New York Based. Nationally Active.
A grassroots organization established in 2000 dedicated to advancing and protecting the interests of adults who choose to smoke cigarettes or enjoy other forms of tobacco or use electronic cigarettes.

Our goal is to end the discrimination against smokers by exposing the anti-smoking lies.

"The sensitive person's veto was born in the anti-smoking campaign  
and has spread to other fields."
John Leo, Dec. 2001


You can also see our main menu that includes current activities and action alerts

Contact Us 


Become a Member 




NYS Smoking Ban Law 
NYC Smoking Ban Law 
What Are Your Rights 
As A Smoker in New York? 
Cigarette Shipping 
Smoking in the News 

Dining Out
Tobacco Shops 

Polls / Ban Popularity 

A Brief History 
of the War on Smokers 

More on the history of the anti-smoking movement 

Their Public Cry 
Their Private Deceit 


Essays on the Anti-Smoking Movement 


The Effects of the  
War on Smokers 

Why Do We Smoke Cigarettes? 
An essay written in 1947 delves into the "habit" 

What We've  
Had To Say 

Write A Letter 

Smokers' Rights Groups, 
Links & Books 

Guest Speaker Reports on Anti-Smoking Efforts 
in Philadelphia 

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 

Read his first rant against his former fellow crusaders 

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."  

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 
Professional Opinions 
& Noteworthy News 
School Based  
Anti-Smoking Program Fails 

Let's Get Crazy 
What The Nannies Are Up To 

According to the author, soda manufacturers are as guilty as big bad tobacco.  Can it be that other legal substances that are bad for you and "addictive"are marketed deceptively to the public? 
NAHHH, only legal tobacco companies do that! 

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!" 

Oh really? 

The Congressional Research Service says otherwise 

"In general,  smokers do not appear to currently impose net financial costs on the rest of 
society. The tobacco settlement will increase the transfer of resources from the smoking to the nonsmoking public." 

Latest Concurring Opinion 
Professor Gabriel Picone at the University of South Florida, Center for Economic Policy Analysis, and his colleagues report the net costs to society of cigarette smoking have been grossly overestimated. 


Tobacco Settlement Money Not Being Used by States to Fund Tobacco Control Programs 

And the court rules they don't have to: 

9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals:  States can spend their huge tobacco settlement windfall however they wish. 

But Who Actually Pays and Who Profits? 

Deal With The Devil: How The Tobacco Settlement Has Enriched State 
 Governments At Taxpayers' Expense 


Is the MSA Unraveling? 
MSA Update 
An Un-Stately Approach 

Pharmaceutical Industry Funding Creates Smoking Bans 

Media Manipulation 

"I read it in the paper. It must be true!" 

Sorry, but not true. 
The press does NOT report both sides of the SHS debate, leading you to believe there is only one truth. 
The Liberal Bias exposed 

"Addictive" Nicotine? 
Some experts aren't so sure 

Satirical Psychology 
The 4 Faces of Nannyism 
The Epitome of the Anti-Smoker's Mind at Work: 
They Can't Handle 
The Facts 
(Dilbert Cartoon) 

For the mathematically inclined:  EPA Report  
By the Numbers 
If 1/3 of the population smokes, how come none of the 10 victims of Inhalation Anthrax smoked? 



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
    NYC C.L.A.S.H. Mission Statement
Over the course of the last decade, a small cabal of prohibitionists and social engineers has launched an effective, systematic campaign to demonize and (their word) "de-normalize" anyone who lights a cigarette. 

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 
shouldn't be -- the right of one group to wrathfully pursue the 
happiness of others and try to run it out of town. 

And that Rights, in fact, aren't-- or, in any case, shouldn't be-- a 
zero-sum game in which for one group to have rights, another is made to have none. 

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. 

New York City, one of the most nationally and racially diversified cities in the world, has a myriad of city agencies, citizens groups and residents that go to great lengths to promote harmony and acceptance amongst the diverse cultures.  Why then, has N.Y.C. been one of the leaders in discriminatory practices against smokers?  The leaders of this city are continually calling for all residents to be sensitive to others of different ethnic backgrounds and beliefs yet when it comes to those who choose to smoke are completely insensitive, unwilling to accommodate or compromise. 

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? 

Frontiers of Freedom "Ten Tenets"

We Believe... 

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) 

NYC C.L.A.S.H.'s Interpretation of the ANTI-SMOKERS' Crusade 

"Crusades usually start by being admirable, proceed to being foolish, and end by being dangerous. The crusade against smoking is 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." 
- Russell Baker, The New York Times 

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: 

" 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. 
"But he hasn't got any clothes on!" gasped a little child...and the people whispered to one another what the little child had said. "But he hasn't got any clothes on!" shouted the whole town at last. 

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." 
   - Hans Christian Andersen 


The Undoing of Prohibitionists Past 
How Alcohol Beat Last Call

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. 

Malice Disguised as Virtue

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). 

Majority Isn't Supposed to Rule In a  
Constitutional Republic Anyway

"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 
majority-sanctioned decrees with individual freedom is to assume that individuals have no right to live in any way that displeases the majority." ("Freedom in Chains" by James Bovard) 

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. 

Personal responsibility is the foundation upon which all liberty is built 
  A laymans guide to understanding how 
 science has not 
proven harm from 
Secondhand Smoke 

Reference Guide on Epidemiology 
Epidemiology Beyond Its Limits 
An Epidemic of Epidemiology 
Epidemiology Uncovered 

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 
    A Summary of the Scientific Literature 

"The Dose Makes The Poison" 
A chart that explains exactly how many cigarettes need to be smoked to reach unhealthy exposure levels as defined by government agencies 
Don't believe it? 
Check out what the NYC Health Commissioner has to say about exposure risks at the WTC site 
Press Release - 10/5/01 

Environmental Tobacco Smoke 
and Lung Cancer Risk
Congressional Research Service details the flaws in research linking ETS to harm 

Excerpt from New England Journal of Medicine Editorial 
March 25, 1999 -- Vol. 340, No. 12  
"Therefore, I regretfully conclude that we still do not know, with accuracy, how much or even whether exposure to environmental tobacco smoke increases the risk of coronary heart disease." 
John C. Bailar III,  
M.D., Ph.D.  
University of Chicago 

Discussion of Source of Claims of 50,000 Deaths from Passive Smoking 
Congressional Research Service: 
 "...estimates are so high relative to measures of physical exposure that they seem implausible." 

(Particulate Matter) 
What is it?  And why the anti-smokers are dead wrong to depend on its measure to prove risk 

Anti-Smokers Caught While Deleting Unfavourable Evidence in Passive 
 Smoking Studies 

Australian Anti-Smoker Campaigner Caught Trying to Lie about Secondhand Smoke 
Part I | Part II 

Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Caught Lying About Studies Involving Condoms 
The same agency that everyone trusts is telling them the truth about secondhand smoke. 
The CDC’s Public Health Turkeys 
"Virtually every human activity may have personal health and injury consequences. 
     That, however, should not make every human activity a public health problem subject to CDC nanny-ing." 

The Bliley Report 
In 1993 Congressman Bliley (VA - now retired) testified in front of the Subcommittee on Health on the gross misconduct of the EPA, including their role in the ETS study 
8 Years Later His Message Comes Home to Roost: 
The EPA Comes Clean on Asbestos 
Federal officials stop chasing a phantom risk. 
On Sept. 11, as with so many things, the EPA's world changed. Faced with a public health scare that could have sent thousands in Manhattan fleeing the city or jamming hospitals, the EPA decided to cough up the truth about asbestos. 
EPA Back To TheirOldTricks 
Court Slams EPA’s Refusal to Account For “Cooling” Flip-Flop  
"How does EPA explain their shift in alarmism from the global cooling scare of years past to the current emphasis on catastrophic global warming?" 

Propaganda Techniques 
Could easily have been written exclusively to expose the devious actions of the anti-smoking advocates 

Smokers vs. Anti-Smokers 
Comparing the Issues 
A Formal Debate on  
Outdoor Smoking Bans 

The Health Police 
Won't Stop At Smoking 

Of the People, By The  
People, For The People 

Claims and Counter Claims: 
Science Without a Clue 

Everything You Could Want to Know & More 

Don't Kid Yourself 
Just Because You Don't Smoke Doesn't Mean You're Safe 

Here we discuss the most recent studies that continue to try to scare you.  We'll show you what they won't. 


A Must Read! 
Don't let them fool you.  Their attempt at global tobacco regulation is a farce and they're getting lots of groups angry. 

Exposure to ETS Measurement Studies 
Exposure levels shown to be far below the threshhold limits established as harmful 
The Evidence 
Direct Measurement 
One more... 

OSHA Action 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration 
OSHA's Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Action Into Smoking Regulation 
OSHA, the federal guidelines agency,  would allow indoor smoking with ventilation. 
ASHRAE Action 
The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers 
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62-2001, Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality 
ASHRAE, an international organization that sets standards for indoor ventilation, provides guidelines for ventilating indoor smoking spaces 
That issue of getting to zero [exposure] is unnerving as well to Richard Evans, P.E., a retired engineer and ASHRAE fellow in Richland, WA.  
"Standard 62.1 has a flaw, and that is it's a zero tolerance for smoke. That just isn't realistic. First of all, it's not scientifically good. It's obviously politically correct." 
(Link to article) 

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."
Banning 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)

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   


Americans 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. 
The article, titled, "Future of Death in America" , appears in Demographic Research, the online journal of peer-reviewed research and commentary in the population sciences, published by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany.  Aside from Social Security, pension programs, economic growth, health care financing, public health efforts and research programs could be affected. 

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.

Observers Say 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)

Cigarette 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) 

Update:  Victory!

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) 


Of note: 

"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: 

  • The notion that McTear was unaware of the dangers of smoking is rejected. 
  • The notion of addiction – that is, the fiction that McTear was so dependent on nicotine that he was not able to quit is rejected. 
  • The notion that advertisement was responsible for McTear’s decision to start smoking is rejected. 
  • The notion that there is scientific proof that smoking causes cancer is rejected. 
FORCES provides further comment and material (court decision, etc.) 

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.

Scientists 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)

Environmental 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.

Study 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)
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)
Study 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.

Long 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.

Become a Member
Please join NYC C.L.A.S.H.
Click here to submit membership form.
If you have trouble with our membership form, simply email us and provide your name, city, state and email address
We do NOT share your private information with third parties.

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.

Freedom is not a matter of popularity.  The true measure of our society is how we protect the freedoms of the minority.

Click Here to Search This Site 
Contact us at
Phone:  1-917-888-9317
Or Write To:
P.O. Box 1036
Brooklyn, New York  11234

 Founder:  Audrey Silk