affect on young malleable minds.

It is probably true that demonizing smoking is not as effective in deterring established smokers, it is still important step in establishing new norms among the ranks of youth being targeted by tobacco companies through popular culture (sorry for the long sentence).

To summarize I think that there is still room for stupid.ca's message, but it definitely needs to be part of a one-two punch.
Targeting both the pool of potential customers from which the Tobacco companies recruit as well as the practices of the companies themselves.

Anyways, just my thoughts!

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 21, 2006 16:24:58

Your comment on smoking in television programs is well-taken Rob. At the same conference I mentioned above, the Prime Minister of India was awarded for recently banning smoking in all Bollywood film productions. India has thus become the first Asian country to try and combat the pop-culture normalization of smoking. Dr. Stan Glantz has been fighting for the same kind of recognition in America - attempting to have the frequency of smoking in American films as a factor in the Hollywood film rating system. However, television and film remain a fertile ground for promoting tobacco use.

In Canada, the most successful intervention to reduce youth smoking has been tax increases. The youth smoking rate declined sharply with each subsequent federal and provincial tax increase of the last two decades. However, these government's have now grown addicted to tobacco tax money, which is approx. $1.5 billion annually in Ontario and $3 billion federally, not including GST. While I agree that campaigns based on deterring the behaviour of smoking are needed, and certainly can agree that a comprehensive approach to stop the sale of tobacco products is best, we need to work very consciously to disengage the tobacco industry from all aspects of public life. Canada has banned big-tobacco from promoting sports and culture events, but the industry is still allowed to pay for huge retail displays in Ontario convenience stores and gas stations. These so-called power walls give the impression that tobacco is far more prevalent in the commercial activity of these stores than is actually the case. It scares me to think that governments may be less inclined to restrict the tobacco industry in order to preserve tax revenues and the perceived commercial benefit tobacco sales activity.

-Aaron

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 22, 2006 08:36:22

It's interesting that you think that anyone who protests your cause must be in the pay of the tobacco companies.

This gives the impression that you are unable to handle the idea that
some people have minds of their own. As it happens, some people do indeed have minds of their own and are not content to accept a great deal of the propaganda and false information provided by your movement. Some people do not accept that the end justifies the means and are disgusted by the level of corruption exhibited by sections of your movement with its scrabble for tax dollars plus the exaggerated claims it makes.

Moreover, given what I know about your movement your self-righteousness is absolutely sickening. Frankly, it is time to demormalise people like you.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Peter (anonymous)
Posted July 23, 2006 00:28:39

This society does not care for or want older people in our society. This world is constantly heading towards youth and being young. If people like me choose to smoke,that isour business. If you want to live to be 100 that's your choise, definitely not mine.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By PaulandMary (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 09:08:49

Hey Peter, let's talk again in 20 years and see if you still feel the same way.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By adrian (registered) - website
Posted July 24, 2006 10:34:27

Blad Tolstoy said,

It's interesting that you think that anyone who protests your cause must be in the pay of the tobacco companies.

This gives the impression that you are unable to handle the idea that some people have minds of their own.

Levo does not claim anywhere that 'anyone who protests' is in the pay of big tobacco, merely that he believes the protestors at the conference are. Given that MyChoice is funded by the tobacco companies, and that these youths were remarkably disengaged (what activists would not jump at the opportunity to enter a conference to make their views known?), I don't think it's a stretch.

To address the stupid.ca campaign - I tend to find that most government and NGO attempts to engage youth on issues like smoking are often failures because they try to be too cool. Rather than getting to the heart of the issue - as the Norwegian ads do, with 'stop buying their products' as the central message - the stupid.ca campaign, from what I have seen of it, tries to change smoking's image from cool to stupid. But this approach is a difficult one to pull off, because youth are constantly targeted by campaigns that seek to deprive them of adult pleasures: sex, alcohol, drugs, and smoking.

So long as adults in positions of wealth, power and prominence, like movie stars, smoke while drinking or right after having sex with other gorgeous movie stars, stupid.ca is going to have a tough go of it.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 10:50:46

Blad Tolstoy – thanks for the comments,

I am interested to read more from you on the “propaganda and false information” that you have experienced at the hand of tobacco control advocates in Canada, or elsewhere.

Similarly, I would welcome more feedback on the exaggerated claims that you have discovered. Do you have a local example?

With respect to your comments on tax dollars, the Canadian government routinely provides funding assistance for individuals or organizational projects aimed at ameliorating Canadian social and economic situations. You say that tobacco control advocates exhibit corrupt tactics. Can you explain? How is this grant process is corrupt?

Due to the long-term success of federally and provincially funded tobacco control groups in Canada, many are now working with local government funds to establish tobacco-control networks in aborad in the developing countries of Africa, Asia and South America, where there are no resources to fight the influence of big tobacco. I am aware of several projects funded by very reputable national NGOs that have successfully created interventions to stop tobacco advertising that is aimed at children in these countries, or to create resources for people who are trying to quit the addiction to nicotine. Is that part of the sickening self-righteousness that you speak of?

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 10:55:25

4,490 people eh? You didn't mention the cost of the conference, but if it's on the same track as the one that attracted 5,000 several years ago we're talking over 10 million dollars (American).

The protestors you accuse of being in the pay of Big Tobacco are actually members of an activist group called Bureaucrash (See: http://bureaucrash.com/taxonomy_menu/18/53/58 ) Most of them probably survive for a year on what most of the conference participants make in month.

You also failed to mention who paid for a good bit of the conference: Two of the giant pharmaceutical companies that make billions off smoking bans and "Denorming" smoking while replacing it with enormously overpriced Nicotine Replacement Therapy products.

Was "The Great Helena Heart Miracle" discussed at the conference. I'm sure it was. And I'm equally sure that the detailed criticisms of it available in the BMJ at http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1 were not.

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

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 12:23:59

Thanks Mike McFadden for pointing out Bureaucrash. Having read their web site, and their interpretation of the WCOTH, I stand by my claim that they are half-assed with their analysis of fascism in general, and tobacco control in specific. I'll do some work and create a coherent response with more details for this site and their own.

You have dedicated a significant amount of time to the dissection of tobacco control advocacy - supporting a free-choice model rather than what you describe as the propoganda tricks and social change tools of anti-tobacco folks.

You and Bureaucrash seem to abhor any limits on free will and the autonomy of civil society. You point out that the WCOTH was supported by the interests of the pharamceutical industry - a worthy point - that corporate involvement in any cause may impose limitations of thought.

A few questions - is the tobacco industry at all culpable for similar limitations on public free will? Does their robust advertising and public presence similarly raise your ire?

Aaron Levo



( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 13:07:57

AAARRRGHHH!!! I spent ten minutes on a nice detailed post responding to Aaron and then lost it because I forgot to play the numbers game up above the comment box.

Briefly:

Hi Aaron! I wanted to say that I thought your lead in blog post was very well written.

I'm not connected with Bcrash and don't really know much about it other than that I like its general style from a quick look today.

Stanton Glantz and his friends are quite quick to call for universities to ban Big Tobacco money for research out of fear that the research results may be "tainted" by the funding source. I don't see them calling for banning Big Pharma money though. Should we ban all such funding? Make it a "level playing field"?

I haven't seen a whole lot of Big Tobacco "advertising and public presence" lately, but I have seen a lot from Big Pharma.

Hmm.. let me add one more link that might partially speak to the concern about fascism in the antismoking movement:

http://www.davehitt.com/nov02/nicotine.html

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 14:29:08

Hi Michael - I read the piece by Dave Hitt.

I am wary of two things that are arising in this discussion.

First, that tobacco control can be summarily described as anti-smoking. There are nuances to the "field" or, (insert big apprehensive sigh here) "movement" that supports tobacco control. Stan Glantz's approach may not be Aaron Levo's. Aaron Levo's approach may not be the same as someone else’s.

I tried to be very specific in my article, to point out that eliminating death and disease from smoking (or any other form of nicotine addiction) does not necessarily mean changing behaviour patterns in fellow citizens.

Second, I am not apathetic on the subject of corporate sponsorship. That is why I tried to argue in favour of a tobacco control advocacy that is foremost industry-centric, not centric-centric. Despite anyone's misgivings on health legislation, or fascism, it appears to me that an increasing number of citizens in western-style democracies have strong feelings about the role of corporate influence in framing public debates. With that on the table, I suggest that the tobacco industry may have had a disproportionate amount of influence over the health debate on cigarettes and smoking. The commercial success of nicotine products did not occur in a vacuum - we need to implicate the tobacco industry.

Similarly, the commercial success of modern pharmaceuticals is no coincidence. We could easily apply the Denorm strategy to an effort exposing the role of big-pharmacy in framing local and global health discussions.

I am not rigid in my pursuit of prolonged public health. There are considerations for the civic consequences of health policy, just as there are for every facet of organized human governance - building roads, growing the population, educating in schools, or fostering commerce through ethical business.

My position on the subject of tobacco is that the business of tobacco is grossly unethical. People may disagree with me, but at least disagree with me on that point - the point I made - and not any other.

By the way, I have forgotten the number question before too. I feel for yah.

Aaron Levo




( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website
Posted July 24, 2006 14:48:33

"AAARRRGHHH!!! I spent ten minutes on a nice detailed post responding to Aaron and then lost it because I forgot to play the numbers game up above the comment box."

Yikes! Point taken. I'll change the page so that the comments you entered are preserved in this case.

( Permalink )

"Common sense is that which tells us the world is flat."
--Stuart Chase
Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 18:14:20

Thanks Aaron, I could comment at enormous length on the corrupt tactics of the anti smoking lobby, however, for the purposes of saving time I shall direct you to:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/

Here we have Michael Siegel, one of your own, with criticisms, data and articles a plenty.

By note of passing, may I suggest that whilst adrian above knocks smoking he seems to talk as though alcohol is okay. It's not, ever studied the carcinogenic content of alcohol? -Ethylalcohol is a class "A" carcinogen and yes, of course there is second hand alcohol, what do you think evaporates from the glass and comes off drinkers' breath? So, to be consistent don't you think you shoud be going for this one too - or is it that you all like a drink a little too much?


( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Dr.Nukey (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 18:41:31

Pointing to Michael Siegel's site is a good one. I would even like to add and extra link that is a good start for those here who think that Big Tobacco Control is White and Big Tobacco is Black:

Deterioration of Scientific Quality of Anti-Smoking Groups' Communications Coincides with Tobacco Industry Relinquishing its Watchdog Role

"In reviewing the time course of the numerous fallacious health claims being made by anti-smoking groups, I have come to the conclusion that the time course of the deterioration of the quality of our scientific communications coincides perfectly with the relinquishing by the tobacco companies of their role in monitoring and holding us accountable for our statements about the health hazards of smoking and secondhand smoke."

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2006/07/in-my-view-deterioration-of-scientific.html

It's an overal natural law that, when you remove the specific predator hunting a species, the species' population will grow until there's not enough food left, after which they'll starve.

What will this mean for Big TC?

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By mallonjohn (registered)
Posted July 24, 2006 19:30:55

Having researched environmental tobacco smoke and it's negative effect if any, I see no basis for banning smoking in public as a health issue for non smokers. If the real purpose of a smoking ban is to target those that actually smoke to reduce their numbers, then the experience in Ireland will show that that it has failed miserably also as smoking rates have risen 4% (official figures) year over year. What has occurred though is social exclusion in Ireland where smokers now drink together at home and smoke in peace. This has had a devasting effect on our social fabric with over a third of the population polarised and increasingly resentful. Weddings and other such joyeous occassions are falling flat as over a third of the guests leave the room and often stay out.

And where do these self appointed bodies get the idea that they have a right to control tobacco consumption. It is a legal product that a whole lot of us shamelessly enjoy (just as you might enjoy your favorite alcoholic tipple which is poisonous). I don't wish to be controlled or manipulated and, in a free democracy, I want choice not some communist ideology that purports to demand I subsume my desires for their version of the common good.

I note also with some irony, that the so called tobacco control groups are heavily funded for their various jaunts and conferences and I know that certain individuals are making a healthy living persecuting us smokers. And it is because of this persecution that I am more determined than ever to smoke and, for the first time in 30 years, I will now not even consider giving them up. The place of the medical community is convince us to lead a healthier lifestyle. When that community oversteps the bounds and uses its undoubted influence to force us to be healthy, I and millions of free people will close our ears to your advice,

John.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By adrian (registered) - website
Posted July 24, 2006 19:59:38

Blad, to address your remark: "By note of passing, may I suggest that whilst adrian above knocks smoking he seems to talk as though alcohol is okay. It's not, ever studied the carcinogenic content of alcohol?"

I don't see how what I said could be construed that way, although it's true I don't believe that the evaporation of alcohol from other peoples' drinks - "second-hand alcohol inhalation", if you will - is a serious health concern. In fact, I think that claim is absurd, and in the absence of any evidence I am aware of that suggests otherwise, I'll keep viewing it that way.

That said, I do enjoy having a drink or several. I also enjoy smoking cigars, and I still have the odd cigarette, years after I managed to kick the habit. I don't think there's anything morally wrong with smoking, although that doesn't apply to exposing other people to the smoke when they don't have much choice about it (e.g. people who work in bars, children of smokers, passengers in vehicles, etc.)

What I do think is wrong is that the tobacco industry is engaged in this insidious campaign to addict people, including kids and people overseas who may not be as educated about the health risks as we Westerners are. Yes, there are other industries involved in selling dangerous and addictive products, alcohol probably being at the top of the list. But in terms of reduced lifespan and addictive potential, cigarettes are closer to heroin than they are to alcohol. Some countries allow heroin addicts to purchase and use heroin, but does that mean they also ought to allow it to be mass-marketed?

I don't think anyone has the right to tell me what I can or cannot put in my body. That goes for tobacco as much as it does for other substances. But I see a world of difference between the occasional smoke and the tobacco industry's attempts to addict as many people as possible.

Should tobacco companies be allowed to act as though they are net contributors to society, when they are so clearly not? Should they be allowed to get away with their decades of scientific obfuscation and evasion and their marketing at children?

I have yet to read anyone contradict Aaron's claim that:

There is a growing body of evidence that shows the tobacco industry is one of our worst corporate offenders for child labor, predatory marketing, tax evasion, smuggling, eco-terrorism, and pollution. It is not like any other industry.

However, we cannot expect that fact to manifest itself with the vast public. Not when the same industry spends billions of dollars on ad hoc third world development, political contributions, deceptive marketing and bribes.

Is this behaviour acceptable?

(P.S. For those of you who sometimes write stuff on the Internet and then lose it when the form submission screws up, I have a tip: always hit Ctrl-A to select all you've written, and then Ctrl-C to copy it, before you post. Then if something goes wrong, all you have to do is hit Ctrl-V to paste what you wrote back in the box.)

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Dr.Nukey (anonymous)
Posted July 24, 2006 21:17:57

Adrian, it's as acceptable as what Big Pharma does: marketing ineffective NRT products through Big Tobacco Control (front groups), selling stuff like Zyban that accounts for at least 57 reported deaths in the UK alone, sponsoring the US political parties, buying governments (US states, Smokeless States/Cities programs, WHO -> 4 billion/year!) to adopt non-smoking policies to be able to sell more ineffective nicotine patches and gums to demoralized smokers, producing massive amounts of junk science, investing at least a quarter of a billion dollars in the nineties to get anti-tobacco up and running, etcetera...

And what about the NGO's? Wasn't it the Canadian Cancer Association that published studies that the nasty pictures on tobacco covers were very effective while nowadays, every independent study shows that they are not effective at all?

Come on! This is not a world of Black and White. We have two competitive industries fighting on a worldwide, billions of dollars market: the nicotine market....

And there is one group who is experiencing the collateral damage: the smokers who are rapdily becoming secondary class citizens....

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Susan (anonymous)
Posted July 25, 2006 01:09:27

I am extremely tired of self righteous anti tobacco advocates who are funded by either Big Pharma or the Woods foundation.

Research please! The WHO study -- one of the first ever conducted on ETS and lung cancer risk in non-smokers -- was commissioned by WHO and coordinated by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The results of the study show no statistically significant association between lung cancer and exposure to ETS in the home, the workplace, vehicles, or public places such as restaurants. The study emphasized that 'Vehicles and public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS exposure.' Moreover, the study found a statistically significant DECREASED risk of lung cancer in adulthood for those non-smokers exposed to ETS as children. In simple words, that means there was a PROTECTIVE effect from exposure to ETS during childhood.

Also ignored is the Endstrom and Kabat Study
who's results are as follows: For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.

I would also like to mention the EPA Study "Exposure to Radon Causes Lung Cancer In Non-smokers and Smokers Alike," which concludes "Radon is the number one cause of lung cancer among non-smokers, according to EPA estimates. Overall, radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. Radon is responsible for about 21,000 lung cancer deaths every year."

Since there are only 29,000 lung cancer deaths (based on actual death certificates) in the United States and 21,000 are attributed to radon gas, that leaves approximately 8,000 individuals who may have smoked or actively smoked but nowhere do I see any data that working in certain industries could also be a factor in lung cancer deaths.


ETS is not a health hazard period. You are not attacking the tobacco industry you are attacking 40 million American's who smoke and I am one of them.

You are therefore personally attacking me as an individual who is perfectly capable of making my own life style choice. It is not up to you nor your band of buddies to dictate what I can and cannot do.

What I find most insulting is that you assume that every adult is incapable of making an informed decision. That obviously can't be tolerated by your gang, you must control the globe with your "science".

The big money behind you is jamming your garbage down my throat and I don't like it one bit.

I am not the only one who has had enough, there are plenty of other people who feel the same way. WE ARE MAD AS HELL AND WE AREN'T GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!!!

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 25, 2006 02:07:17

Just a couple of quick comments.

Aaron, quite true: the essence of a sound discussion is to always respond to the salient points made by the opposition while sometimes bringing in new supportive material of your own. I'll try not to confuse you with Stanny if you try not to confuse me with PM. :>

Adrian, to see a serious expansion of the evaporated alcohol theory go to the BMJ at

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#105082

Please note that despite the possibility that the "threat" is 2,000 times greater for alcohol than for ETS, I *still* think it's crazy to worry about. Blad, thanks for bringing it up! I'm gradually seeing more and more people realize that "zero-tolerance" opens the door to all kinds of nonsense. Patio dining COULD be next!

Also, Thanks Ryan, and yep Adrian, I know the Control key backup trick... I just get cocky and forget sometimes. LOL!


Susan, Yeppers... I be MAD AS HELL too! :> Ever since ASH disrupted a fairly important non-violent training community I was active in many moons ago I've had my sights set on their garbage. Back then it was a lot easier to see through without a lot of work: they didn't have the money to hire brains and advertising talent to craft their sound bites and fighting points. They're still beatable though because most of their bites and points are still lies when you take them apart.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 25, 2006 10:29:09

Thanks everyone for your comments.

I would like to add some focus to our discussion with a very direct question:

Despite the moral relativism inherent in smoking bans, and similarly despite anyone's suspiscion of scientific research conducted on second hand smoke (ETS - environmental tobacco smoke), does anyone think that the tobacco industry would be able to survive if it was started today?

That is to say, would cigarettes (or any other nicotine delivery device) be accepted today as a "new commercial product" for sale to the general public?

This is a straight-forward question.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 25, 2006 14:18:29

Hi all - this blog post was picked up by the folks at Bureaucrash. They are the group that, as Michael pointed out, coordinated the protest at the WCOTH in Washington.

Coach Bob over at Bureaucrash has some issues with my article, and he has pointed out some inaccuracies on my part about the protest and its' purpose. Please take a moment to read his comments, and my own at:

http://bureaucrash.com/blog/someone_in_canada_hates_you<

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 25, 2006 17:14:31

Smoking as a pastime has been around for centuries and it is not going to go away because it is a pleasurable activity. Moreover, smoking has not been confined to the use of tobacco. People have and will smoke all sorts of things whether they be tobacco, marijuana, tree barks or herbal preparations.

This language about nicotine delivery systems is crazy as it includes NRT which is not pleasurable or effective and very costly. In the UK (where I live) our own National Institute of Clinical Excellence amassed evidence on NRT and discovered that only between 3% - 6% of its users have been successful in giving up smoking and that was only after tracking subjects for a year. After that, the success rate will lower yet again as many people return to smoking after considerable periods of abstinence. The sales of NRT are one of the biggest factors driving smoking bans as the pharmaceutical companies that manufacture it have on their hands a multi billion dollar industry. In fact if the pharma industry were to withdraw for making this stuff it would certainly go away.

Why will people continue to smoke tobacco? For one reason because, and contrary to propaganda, many people find it pleasurable and it has a number of benefits: improving concentration for short periods and it relaxes people and, as it happens, it also inhibits diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and certain types of irritable bowel syndrome to name but a few. (Yes, plenty of scientific evidence - Dig!)

Secondly, people will smoke because smokable materials are to hand - "zuhanden" as the philosopher Heidegger would have put it. Does smoking depend on a large scale industry to support it? No, not a bit and just down the road from where I live I discovered that not long ago a lot of old boys were growing their own tobacco. Why not? The seeds are easy to come by.

There are those zealous individuals in the anti smoker movement who no doubt believe tobacco can be wiped off the face of the earth. Yes, this is tantamount to spitting into a force 8 gale. Consider the attempts to eliminate marijuana - they have all failed and will continue to do so as would any similar attempt to eliminate tobacco.

At the moment the anti smoker movement thinks it is on some great revolutionary holy crusade. It is not and in fifty years time people will have long grown tired of it and all the codswallop about second hand smoke. Tobacco, on the other hand will survive its detractors and be with us for a long time to come. Sober up folks!

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By adrian (registered) - website
Posted July 26, 2006 13:10:16

Blad, your comment that "Smoking as a pastime has been around for centuries and it is not going to go away because it is a pleasurable activity" is a straw man argument, easily demolished by pointing out the failure of the war on drugs. But Aaron isn't saying anything about the behaviour of the "old boys" "down the road" "growing their own tobacco", nor is he advocating that tobacco be prohibited, nor is he demonizing smokers. In fact, he says "Denorm attempts to engage currently addicted smokers, rather than combat them."

I find it interesting that you seem unwilling to engage in a debate about the actual issue raised in this article and subsequent comments, which is the tobacco industry and its behaviour, not smokers themselves or tobacco itself.

Instead, you persist in using such labels as "anti-smoker" to characterize Aaron's argument, which seems deliberately evasive. Does criticizing the behaviour of Big Pharma, as you have, make you "anti-doctor" or "anti-medicine"?

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Dr.Nukey (anonymous)
Posted July 26, 2006 18:34:33

By insisting on narrowing down the discussion only to the 'bad' behavior of the tobacco industry some people here (and in Big Tobacco Control as a whole) show clear signs of narrow-mindedness. It's obviously very easy for their consciousness to see themselves as Saint George fighting the Dragon.

They rather avoid talking about the damage they inflict upon fellow citizens while fighting their dragon.

Open your eyes and see what you're really doing! And don't try to evade the hot part of the discussion.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 26, 2006 19:11:15

Dear Adrian you need specs! Aaron asked the question: "does anyone think the tobacco industry would survive if it was started today?" To which I pointed out that old boys near me grow their own - so implying "yes".

Now if we're going to get technical chaps then how do we define "industry"? Hmm, as someone who develops organisations of all kinds industry doesn't have to be a large outlet, indeed no, for it can be a smalll bunch of producers or even a single producer. So given the way things usually carry on in human terms then it wouldn't surprise me in the least that smmeone should carry on growing tobacco.

However, by way of further response to Aaron and his second question: " would cigarettes (or any other nicotine delivery device) be accepted today as a "new commercial product" for sale to the general public?" one cannot give a simple answer as it depends on the context in which you are thinking of the question. The first part of the answer is that no-one knows - we can only hypothesise here. However, having said that, if the tobacco product was a novelty then again who knows?

Superimposing with the benefit of hindsight one's knowledge now as you antis would like then you might like to configure a positive outcome to your wishes, however if something were a new commercial product then no-one would have the kind of thoughts some people have at present.

Really, it's not a well thought out question - might as well be honest with you - as it's like trying to create a counterfactual after the horse has already bolted. Are these some of the daft things you antis get up to?

Denorm Adrian? You self appointed self righteous over important little man. Who are you and your chums so special to decide what's normal or not? Are you normal? I think not. Most of you are obsessives and some border on the psychopathic as you have desire to comprehend the damage that smoker bans do!

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 08:24:57

Wow - is it getting hot in here or what?

Blad does well to points out some inadequacies in my question. No doubt it's a difficult issue to frame.

During the time that I have been involved discussing tobacco, I have encountered many personalities. There are polemic opinions, and in many cases, polemic personalities. Clearly, there is no once-for-all debate to be won or lost. There is much room for multiple perspectives. Sadly, there is also much room for indignation and derision.

I don't presume to convince anyone of a particular point of view. I must admit my own perspective is always developing, and only strengthened by engaging others.

I do not support major multi-national tobacco corporations that, for the benefit of their shareholders, intice people into addiction with a deadly product. And while I have to admit their are myriad other corporate transgressions to contest, that has never been a reason for me to avoid speaking my mind.

I do believe in a liberal society that protects the rights of individuals to make informed choices and act autonomously. However, the same rights that are afforded to those singular citizens should also provide a modicum

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 08:54:17

(sorry - finger slipped)

...of protection to the larger public from actions that may be detrimental to the collective good. In instances where there is significant debate amongst citizens - as is the case with the harmful effect of tobacco - then governments should be expected to err on the side of caution.

Again, it is always worth pointing out that the world around us is imperfect. There are more pressing concerns for societies than the potential threat of health complications from tobacco. However, that does not preclude the tobacco industry (defined as a group of the largest publicly traded global tobacco manufacturers and distributers) from scrutiny.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Aaron Levo (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 09:47:45

(oh my god I did it again)

...My own country annually receives $3 billion per year in taxes from these tobacco companies, not including the provincial tax stream, which is distinct from the federal, or the federal goods and services taxes at the point of sale. At the same time, public taxes are invested in tobacco stocks to support the national penison plan. There is a considerable amount of shared economic interest between the Canadian public, our governments and the tobacco industry. It is not unreasonable, self-appointed, or self-righteous for anyone in this country to criticize the position of the tobacco industry.

Denormalization is a tool for this critical analysis. As a mode of discussion about the tobacco industry, it does not imply anyone's monopoly on the right to define society's norms or aspirations. In fact, the term is probably better understood as a contrast to the database terminology "noramilzation," which describes processes to achieve data-consistency. Under this rubric, "denormalization" is the pursuit of anomolies in a set of infomation or information relationships.

Semantics aside, denormalization is a compelling tool for understanding the ways in which various ideas and interests are embedded in our society and its' structures. That is the way I am implying that it be used with respect to the tobacco industry. Blad, and others may disagree with some of my conclusions, but I am not writing for an audience who have already made up their mind.

I pose questions to better understand how other's have reached their conclusions - so thank you to everyone who took the time to answer. I did not pose my most recent questions about the tobacco industry in an effort to be narrow-minded, or to in an effort to reduce anyone else's perspective.



( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 12:02:16

I have to say Aaron you are a polite person and you think carefully about a lot of that which you have to say, however, "denormalisation" does not end up being a cool rational activity, it actually ends up with smokers being persecuted.

I am sure you are well aware of the encouragements by ASH (US) that employers should not hire smokers and that the smoking parents of children should be classed as child abusers. This is appalling stuff and needs to be reisted firmly and without quarter. LIkewise I am sure you are aware of the book they advertise on their website - a story about a man who tries to poison cigarettes in order to kill smokers.
Despite requests, ASH refuse to take this advert down and it is clearly intended to vicariously exhort crackpots to follow the example set. Moreover, here in the UK there have been 2 incidents, the last in Sterling, Scotland, just recently, of poisonous cigarettes being siezed. Subsequently, it has been mooted twice that this activity may result from people reading the book.

For those who may wish to foolishly point out in a childish manner (no, I know you wouldn't do that Aaron) that cigarettes contain toxins anyway, there is a clear distinction between the low levels of toxicity produced by tobacco preservatives (for example) and the insertion of substances in greater quantities which are clearly designed to kill.

(See for ref: http://www.ash.org/protagonist.html )

Needless to say Aaron I have a very low opinion of ASH and in the UK their outlet here is a registered charity. As a charity they may campaign to further the education of people in matters relating to smoking, but now they are trying to influence people to make business and medical decisions. Two recent examples of this have been their exhortations to business owners to go smoke-free before time and to doctors their demands that psychiatric units also be forced to go completely smoke free. These matters are none of their business and in making these calls they are, in fact, acting ultra vires (beyond their powers). However, ASH UK have some way to go before matching their American counterparts but they always follow suite eventually.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 12:12:29

Oops, pardon me but my finger slipped too.

One of the things you should really be probing on this blog Aaron is also the basis on which consideration for others is built. The issue of the junk science behind the dangers of ETS has only been lightly scratched.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Rob Love (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 13:16:23

Wow, I leave for a few days and look what happens...

Now that I have spent the better part of my morning reading over everyone’s comments it’s time to hurt some feelings.

I have seen the word choice thrown around like a beach ball in these comments and I would like to weigh in on that note but I wanted to clarify a few things (as I understand them anyways).

First off I don't think any of that Aaron is referring to is Anti-smoking so much as tobacco control. I think some people are overlooking that there is a huge difference between the two.

No one in the topic is saying you shouldn't smoke because it will probably kill you (although that is a good argument). What is being said is let’s put a leash on the 800 pound gorilla. Am I off base on this point Aaron?

Also when we are speaking of harm reduction policies; they are not always geared towards getting as many people to quit as possible by demonizing smokers. Even a reduction of use will reduce harm in the long run. If you smoke one less cigarette a day over the course of a year, that adds up to almost 20 packs a year. Multiply that by the millions of smokers in Canada and I would say that is a pretty effective HRP.

With that being said…

What is with this riff between non-smokers and smokers? It is something I will never understand. Most (not all) people seems to gravitate to either extreme. Either vehemently opposed to smoking or stalwart defenders of free will. I think Aaron brought a very open ended/even handed argument against tobacco companies and their methods of recruiting new addicts…

And they are addicts, which I think is a very good segway(sp) into my next point.

Ade poses a good question which I haven’t seen anyone try to tackle yet. Replace Cigarettes with heroin. Now is it wrong? Not by the logic some of you are relentlessly pursuing. Tobacco companies are directing marketing at youths, not overtly of course but certainly through media.

Choice is a great thing, but without a complete understanding of the entire picture choice can also be a dangerous thing. Corporations as a rule are not socially responsible entities unless forced. Do you think that they would willingly make the right decisions if left alone? The answer (and I think few would disagree) is no.

Let’s stop using the word ‘choice’ as a trump card for common sense. There are a myriad of influences on our lives that condition us to react in certain ways towards cigarettes. There is no choice without the big picture, and there is no big picture without understanding and making transparent the relationship between tobacco and public life.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 16:53:04

I think you need to address the issue in my very last post Rob, which is, looking at the basis on which consideration is built. The so -called science supporting the position that ETS (in the quantities in which we normally experience it) is a deadly toxic substance is to date largely nonsense where very low or miniscule levels of risk are hyped to give the impression that they are major risks. The "bigger picture" means truthful evaluation and that we have not had. In addition, if the wider public realised the extent to which the anti lobby lies, then its postion on smoking would alter too.

As for "creative social engineering", once people realise how much they are being manipulated (yes, that's the other more down to earth word for it) by self-appointed prigs, holy crusaders and NRT sellers then I don't think they would take very kindly to it.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Rob Love (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 17:40:17

Just so we are clear I am certainly opposed to demonizing smokers.

When I use the term creative social engineering I do so only because tobacco companies have ran a successful SE campaign for almost a century.

Don't believe me? Here are some examples of tobacco companies exploiting the feminist movement among other things (examples below).

http://www.wclynx.com/burntofferings/adsvirginiaslims.html

http://www.culturewars.com/CultureWars/1999/torches.html

I am aware that the effects of ETS have been exaggerated, probably in the name of profit. But I doubt (even after Susan’s post) that they are altogether insignificant.

I will investigate and get back to you on that.

Otherwise, I think I would like to do more research on the scope of the SE campaigns on both sides. I don't doubt that there is much smoke and mirrors in this debate, so I would like to gather more info.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 18:30:16

Whoops! Now *I've* got finger slippage! Sorry about the fragment after my signature in the last post!

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 18:33:47

OK... it appears that my last entry before the one above may have been too long to be accepted. I'm splitting it in two and trying again.
=====
Aaron, you've opened quite an interesting discussion here. :) I fully agree that the tobacco companies, like most other major industries producing consumer goods or services, has practiced social engineering in terms of psychological advertising, targeting population subgroups, and generally making people feel its products are good and necessary by downplaying (or even covering up) the risks/downsides involved with its product.

Automobile companies are quite similar: they advertise to youth, play up the images of power and virility to attract customers to their products, absolutely never mention if a particular product they're pushing is more harmful to the environment or more dangerous to occupants than another product, never suggest that those living on tight budgets might do better to move closer to their workplaces or take mass transit, and so on. The automobile industry resisted seat belts and air-bags and while I haven't researched it enough to provide specific examples I'm sure they probably even produced studies and paid "experts" to write articles and give testimony against requirements for such safety measures.

The first thing I ever had published was a long polemical article against the auto industry and in favor of bicycles and mass transit. I employed all the tricks of the Antismoking movement and I felt quite justified in doing so because of the worthiness of the goal: using creative language (such as auto-addiction), making the undesired activity less satisfying (lots of speed bumps and verylow speed limits) and more expensive (arguing that the cost to society of the auto demanded massive tax-increases on gas), demonizing drivers who happily took the chance of running over small children and dogs every time they sat behind the wheel, and supporting all my arguments with anything I could find printed anywhere to quote as a reference regardless of whether it was correct or not.

That's why I saw and understood Antismokers for what they were so early in their movement: I *WAS* an Antismoker... except aimed at cars.

As for using the term Antismoker, it's a word I very consciously promoted during the 1970s and 80s. I was irritated both by the crass play to liberalism and environmentalism being made by Banzhaf and followers with the push to change the language around "No-Smoking" zones to "Smoke-Free" zones and the attempt to make it seem that their groups represented not just a small sampling of radicals but rather all 70% or so of "nonsmokers" in the population.
(continued below)

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 27, 2006 18:34:37

I believe it was Rob who asked "What is with this riff between non-smokers and smokers? It is something I will never understand. Most (not all) people seems to gravitate to either extreme. Either vehemently opposed to smoking or stalwart defenders of free will."

Rob, I don't know how old you are, but it never used to be that way. Smokers and nonsmokers used to get along just fine, and *VERY* few nonsmokers were significantly bothered by smoke unless the conditions were very smoky or if smoke was blowing directly in their faces. Before 1970 I don't recall ever seeing even a diner that bothered to set aside a portion of counter space for nonsmokers: there simply was no demand for such things. I was in graduate school before I first saw someone have an asthma attack in a smoky situation.

Even the American Cancer Society regarded the extremist Antismokers of the 70s as being nuts: they point blank refused to ban smoking in their own offices because such an action would be "too dictatorial."

OK... I've gone on a bit too long here (LOL! A *bit?*?) and haven't even touched on my favorite subject (the bad science behind Antismokers' claims) but thought some of what I shared might be interesting.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Ryan (registered) - website
Posted July 28, 2006 08:29:26

I realize an anecdote does by itself prove anything, but...

My wife and I used to work as servers in a restaurant that had a smoking and non-smoking section. We worked there because we were young and poor and needed the money, so I don't want to hear a lot of crap about having a "choice" to work in a non-smoking establishment. That's like saying a factory worker has a "choice" to quit his or her job at a dangerous factory, instead of saying the owner needs to follow safety regulations.

When I worked in the smoking section, I came out stinking of smoke, usually with a sore throat and occasionally with stinging eyes. I don't have asthma, but I would sometimes feel wheezy and/or heavy in the chest after a busy dinner shift. I would also have to blow my nose repeatedly to clear out the crap it had filtered all night.

When I worked in the non-smoking section, it was a little bit better; I usually still ended up smelling of smoke, but my eyes didn't burn and my throat wouldn't hurt quite as much.

Once smoking was banned in restaurants, my workplace environment immediately became a lot more tolerable. I didn't stink of smoke any more (still stunk of food, but what can you do?) and my semi-permanent sore throat actually cleared up. I no longer felt like a little man was sitting on my chest.

I've always seen smoking regulation as a workplace safety issue first and foremost. You want to smoke? I have no problem with that. Just don't expect me to to have to breathe it. Having worked in a smoking and a non-smoking restaurant, I can report first-hand that the difference is night and day.

( Permalink )

"Common sense is that which tells us the world is flat."
--Stuart Chase
Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Rob L (anonymous)
Posted July 28, 2006 11:50:09

Michael,

I am 24 years old. My Parents smoked throughout my childhood and I started when I was 19 and continued until I was 22.

From 22-23 I was a part time smoker averaging maybe a pack a month. Now I occasionally (usually accompanied by drinking) still have a cigarette.

Currently I am studying sociology which is why this issue is of interest to me. Large tobacco corporations have taken enormous measures to normalize smoking as indicated (to some extent) in my last post. BTW check out http://smokefreemovies.ucsf.edu/problem/moviessell.html as well.

The antismoking movement has done the same (though to a much lesser extent as they have started more recently) to try and make smoking deviant behavior.

Denormalisation is not the same as making a behavior deviant. Film commonly associates smoking to unrelated positive traits.

Smoking does not make you cool, sexy, or important. In the real world, smoking kills smokers. If somebody wants to smoke they should understand why. Denormalisation is removing these misconceptions and allowing people to decide based on facts and not subconscious associations.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Rob L (anonymous)
Posted July 28, 2006 12:38:55

Sorry if I kind of skirted around your statement Michael.

The riff I agree with you is due to the chasm between both extremes of this argument. 20 years ago there was only one side to this argument. I think the riff is in part born from new information on the effects of smoking.

I think that there is a whole lot of people who subscribe to those two extremes and not a lot who are able to find some middle ground.

Ryan, I do agree that it is a workers right to be in a smoke free environment. If that’s not possible you should get some kind of danger pay or something...

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 28, 2006 19:06:15

Rob, the notion of danger pay for working in a smoking establishment is nonsense as such propositions depends depend on the false notion that second hand smoke, in the quantities in which we normally experience it, is a deadly toxic substance. It is not and has never been demonstrated to be so. To say otherwise is to therefore tell a lie.
Moreover, these lies that have been perpetuated have been a deliberate ploy and key aspect of the "denormalistaion" of both smoking and smokers. This strategy is now generally considered to have been initiated at the WHO's 3rd World Conference on Health in New York in 1975. Furthermore, what on earth do you think such lies are going to do for the future of accurate medical diagnostics and medical science?

Secondly, the issue of choice is crucial and the whole notion once again that there should be no choice has been predicated on the false concept about second hand smoke.

When surveys were taken of bar staff ect in the UK as to whether there should be a ban in pubs the overwhelming majority voted "no" but, as usual, the government desperate to court cheap popularity ignored this. This is not democracy!

At the moment, there is a very significant protest movement starting in Scotand involving people from various communities who have been adversely affected by the ban. Many are starting to go out of business and no, contrary to the hogwash the departed smokers have not been replaced by "hordes" of non-smokers. This, in turn affects people's jobs and livlihoods. In Ireland 600 pubs have already closed and there has been a loss of 12,500 jobs and, to cap it all, smoking rates there are up! So Ryan, it may be lovely and all sweet smells for you chum but it plainly isn't for lots of people whose businesses and jobs are on the line. Remember, the world doesn't revolve just around you.
You never heard of give and take? You know, the way adults used to do things.

Yes, environmental tobacco smoke can be a nuisance and irritant for some people, although it's also interesting how much these claims have risen over recent years as more overblown hype has been shoved around about ETS. This is not new "knowledge" about the effects of smoking either as most of it is sheer bull dung!

With concern for those people for whom ETS is a nuisance that is no reason for a complete ban anywhere as all sorts of solutions and compromises can be used - one of which is the use of modern ventilation systems some of which are incredible and which also make use of air curtains through which no smoke can get through.

For example, go here to the blog spot on a ventilation expert who is also a non smoker: http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/
or here:
http://www.tornex.com/

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Rob L (anonymous)
Posted July 28, 2006 19:53:51

I recommend you read this report put out by the British Medical Association, it is quite good if a little sensationalized. It does give some backround into why these types of desisions are made.

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/AttachmentsByTitle/PDFsmokescreen/$FILE/BehindtheSmokescreen.pdf

Also if you could please cite where you are getting specific information (i.e. what is an "overwhelming majority?" and where one can find this information). I’m not opposed to suspending my disbelief to some extent but I would like to see for myself when it comes to specifics!

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 28, 2006 19:55:26

Rob, if workers TRULY have a right to a totally "smoke-free environment" then we would obviously have to outlaw cooking in restaurant kitchens (since no ventilation system can supposedly remove smoke from a "smoking" area and prevent it from entering a "non-smoking" area), campfires at campgrounds with employees, and fireworks displays where the poor staffs of DisneyWorld have to work.

And while we're doing that, shouldn't we also outlaw patio dining? What right do Sunners have to demand that workers come out into a UV-filled carcinogenic environment merely because solar-lovers don't want to take the small sacrifice of dining safely inside? There simply has never been established a "safe level of exposure" to UV rays, and sunscreen and awnings offer only partial protection.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 28, 2006 20:42:20

Oh no, not "Behind the Smokescreen" Rob. I looked at that ages ago.

Correct me if I'm wrong please, but isn't that the one where they claimed that ETS is many times more dangerous than asbestos?

If so, then think on this. If ETS were really many times more dangerous than asbestos plus the fact that poor old smokers are also supposed to be in great danger of being infertile, then don't you think its amazing that there is anyone left on the planet?

Two points, and lets take the lie of infertility first. There "may" be a risk of infertility if you smoke but to imply there is a great risk is to tell a lie.
Why? Well, during WW2 in the UK an estimated 80 odd% of service personnel smoked and an estimated 65% of the total population
did. (Probably similar to the US.) Now what did we have after the War?
A baby boom that's what, and, subsequent heavy smoking generations also produced millions of children.

Now let's take the asbestos one aka "Behind the Smokescreen". Many years ago I worked in hospitals and I understood then that if you had contracted lung cancer from asbestos you only had a short time to live. Steve McQueen was a classic case here for he contracted lung cancer though exposure to asbestos and, after that, even with all the treatments he could afford how long did he live - 7 or 8 years was it?

Now I have seen it said by some doctor that lung cancer contracted from exposue to asbestos could have a 30 year gestation period. Okay, so let's take that at face value and say that maximally, after significant exposure to asbestos (isn't it purportedly blue asbestos anyway) someone has a total of 38 years to live (I'm including possible treatment years too) and figure this to the WW2 years. In that case (comparing ETS to asbestos) someone exposed to heavy amounts of ETS in 1945 would have beeen dead (max time) by 1983.

But hang on. Significant numbers of WW2 veterans are still going and if we consider the 1980s legions of them were. But, if ETS were many times more dangerous than asbestos and people were exposed to massive amounts of ETS then that wouldn't have been possible would it?

Finally, with your question for specific info on pub/bar workers' saying "no" to a ban in the UK I did not keep a cache but I think it may well have been on one of the old strings of The Publican (a now blogless and much altered periodical). An "overwhelming majority" referred to something like 84%. However, I shall ask a couple of friends of mine - both publicans - if they have kept and copies. Okay? Get back to you as soon as I have a reply.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By RLove (anonymous)
Posted July 28, 2006 22:13:01

Blad, the toxic coctails in modern cigarettes is not the same as 50 years ago

Over 600 additives are authorised for use in tobacco products today, almost none of which were used before 1970. So it is pretty hard to compare then to now.

As for that asbestos comparison, I don't agree with that kind of sensationalization of real research (check the last page of that pdf for refrences).

Sorry to avoid responding in full your well articulated comments Blad & Michael, I will post on monday...

If only cigarettes were like pot and you could bake them into brownies...problem solved :)

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 03:46:59

Rob wrote, "toxic cocktails in modern cigarettes is not the same as 50 years ago.... Over 600 additives are authorized for use in tobacco products today, almost none of which were used before 1970."

Rob, I'd like to make two points:

1) When Winston came out with its "all natural, no additives" blend 10 years or so ago, the Antismokers screamed holy blue murder until Winston agreed to put, "No additives does NOT mean a safer cigarette" in every ad. Now if NO additives does NOT mean a safer cigarette according to the Antismokers, then obviously additives themselves do NOT mean a more dangerous cigarette. You can't have it both ways.

and

2) Rob, the tobacco industry refused to disclose ANYTHING about its additives before the 1980s or 90s. So how you got hold of a list from 1970 is completely beyond me.

Unless you're just making that up.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By R Love (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 13:35:21

Firstly Michael; Do you think I would automatically adopt any argument put forth by non-smokers? That is, quite frankly, stupid. Do you agree with everything non-smokers have ever said?

Workers have a right to a smoke free environment and I think that even you would have sense enough to admit that. A smoke free environment does not infringe on a persons right to smoke. I think that the focal point of this argument is based on the fact that I believe ETS can and does pose a threat in closed quarters. Cigarette smoke is hazardous to the health of its users. I find it hard to believe that there are no serious side effects to indoor ETS.

Clean air is a fundamental right; if you agree to work in the restaurant biz, I think you should have reasonable expectations about the air quality. I am not against being aware of the hazards of your trade. What I am against is someone choosing to smoke in the direct presence (not open patios) of people who don’t really have a choice. In my opinion that is as much akin to persecution then not letting people smoke wherever the hell they please.

FYI Cigarette smoke can (and has) been tested. We have the technology!

Cigarette manufacturing technology has advanced leaps and bounds since the 70’s. There are chemicals that enhance flavor, effect etc…This is pretty common knowledge Michael and I think most in this post(smokers and no-smokers alike) would agree with me.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By R Love (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 14:39:46

http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=35422#thirteen

A well cited Fact sheet on second hand smoke from the american lung association. The agencies cited do not appear to be in the pocket of the evil anti smoking fascists.

Rob

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 17:30:52

Part 1

Hello Rob and I have now mailed The Publican for those stats you asked for.

However, in the meantime I'd like to go back to the report "Behind the Smokescreen" for the purpose of picking up the points you made there regarding Michael McFadden and also on the chemical components of cigarettes.

So lets go back "Behind the Smokescreen" and in addition to the big lie spoken by Richard Doll (yes, to call it a "sensationalism" is both generous and inaccurate) and look at the core lie which is sold by the withholding of sufficient data - that withholding presented by the statement that exposure to ETS increases the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers by 20% - 30%, period!

The first question anybody should ask when presented with such a statement is 20% - 30% of what? Now, the base figure set by the WHO in 1998 was 0.01% Therefore with an increased risk added the risk now rises to 0.0130 - peanuts, and especially when this relates to long term exposure over 20 - 40 years. Moreover, there are plenty of studies which claim an increased risk of less or that exposure even gives an immunising effect. This last factor applies to the WHO's 1998 report where it was found that children exposed to ETS had a 22% increased immunity to smoking related diseases. Hardly surprising they suppressed it and would have succeeded if they had not been exposed by the Daily Telegraph in the UK.

Okay, so now lets look at this from the perspective of epidemiology. In epidemiology, if it is done correctly, then a relative risk (RR) of less than 2 (also expressed as 200) is not taken as being of any significance. In fact the point of significance for many epidemiologists is 2-3 (200-300) and absolute certainty is not considered by many to be the case until 5.

Now a relative risk of 30% is expressed in epidemiology as 1.30 (or 130) and in other words it is way beyond a point of concern due to the fact that confounders, biases and errors have to be taken account of. Relative risks of below 1 or below 100 are considered to have an immunising effect as was the case with the WHO's 1998 report where the 22% increased immunity to smoking related diseases is expressed as 0.78 - although in this report they use the term odds ratio (OR).

Odds ratio is a method for pumping up a figure to its max and if they had used RR then it would have probably been less but again but I'm trying to keep this as simple as possible.

The response of the anti movement has frequently been to try and say: "oh that's tobacco science". No it's not that's epidemiology as it's supposed to be done. The last fall back of the antis is then to try and say: "oh no risk should be tolerated!" (Continued in Part 2)

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 17:41:37

Part 2

This is of course rank stupidity as life is full of risk - it's unavoidable - and there are very many factors which are far more "risky" than ETS such as church incense (according to a Dutch study) coal fires, gas fires, bonfires, barbecues etc. etc. and of course, let's not forget cars and aircraft. ("Oh, cigarette smoke is so risky" says someone who promptly attends a barbecue or sits in front of a bonfire - talk about a double standard logic!)

Don't you find the demand for a clean air environment where people work to be ridiculous if the sum total of achieving that is to ban tobacco smoke when there are all these other items around as well and more, such as paints, bleaches and countless other materials? Moreover, given the nature of the world we live in for the most part it would be impossible to have a "clean air" environment. The whole notion is eccentric and stems from an objective to castigate both smoking and smokers at all costs not for the purposes of protecting others but to try and stop people smoking at all costs. And as I have said before "denormalisation" is not the sort of cool reasoned process you think it is. In fact if it was people would stop being so plain foolish.

Penultimately and before I proceed to supply you with some references as you like those (fair play to you if you read them) remember also at this juncture that the first law of toxicology is that it is not the substance that gives the poison but the dose. Hence, people can mention all sorts of chemicals and all sorts of large numbers with scary names which in fact we are surrounded by on a regular basis, but if these chemicals do not go beyond a certain dose they just ain't toxic! And that applies also to the components of ETS but that's for another post.

And no, don't share your touching faith in organisations like The American Lung Association even if they aren't stuffed with hyenas.

References for you use:

Great and easy to digest item on epidemiology:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/Stuff.ppt

More stuff on medicine's disdain of science:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/2006_july.htm

Copy of Victoria Macdonald's article on the WHO's 199 report saved at FORCES:
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/who1.htm

The report itself:
http://www.data-yard.net/2/12/1440.pdf

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 17:49:37

Part 3

Pardon me, but for where in Part 1 I have said: "Now a relative risk of 30% is expressed in epidemiology as 1.30 (or 130) and in other words it is way BEYOND a point of concern...." should read: "Now a relative risk of 30% is expressed in epidemiology as 1.30 (or 130) and in other words it is way BELOW a point of concern.....".

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 18:12:54

Hello Rob.

First of all I don't think I indicated anywhere that you would "adopt any argument put forth" by non-smokers, antismokers, or anyone else. Beyond that, I don't think you answered my questions very well. You didn't address the question of whether cigarettes without additives are safer than those with additives (The pressure for the Winston disclaimer clearly contradicts such an assumption.) nor the claim that "almost none" of the "600 additives" were used before 1970. I would guess that there are probably a good number of new ones but that very very many of them were indeed used before 1970, and neither you nor I really know any details about that question at all.

Secondly. I would not admit that workers have an automatic right "to a smoke free environment." Do they have a right to demand that no cooking be done within the same building where they work? Do they have the right to demand that candles or incense not be burned in their thematically oriented restaurant?

You believe that ETS can pose a threat in closed quarters. I believe that in most decently ventilated businesses it does not. Can you show me a study that clearly demonstrates a threat from the low levels of smoke that would normally be encountered in a well ventilated modern bar or restaurant?

I am certainly not denying that there should be reasonable expectations about air quality in a restaurant or any other working situation: that is what we have OSHA standards for. If you check the table at the end of the "ETS Exposure" selection on my book website you'll quickly see that ETS literally *never* poses what OSHA would consider to be a threat to one's health.

I'm quite aware of the testing of cigarette smoke: I've actually read most of the full Surgeon General's reports. I'm quite aware that there are many substances in smoke that would be considered toxic at high enough levels. I am not aware of any substances however that would be considered toxic to nonsmokers in normal circumstances today. Can you cite a few? Even one?

Zero-tolerance arguments don't count here: such arguments would also demand the banning of volatile restaurant alcohol service and patio dining. Do workers have a "right" not to work in a carcinogenic environment? If they do then both of those things must go.

And finally, may I ask where you saw me supporting "letting people smoke wherever the hell they please" ? As far as I'm aware, I've always supported the right of a business owner to declare their premises nonsmoking. I would even support the concept of such things as government buildings banning smoking, fragrances, cat owners (without a change of clothes), and such things out of concern for disabled people who might need by law or by constitutional right to be in such buildings. Please tell me where you think I've ever held otherwise.

Thank you.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By R Love (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 19:47:44



The Eviromental protection agency, National Academy of Sciences and the Sugeon generals office all agree ETS causes lung cancer.

Tha Tobacco industry uses this divide and conquer style to dispute individual studies of ETS.

An independant panel of 18 experts were assigned to peer review the EPA study and declared the methodology used to be sound and endorsed conclusions made by the EPA.

You have to understand that this is exactly what tabacco companies said about cigarettes when research started to link them with negative health problems.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By R Love (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 19:58:49

Also,

You said 'I' can't have it both ways when refering to the arguement of natural cigarettes being as unhealthy. I take 'I' to mean me..?

I said my comments about smokers smoking wherever they please in respect to Blads comments about smokers being persecuted, it was an exaggeration and It was not directed at you Michael.

FYI I am not done posting in regards to your ETS, I have more info on the validity of ETS which i intend to share. It took me awhile to get something I feel comfortable presenting here so I want to make sure I read Blad's refrences so that i can get real specific.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted July 31, 2006 23:34:45

Hi again Rob! A point about the "everywhere": all Blad or I or just about any other smoker is asking for is that business owners and their employees have the right to decide if their own individual business and property can continue to allow smoking. **NO ONE** except the Antismokers are demanding a universal treatment one way or the other.

As for the "added ingredients" and "having it both ways" thing, yes, that was in direct response to your statements about the additives and needs a response.

As to "divide and conquer" and ETS studies, there are only several different sorts of general study and each of them has "flagship leaders", studies that are used as the basis for media soundbites and legislative decisions. Pick what you'd like, ETS bans and short term heart attacks, ETS exposure and instant heart damage, ETS exposure and bartenders respiratory conditions, or ETS exposure and lung cancer in the workplace... I'll show you what's wrong with any of them.

As to the agencies endorsing the ETS concept: they do so for a very good reason... fear of secondary smoke is the only thing that will lead to governmental bans, and governmental bans are seen as one of the most effective tools in pressuring smokers to quit smoking and in "Denorming" smoking as Aaron has put it in the new language of the 13th World Conference. (Denormalization however has been around for a long time: Four years ago in Brains I said it would become an important groundstone of the Antismokers in coming years... I was right.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By R Love (anonymous)
Posted August 01, 2006 14:22:40

Let’s stick to the primary claim of the EPA report on ETS; it causes lung cancer.

Since the release of the EPA’s report every independent medical organization that has examined the report aggress ETS causes lung cancer.

The Health and Environmental subcommittee polled members of the science advisory board for the center of indoor air research (established in 1988 by R.J Reynolds and other Tobacco companies) to study issues of indoor air quality, including ETS. The board consisted of members chosen by the tobacco industry for their “reputations for expertise and scientific leader ship.”

7 of the 9 responded to the poll. 5 of the 7 agreed to the statement ETS is a human lung carcinogen. 6 of the 7 agreed to the statement ETS poses a serious health risk to children. The views of the industries own advisors run contrary to the position the Tobacco industry has taken against ETS.

Of the 30 epidemiological studies from eight countries in the EPA report; 24 show a positive correlation between ETS and Lung cancer. The possibility that chance could explain this correlation is very low (less than 1 in 1000).

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By R Love (anonymous)
Posted August 01, 2006 14:23:13

When one takes a closer look at 17 of the most detailed studies the linkage between ETS and Lung cancer becomes a certainty. All 17 of these studies show increase cancer risks in the highest exposure group. 9 of which are statistically significant. The probability of this occurring by chance is less that 1 in 10 million…

Phillip Morris Claims that “Of the 11 US studies used by the EPA not a single one concluded that there is an overall association between [ETS] and lung cancer”

This is very much a true statement. What Phillip Morris neglected to mention is that all 11 studies agreed with the conclusion made by the EPA. What’s more is many of the studies were considered to small to be off statistical significance (less than 50 participants) when alone…they simply did not have enough power to be significant (there has to be 95 percent certainty).

A more fundamental problem with the industries claim is the focus on the “overall association.’

In this analysis the 11 US studies compared lung cancer rates in women who had (1) never been exposed to ETS from a husband who smoked to (2) woman who had ever been exposed to ETS from husbands who smoked. This ever vs. never analysis is obviously an inaccurate measure of actual exposure to ETS. Woman who worked in an environment with exposure to ETS but had a husband who didn’t smoke were classified as never, while woman who had a husband who smoked for a short amount of time but quit; classified as ever. This is was the focus of the Tobacco industries campaign to discredit the study.

To combat this obvious defect in the never vs. ever studies 7 studies compared woman’s exposure to ETS to lung cancer. Of these all showed positive correlation between lung cancer and ETS, 2 of which were statistically significant.

Time for a breather

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By R Love (anonymous)
Posted August 01, 2006 14:31:24

This information was released by the Majority staff of the House of Commons and sanctioned by 16 independant Medical/Health organizations.

How many medical/health organizations deny ETS is a public health risk?

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted August 01, 2006 15:22:17

Rob, I am completely unimpressed by the numbers of medical "authorities" which support the notion that ETS, in the quantities in which we normally experience it, is a deadly toxic substance. At the end of the day it's not WHO says something that matters but WHAT is said. If something does not present an RR of 3 or over (2 is generally still considered very ropy) then it's worthless as an indicator and a lie to claim that the study shows a correlation between ETS and lung cancer.

So would you mind being more specific in the case of some of those studies (name them) and also pick up the RRs and display them so I can judge for myself whether or not what the authorities claim is true given their ACTUAL research findings.

By the way, found one link regarding opposition by bar staff to an all out ban in the UK. Here it is:

http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=163736

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By R Love (anonymous)
Posted August 01, 2006 16:19:25

Thanks for the link Blad, it is an interesting article. Doesn't really identify if the sampling was random or not, they could have all been smokers?

Articles like this irritate me a little. Depending on how the sample was selected and the questions framed the claims the article makes might be completely unfounded.

I will give you the benifit of the doubt though, as it doesnt seem that far fetched that hospitality workers would like to comprimise on an all out ban of smoking in public.

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=2835

Abstracts of all the studies start at page 334

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted August 01, 2006 16:27:03

Oh and whilst I'm at it Rob, when you talk about UK medical organisations, aren't these the same liars that support the following:

1) The notion that it takes "hurricane force winds" to remove ETS. Total rubbish and a fabrication by James Repace. ETS is not a magical substance and is subject to the laws of particle physics like everything else.

2) That smokers have a high risk of being infertile (dealt with).

3) That ETS is many times more dangerous than asbestos (dealt with).

4) That even 30 minutes exposure to ETS poses a very significant risk (see even Siegel's critique in the strings of: http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/).

5) That the Helena Study is accurate - more tosh and see Siegel's blog again and also check out some of the strings at the BMJ's website.

6) That smoker bans are good for business. Ha, ha, pull the other one. We can see first hand, without needing to depend on government propaganda, precisely how good they are by looking at Ireland and Scotland. There's tons of similar stuff from America too, see here for one:

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/9582089/detail.html

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/news_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_86_4870793,00.html

As for the majority of MPs (not staff) of the House of Commons voting for a smoker ban, we soon discovered from lobbying them over here that for most the sum total of their knowledge is ASH propaganda. Basically, what most of them really knew about ETS you could write on the back of a postage stamp!

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted August 01, 2006 16:28:57

Thanks for the link by the way. Will check it out.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted August 03, 2006 20:29:59

Pardon me for taking a while to get back to you Rob but I’ve been very busy with work which is often in legal consultancy and hence very demanding on occasion.

Now I’m vey sorry to say it old chap but I was most disappointed with the link you gave me http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793 for this is no more than that hoary old chestnut the infamous EPA Report. I recognised it straight away.

This report was slammed by a Federal Court presided over by Judge William Osteen who vacated the whole lung cancer section saying that they had juggled their statistics in order to validate a conclusion that they'd already decided on BEFORE they did their study. Particular note should be paid to the voiding of the claims in the report that 3,000 Americans die each year from the effects of ETS and that ETS is a class “A” carcinogen.

Moreover, although this study has been thoroughly debunked by science and legally vacated by a federal judge, it is still regularly quoted by government agencies, charity organisations and the anti-smoking movement as if it were legitimate.

Yes, it’s also true that Osteen's decision was later thrown out on a jurisdictional technicality by an appeals court, but the appeals court quite specifically did NOT disagree with ANYTHING that Osteen said.

With regard to the studies contained therein, I have them all individually, and more, and of the 11 studies the EPA based its conclusions on and after juggling the figures it came up with an RR (relative risk) of ETS causing lung cancer of 1.19 which is well below even the very minimum requirement for epidemiological concern of 2. (I have explained these basics in my earlier post.) Hardly any endorsement then of the 11 studies to say that they all agreed with the EPA’s conclusion as that conclusion amounted to bunkum.

Ultimately Rob, I couldn’t give a monkey’s tushi what Philip Morris or the EPA says or anyone else for that matter because I can interpret these figures for myself, and, if the conclusions are not supported by the evidence behind them then those conclusions are erroneous.

Now, I don’t have the time or the space to dissect all those studies but I’m going to make a brief comment in relation to the first one by Akiba and more detailed reference to the Fontham study.

Now if you notice right at the beginning of the Akiba study it mentions a 50% increased risk of lung cancer amongst no-smoking women whose husbands smoked. If you remember my two approaches – the practical layman and the epidemiological – then from the first perspective given the WHO’s yardstick of the chances of a non-smoker getting lung cancer without exposure to ETS of 0.01%, this means with a 50% increased risk over a long period of time the adjusted risk is still only 0.0150 – peanuts! Looked at from an epidemiological perspective a 50% increased risk is expressed as 1.50 and once again, well below the epidemiological first flag up point of 2 (although even 2 is still considered ropy).

Now lets move to the Fontham study. The last line of the Fontham study states: “Its high quality and the reasonable consistency of evidence across sources of ETS exposure strongly support an increase in lung cancer incidence associated with passive smoking.”

However, does Fontham’s evidence support this conclusion. The answer is “no”.

Now slip back to page 354 of the EPA Report and let’s look at all Fontham’s listed ORs. They are respectively: 1.28, 1.29, 1.44, 1.47, 1.21, 1.23, 1.34, 1.58, 1.38, 1.04, 1.39, 1.44 and 1.60 – all well below 2. Furthermore, and to the best of my recollection, only on the Fontham study and the Fontham study alone did the CRS make the ambiguous remark that it showed "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant." Also, and peculiarly, the Fontham study refused to reveal their raw data until Philip Morris won a lawsuit to gain access to it. Good question then, why was Fontham reluctant to release their raw data? After all, most researchers do.

Well, there you go, Rob, an easy one for me and this stuff is now very old hat. You should catch up with some of the more modern studies such as these:

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/32/2/244

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/158/1/35

Also, you really need to get down to understanding the epidemiological basics because if you don’t you will be forever in thrall to “what the experts say”. Actually, it’s quite disconcerting to think of all those well meaning pilgrims, bunched into those anti-smoker missionary meetings, who don’t really understand the key elements of the data they are being presented with.

Cordially,

Blad.

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Michael J. McFadden (anonymous)
Posted August 03, 2006 20:58:51

Rob, if the only topic you want to argue is the lung cancer one, that's fine with me as long as you don't bring up the other topics in the middle of it, OK?

Blad's made some very good points about the EPA study that you should respond to.

But there's one I would like to add on: you're showing a misunderstanding of basic epidemiology when you talk about the 24 of 30 studies and speak of "The possibility that chance could explain this correlation is... only one in a thousand."

Statistical significance is only one test, and one of the most basic tests, in forming an epidemiological theory of causation. One of the reasons epidemiologists always used to ask for RRs of 2 or 3 (as opposed to the EPA's OR of 1.19)is that ordinary unseen biases and confounders so often turn out to play a big role in the results of studies like those done on ETS. Little things such as poorer ventilation in the homes of smokers (due perhaps to their generally lower economic class), poorer diet (probably a lot more fish 'n chips than a typical health nut), more sedentary life style (you could spin that as "because they can't breathe" or I could spin it as "because they got thrown off high school sports teams when they were caught smoking."), even something so simple as (and this one you might like) the idea that wives of smokers might take more showers "to get rid of the stench of smoke" (see, told ya you'd like it!) and therefore breathe in more asbestos fibers suspended in the billions of tiny water droplets created while showering.

And the above doesn't even TOUCH the increased possibility of outright fraud in some studies because of the targeted nature of the grantors. They've uncovered fraud in many cases where the only motivation was financial... but in ETS studies you have a whole different motivation at work as well: dedicated researchers, in possession of "the truth", who want to put out research that will advance that "truth" for the good of society.

After all, even if they're results are fudged they know that they were fudged for a good cause and believe they might save lives as a result. I believe that if an in-depth study were done of scientific fraud that this "double motivation" in the field of ETS research would be discovered to have produced far more fraud than in most other fields.

With all three factors at work, biases, confounders, and fraud, all you need is just one or two studies to have suffered from ANY of them and a number like 1.19 simply vanishes.

Can you see that?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By Blad Tolstoy (anonymous)
Posted August 30, 2006 18:32:38

I am denormal

For many the term "denormalisation" is puzzling to say the least. Ask most ordinary people what it means and they won't know.

Those of us who have thought about it and do know what it means no doubt ponder to themselves why a perfectly good existing term "abnormal" could not have been used instead by being extended to form the word "abnormalise?" This we could all have worked out and known that it signified some process whereby things were taken out of the category of "normal."

An immediate problem springs up from the word denormalise when we consider the terms of self reference that someone who may have undergone the process of denormalisation would have to use.

"Are you denormal" we should have to ask him and to which he might reply: "No, I am not denormal" or alternatively, he would proclaim: "Yes, I am denormal, but I know that I am and I am ashamed/proud."

Or imagine if you discovered your girlfriend was a cannibal and so you gave her the boot. When asked: "Why did you give your girlfriend the boot?," you would reply: "Because she's denormal".

Now this is fascinating so let's conjugate it:

I am denormal
you are denormal
he, she or it is denormal
we are denormal
they are denormal

or negatively,

I am not denormal
you are not denormal
he, she or it is not denormal
we are not denormal
they are not denormal.

Linguistically and from an intuitive perspective then, this word truly sucks. It just doesn't run in the mind and is rather like a prototype skipping elephant.

The picture becomes clear, however, when we consider why all the problems couldn't have been avoided by the use of the word "abnormal" as the root of activity. If the anti smokers had spoken about "abnormalising" people the public would have become suspicious or not have liked the sound of the language. Hence the word would have been a non-starter. So, the word had to made nicer and so people were to be...denormalised. Yes, yet another example of warped and twisted minds at work and if you think this one is going to catch on for posterity well, you probably would have invested in the square wheel!

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By blom (anonymous)
Posted May 22, 2007 19:29:57

this site is a googlewhack with 'abnormalizing missionary' cool

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

By t15t (anonymous)
Posted May 27, 2008 10:59:35

c516t[a][/a]

( Permalink )

Comment Score: None (0 votes)
You must be logged in to vote on this comment.

Post a Comment

Comment Anonymously
Screen Name
What do you get if you multiply 5 and 1?
Leave This Field Blank
Comment

Special Campaign

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Site Tools

Feeds