|
Home Nieuws Rokersdiscriminatie Column Rokerspolis Mediation Rokersruilhoek Rokers quotes Literatuur Downloads Links privacy copyrights disclaimer |
the lies behind..smoking bans
The Lies Behind The
Smoking Bans
► Section 1: The Health Fraud ◄ ► Section 2: The Economic Fraud ◄ ► Section 3: What YOU Need To Do! ◄ Copyright 2010 By Michael J. McFadden Author of Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains
Email: Cantiloper@aol.com Visit: http://TheTruthIsALie.com StilettoCampv.5e 2 You CAN Fight Unfair Smoking Bans! Smoking bans are based upon lies: Lies about the health effects of small amounts of smoke upon people, and lies about the economic effects of bans on bars, entertainment venues, and small restaurants. The antismoking lobby lies about these things because they know politicians and campuses would never pass these bans based only on the demands of noisy extremists forcing unwanted regulations on people. They lie because they know that if a ban’s true motivations and bases were examined campuses would unite in protest. They lie simply because the truth does not support their goal of banning smoking. These bans CAN be stopped if concerned students and faculty work together in educating the wider campus and community about the lies behind the bans and encourage them to speak out and resist unfair demands. Expose the lies. Get people angry. STOP THE BANS! 3The Health Arguments Antismokers claim that scientific studies prove that even small amounts of second-hand smoke are killing people. If that were true then smoking bans might be justified despite business losses and social disruption. Because of the media power of billions of taxpayer dollars most people have come to believe that such claims
are true. They are not
. Quite plainly and simply.... THEY ARE NOT TRUE . There has never been a single study showing that the low level of smoke in bar/restaurants with modern ventilation systems or escaping from decently designed separately ventilated rooms kills
ANYONE . Even most studies of intense unventilated lifelong daily exposure fail the most basic research standard of statistical significance.
So why does the news keep saying secondary smoke is a killer? Simple: a lot of money, and a lot of trickery… for a "good cause". They have no scruples at all about things like pretending that an asthma death simply taking place near a smoker or happening in a smoking venue must have been caused BY smoke - regardless of any evidence. Antismoking extremists subvert our legislatures with campaign money, surprise legislation, and misleading press releases. They do the same in more subtle ways on college campuses. They have over 900 million dollars a year to spend on "Tobacco Control" and they’re not afraid to use it to eradicate smoking. They use a lot of that money to design studies giving the "proper" results and publicize those results over and over again as though they were new studies rather than just old recycled ones. The media accepts their propaganda unquestioningly since it's assumed they are the "good guys" and have no reason to lie. 4 Bad assumption. The Antismoking Lobby believes its true end goal, the elimination of smoking, is important enough to justify all sorts of lying along the way. And the most effective lie they've found is that "Secondhand Smoke Kills." At New York’s 1975 World Conference on Smoking and Health, Antismoking activists were told that to eliminate smoking it would first be essential to "create an atmosphere in which it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children…"
- Huber. Consumers Research Magazine. 04/92 When they first created this lie they had no evidence at all to support it, but began pumping money into creating what they needed. Today, billions of dollars later, they can point to a pile of very equivocal studies, ignore their weaknesses and lack of real findings, and simply claim they all "prove" the need for smoking bans. They do not. The great majority of them fail even the bare minimum standard of statistical significance. Some even indicate a
protective effect from secondary smoke! There's no way to disprove every single study in a few pages, but we
can show the frauds behind the major ones used by Antismoking Lobbyists. These studies were all cited by the Surgeon General in 2006 to push his call for smoking bans or developed in even more recent ban campaigns. Read these six samples and realize that the same shenanigans surrounding these studies occur every day in reports about new ones. 5 The Great Helena Heart Fraud et al (R.P. Sargent et al.
Reduced incidence of admissions for myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban…" BMJ 2004; 328: 977-980 & Rapid Responses) On April 1st, 2003, the "Great Helena Heart Miracle" claimed people "protected" from smoke saw a quick 60% drop in heart attacks: "absolute proof" that bans protect innocent people! The researchers and senior health officials came out with explosive statements about bar owners wanting to "continue poisoning people"&"Secondhand smoke kills!" despite the fact that the study never examined smoke exposure, never corrected for confounders and outright refused to reveal the data for nonsmokers! The Helena study was deliberately distorted and used to manipulate people into supporting smoking bans which have then done enormous harm to their lives and livelihoods. Similarly defective studies have now been repeated by antismoking funded researchers in over a half dozen other cases. No mention is ever made of the possibly hundreds of cases where a statistical link was never found or went in the wrong direction. Claims of heart attacks bouncing back after bans end are shown to be false when erased data is recovered through internet archival searches, but the researchers are never upbraided and their claims never officially corrected. See the critical analyses "Helena, 100 Days" and "Independently Confirmed?" in the BMJ at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1 Update:
Two newer studies, based on government data and each over 1,000 times as large as Helena showed smoking bans actually have no effect on heart attacks. The NBER/RAND study and the Kuneman/McFadden study have been publicly confirmed and praised by noted Antismoking physician Michael Siegel and featured by the American Council on Science and Health. Meanwhile though, the media continues to hype Helena copycat studies despite repeated findings of errors and failings after initial publications. A recently headlined study in England claimed a 40% drop. But once the news-splash was over and the data analyzed, the drop fell to 2%: the same as the decrease that occurred the year before the ban. Advancing falsehoods to promote social engineering of free people is abhorrent, but it’s being done every day by the Antismoking Lobby. And The Great Helena Heart Fraud Study is far from being the only example. The 53 Bartenders Study (Eisner et al.
Bartenders’ Respiratory Health…. JAMA. 1998; 280: 1909-1914) Huge headlines were made in 1998 when a study claimed to show a dramatic improvement in the health of California bartenders after a smoking ban. Those headlines never mentioned three important facts though:
At least 24 of the 53 bartenders were smokers who obviously smoked less after the ban. All 53 were friendly enough toward the ban that they agreed to participate in the study: many others refused. Thus the study pool was strongly skewed from the very beginning!
Most "improvements" noted were purely subjective: "I don’t notice my eyes itching as much." or "I don’t think I cough as much now."
The one scientific difference, a small improvement in some Pulmonary Function Tests, was both below clinically significant levels and quite sensitive to both experimenter effect and patient effort.
Finally, if you actually read the study rather than the headlines, you once again find the claim of causality is not quite what it appears: Eisner actually wrote that "the possibility that unmeasured (infections) or reduced active smoking could still partially explain the observed improvement…reduced ETS exposure…was associated with improved adult respiratory health…smoking prohibition appears to have immediate beneficial effects..." (emphases added) "Possibilities of unmeasured partial explanations…Associated with…. Appears to have..." Not quite the way the story made big headlines. Certainly nothing showing any long term harm. And quite certainly nothing like the definitive causal statements blasted over the media. The Restaurant Workers Study (M. Siegel.
Involuntary Smoking In The Restaurant Workplace. JAMA Vol. 270 #4, 1993) In 1993 Dr. Michael Siegel combined six different studies to claim that secondary smoke was giving bar/restaurant workers a 50% risk increase in lung cancer. New York’s Mayor Bloomberg cited Siegel to justify NY’s ban, claiming Siegel had "carefully controlled" for workers’ smoking statuses. If you actually read Siegel you’ll find that none of the six studies really "carefully controlled" for individual smoking status. Only one of them even asked about it. The others just used statistics. In almost every case, Siegel seemed to pick careful subsets of workers to support his argument. If the males in one study had low lung cancer and the females had high…he picked the females. If the bartenders in another study had high and the food counter workers had low…he picked the bartenders. If the original authors cautioned against others using their data because it was unstable/unrepresentative, he simply ignored the warnings and used it anyway. In the formal setting of the medical journal Siegel stated that, even
with all the adjustments he had made, the evidence merely "suggested that there may be a 50% increase in lung cancer risk among food-service workers that is in part attributable to tobacco smoke exposure in the workplace."
" Suggested" " on their health. Just as with Helena and the 53 bartenders, the hype and flaws in the basic study design extended and grew to blatantly fraudulent proportions once the spotlight of the media was acquired. Bans Reduce Bar Air Pollution by 81, no, 87, no, 93% ! (Many similar repeated studies in the past three years) About three years ago two antismoking researchers hit upon a wonderful idea: measure the smoke in a bar before a ban, then do it again after a ban, and "discover" that there was less smoke! Of course that wouldn’t get a $100,000 grant or a spot on the Six O'clock News by itself. So they took a visible element of smoke, the "fine particulate matter" (FPM), pretended that it was the same as deadly FPM from cars and industrial smog, and declared that bartenders were now safer because the "EPA’s hazardous level of air pollution" was reduced by various amazing amounts! This particular scam has brought millions of dollars to antismoking radicals in cities all over the world where they keep "discovering" over & over & over again that there’s less smoke in the air if no one is smoking! To call it "air pollution" and pretend they are measuring the same thing as the EPA is like taking a tablespoon of sugar crystals and saying it is "the same thing" as a tablespoon of cyanide crystals. Once again, a clever and catchy scare story for the media: Bartenders dying from smoky "air pollution". It’s a study that is being repeated in city after city for ban after ban in news story after news story. But once again, it’s simply an outright fraud when dissected. The 30 Minute Heart Attack Study (Otsuka, R. et al. . Vol 286. #4. 2001) In July 2001 Ryo Otsuka supposedly showed that simply being near a smoker for 30 minutes could kill you. The hype and fraud flashed around the world with the same roar that later greeted Helena, but again if you actually read the study rather than just the headlines you’d find that: That’s 2,000% more smoke than in a smoky airplane cabin!
The study used nonsmokers who religiously avoided smoke in their daily lives, forced them to sign papers acknowledging potentially dangerous conditions and then stuck them in a smoke-choked room. The actual result? A small blood level change similar to what’s seen after a meal. The most amazing thing is that there were no heart attacks just from the stress! There was no control. Even a school science project would have had a sham model and "protocol signing" with subjects exposed to harmless but irritating odors and fog. The control study results would probably have been identical. Why wasn’t such a control set up? Could it be simply that the results would have negated the point of the study and the Antismoking grant money would have dried up? Perhaps…I honestly can’t think of any other reason. Otsuka’s study didn’t show a physical reaction to smoke: it showed a physical reaction to fear and stress…conditions promoted more by Antismokers than by smoke. Otsuka is at fault for deliberately using extreme experimental conditions without reasonable controls. The media is at fault in not reporting those conditions or the likely reaction of extreme nonsmokers. And Smoking Prohibitionists are at fault for using this study to convince people that simply being near smokers for 30 minutes causes heart attacks. This study and its abuse is an example of fear-mongering in the ugliest sense. The Deadly Outdoor Smoke Study (Hall et al, ) Just in time for 2009’s Smoke Out and SmokeFree Campuses push to ban smoking throughout college campuses, U. of Georgia researchers released shocking findings: people walking by outdoor smokers might be exposed to nicotine levels 162% greater than control subjects! (Actually, the researchers compared exposures in a outside bar smoking pit on busy weekend nights to an empty open field.) Sans some details, the frightening news served as an encouragement to campuses considering bans or implementing January bans. But, as with all the rest, the reality is a bit different than headlines. The researchers make no scientific claims of any actual harm from the levels they measure – for the simple reason that there’s no research anywhere that would support such claims even if the concentrations were 1,000% greater. We’re talking fractions of nanograms here. Taking the smokiest exposure, the one stressed in the press releases and statements, an analysis shows that the measurements indicate that even on busy Friday nights a person would have to hang out in smoke pits for almost 25,000 hours to equal the exposure that an average smoker gets in a single day. to equal what a smoker gets in a day. The true intent of campus bans is made clear when one considers the insanity of worrying about passing moments of tobacco smoke amid the exhaust fumes in a campus parking lot, or when one asks why there should be a total prohibition of a few comfortable indoor and separately ventilated accommodations for student smokers and their friends to study and relax together safely on campus. The motivation is NOT about health: It’s about social engineering and it’s based on a presentations that are close to outright fraud. Health Bites The Antismoking Lobby has perfected the art of media sound bites. Short, sweet, sticky to the mind, almost totally void of meaning …but deadly in their effectiveness. They are just more lies though, and if you know them you can laugh when you hear them. Some to watch for: Antismokers claim smoking causes 400,000 deaths a year. ( after age 85!) Antismokers claim scientific studies are unanimous and unequivocal in proving secondary smoke is killing thousands from lung cancer. ( from lung cancer in children exposed to secondary smoke at home!) Antismokers claim smoke contains 4,000 poisons and carcinogens. ( of them!) Antismokers claim secondary smoke is just like Asbestos and Radon. ( Class A Carcinogens.) Antismokers claim having a non-smoking section in a restaurant is the same as having a non-pissing section in a pool. ( the same at all!) Antismokers claim California’s extreme bans reduced lung cancer by 14%. ( their total ban!) Antismokers claim that uncounted masses of hospitality workers are dying every year from secondary smoke. ( …they must all be stacked in a pile next to Saddam Hussein’s nukes and watched over by OJ’s "real killer.")12 Health Conclusion All six are "Flagship Studies" repeated by radicals at public hearings. All six are the "best and the brightest" of the "mountain of studies" that supposedly "prove" smoking bans save lives. And all six are fraudulently used by antismoking lobbyists to scare people into supporting government mandated and open air campus smoking bans. Consider this question: If they had the truth…Why would they lie ? Simple:people would never accept this degree of authoritarian meddling in their private lives just on the basis of annoyance. It’s the "threat to public health" based on these studies that has made bans politically acceptable. Smoking decisions on campuses should be based on the needs and desires of students, faculty, and workers. There is absolutely no justification from a public health standpoint for generalized outdoor smoking bans. There is likewise no justification for denying smokers and their friends some comfortable indoor, separately ventilated accommodations where they can live, work, study, or play together in a Free Choice environment. The total bans are purely social engineering tools used to push a radical agenda. Antismoking extremists are fundamentally no different from the Alcohol Prohibitionists of the last century, but their tools, tricks, and media techniques are much more sophisticated. Rather than try imme-diately for a socially unacceptable total prohibition they simply plan to keep reducing the number of smokers by more and more bans and taxes.
If students can be shown how much they’ve been lied to and manipulated, often by institutions supplied with or hoping for future grant money as a reward for turning over yet another "smoke-free" population to the machine, they will resist. The trick is breaking through the mind set that’s been so thoroughly implanted to prevent them from questioning the MTV-sound bites and slogans that they’ve seen a dozen times a day since they crawled out of the cradle. That’s where something like this booklet can help. 13 The REAL Economic Results of a Smoking Ban! Presented by SmokersClub.com and Michael J. McFadden Antismoking Lobbyists parade vague studies, filled with vague statistics, based upon vaguely designed business criteria, and make vague claims that after three years or so of vague losses, "business will recover to almost pre-ban levels" as ravening thirsty hordes of nonsmokers cowering in their homes transform into wild party animals. Of course this vague assertion only holds true if we pretend economic inflation doesn’t exist, but that’s no crazier than the rest of their assertions. The original "Stiletto" presented over 160 on the record No hidden statistics. No numbers juggling. No "private data" that can’t be checked. Just pure raw reality with loss numbers and quotes. For the Campus Stiletto I’ve reduced it to one page of quotes. Still, if you’re sharing this with a bar owner, that’ll be the page they read! You can fight these bans. The health lies are followed by economics lies. Antismokers say bans are "Inevitable," that "The debate is over." and, echoing Star Trek’s Borgs, that "Resistance is Futile!" They are wrong.
The debate is NOT over and resistance is NOT futile! Students, faculty, and campus workers have the right to make basic decisions about their lives and environment without social engineers seeking to "Denormalize" smokers out of public view. Campuses can set reasonable smoking rules that will accommodate their diverse populations in safety and comfort without discrimination and without lies. Defend your freedoms! Stand up and fight for your rights ! The original Stiletto, aimed largely at bars, had a detailed listing of over 160 New York businesses tabulated over several pages here. The Campus Stiletto reduces that to just a few selected notes and quotes from news articles about the ban. Surviving bars may seem fine, but they’re the lucky ones. Albany: Temple Isreal Bingo - Regulars told volunteers they would abstain from bingo to protest the ban. They haven’t been seen there since.
Binghamton: Airport Inn – Evans’ biz has dropped at least 40% post-ban. Her liquor license expires in April, and she doesn't plan to renew it. The Inn was a successful biz for 18 years.
Binghamton: Mama Lena’s -- I n business more than 40 years. Closed. Buffalo: Jimmy Mac’s Bar&Grille -- "Laid off 35 employees,went from making a steady living for 24 years to losing about $100,000/year compliments of the ban. The government figures are lies. Tell your friends who own bars that if the ban goes in they might as well pack up and leave." Closed. Buffalo: Royal Pheasant Restaurant -- an instant 80% revenue loss …had been a family business for 58 years. Closed. Buffalo: Voelker Bowling – "The smoking ban hit us like an anvil, curtailing bowling activity by 35% and bar biz by 25%."
Cotati: Friar Tuck’s Restaurant – "Just as my establishment was beginning to flourish, I'm hit with this smoking ban which has killed my daytime business. People who used to stay for hours now stay for one quick drink and leave."
Fredonia: Barker Brew Pub – Closed after ten years.
Holland: Holland Hotel & Bar/Restaurant -- Fri. dinners down from 170 to 60.Monthly expenses $3000 more than sales
My lifelong dream of operating my own business will be over in 6 months. My wife & 3 children…have used all our savings to supplement the business after the ban." Ithaca: Bowl-O-Drome --The business lost almost $30,000 & 110 bowlers during the 32-week league season. Jamestown: Elk’s Club -- Bingo, funded their charities, now gone. Jamestown: Patsy’s Lounge -- "I have let 2 employees go and the other 3 have had their hours cut in half."
Lake George: Lemon Peel Lounge -- "We are now opening later and closing earlier. We are a local tavern with no food. The ban hurt."
Massena: Sportsmen’s Tavern – "We had hoped...nonsmokers avoiding taverns due to the smoke-filled air would make up…the financial loss. Unfortunately, at least in our place, this has most definitely not happened. Our sales are at an all time low."
Mattydale: The Cam-Nel – 53 years of service. Closed. Mayville: Blues Rock Café – "On the first day of the ban, my tips and # of customers dropped 50%, and never came back up." Middleport: Middleport Inn – "This damn state really knows how to kill people’s dreams" Closed. NYC: Fiddler’s Green – "We’ve just lost too many customers to this law, which I didn’t vote for, bar owners didn’t vote for, bartenders didn’t vote for & the public didn’t vote for." Closed. NYC: Harry’s Hanover Sq -- "Overnight, we lost 60% of our evening bar trade. For the bar,it was the difference in profit and loss. Sales of expensive cigars had been almost as important as the sales of Scotch." Open for more than 30 years. Closed. NYC: Madame X -- "In 2004 (we were) voted CitySearch #1 and Sheckys Best Lascivious Lounge. Despite this our gross was over 30% down from 2002. Our summer sales tax dropped 50% How can the city say profits are up when my profits are so drastically down? It's clearly NOT because I manage my bar poorly! The sole reason for this horrible state of affairs is the smoking ban. We've lost 8 workers, cut staff and biz hours & tips are still down by a third. This is pitiful".
NYC: O’Neill’s – "They said the ban would be good for business and employees,yet my business is down & 3 good staff are out of work & can’t find another job. Most of my staff are smokers, & now they're being protected from secondhand smoke."
NYC: Roesch’s Tavern -- Lauterborn, 60, said his bar saw 40 customers nightly before the ban but only about 5 after it. His children are supporting him while he looks for work. His tavern had been a 100 year old family owned business. Closed. NYC: Sugoba Bistro – "After 8 years of success in NYC, the smoking ban killed my Bistro in less than a year! In less than 3 months business declined 37%. Within six months I was unable to meet payroll and I had to lay off 28 employees. Closed. NYC: Swans – "I felt bad laying off seven workers. Most had been with me for the five years Swan's was open. None of them
had ever complained about secondhand smoke" NYC: Swifts -- "It’s absolutely killed us. Last year the bar would be packed with the afterwork cocktail crowd. Now they just take a bottle of wine or a sixpack home where they can smoke."
Niagara Falls: The Press Box -- Open for 45 years. Closed. Niagara Falls: Kelly’s Korner Bar – "It has been the worst ride of my life since the ban. Kelly’s has been around 67 years. I tried to save it with no luck." Closed. Ogdensburg: The Web Tavern -- Owners Janet and Anthony Doerr say the smoking ban destroyed their business. Oneida: Five Corners Bar/Restrnt – "After 20 years of hard work this is what NY state does to us. Where are all these nonsmokers?"
Oswego: Shamrock Tavern -- "It's not right. Our livelihood is being taken away."
Potville: Cork & Bottle Tavern -- A Mom & Pop business, run by a couple with no employees to "protect." Closed. Rochester: Panorama – "We are a small night club that was doing very well until the smoking ban hit us and it hit us very hard. We are very scared of our future, if any."
Savannah: D&S Diner -- Sales down $3,000 in July 2002 compared to July 2001. Closed. Southport: Tiny Tavern -- In Oct. 2002, the bar made $6,000. This October, after the ban, they made just $3,500.
Springville: Pocketeer Billiards -- "Pocketeer Billiards South is now officially closed due to the Hitlerlike laws NY Politicians have enacted." Closed. Steamburg: Coldsprin g -- "The fire dept. owns the bar. Bar money buys fire equipment and has been cut in half. This money buys new ambulances, trucks, gear. Remember, this is all volunteer. You may lose your house or even life without the money for the equipment."
Troy: Celtic Bingo – "From July 25 - Nov. 1, we are down about $12,000 from the same period last year. Do You REALLY Want Statistics? Prohibitionists claim "Legitimate" studies show no economic harm from extremist bans. They wave fistfuls of studies in the air - summarized, designed, paid for, and chosen by themselves of course - and claim all contrary studies come from "Big Tobacco." Actually, studies funded by Antismoking grants are specifically designed to show no harm. Those showing losses are usually sponsored by the owners actually facing those losses and who only want the truth! Antismoking lobbyists lump together take-out/fast-food chains with bars and real restaurants to hide loss. But even with these blurred statistics, you can see the real effects by comparing states with widespread bans to those with none or few. Antismokers brag about California’s 6% hospitality growth between smoke-friendly 1990 and smoke-banned 1998. They ignore the fact that trade growth in smoker-friendly states like North Carolina and Virginia was 77% and 57%…a growth over ten times greater! (See table on next page.) And when one compares California to its bordering states a truly amazing figure emerges. While other factors play some part, the raw data actually indicate California’s bans cost it over one hundred billion dollars of growth since 1995! No wonder its economy is in trouble! (See excerpted table on following page). Full study available at http://www.smokersclubinc.com/economic.html16 (All Figures Below in Billions of Dollars) STATES WITH WIDESPREAD BANS Bar & Restaurant Trade Total Retail Trade YEAR 1990 1998 1990 1998 =========================================== CA 26.3 28.0 225 291 NY 13.1 13.8 124 148 MA 6.1 5.9 50.7 62.6 VT 0.46 0.44 4.5 6.0 SMOKER FRIENDLY STATES & Whole USA Bar & Restaurant Trade Total Retail Trade YEAR 1990 1998 1990 1998 =========================================== NC 4.5 8.0 45.8 81.1 VA 4.4 6.9 47.5 73.6 MO 3.5 5.7 36.0 57.3 TX 11.4 18.4 120 190 USA 182 260 1807 2695 (Data tabulated from the publicly available Statistical Abstracts of the United States, years 1992 and 2000, tables 1292 and 1295, by David Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden..) The Klein Study (Klein et al, Prev Sci. 2009 Jun;10(2):168-74) In 2009 a group of researchers headed by Elizabeth Klein unveiled a study designed to reassure nervous bar owners and workers who were resisting bans in various states that they had nothing to fear. Headlines all over the country proclaimed in big bold print: Smoking Bans Do Not Hurt Bar And Restaurant Employment! There was only one problem with this. The basic data the study was based on was available from state records. The research grant proposal was also available. A bit of research determined that the details were just a little, tiny, important bit different than what the public had been led to believe! The word "AND" was specifically being used to HIDE the fact that the actual raw data, data which the researchers had had in front of them, actually showed that MN’s smoking bans DECIMATED bar employment. But the half-million-dollar grant proposal the researchers had filled out had promised results that would support the efforts of ClearWay Minnesota in pushing for a total ban. Soooo…they simply combined the figures for bars with the figures for full-service restaurants that weren’t hit as hard, presented the numbers in a very confusing format, and were able to declare "honestly" that they found no significant data showing bans hurt bar "and" restaurant employment.
A truly honest examination and presentation of the data would have produced headlines reading: Smoking Bans Decimate Bar Employment! But, as usual, honesty wasn’t the Antismokers’ strongest suit…particularly not when their grant proposal promised " this research will provide public health officials and tobacco control advocates with information that can help shape adoption and implementation of CIA policies (i.e. smoking bans), and prevent their repeal."
None of the above details were made generally available to the public. They were only discovered after careful, and rather lucky, research. Think of all the lies out there that are never uncovered. Bans and Gambling Revenues Antismokers will claim bans don’t hurt business, and as you saw with the Klein study they can do a lot of juggling. But they run into a problem when they hit the State’s carefully overseen pocketbook. Minnesota provides a beautiful example of what bans do to various forms of charitable gambling (largely bar- and bingo-based) income over a period of years. There were virtually no bans there prior to 2005, then in 2005 and 2006 there were partial bans, followed by full ban from September 2007. A simple graph of official state revenues figures shows EXACTLY what smoking bans can do to business. 75 80.5 86 91.5 97 102.5 108 113.5 119 124.5 130Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec $88 $89 $98 $94 $94 $88 $89 $90 $87 $90 $81 $77 $103 $97 $95 $91 $105$101 $119 $107 $105 $101 $103 $105 $111$110 $122 $115 $111 $105 $105 $107 $106 $110 $106$109 $117$115 $127 $120 $121 $114 $118 $119 $117 $123 $116$117 NoBan: 2003/ 2004 PartialBan: 2005-200 Partial Ban 2007 FullBan End of 2007 Full Ban All 2008 MN Smoking Ban Gambling $ Impact Months Derived from MN Gambling Control Board Figures Revenue in Millions/ Month Note the sudden and discreet drop when partial bans hit in 2005/2006. Note how that drop suddenly doubled when the full ban came in during the last three months of 2007 and extended in an extreme drop throughout 2008. And finally, note that when the "WorldWide Economic Meltdown" hit in November and December of 2008 it showed up as little more than a blip after the disasters of the previous three years of smoking bans. If cities like Las Vegas and Atlantic City are conquered by the antismoking Huns and are forced to impose total smoking bans on their casinos we will see entire thriving cities virtually destroyed. The poverty and crime that will accompany that destruction will kill far more people than any smoking ban could ever save even if the Antismokers were telling the truth. Which, of course, they never do. Just a Few More Statistics Post ban studies of NY bars found a 19% alcohol sales loss and a job loss of 2,650. Bloomberg’s claimed 8.7% sales hike has been exposed as a lie with actual government figures and NY bars are now suffering intense attacks for the noise, littering, and rowdiness of crowds of outdoor smokers. In Talbot Co. MD, the number of liquor licenses fell from a pre-ban 39 to a post-ban 29 - a 27% drop. Montgomery Co. MD licenses dropped from 507 to 402. Colorado and Illinois smoking bans have hit Casino revenues by 10 to 20%, while even the partial smoking ban in Atlantic City has produced its first significant downturns in over 30 years! In the United Kingdom post-ban pub closures have shot from 3 per week to 52 per week!
After California’s smoking ban, we’d see TV interviews of people sitting in a bar enjoying a drink, telling the camera that this is the first time they'd been able to go to a bar since the smoke always bothered them and now they'd be able to go out for drinks and enjoy themselves. One such interview was at a bar in San Diego where I knew the owner personally. The next time I spoke with her she angrily told me it was a set-up and she hadn't seen the couple since that day. She was finally learning, a little too late, what she was up against. 20 THEIR NEXT MOVE Don’t make the mistake of thinking the fight will be over if you give them the family restaurants, or give them the bar-restaurants, or even if you just hold out just for private clubs. Antismoking extremists hate smoking with a passion and they will everything…
Unless you stop them. You’ve probably heard of Calabasas and Belmont, California, where they’ve banned smoking outdoors, even on your own front porch if a neighbor or passer-by objects. Even that is not enough for them: Smoke Free Pennsylvania’s Bill Godshall complained that, "Unfortunately for many involuntary smokers in Calabasas, the ordinance exempts many different locations, so people will still be exposed to tobacco smoke pollution… The new rules exempt residences, backyards..."
John Banzhaf, founder of Action On Smoking and Health now boasts "Here we are literally reaching into the last frontier -- right into the home... No longer can you argue, 'My home is my castle. I've got the right to smoke.' "
Stop Them Now! What You Need To Do! 1) flyers, booklets, and posters to educate students and faculty about smoking bans. Smokers almost NEVER object to being handed a Free Choice flyers
2) for your library and consider them for course segments: both are extensively documented with over 600 formal references apiece.
3) smoking bans are needed in open fields and gas-fume-filled parking lots (!) and why you can’t have some comfortable, separately vented indoor places for smoking students and their friends to live, study, and relax together.
4) antismoking groups are large, well-funded, and well-organized … You can’t fight them alone! Copyright 2010 by Michael J. McFadden Author of Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains
Email: Cantiloper@aol.com : Visit www.TheTruthIsALie.com Geplaatst op: 17-01-2010 om 17:41:29 |
Laatste nieuws 09-05-2013 De farmaceutisch versterkte hersenspoeling bij Tabaknee Als de rook om je hoofd is verdwenen, een eind 60 jaren song, is door Tabaknee weer een actuele tekst geworden. Nog niet eerd... volledig artikel 05-05-2013 rookverbod hele horeca 1 juli 2014 Deze week konden we lezen dat er in juli 2014 opnieuw zal worden getracht een algeheel rookverbod in de horeca af te dwingen.... volledig artikel 03-05-2013 rookverbod hele horeca 1 juli 2014 Van Rijn: vanaf 1 juli 2014 rookverbod in hele horeca Nieuwsbericht | 03-05-2013 Staatssecretaris Martin van Rijn (VWS) s... volledig artikel 02-05-2013 plain fag packets plan up in smoke DAVID Cameron has scrapped plans to force all cigarettes to be sold in plain packs, The Sun can reveal. Health ministers had... volledig artikel 03-04-2013 enge plaatsje op sigarettenpakjes niet zinvol Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde Enge plaatjes op sigarettenpakjes niet zinvol Gerjo Kok, Gjalt-Jorn Y. Peters en Ro... volledig artikel |