Become a Member
THE CASE AGAINST SMOKING BANS
Polls / Ban Popularity
A Brief History
of the War on Smokers
More on the history of the anti-smoking movement
Why Do We Smoke Cigarettes?
An essay written in 1947 delves into the "habit"
Had To Say
Write A Letter
Smokers' Rights Groups,
Links & Books
Information You Need To Fight Back!
An index of smoking-related issues and information all
in one place
Canadian Tobacco Control Expert Defects out of Disgust
Smoking Bans DO Hurt Businesses!
PUBCO (Pub & Bar Coalition of Canada) writes:
"Financial damage to our industry caused by such 100%
bans is horrendous, and we have the evidence to prove it."
PEARLS OF WISDOM
Educated Views & Opinions
Get to Know Who They Are
The Anti-Smoking Agenda Promotes Hate
"They'll get used to it"
It's condescending and...
it's a lie
Let's Be Reasonable
& Noteworthy News
Anti-Smoking Program Fails
POP GOES YOUR
Cigarette Prices Raised
The nannies can crow all they like about how badly they're
hurting "Big Tobacco" in the wallet to soothe their distorted egos. Truth
is that the tobacco companies aren't paying a dime. We are!
"Smokers are a financial burden!"
"In general, smokers do not appear to currently
impose net financial costs on the rest of
Latest Concurring Opinion
The MASTER SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
And the court rules they don't have to:
But Who Actually Pays and Who Profits?
Pharmaceutical Industry Funding Creates Smoking Bans
"I read it in the paper. It must be true!"
Sorry, but not true.
Some experts aren't so sure
"FOR THE CHILDREN"
If you're well versed in the smokers' rights struggle DON'T click hereif you don't want to throw up.
Click here for our tribute to the victims and heroes of the WTC attack
They've been able to make it work because they've understood the nastier secrets of human nature (the easy instincts of hate and fear; the yen to be thought of as Better without effort, talent or charm; and the really nifty general kick of kicking Other People around.) And they've mastered how to exploit them through the science of propaganda.
Then, too, they've had the money (mostly taxpaying smokers' money) to make their message a constant drumbeat-- drumming it constantly into the heads of almost everybody with ears. That their message is far from truthful can't compete with the constant beat.
CLASH's goal is to stop the cacophony. To make the voices of reason heard. And then to counter the big lies and the big libels with information.
CLASH's mission is to rescue the constitutional rights of all-- to free assembly, equal protection, and equal access to public life.
We ardently believe that the right to pursue happiness isn't-- or
And that Rights, in fact, aren't-- or, in any case, shouldn't be-- a
This is not what we once used to call "The American Way."
And it's more than a fight about smoking now, it's a fight about basic values, a highly political fight about the way we're going to live.
It's a battle that's worth joining.
No retreat, No surrender.
Smoking is a health risk only to those who choose to smoke. While there is no proven study which links secondhand smoke to cancer in nonsmokers there are those who may find smoke to be an annoyance. Rather than trying to eliminate smoking completely, all that we ask is for a compromise to be reached and to be accommodated. That goal has been reached time after time for so many groups through the good work of a great city. Drawing a line in that practice when the group encountered are smokers does not bode well for the image of N.Y.C. in the minds of its residents nor in the minds of those who may choose to visit or conduct business here.
Is N.Y.C. as open-minded towards personal differences
as they lead the world to believe or not?
1. The most basic moral obligation of the federal government is to defend America.
2. Property rights and economic freedom are the fertile soil in which all other rights grow and thrive. The environment is best protected and preserved where free markets thrive, capitalism is robust, and property rights are respected.
3. The Constitution's enumerated and limited powers, checks and balances, federalism, separation of powers, and guarantee of basic rights are the foundation of America's freedom.
4. "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness" and each of the other rights guaranteed in the Constitution are necessary to the foundation of freedom - including the right to bear arms and to not be deprived of property without just compensation.
5. The courts have a constitutional duty to faithfully and strictly interpret the law and the Constitution and may not invent or create new law.
6. Justice is the equal treatment of all individuals regardless of ethnicity or religion. Fabricating group rights undermines individual freedom and civil rights.
7. Taxes may be legitimately imposed only to the extent necessary to pay for the essential and constitutionally permitted activities of government. To tax more than this is a form of tyranny and extortion.
8. Government mandates and regulations too often exceed constitutional authority, waste resources, erode freedom, diminish property rights, and produce harmful unintended consequences.
9. To remove sound science from public policy is legislative and regulatory malpractice. To employ junk science in public policy is unethical and irresponsible.
10. Basic standards of morality and civic virtue are essential to maintaining America's economic strength, military might, and freedom. Parents and families, not government, are responsible to rear and educate their children.
(Reprinted with permission from Frontiers of Freedom)
"Crusades usually start by being admirable, proceed to being foolish,
and end by being dangerous. The crusade against smoking is now...in its
dangerous stage.... [T]he true crusader doesn't stop at burning the village,
killing the women and children and making off with the cattle, if that's
what it takes to purify the world."
So we're witnessing another great Noble Experiment. One of those nifty schemes aimed at purifying society, re-educating the public, and engineering behavior. Another utopian omelet for which it's really, really okay-- as the first Marxist wonderfully put it-- to grab your mallet and smash eggs. The omelet, of course, is that devoutly wished-for "Smoke-Free Society" and the eggs, of course, are the smokers. People, human beings, who, for the Greater Goodness, have to be drummed from the civil corps-- separated, denormalized, booted from public life, and then next-- in their entirely manufactured isolation-- shown to The Children™ as Bad Examples.
It's a playground of Anything Goes. Lies, of course, are acceptable (they're all in a Good Cause) and so's the other Marxian gambit, "The end justifies the means."
And the lies are increasingly whoppers, and the means are increasingly mean.
It's an interesting little society these experiments have created.
Intentionally divisive. Propagandizing hate and fear. Creating a class of scapegoats and second class citizens while giving glowing status to snitches-- all those bratty little grownups who like to run and rat to the teacher or, even scarier, rat to the State.
And what's really nearly amusing is the chattering-on about "rights," meaning the "rights" of the anti-smokers to every inch of their new world. Not a whisper is ever whispered about the property rights they trample or the civil rights they destroy.
Or the truth they willfully mangle.
Or the poison they put in the well.
Way back in the less abrasive and less toxic days of the Movement, its target was much simpler: Convince smokers that smoking's bad and then politely convince them to quit.
Many quit. But many didn't. Stronger measures were pulled from the hat. The original notion of banning smoking in public places had been on boards since before the invention of secondhand smoke. As early as 1963, a Consumers Union Report cites the conclusion of Brit docs at the Royal College of Physicians: Not only would public smoking bans discourage children from smoking (out of sight and thus, out of mind) but--
"A gradually expanding network of places where smoking is banned might similarly serve to remind us, hour by hour and day by day, that smoking is not...acceptable" and further help to bring it "into social disfavor in private places as well. Wider restriction of smoking in public places might ultimately contribute much to the discontinuance of smoking by altering social acceptance of the habit."
In other words, by legally giving smoking a furtive image you'd be "helping" smokers to quit.
And still, it wasn't enough. At least not in the USA. A place where "For Your Own Good" was never sufficient reason for laws. What was needed was something bigger. And along came Godber.
Sir George Godber. In 1975 as British delegate to the World Health Organization (WHO), he presented the WHO with his blueprint for changing (engineering) individual behavior by changing social attitudes. Since his special interest was tobacco, he used it as an example of how his plan could be used. His published address to the WHO contains the following statement:
"...it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to [the smoke in the air.]"
And bingo! Environmental Tobacco Smoke was born. At least "born" in the somewhat misty and wishful form of a Holy Grail. And all the crusaders came out to look for it, first by the dozens, then by the throngs, enticed by the gold of the nation's coffers. Federal grant money seemed to appear like venture capital. This could be It! The Magic Bullet.
It wasn't found. But sooner or later it had to be faked, like the ermine trim and the ruby snaps and the satin sleeves on the Emperor's Clothes.
And where we are now, in terms of the story, is just at the part where the Emperor struts, fully naked but still unexposed.
We now invite you to check our archives. Look at the evidence. Judge
for yourself. And then decide what's the greater danger -- secondhand smoke,
or the whole Crusade.
The Emperor had a creepy feeling down his spine because it began to dawn on him that the people were right. "All the same," he thought to himself, "I've got to go through with this as long as the procession lasts."
So he drew himself up and
held his head higher than before, and the courtiers held on to the train
that wasn't there at all."
On the day the Volstead Act went into effect, making it illegal to manufacture, distribute and sell alcoholic beverages, the Treasury Department's chief agent in charge of enforcement, Col. Daniel Porter, declared, "There will not be any violations to speak of."
Morris Sheppard, the congressman from Texas who co-sponsored the original amending legislation in 1918 predicted in 1930: "There is as much chance of repealing the 18th Amendment as there is for a hummingbird to fly to the planet Mars with the Washington Monument tied to its tail."
Indeed, the strength of the hummingbird proved to be stronger than
the will of intolerant.
Noted author Taylor Caldwell originally wrote this article for a magazine in 1967. Her words are dead on:
"There are those in this world whose 'love' is not only a wicked lie, but is a cover for unpardonable vindictiveness, a secret desire to cause pain, a sadism. There are those who are not to be trusted for a single moment, for they are innately malignant as well as hypocritical. They are the "whited sepulchre" of whom Our Lord spoke with such anger and scorn. Give in to them for a moment, doubt that they are entirely evil, tolerantly admit they might be right in one thing -- and they will fall upon you, believing your defenses are down and you have surrendered yourself as a victim. They love victims."
'love' = the anti smokers' claim that they "care" about others' health in their crusade to end smoking.
secret desire to cause pain, a sadism = smoking bans that delight them most when they see smokers standing out in the rain.
Give in to them for a moment,... and they will fall upon you = Compromise leads to greater restrictions (smoking sections to no smoking indoors at all).
"The doctrine of 'majority rule equals freedom' is custom made to turn
mobs of voters into spoiled children with a divine right to plunder the
candy store. The only way to equate submission to
And no matter how much the anti-smokers say they are the majority, ergo rule, because they aren't smokers they still are not the majority because the non-smokers don't stand with them. They stand with those who uphold the Constitution and respect liberty.
Reference Guide on Epidemiology
Short Course on "Junk Science Judo"
"Junk science" is faulty scientific data and analysis used to further a special agenda. The junk science "mob" includes:
Environmental Tobacco Smoke
"The Dose Makes The Poison"
Excerpt from New England Journal of Medicine Editorial
Discussion of Source of Claims of 50,000 Deaths from Passive Smoking
Anti-Smokers Caught While Deleting Unfavourable Evidence in Passive
Australian Anti-Smoker Campaigner Caught Trying to Lie about Secondhand Smoke
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Caught Lying About Studies Involving Condoms
The Bliley Report
Smokers vs. Anti-Smokers
The Health Police
Claims and Counter Claims:
Exposure to ETS Measurement Studies
|No Clear Link Between Passive Smoking and Lung Cancer (The Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Dec. 2013) - A large prospective cohort study of more than 76,000 women that found "no link between the disease and secondhand smoke."|
Smoking In Parks And On Beaches: Science, Policy, And The Politics Of Denormalization
(Health Affairs, July 2013) - "Three justifications for these restrictions
have been invoked: the risk of passive smoke to nonsmokers, the pollution
caused by cigarette butts, and the long-term risks to children from seeing
smoking in public. Our analysis of the evidence for these claims found
it far from definitive and in some cases weak. Although invoking limited
evidence may prove effective [denormalize smoking] in the short run, it
is hazardous for public health policy makers, for whom public trust is
essential." -- Drs.Ronald Bayer and Kathleen E. Bachynski
Also see PBS interview, "The Real Reason Behind Public Smoking Bans," with research author Dr. Ronald Bayer: "I discovered the evidence was really weak. The evidence of harm to non-smokers on the beach or in a park from someone smoking is virtually non-existent."
|First Nationwide Study Finds No Link Between Smoking Bans and Reductions in Heart Attacks - Last year, criticizing a CDC-commissioned report from the Institute of Medicine that endorsed highly implausible claims of immediate, substantial reductions in heart attacks resulting from smoking bans, I noted that the authors had ignored the most comprehensive study of the subject, which found no such effect. Now that study, which at the time of the IOM report was available as a working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research, has been published by the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Instead of looking at small cities with volatile hospital admission numbers—the M.O. of studies that linked smoking bans to dramatic reductions in heart attacks—the authors of the new study, led by Kanaka Shetty of the RAND Corporation, used nationwide data to see if smoking bans were associated with changes in hospital admissions or mortality. "In contrast with smaller regional studies," they write, "we find that smoking bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases." In fact, "An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a smoking ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature." (December 20, 2010)|
A COST ON SOCIETY
Were we to accept -- as the anti-smokers insist -- that smokers die "earlier" due to their lifestyle choice then the claim that smokers, as one more way to demonize and punish them, are a health-care cost drain on society is a lie. It's been repeatedly demonstrated that smokers pay far more than any costs incurred.
Fat People [And Smokers] Cheaper to Treat, Study Says - (February 5, 2008) - In a paper published online in the Public Library of Science Medicine journal, Dutch researchers found that the health costs of thin and healthy people in adulthood are more expensive than those of either fat people or smokers... Cancer incidence, except for lung cancer, was the same in all three ["healthy living," obese, smoker] groups.
Ultimately, the thin and healthy group cost the most, about $417,000, from age 20 on. The cost of care for obese people was $371,000, and for smokers, about $326,000.
Note: And yet when Philip Morris released a report conducted in the Czech Republic in 2001 that found the same the anti-smokers played the emotional trump card and attacked them for drawing the public finance conclusion that smokers statistically die younger. Philip Morris was wrongfully forced to apologize for an economic report that did no more than substantiate what the anti-smokers claim themselves: "Smoking causes 'premature' death" [and thus savings]. Read more
smoking less, living longer; Implications for possible net loss to Social
Security (Demographic Research Journal, July 1, 2011): Americans
are living longer than currently projected by the U.S. Census and Social
Security Administration because of the steady decline in smoking, according
to a new study co-authored by Dartmouth researcher Samir Soneji, PhD. Although
decreased mortality is a victory in many ways, the increase in life expectancy
could mean a net loss for the Social Security Administration because as
we live longer, there will be fewer workers to support such entitlement
programs, Soneji writes with co-author Gary King of Harvard University.
Does Staying Healthy Reduce Your Lifetime Health Care Costs? (Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, May 2010): Our main finding is that although the current health care costs of healthy retirees are lower than those of the unhealthy, the healthy actually face higher total health care costs over their remaining lifetime. At any given age, average costs for people who remain in good health are higher than for those suffering from one or more chronic diseases. So why do the currently healthy incur higher lifetime health care costs than the sick? First, people in good health can expect to live significantly longer. At age 80, people in healthy households have a remaining life expectancy that is 29 percent longer than people in unhealthy households, and, therefore, are at risk of incurring health care costs over more years. Second, many of those currently free of any chronic disease will succumb to one or more such diseases. For example, our simulated individuals who are free of any chronic diseases at age 80 can expect to spend one-third of their remaining life suffering from one or more such diseases. Third, people in healthy households face an even higher lifetime risk of requiring nursing home care than those who are not healthy, reflecting their greater risk of surviving to advanced old age, when the risk of requiring such care is highest.
The Proposed Tobacco Settlement: Who Pays for the Health Costs of Smoking? (Congressional Research Service, April 30, 1998): Smoking has apparently brought financial gain to both the federal and state governments, especially when tobacco taxes are taken into account. In general, smokers do not appear to currently impose net financial costs on the rest of society. The [MSA] tobacco settlement will increase the transfer of resources from the smoking to the nonsmoking public.
The Health Care Costs of Smoking (NEJM, October 9, 1997): If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs [7 percent higher among men and 4 percent higher among women].
Insurance Costs of Smoking (from Secondhand Smoke: Facts and Fantasy by W. Kip Viscusi, 1995): On balance, smokers save society 27¢ per pack from an insurance standpoint. This amount excludes the role of the taxes smokers pay, which average 53¢ per pack [in 1995] of cigarettes.
Rain Proves Beach Smoking Ban Ineffective - LOS ANGELES -- Southern
California officials say the piles of cigarette butts that litter the sand
and water after this week's rainstorm are proof that the beach smoking
bans are ineffective.
A new report by the Los Angeles County's Department of Beaches and Harbors has found no change in the number of cigarette butts littering two public beaches, despite a trial smoking ban this summer.
Sanitation officials believe the majority of the butts are not coming from beachgoers, but smokers inland who toss their butts on sidewalks and streets. Rains wash them and other debris into storm drains and to the beach.
Some cities, such as Glendale, are trying to reduce the litter by giving away portable ash trays and placing butt receptacles at bus stops and outside bars, restaurants and other places where cigarettes are tossed. (October 2004)
giant to deny cancer link ; Imperial uses unprecedented defence to fight
claim by smoker's widow - A giant British tobacco company is to take
the unprecedented step this week of denying there is a proven causal link
between smoking and lung cancer in the first case against a cigarette firm
to go to a UK court. Imperial says in documents filed into court and seen
by The Observer: 'Cigarette smoking has not been scientifically established
as a cause of lung cancer. The cause or causes of lung cancer are unknown.'
The company will argue that studies, such as those carried out by Doll, 'report a statistical association between cigarette smoking', not complete proof. The studies 'also report cancer to be statistically associated with many other factors. These include race, ethnicity, religion, sex, personality, low socio-economic status, occupation, diet, stress, education... It is not known which, if any, of these plays a role in the causation of lung cancer'. (October 2003)
Court rejects tobacco test case - A widow whose husband died of lung cancer has lost her landmark court battle against the cigarette giant Imperial Tobacco. In delivering his judgement, judge Lord Nimmo Smith said Mrs McTear's case had failed on every count. (May 31, 2005)
Or in other words, NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT SMOKING CAUSES CANCER: EVIDENCE INSUFFICIENT
"The averment that tobacco is more addictive than cocaine is not proved."
"In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation. Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a non-smoker, it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer."
"...even if I were to hold it established, on the basis of the epidemiology, that cigarette smoking can cause lung cancer, there is still no evidence as to the process by which smoking causes lung cancer in an individual."
Or to summarize (courtesy of FORCES):
After a very meticulous examination of all available scientific and statistical evidence to date (no convenient omissions), the court rejects the request for compensation and decides in favour of Imperial Tobacco and against Margaret McTear, widow of Alfred McTear, who died in 1993 at the age of 48. In an 800-page decision, jurisprudential milestones are firmly established:
Death, disease not linked to smoking: high court (June 23, 2005) - The Tokyo High Court on Wednesday dismissed an appeal filed by former smokers, some now deceased, who were each demanding 10 million yen in compensation from Japan Tobacco Inc. and the government for tobacco-induced illnesses. Presiding Judge Toshinobu Akiyama said Wednesday that he supports the Tokyo District Court's ruling in July 2004 that the court "cannot affirm the causal relationship between smoking and the diseases of the plaintiffs and the deceased plaintiffs."
In Wednesday's ruling, Akiyama noted that while smoking does endanger one's health, there are other substances in the environment that can lead to cancer. Such factors must be considered comprehensively when referring to the dangers brought about by smoking, the judge said, adding that the effects of tobacco on the human body have not yet been thoroughly clarified.
Akiyama also ruled that compared to other addictive substances, including heroin, cocaine and alcohol, nicotine addiction is relatively weak.
question claims that environmental tobacco smoke is harmful - Participants
at a seminar on the science of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS, so-called
“passive smoking”) today heard a series of speakers review evidence for
claims that ETS is harmful. The seminar, organized by the Tobacco Manufacturers’
Association (TMA), took place at the Royal Institution. The TMA reported
that anti-smoking lobby groups had boycotted the seminar and other organizations
had refused invitations to their scientific experts to speak.
A common theme amongst several of the speakers was that the published science on ETS has been interpreted over-zealously as providing support for claims that ETS causes serious diseases among non-smokers, whereas the evidence is insufficient to support these claims... (more) (November 2004)
tobacco smoke does not affect mortality; British Medical Journal;
May 17, 2003
Environmental tobacco smoke was not associated with mortality from coronary heart disease or lung cancer at any level of exposure in a large study of Californians followed for 40 years.
This is by far the biggest and longest-term study on ETS and non-smokers ever done, and it reached the same conclusion as the WHO study and more than 80% of all the studies ever done: NO statistically significant risk from ETS for either lung cancer or heart disease in non-smokers exposed to it. Further, the data was from an American Cancer Society long-term data collection project (CPS1) and it used CALFORNIANS.
Examines Role Of EGFR Gene Mutations In Lung Cancer Development - A
new study has found that mutations in either of two genes are involved
in the development of lung cancer. One of them is the first known mutation
to occur specifically in never smokers, according to a new
study in the March
2 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute.
These findings "support the hypothesis that at least two distinct molecular pathways are involved in the pathogenesis of lung adenocarcinomas, one involving EGFR TK domain mutations and the other involving KRAS gene mutations," the authors write. These results also "suggest that exposure to carcinogens in environmental tobacco smoke may not be the major pathogenic factor involved in the origin of lung cancers in never smokers but that an as-yet-unidentified carcinogen(s) plays an important role." (Science Daily; March 21, 2005)
|OSHA withdrawal of its Indoor Air Quality proposal - For 12 years OSHA sought to federally regulate workplace smoking. During that time they held hearings and accepted written arguments all to no conclusion or avail. They finally take it off their agenda. (December 2001)|
|DON'T LET THE HEADLINES FOOL YOU
Court throws out challenge to EPA findings on secondhand smoke - (December 2002) - The ruling was based on the highly technical grounds that since the EPA didn't actually enact any new regulations (it merely declared ETS to be a carcinogen without actually adopting any new rules), the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter. This court ruling on the EPA report is NOT a stamp of approval for that report. Judge Osteen's criticisms of the EPA report are still completely valid and is accompanied by other experts.
|Conservative Party of New York State issues legislative memos opposing the New York smoking bans.|
|NORTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE: Groups question tobacco ban. Measure would make it a misdemeanor crime to sell or use product. - BISMARCK - Health groups that discourage smoking lined up Tuesday to fight legislation that would make North Dakota the first state to outlaw tobacco, a stand that left some lawmakers perplexed. (Jan. 15, 2003)|
to eye high lung cancer rate in S.I. - Disturbed by dramatically high
rates of lung cancer on Staten Island, the city has funded a $695,000 study
to try to find out why the disease is so prevalent there. They go on to
report that the incidence of lung cancer on Staten Island is 40% higher
than the rest of NYC but that smoking cannot account for that increase.
Dr. Judith Jacobson, Columbia University, said that it is generally assumed
that most lung cancer cases are caused by smoking. "However, I can't tell
you why the rates are so high on the island and what's going on," she said.
Generally assumed?! Therein lies the case we make that although we agree smoking is a risk factor for lung cancer the number of lung cancer incidents and deaths they attribute to smoking is inflated in order to weight the smoke-free society propaganda that leads to money-wasting anti-smoking programs that could be better spent on finding cures for cancer. It further leads to instrusive legislation "for our own goood" based on manipulated body counts by the anti-smoking crusaders. The S.I. findings support the fact that it's likely that a good number of the lung cancer incidents attributed to smoking may indeed be due to something else entirely and using their guestimate (floated as fact) of how many people are killed by tobacco to push for it's demonization and eradication is a fraud perpetrated upon the public at the expense of our freedom to choose our own vices.
Island Study Sees No Cancer Tie to Pesticides - A long-awaited federal
study on possible links between pollution and high rates of breast cancer
on Long Island has failed to show any connection between the disease and
pesticides that were once widely use on the island. It also found only
a very slight correlation between cancer rates and exposure to other pollutants,
like car exhaust and cigarette smoke. The study found no increased rate
of breast cancer among women exposed to the pesticides, but found that
exposure to chemicals like car exhaust and cigarette smoke appeared
to elevate a woman's risk of breast cancer by 50
percent. Marilie D. Gammon, a University of North Carolina
epidemiology professor and the study's lead author, said the 50-percent
increase was too modest to declare a clear causal link. Research on
cigarette smoking and lung cancer, by comparison, has shown increased cancer
rates of between 900 and 1,900 percent. (August 6, 2002)
The EPA Report of 1993 that is the primary reference in smoking ban laws claimed that secondhand smoke increased the risk for lung cancer by 19% for those who lived with smokers for decades. Even though it was invalidated by the court in 1998 as junk science it is still used by the anti-smoker crusaders and politicians to support the idea that smoking must be banned. This article provides more proof that the EPA Report has no business being used to falsely demand that smokers be outlawed in public.
NYC C.L.A.S.H. is a grassroots organization. There are no membership fees. Donations are gratefully accepted.
As a member you will be alerted to smoking-related news and activities in New York and elsewhere. Suggestions will be included as to how you may assist in trying to defeat these anti-smoking campaigns.
Becoming a member simply adds your name to the growing number of New York City and State residents who are tired of being treated as second-class citizens and who are willing to speak out against excessive restrictions. Individually we are not being heard. Acting as a group will force those in office to take our concerns into consideration just as the anti-smoking groups have had their concerns addressed to our detriment in the past. Silence is interpreted as agreement and the willingness to bend. I think we have bent far enough. It's time to have our voices heard loud and clear. That endeavor is best accomplished as a group that stands together.
We invite nonsmokers to participate also. It is not only about the imposition of will on smokers but what that may (and has already begun to) lead to.... those who believe they are more morally correct in their views forcing others to behave by their standards in all areas of life choices. Do you like your beer? Your steak? Your SUV? Wearing perfume or cologne? Be forewarned that the nannies have you in their sights already. If you believe in freedom of choice then it is in your interest to assist in alleviating the pressure being applied to smoking so that an activity you enjoy will not be so easily targeted next.
Twenty-five percent of the nation smokes, seventy-three percent are nonsmokers (those who are willing to compromise or do not care that others smoke around them) and the other two percent are the self-righteous, morally imposing anti-smoking zealots. Ninety-eight percent of the population are in agreement that in all areas of life-style choices, everyone should be accommodated and should enjoy the right to be left alone.