J’accuse.

I could make this plea in a number of tones we have seen numerous times, and once again, I would likely be ignored. I could declare “the emperor has no clothes” or as with the end of McCarthyism; scream defiantly while shaking a fist at the heavens; the single word “Enough”

The simple truth of the matter is, this oppressive tyranny runs so deep and is so well entrenched in the receivables departments of our nations press, even if by some miracle my single voice was heard, Damage control by the protectors of the great lie would swiftly move to action. My plea would quickly be set aside by a multitude of voices attacking credibility, my sanity or level of education as unqualified to make such an observation. Words like conspiracy nut and uneducated would resound before the silence, during which time all would forget such a claim was made, until the next time someone snuck past their defences, only to be dealt with in a similar manner.

The lie of healthism, which has arisen as the new international détente is a UN reality described in cryptic phrases specifically as “Disease management” in support of “sustainable development”. In plain English this would read; passing responsibility to the people for the expenses of an aging population, for which the funds have been squandered buying votes in elections past. Cowardice will develop lies to avoid the inevitable, Huge funds will be needed, so we have a necessity to create; the global warming crisis, disease pandemics and as a wedge issue to join the forces required to sell it all, we will reinvent second hand smoke.

A convenient lie, which is readily understood, by anyone with the time to open their eyes. I fear we are all in a slumber or a great depression, which allows our denials to exist; beyond resolution, or merely to be acknowledged. Are we so fearful of our public servants and the power of the state we will watch in open view as corruption percolates and unbelievably it is praised and enabled by journalists who support, profit over the trust of the people.

Is the State so weak that tenuous threads of propaganda are all which remains substantive in their moral authority to rule? Should we erect new signs at Canada’s boarders declaring “”Welcome to Canada if you are not in excellent health you are not welcome, our children must be protected”” Or “If you dare to smoke a cigarette, you will be punished” Quoting Dalton McGuinty in a run up to his smoking ban legislation. How about a Quebec Health Minister’s proud words “smokers have no right to speak” in response to complaints smokers were not being allowed to give submissions at the public hearings, leading up to his smoking ban legislation. What these confident public servants fail to realize is, if only 25% of the population smokes and they each found just one person to stand at their side, they could effectively end the careers of every hate mongering politician in this country. If your credibility or your truths are based in lies you are standing on very shaky ground.


In many ways the story of Alfred Dreyfus draws disturbing parallels to the politics of the day both within Canada and around the world. We see a targeted group, by state demand and approval, being discriminated against, openly and without remorse. We see the indictments to be speculative and exaggerated beyond reasonable proportion. Each exaggeration expanded upon the last. Most amazingly when the guard changed a new leadership who once claimed they understood an injustice existed, yet they let it stand, making Mr. Harper just as guilty as the former corrupt leadership, in light of the fact “Social Marketing” [Propaganda] is still an integral part of Health Canada’s process, delegating the entire ministry as nothing more than an agent of Industry promotional, of cherry picked, health reliant information, purchased from the public purse and distributed to the peril of us all.

We are being lead to believe, cigarette smoke is a huge health risk to non smokers, yet when we examine the evidence in its most basic sense, by physical description we hear most often the danger is due to particulate matter being trapped in the lungs of non smokers, resulting in damages many years later. Nothing found in cigarette smoke, on its own, or in the quantities presented, are beyond known safe levels or dangerous on their own, nor can they remain in the human body long enough to cause the described long term damages or at least not according to physical sciences.

Cigarette smoke particulate measures .15 to .25 Microns. It is classed as fine particulate which because of its size and weight; it is among the least likely to get trapped in the lungs or accumulate. Smoker’s lungs when examined do not demonstrate any visible differences to non smoker’s lungs, and are known as acceptable for human transplant. The same could not be said of a coal miner’s lungs for obvious reasons. We are in the majority, entirely well served in a comfortable lie, of the dangers of second hand smoke, however in that comfort, we have enabled more lies supporting the “common good”. We are left to only imagine, who decides what that good will entail? Or what we can believe any more.

Just as one observation, which should say a lot in comparing a mother with a stroller at a bus station and her level of concern, compared to the claims of child abuse by government sources, when smoking around your child; Although many studies measure “particulate matter” claimed to be cigarette smoke in a bar, as anything less than 10 microns, the imprecise measure is known to be lying by omission.

Ten Micron particulate includes all three physical dimensions of particulate matter; coarse such as coal dust [2.5 to 10 microns], Fine [.1 to 2.5 microns] such as cigarette smoke or any burned organic material including the smoke from a fire log, and last but not least, the category described in the threat of traveling to the smallest vestiges of the lung, where it is permanently trapped. Ultra fine particulate, measuring less than .1 microns. The category includes such things as diesel exhaust or many industrial emissions such as burned coal or degenerating asphalt, or a host of materials we know are carcinogenic by physical observation in laboratory studies. The one characteristic no one has observed or demonstrated, in respect to tobacco smoke, in over 60 years of trying.

The term second hand smoke actually had it’s origins in 1930s Germany and as Hitler tended to do the speculative evidence [propaganda] found twenty years before Sir Richard Doll [who was financed by Monsanto] and to the glee of his financiers, made his famous discovery using identical theoretic means. Now the craze has moved to finding “evidence” hardly a day goes by when we don’t hear of a new study defiling the intellect of anyone who would dare to smoke a cigarette with their beer.

This of course begs the question; what the hell have the charities been doing with all of our money all these years, when it appears so obvious now, cigarette smoke is causative of so many diseases, what took them so long to figure it out? It is however very fortunate to see so much information comes to light, just when it was needed, to support an international anti smoking treaty with compulsory deadlines, at the World Health organization. Way back in 1972, as the British delegate to the World Health Organization Sir Gober stated; if we are to make substantial gains in the reduction of smoking, it will be necessary to convince others they are being harmed by the smoke. Although I hardly think this had much to do, with anything happening today [wink]. Similarly Patrick Moynihan author of the much maligned 1965 Moynihan report, in the same era as the American delegate to the UN, [early 70s] suggested; in order to expedite international agendas, the public service should be mandated to create problems for the Government to solve. Again; this would have nothing whatsoever to do with the sustainable development process, or the insulated realities politicians of late have created for themselves, or the unexpected issues in the media, which always seem to dominate our election processes, while the real and substantial problems most of us face in the real world are almost always avoided.

An English translation of an excerpt, from the famous article entitled “J’accuse” in the Paris newspaper L’Aurore in March 1898. This was an article which deeply embarrassed the French government, in full view of the world. In retrospect; a statement which could have described a world also indicted with complicity, in creating the comfortable lies enabling the hatreds of anti Semitism.

“It is a crime that those people who wish to see a generous France take her place as leader of all the free and just nations are being accused of bringing turmoil to the country, denounced by the very plotters who are conniving so shamelessly to foist this miscarriage of justice on the entire world. It is a crime to lie to the public, to twist public opinion to insane lengths in the service of the vilest death-dealing machinations. It is a crime to poison the minds of the meek and the humble, to stoke the passions of reactionism and intolerance, by appealing to that odious bigotry that, unchecked, will destroy the freedom-loving France of Human Rights.”

I can not describe the contempt I felt, for a recent statement by opposition leader Stephan Dion, in making self serving use of the word “denier” in reference to the government taking a moderate approach to the climate change swindle. The word holds great power although the source of that power, draws a linkage to a horrific act, the use disrespects those who perished, using the denials by apologists and bigots who increased the insult in denying that the death camps ever happened. Mr Dion owes us all an apology; any encouragement by the media has been viciously slow in emerging.

Our gyration toward stock market appeasement as the enabling principle of credibility, finds our “encouraged behaviour” primarily among something which rushed across the land, of unknown origin we know it as “political correctness”. Just who sets the standards of what we should think, or how we should conduct our lives, is equally bewildering although every news agency seems to know the rules all too well, particularly in respect to a rash of news wire releases presented to us as the “news” although by closer examination they appear as corporate service infomercials with lab coats and talking heads, thrown in to finalize the sale. Commercials dressed up and read in discerning tones, in a way leading by example and stimulating discussion among those who can only believe what they are being told.

Journalists today seem to be working under the veiled restrictions of what is news “worthy”. Moving in baby steps, if any hope is seen in being published, any article which strays from the more popular belief systems, you have to roll with the flow or fade away. Banished to exist among the other silenced voices and conspiracy nuts. Can you handle the truth? Or do you trust the Government to protect you, from that as well?

Do we fear the smoke, or the freedom?

The controversy of second hand smoke could be ended quickly by a simple act of legislation. Anyone presenting information represented as “science” or “health reliant” information, which is later found to be false or misleading, would be rewarded with a mandatory ten year jail sentence. And yes I do believe the punishment fits the crime, but only because I have a forgiving nature.

I can guarantee the bandwagon of promoted smoker hatred and fat pandemics would end overnight and the profiteers would be making deals in self preservation, convicting each other. Similar to the last time their ilk rose to prominence and Doctors were hanged at Nuremberg. The laws of Autonomy created in the wake of one of history’s most horrific tragedies, are largely being minimized by the bigots and zealots of Public Sector Healthism, they are laws we found at the expense of millions who died without them. No one has the right to make or deceptively coerce those health choices for others and no one has a right to demand rights to the detriment of others, especially with the convenience of a popular lie, as we find in the "toxic effect of second hand smoke". A theoretic invention promoted in gossip empowering gossip, which absolutely finds no consistency in real physical science.

Governments who seek to hide cigarettes from sight or remove smoking from movies and cartoons are consistent with the well known phrase “sweeping their embarrassments under the carpet”. The fact remains their own lack of credibility and consistency, is the largest reason most people smoke today. The fact the product remains on the shelf, despite their assertion the health risk of it’s aroma, is well beyond the harmful nature of mustard gas, is only consistent with the moral deficits of taxing an addiction. Punitive taxation to the point it creates budgetary receipts and projections, at triple the cost of treating all, of the so called “smoking related disease” in all of community, regardless of where those harms actually originate. The diesel buses of public transit certainly are no cause for concern. If we were to enact a legislation to outlaw air miles cards which promote one of the largest contributions to pollution in our environments we would be promoting public safety. If we outlawed the use of mercury filled light bulbs, which are currently destined [by fraudulent environmentalist, posing as light bulb salespeople] to add thousands of gallons of mercury and phosphorous chemicals into the landfills and our watersheds. We would be protecting public health and the environment.

Smoking bans are punishment not protection, as the Ontario Premier admitted numerous times publicly, in advance of the smoker bans “smokers better get out their carrot sticks or be punished.” [Normally a responsibility of the courts] Punishment is being used as a tool for illegal acts of coercion. The use of government authority, to force personal autonomous decisions out of their range of government jurisdiction, in respect to the management of ones own body.

Which of the following is thought to be true?

1] A woman has a right to an abortion based in autonomy rights, or

2] Rape is really just an inconvenience.

Both can not be consistent with each other, and neither can be consistent with taxing an addiction or implementing smoking bans in place of a sign on the door, which affords choice.

When governments foolishly tread into regions, of restricting autonomous decisions, that footprint, by international law has to leave the least amount of impression possible, to achieve a stated goal or suit a significant need, while at the same time being extremely careful, to not diminish or jeopardize the universal importance of those fundamental rights. Signs as warnings fit that description as do designated smoking areas. Smoking bans by the redefinition of public spaces, eliminating without compensation, a right to property and its management, does not leave the least intrusion possible, it is being applied to the maximum possible intrusion, as a punishment, to the detriment of those laws and the rights they support.

Further amendments to anti smoker legislation are seen clearly, to further intrude on personal rights, to the maximum level possible or imagined by the pitchfork and lantern cabal, of partnered lobbies promoting them. Moving decisively, a step at a time toward management of your home and your body as though they were owned property of the state.

The paternalists have the control of the press and can be easily shown for the frauds they actually represent. If you were to light a cigarette in the Ontario or Quebec Legislatures, does anyone seriously believe it would set off a panic and rush to the door, of politicians fearing for their lives? Would the police arrest you wearing gas masks and protective suits and dutifully charge you with attempted murder or political assassinations? Or do we as reasonable people see anti smoking laws, as a convenience, to suit the comfort of the majorities today, who enjoy the unearned profits taken from their minority victims, who are being forced to pay the health costs associated by statistics alone, to smoking by a majority of smokers who existed in our past?

Ontario Public Health Minister George Smitherman used one of his favorite sound bites, to explain how growing federal transfers, are being dumped into general revenues, while medical patients continue to suffer by callous indifference, “all things affect public health, so investment in roads, are issues of public health”.

I have to say he got it partially right; all things people do, affect public health. What few realize is; society by focusing on that statement can be enslaved by public health protectionists. The forces of discrimination led by another government lobby group; the Eugenics Society and now the Galton Institute, currently partnered and a leader in policy making at the United Nations, World health Organization, once sought to protect the gene pool with best babies contests and race enabled theoretic research, progressing to, direct government actions, delegating the value of personal rights, below that of “the greater good”. Action was represented by castration of “Jews and imbeciles” sold as their empowerment of creating the perfect race. Later Hitler riding on that very bandwagon, sold his “protections” claiming he was going to save the world and improve the excellence of the human condition. Some of his followers at the time believed he was owed a Nobel Peace Prize. The power of the message was so ingrained into society, it resides to this day in something we call bigotry and something I call multiculturalism.

Multiculturalism a word no one had ever experienced or given much thought to, in Canada, prior to it’s inclusion in our Constitution. Multiculturalism as a catchy Politically Correct, inspirational euphemism, defines us as many groups and denies our ability to be one. Promotions of sustaining division based on race can never be more than the precise definition of racism. Sadly the authors of our constitution failed to understand and respect the fact Canadians were until the moment of the signing; a race unique unto themselves, who had until that moment existed in unity as one nation and one race we knew, and the world knew as Canadians.

I tell young people today stories of my youth and they stare in amazed disbelief, when hearing of a time a family with seven kids was raised by a cab driver in Cabbage town. A working guy who supported his wife and family, owned his own house and a cottage. While the pile of presents under the Christmas tree [A term I still use, in spite of anyone who claims to be insulted] often extended beyond the confines of our living room. We jumped our bicycles over ditches fearlessly without helmets or elbow pads, yes we broke bones, skinned our knees and all of us survived, none the worse for the wear. We had fights with bullies and sometimes we even won. No one had a knife or gun in their pockets in search of revenge, when it was over the matter was settled often resulting in a handshake and I don’t recall anyone “psychologically traumatized” for life, as a result of the experience. But we were obviously built with a much harder shell back then. In a time no one thought it prideful to be seen as the victim of the week. The amazing thing, with almost no punishments being enforced for not paying your taxes, most paid dutifully and proudly paid because we actually saw value for an insignificant and meager investment, something few of us who don't own media outlets or Insurance companies can claim today.

The past three decades have seen an importing of political support through immigration, while the dead beat dad’s campaign and promotion of non traditional families, criminalized parenting. Two significant sales campaigns alone which changed the landscape of Canadian politics, to one more subservient to socialist values. By restrictions on hate speech, we have attempted to avoid the voicing of derogatory racist statements, which the importers expected and sought to avoid. Sadly although people are restricted in what they are allowed to say in public, the divisions of Multiculturalism will always inspire that hatred, in the consciousness of jealousy and mistrust among groups of people separated, by demands of political divisions. We are witnessing increasing incidences of turf wars and ghettos dividing our streets, servicing the political monopoly control game, of playing defined groups against each other. Disputes are promoted and their self serving solutions are depicted, standing on soap boxes taking credit for fine humanitarian efforts, which ignore that the victor has taken a right by denying freedom.

Hypocrisies and inconsistent political policies were formed, primarily by our Constitution, which demands our division with no mention of a right to property or safeguard defense against criminal government regimes. Many people who lived in oppression having no clear perspective of an alternative, were lured to Canada by the inclusive reputation earned in our past. Similarly the younger generations today have never experienced the superior quality of life and freedom which formed our pride and reputation. A place as Martin Luther King described in his dream, that place or a very close representation of it, actually existed in a time when the Government was of the people and reflected the people who were Canadians.

The Majority of young people today never witnessed the power and the freedoms we once enjoyed before the fears of society were exaggerated in promotion of paternalist governments. A time when we were confident to rely upon each other and the basic tenant; people when not driven to something less, are basically good and caring and respectful of each other. Such a society does not have to purchase alarm systems or lock their doors when mowing the lawn. Or do they suspect negative intent, when a stranger says hello, while walking past you on the street.

Police are no longer an integrated part of community greeted with genuine respect. Largely they are now seen as an armed force, that send fear into people, making them nervous, simply by their sight. Today far too many law abiding people would consider themselves as guilty of some unknown criminal act, by automatic impulse, even if a police officer simply needed to ask them the time of day. That should tell you Police and Justice Systems have grown by our micromanagement of each other, to a force to fear and dread as opposed to our champions and protectors. They are now our mothering agents of robotic perfection. Their motivations for not giving in to the empathy of understanding which would make them a part of community, are found in competitive career pathways and the modernization, of the equipment they are given to perform that micromanagement of communities. Both appeasements rely on their level of criminal convictions, as a numeric expectation, evaluating their worth. Evaluations of competence by political mood, long ago ruled out the more humane side of policing. One which included the expectation of innocence and an opinion; does the punishment truly fit the crime in all cases?

It always instills a feeling, of something not quite right, and not as an embarrassment, rather as a feeling of resentment, when being dressed down by a police officer half your age, as though they were speaking to a careless child, being scolded for something as trivial [in a real world perspective] as not wearing a seat belt or a bicycle helmet.

In a free society people accept the risks of their own actions and govern themselves accordingly with respect, that those freedoms are the very tenet of values, which make society strong, productive and confident. Equally important a unified community, who are allowed the freedom of their opinions and politics based in thousands of years of historical grown values, not the deflating features of ad agency spin, supported by focus groups for maximum effect and crafted opinion polls promoting false perspectives. Those who tell us we are not happy with where we are, as a promotion of change, are always lacking of an opinion, in where we might go instead. That lack of planning, and has left us all in a lesser place today, as the prisons of communities continue to grow, with a path back to community values in unity, are thought to be too embarrassing to consider.

Poll sitting governments can always appear to be popular, defined by the wording of the polls they purchase and later forward to us in the form of press releases. One has to assume they are receiving good value for their money and make choices of vendors, based on the value and worth they apply to what they purchase.

The self same pollsters and profiteers, who market the wisdom of the people, reside in ad agencies, such as we witnessed in the sponsorship scandal, which the media, doing some damage control of their own, portrayed a unique crime which only existed in Quebec. Separating by sensationalism and guided focus, the related [although not officially linked] gun registry program.

We remember Gun Registry? Inflated ridiculously from the original cost estimates, in search of acceptance, it was to going be acceptable, to make our farmers into a new raft of “potential criminals”. Costs of promotion soared from two million to two billion and still people resisted vehemently. Hardly in our Auditor General Sheila Frasier’s terms “good value for money spent”.

The expenditures of smoking bans and fat pandemics dwarf that of gun registry, public sector political expenditures, which will always raise the suspicion of kickbacks, in a direct monetary sense or in a washing of each others backs, by joining common interests, among all the media groups with their more than apparent “small L [wink] political perspectives” and a government, who invented Social Marketing campaigns at Health Canada, purchasing sponsorship style politics from those same vendors. Do we expect now, the corrupted perspective of criminal impropriety, can be explained away by the common news anchor defeatist opinion “what are you going to do? It’s the government.”

Similarly the ad campaigns purchased by Health Canada directly or through paid Lobbies [who can go where the government fears to go publicly] are defined as “Social Marketing” which divines Healthism campaigns which parallel a government theft of our rights and freedoms as a coercive underbelly in unnamed consequences. Of intrusion into autonomy rights or the governing of one’s own body, we impose upon ourselves while railing for bandwagons which restrict the choices of others.

Foolishly we believe as a standard and a promotional example, we will not similarly restrict ourselves and allow those intrusions, by governments to continue, anywhere they decide to shore up their power over communities, with the thought now lost; they represent us, more than we represent them.

As efficiencies of systems improve and the level of personal earnings decreases, as aggressive taxation takes larger and larger proportions of what you earn, a growing level of normal people, are now judged as criminals. Normally honest hard working people, who only seek to stay ahead of their bills and live a modest life, providing food and shelter for their dependents. For many, that existence is now entirely dependent on the amount of those earnings they can hide from the government, avoidance and fear of detection, making them fearful, tortured and depressed, which causes a rising level of Health deficits, requiring more efficient means of decreasing the costs, through more severe restrictions and impositions into our freedoms and our evaporating quality of life. The Tax man's reputation is being used to sell legal agency, by revealing the oppressive nature of governments, in the level of oppressive power, exerted against anyone who can not afford to pay a tax related debt.

We afford the largest most profitable businesses in the nation, self regulation and forgiveness in dealing with much larger debts owed by those who can afford to pay those debts. We allow them to avoid most of their tax debt, by charitable contributions made to, directly controlled non profits and foundations or associated agencies, who promote the reciprocal corporate image, keeping charity at home.

Political lobby organizations are posing as the nation’s largest medical charities, accepting goodwill donations by claiming to be searching for cures. That search would now conflict with disease management strategies, which required a promise, to end the search and blame the victims instead.. Trust and compassion are expectations no longer afforded to the people, governments are supposed to be working for, but always found in infinite supply when toasting good deeds, while wearing tuxedos and drinking celebratory champagne at awards ceremonies.

For most of us the same reaction is heard again; ”What can you do, It’s the Government” In a reasonable and common sense perspective we have to understand the government is the people’s representative and we only have ourselves to blame for allowing the ad campaigns we know as the evening news, to redefine us and enslave us.

Government agendas empowered by “Social Marketing” they used our money to create, as a stated government policy at Health Canada [See WIKI Propaganda] has led to cloned Provincial and municipal “Health Information” ministries and offices opened, in a massive expansion of bureaucracies. A process of “disease management” shifting responsibility for diseases and injury from the government, to the people, enforced with prisons, taxes guns and tasers. When it was their responsibility, how many of them paid fines for their shortcomings, or actually went to jail?

“Social Marketing” allows Governments to create problems [real or fictional; see global warming] to solve, while avoiding the real issues we need addressed, always being pushed to the back burner as carrots of enticement, to find support in election campaigns. “Sustainable Development” was derived to sustain a corporate profitability system, and is absolutely not a promotion of individual health, or the needs of communities. Corporate greed is at the helm, which deceptively steals funds, known as “Health Care” investments, away from the bricks and mortar facilities which actually provided research, treatment and care. Health care facilities where the line-ups, inexplicably, continue to grow, despite the huge increased investments, spoken of constantly on soap boxes, for political gain. The expansive demands of empowered government lobby henchmen and their eternal lust, is expressed in ceaseless demands to increase funding and impositions, A cult of public health which will not cease, before the people understand; Fascism is not a conspiracy theory or a right to dispose of an opinion, solely by it’s inclusion, in a description of what one sees, it is a disease of governments who are evolving to something less than the traditional political party policies, your parents and grandparents had in mind. Freedoms and expressions of thousands of years of community values, they protected, many by sacrificing their own lives.

The deterioration of personal rights and freedom is indeed, the genesis of genocide.

Governments and the people have lost an understanding of who serves whom, we need to demand more from the contractors we hire. It is time to chase the fattened and overly confident pigeons from the roost, to make room for just a few of the doves.

Evidence weighted by the science of accumulation

Once again ASH and their merry band of Nazi supporters, are climbing to new heights in mountains out of molehill profiteering this week. Beyond the statements by their Legal adviser adding more evidence, of his more than obvious hatred for anyone, who dares to smoke a cigarette, actually cheer leading a supposed right of employment restrictions and exclusions for anyone who smokes on or off the job;

The right to hire and fire is based in the free market employee having to accept employment standards as depicted by the employer. In complete contradiction to the way they sold smoking bans, by claiming employees were being forced to inhale ETS?

The latest testament to creating the modern day leper, directs even of you smoke outdoors you still carry a health risk to non smokers, including by the ever present emotional blackmail component, gratuitously in defense of those poor defenseless children A risk carried into the home, on a smokers breath no less.

It seems we don’t need to purchase the forty dollar article in order to evaluate its true value. The researcher seems to be a little off, in his assessments of how to measure ETS.

From the article found here;

Page 95

In summary, Nicotine has been used frequently as a marker for ETS because it meets three of the four primary criteria for a good marker. However in individual situations, its direct relationship with other compounds of interest in ETS is certainly not constant, and while it is useful for providing comparisons with previous studies, reliance on it solely is not advised.

Page 98

“Most ETS particulate matter droplets are smaller than those of MS [0.35 – 0.25 um] with a mass median diameter in the range of 0.15 to 0.25 um “

The researcher declaring bad breath a significant children’s health risk, is gratuitously measuring a pretty wide range of particulate, which will no doubt, include in the bulk of measurements; primarily contaminants of sources other than ETS which present a much higher actual health risk.

From the article;

“Each household was monitored for vapor phase nicotine and particulates with an aerodynamic diameter of =10 µm (PM₁₀).”

From page 96 explaining the concept of cigarette equivalents and information from the chart on page 97; it seems highly unlikely nicotine measurements using a smokers lungs after smoking, as the sole source of ETS, nicotine measurements would even be in the measurable range. If any Nicotine were detected at all, it is further beyond the realm of possibility the levels associated to CEQ inhalation could come close to a range they would represent any harm [long or short term] to anyone, including children who have much less lung capacity, and naturally would inhale much less than the figures presented.

FYI;

An adult would inhale approximately 8.8 litres per minute times 60 minutes times 8 hours equals 4224 litres per day or 4.3 cubic meters of air. A child would inhale roughly half of that amount.

One has to assume K Rumchev, the author [who has no letters attached to his name] is a student. The University itself has an entirely suspicious conflict of interest here, which is not mentioned in ASHES news release. A hired gun, creating conflicted research to suit any industrialist agenda.

Hardly the type of research we can trust in matters of public health although we are deluged with so many agenda driven theoretic reports of late, it gets very hard to see any of them as credible anymore. You have to go back in time 20-30 years before the health scare bandwagon got on track, to find any semblance of legitimate science it seems, if it ever did, truly exist.

Consider the source and always follow the money… Curtin University;

“Curtin maintains a high level of involvement with numerous Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs). A CRC is a company formed through a collaboration of businesses and researchers. This includes private sector organisations (both large and small enterprises), universities, industry associations and government research agencies.

Established in 1990, the federally-funded CRC programme aims to turn Australia's scientific innovations into successful new products, services and technologies, making our industries more efficient, productive and competitive. The program has a strong education component with a focus on producing graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.”

I have read in numerous studies the effect of sub micron particles being deposited in the trachea-bronchial region and accumulating due to the lung being unable to dislodge them. Cigarette smoke is often described as a major hazard in a way it is least likely to cause that effect or as follows that increased risk. It appears from this study;

The surface dimensions of cigarette smoke and particularly second hand smoke are in the regions least likely to accumulate within the lungs resulting in long term damage or "smoking related" effects.

The chart at figure 4 on page 5 at three different respiratory levels demonstrates the higher likelihood of micron dimensions above one micron and below .01 microns demonstrating much higher capacity and likelihood of being accumulated in the lung cavities as described in the suspect studies mentioned. Cigarette smoke and second hand smoke reside in the .25 micron range.

Surface dimensions above one Micron or micro-meter ranges would be much more consistent with particulate derived from diesel exhaust industrial emissions and coal burning. The Nano-meter [nm] ranges of Nano-particulate would include viral agents such as bird flu and SARS. From the chart found here;

with cigarette smoke close to the .25 micron range you see once again, the accumulations expected are among the lowest accumulation risk regions, which leave your lungs in the same measures as they entered. Those forming highest risk of accumulations and biological interactions and found most often in our environment, are dominated by particulate much larger and much smaller than that found in tobacco smoke.


It seems the studies depicting cigarette particulate, in measures above the 1 micron range at less than or equal to 2.5 or 10 micrometers, are gratuitously not accurate enough in the definition or measurements of ETS particulate, because the broad limits set in addition to a failure to properly identify surface descriptions, have ETS lumped in with the bulk of materials much more likely, to actually cause an increased long term health risk by accumulation.

What this means for non smokers being duped into supporting smoking bans, you are being deliberately focused [bait and switch] on the lowest risk hazard by developing hatred against anyone who smokes, you are inadvertently, helping to protect the industries actually doing the most damage to your health. And of course increasing that severe risk, of the defenceless children we have to protect at all costs [[wink]]

The obligation of hatred

This was a letter directed at a news editor, but it may also be a warning to be sent to all members of the participating and financing groups, connected to tobacco control. A template, to put on notice; this or many of the other Public Health interventions currently underway, in applauding the savaging of the individual. This new legalized form of hatred is, by an over reaching perspective, targeting of racial minorities and the poor once again, with back door prohibitions and back room bigotry, incredibly portrayed as an obligation to the state and to political correctness.

Hello;

A commentary, in regard to the Article; The DNA Age

Fear of Insurance Trouble Leads Many to Shun or Hide DNA Tests by Amy Harmon

Published: February 24, 2008

“All civilized systems of law confer upon the people, as against their governments, the right to be let alone.
That is the most comprehensive of rights and the most valued by civilized men.”

— Justice Louis D. Brandeis


The article indicated the situation described is rare, yet according to S. Chapman in his recent paper published at the British Medical Journal discussing the “spoiled identity” the situation is not as rare as one may think. At least 60 million people in America he described, currently share the discrimination she fears. No longer just normal people who smoke but now evolved to a sub human species, we have been encouraged to detest.

How in retrospect could anyone fail to see the linkages to those in the past who sought to protect the gene pool and modern day science, targeting personal responsibility for all disease? Just as Hitler created his "spoiled identities" while “protecting” his realm. Modern medicine is replicating the process by inwardly discriminating against genetic predisposition, linking genetic variances to a detestable person, just as the outward associations Hitler defined in describing how those predispositions occurred more predominantly among racial variation.

The woman in the article; if she contracts emphysema, whether she smokes or not; will be assumed by the stoked public, to be a victim of smoking. If she smokes, a master of her own destiny. Otherwise she will be assumed to have been exposed to 30 seconds of tobacco smoke at some time during her life, which would explain the horror in realizing "she never smoked a day in her life" we hear so often in media banter, which only solidifies the bigotry and fears being created. In ether case, she will be viewed as a questionable or lesser person.

A legal perspective; of what the medical HIA health intervention, contravenes?

The promotion of smoking bans targeting individuals, identified as smokers or the fat pandemic describing those who are overweight, or the lobby against any other personal characteristic when individuals are identified as a group, with unfounded broad brushed accusations, coupled with the intent to destroy reputation and their public acceptance, is likely illegal for a number of reasons; "The spoiled Identity" admitted by S. Chapman and others is cause, to seek legal action, on behalf of those who are the targets of organized and deliberate state bigotry.

Complaints could include any or all of the following;

"Invasion of privacy is a legal term essentially defined as the unlawful intrusion into the personal life of another person without just cause and includes a non-public person's right to privacy from: a) intrusion into solitude or into private affairs; b) public disclosure of embarrassing private information; c) publicity which puts him/her in a false light to the public; d) appropriation of a person's name or picture for another person's gain or commercial advantage.[1] The right to privacy is the right of a person to be secluded and not seen, heard, or disturbed and involves freedom from observation, intrusion, or attention unless there is a "reasonable' public interest in personal activities, the right to stop police and other government agents from searching person or property except when there is "probable cause", the freedom to make certain decisions about our own personal bodies and private lives without interference from the government, and protected in the due process clause of the 14th amendment of the United States Constititution, the right to privacy regarding family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.[2] However, public figures have less privacy, and this is an evolving area of law as it relates to the media."

"Intrusion of solitude occurs where one person exposes another to unwarranted publicity. In a famous case from 1944, author Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings was sued by Zelma Cason, who was portrayed as a character in Rawlings' acclaimed memoir, Cross Creek.[4] The Florida Supreme Court held that a cause of action for invasion of privacy was supported by the facts of the case, but in a later proceeding found that there were no actual damages."

"Intrusion upon seclusion occurs when a perpetrator intentionally intrudes, physically, electronically, or otherwise, upon the private space, solitude, or seclusion of a person, or the private affairs or concerns of a person, by use of the perpetrator's physical senses or by electronic device or devices to oversee or overhear the person's private affairs, or by some other form of investigation, examination, or observation intrude upon a person's private matters if the intrusion would be highly offensive to a reasonable person. Hacking a computer is an example of intrusion upon privacy.[5] In determining whether intrusion has occurred, one of three main considerations may be involved: expectation of privacy; whether there was an intrusion, invitation, or exceedance of invitation; or deception, misrepresentation, or fraud to gain admission. Intrusion is “an information-gathering, not a publication, tort…legal wrong occurs at the time of the intrusion. No publication is necessary"

"Public disclosure of private facts arises where one person reveals information which is not of public concern, and the release of which would offend a reasonable person[7]. "Unlike libel or slander, truth is not a defence for invasion of privacy."[8] Disclosure of private facts includes publishing or widespread dissemination of little-known, private facts that are non-newsworthy, not part of public records, public proceedings, not of public interest, and would be offensive to a reasonable person if made public."

"False light is a legal term that refers to a tort concerning privacy that is similar to the tort of defamation. For example, the privacy laws in the United States include a non-public person's right to privacy from publicity which puts them in a false light to the public; which is balanced against the First Amendment right of free speech.

False light laws are "intended primarily to protect the plaintiff's mental or emotional well-being."[10] If a publication of information is false, then a tort of defamation might have occurred. If that communication is not technically false but is still misleading then a tort of false light might have occurred.[10]

The specific elements of the Tort of FALSE LIGHT vary considerably even among those jurisdictions which do recognize this Tort. Generally, these elements consist of the following:

1. A publication by the Defendant about the Plaintiff;
2. made with actual malice (very similar to that type required by New York Times v. Sullivan in "Defamation" cases);
3. which places the Plaintiff in a false light; AND
4. that would be highly offensive (i.e., embarrassing to reasonable persons)"

"Invasion of privacy is a commonly used cause of action in a legal pleading. The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States ensures that "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." The amendment, however, only protects against searches and seizures conducted by the government. Invasions of privacy by persons who are not state actors must be dealt with under private tort law.


A notable quote regarding the United States Constitution and privacy in the case of Dietemann v. Time Inc. (9th Cir. 1971): “The First Amendment has never been construed to accord newsmen immunity from torts or crimes committed during the course of newsgathering. The First Amendment is not a license to trespass, to steal, or to intrude by electronic means into the precincts of another’s home or office"

In conclusion;

It would seem to be a duty of every American citizen; individually or as organized groups to copy the legal descriptions of these reprehensible and illegal acts, and deliver them with demands for public retractions and apologies, in an effort to avoid legal demands, which could proceed.

The demand should be addressed to any and all partners of Public health organizations who have distributed, or by their silence as partners in the coalition allowed, false and misleading information to exist in the public perspectives, which detracts from the rights of the person and could [and likely will] endanger their security. Partner lists can be found at; The Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids, ASH, The American Cancer Society, The Heart and Stroke Foundation, The American Lung Association or at a host of media branded darlings, who recently replaced the "Flintstones selling cigarettes" and now promote and protect the sales of other perspective driven and branded products. which trend to be; as, or much more, dangerous to the health of the same targeted individuals claimed as "protected" by Public health Associations who tend to protect their financing sponsors to a much higher degree.

The "spoiled Identity" is a deliberate act of personal denormalization, which has gone well beyond the description of making "not normal" the act of smoking and now has defamed humiliated and encroached on the civil and human rights of millions who chose to use, a thus far, legal product.

As a benchmark in public health advocacy this can not stand, as an acceptable model for future campaigns. Too many died as a consequence of these promotions in our past, to even consider this, as an appropriate action to protect our futures.

"In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health Organization presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing social attitudes;

"..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST..""

Minor reference list;

http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1523368

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

http://thesuburban.com/content.jsp?sid=14787592909217016673552527312&ctid=1000002&cnid=1014440

Promoting action with ethnic numbers

The practice of managing diseases, can not avoid the underlying reality; you have to micro-manage the personal lives of individuals and promote segregation, hatred and bigotry in order to make it effective. Ignorance of human rights and personal freedom can never be overlooked or simply ignored in hopes they will just go away.

Medical interventions are in effect; the treating of patients, who neither asked for, or ever wanted to be treated, by politicians acting as Doctors, who are trained and determined to treat individuals as the disease. Taking us right back to witch burning campaigns, protections and paternalisms in three easy lessons.

While investigating the overreaching effects of Public health reforms, in sustainable development efforts, a disturbing reality is starting to emerge. Can we separate personal allotments of blame, in "managing disease", from the eventuality of bigotry and enhanced stereotypical racism as a result of biological reference, which we know will always result?

Can we interpret "disease management" as an admission of failures in abandoning the search for causes and cures, at a time with new technology available today, we might finally accomplish those goals. We seem to be on a track which proposes; we know enough and physical science can offer us no more knowledge. Is in now sufficient to say; lofty calculations are sufficient proof to provide us with a stance, we know what causes all diseases. By pretending the matter is settled, we find justification enough, to now allot the blame and the punishments.

Can a Social Marketing [See Propaganda] effort, aimed at adjusting health outcomes avoid the charges; that they punish some cultures and communities with scorn and exclusions, which are unequal in both application and in the resulting divisions, among those being targeted and of course, those being "protected".

A negative campaign of hatred and isolation is defined by Simon Chapman and B Freeman in a recent report as the creation of a "spoiled identity". The study seems to laud the efficiencies gained, in promoting the personal negatives. Associating, in the campaign process, a negative perspective to all aspects of a smoker’s life, recognition of any claim to equitable human rights, security of the person or even a basic "normal" identity.

Lobbyists are defining a negative judgment, demonstrated in the act of smoking alone, as a huge barrier to the enjoyment of life, which should be deliberately maintained. Scientific certainty with no alternate views allowed, is implying; smoking will lead and should always lead, to poor health, poverty, ill repute and social ostracism. Many references are applauded in the study demonstrating how those defined as "smokers" have been punished and driven to isolation. A pattern which apparently by all medical interpretation, should aggressively continue.

Today many smokers avoid medical treatments, which will almost certainly include demeaning and insulting paternalist lectures. Many similarly will avoid mental health treatments, simply because the institutions demanding smoke free status would be a further challenge to an already difficult situation to face. Inflexibility by legislation, results in a reality that many will refuse to voluntarily accept beneficial treatments
Further the numbers of reality are distracted, when we realize the non or poor application of other variables tremendously delineate the numbers discussed.


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1523368

"Disability weights reflect the relative severity and impact of a disease and theoretically range from 0 (no disability) to 1 (death)"

"Making no adjustment for comorbidity is equivalent to assuming that effects of comorbidity on disability are additive. Thus, if a person has more than one disease his total disability weight equals the sum of the disability weights for those diseases. However, in this interpretation individual disability weights may add up to more than one. This cannot be interpreted in a plausible way because it would imply that more than one year of health is lost when living for one year with those diseases."

“Comorbidity complicates estimations of health-adjusted life expectancy (HALE) using disease prevalence’s and disability weights from Burden of Disease studies. Usually, the exact amount of comorbidity is unknown and no disability weights are defined for comorbidity.”

“Comorbidity, defined as the presence of two or more diseases in one person, complicates HALE calculations for two reasons. The first one is that the exact amount of comorbidity is unknown since all data on disease incidence, prevalence and mortality gathered in Burden of Disease (BOD) studies are disease specific [6]. The second reason is that there are no disability weights defined for comorbidity”

"Then, patients decide for themselves how the total disability that is caused by all concurrent diseases influences their functioning and quality of life. Therefore, empirical results of studies using self reported generic measures could be used to develop a more general theory as to how comorbidity influences disability. For instance, a question that needs to be answered is whether two comorbid diseases from different "disease clusters" (such as a physically limiting disease combined with a mental disease) leads to more disability than two or more diseases from one "disease cluster""

Medical research is largely dependent on stores of analytical numbers, such as the SEERS Stat database. When those numbers only reflect a narrow scope, defining human populations absolutely as Black, White or Hispanic how beneficial can the research be when evaluating total populations? The numbers are utilized religiously, despite the obvious omissions of major population groups, significant groups which do not fit well, biologically or socially in any of these descriptions. The immediate questions which arise would be in what classification would an Asian National fit into? Would African cultures in the third world have similar health perspectives to Caribbean or Asian Blacks? Does the perspective remain constant after residing in the Americas as second or third generation populations?

The reality found in a compressed view, is an ignorance of the diversities which exist in real populations with mixed diversity, which should be obvious. What we are told, in relation to disease pontificating, has to be weighed; in not only the view of what is divulged but what is not divulged or worse what is being consciously withheld,

Those deliberate and almost demanded withholdings can be found gratuitously, in epidemiology research complimenting the views of its financiers. Calculations representing opinions which are no longer chained to biological or even time line viability, but are now driven by demands of convenient purpose, to sensationalize what can never be more than the researcher’s limited or limiting scope. Those observations are utilized in dramatic media declarations, of “new” science discoveries almost daily, to empower a dangerous process of divisions and social change. That dominated process should also be examined in minuet detail. In the larger perspective; can such efforts, as campaigns against smoking, which prescribe, by a medical community no less, a punishment to find the end goal, be seen as anything more than a deceptive promotion of bigotry" Rekindled in the medical hierarchy is an ill advised effort to cleanse our genetic pool.

The cold clinical realities we see consistently in medical observations are biological impediments in some groups which by medical demands, should be punished, which we know ethically is a crime against humanity no matter the purpose or the advantage gained. If we allow the example to be set, how then can we deny the furthering of such actions? The population view conveniently disguises what is actually happening in the real view of community interactions. The increased violence and poverty can not be simply cured by interventions into diverse communities with linear perspectives.

Health care interventions, evaluating the Anti smoker campaign as a perfect example, seek to marginalize portions of the community, utilizing majority groups of communities in agreement with the stated goal. Lobbies have been deliberately and irresponsibly using smoking as a cultural wedge to separate once much more harmonious communities. Compared to perspectives only 20 years ago, the effect is truly frightening by its unbridled international scope alone. The pressures of fear and a duty to the protection of children are employed as legitimate tools, even when no harm can be, or could ever be demonstrated. This has an effect in producing biologically sustainable and scientifically acceptable racial lines, drawn by instigating fears. Once again science explores promoting the stereotypes of eugenics, with racism quietly acceptable and under wraps. Already the smoking bans have been announced as a resounding success and a model for further interventions.

The questions to be asked would be; if Asian communities who comprise the highest smoking prevalence and the lowest incidence of smoking related diseases had been included, how fearful would the resulting numbers look? And how successful would the anti smoker campaign have been? The questions which would have to come next would have to do with the reasons, Asian populations were left out of the perspectives or how much power to shame smokers would have existed had those numbers been included in the research which is claimed today as irrefutable and consistent.

The Bigots used to call them “Human Ballast” today they are called "spoiled identity". Those who will not be driven by fear mongering, will now become the victims of it. Law abiding citizenry are currently redefining themselves as criminals, in the eyes of unjust albeit targeted laws, which support the very worst in all of us. The realities of disease management and the RIO Summit defining what is termed as “Health care reform” can not elevate itself above the measures of bigotry as the final solution regardless of media partnerships and broad campaigns of deceptions. Governments attempting to reform communities are always held at the will of those communities. If Bigotry is at the heart of community want, that civilization is one in desperate decline. That civilization needs to be challenged as one more failure, among many in history, at the hands of irresponsible although financially expedient, human experimentation.


Proof, is not even difficult to find;
"In 1975 Sir George Goober, British delegate to the World Health organization
presented his blueprint for eliminating tobacco use worldwide by changing
social attitudes.

"..it would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that
active smokers would injure those around them, especially their families and
any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to EST.."


http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25
S. Chapman and B. Freeman et al; Tobacco Control, BMJ report 2008,
“As smoking becomes increasingly denormalised and communities vocal about their dislike of smoking, there is abundant evidence that smokers internalise this negativity. In nations with advanced tobacco control, smokers have almost universal regret about having commenced smoking.19 After health concerns, the social unacceptability of smoking is nominated by most ex-smokers as their main motivation for quitting.20 Denormalising smoking is also associated with protecting others from second-hand smoke. Among factors that positively predicted having a smoke-free home was "believing smoke free was normative" (high acceptance of denormalising beliefs about smoking)”


http://omega.twoday.net/stories/297097/
"In his first Rock Carling Fellowship Lecture in June 1967, Richard Doll stated clearly that prevention of cancer was a better strategy than cure."


Prevention in action; assigning the blame…
http://www.imt.ie/news/2008/02/polish_smokers_need_help.html
“The dramatically high prevalence of heavy smokers among Poles will result in an ‘economic disaster’ for Ireland, a prominent respiratory physician has told Irish Medical Times. Prof Luke Clancy said rates of heavy smoking in the Polish population — the largest group of immigrants in Ireland - means they’ll lose productive years of their life while requiring increased care for chronic respiratory and cardiac problems. Prof Clancy, Director General of the Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society, directed a study on Polish smoking rates. The study, which looked at more than 1,500 Polish smokers and ex-smokers, found that 61 per cent of males and 47 per cent of females have smoked at least once a day for the last six months. “These are not casual smokers,” said Prof Clancy. The study also found that while women between the ages of 20 and 25 were most likely to want to quit smoking, only eight per cent had sought advice. Prof Clancy said there ought to be more Polish-language help for quitting, such as a Polish-language ‘quitline’. “It’s not just a Polish problem. It’s our problem,” said Prof Clancy, who said that the loss in productive years of their lives, coupled with the resources it will take to keep people with chronic diseases and health problems alive, will result in an ‘economic disaster’.”


http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/93/4/642
“Important potential gains in understanding both tobacco risk behavior and immigrant adaptation have been forestalled by the lack of suitable data. The primary deficiency has been the absence of large data sets that include questions on both smoking behavior and immigration status. The tobacco use supplements of the CPS, which were sponsored by the National Cancer Institute in a series of data waves collected in 1985, 1989, 1992–1993, 1995–1996, and 1998–1999, allow such analyses to be conducted. Standardized immigrant status questions began to be included in the main CPS questionnaire in 1994, and the subsequent tobacco use supplements provide the data needed to link smoking behavior and immigrant status.27,28 Using the CPS tobacco use supplements from 1995–1996 and 1998–1999, we sought to calculate smoking prevalence estimates by race/ethnicity and by immigrant status. We decomposed these estimates further, by country of birth, for Asian/Pacific Islander immigrants to illustrate the heterogeneity that exists within race/ethnicity and immigrant groups.”


Lying defined as more prevalent by ethnicity.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/80/9/1057
“To compare self-reported cigarette use with a biological marker of smoking behavior, we evaluated the serum cotinine levels in 547 Mexican American smokers who participated in the Hispanic Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HHANES) in the South-western states.”
“Differences in cotinine metabolism and extremely efficient smoking are alternative explanations that can not be ruled out with these data. We believe, however, that a proportion of Mexican American light smokers may under report the quantity of cigarettes smoked per day, and may truly be moderate or heavy smokers. (Am J Public Health 1990; 80:1057-1061.)”


Biological observations in many other perspectives, avoiding what should be obvious.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/84/9/1439
“In a study of young Black and White smokers, Wagenknecht et al. found that Blacks had cotinine levels that were 83.3 ng/mL higher than those of Whites after controlling for several characteristics, including number of cigarettes, inhalation frequency, age, and education.6 After controlling for similar factors in our study of pregnant women, we found that Black smokers had cotinine levels that were 27.4 ng/mL higher than those of White smokers. Like Wagenknecht et al., we also found that Black smokers had higher serum cotinine levels at each level of self-reported cigarette consumption.”


Again;
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/2/135
“cotinine concentrations were substantially higher among black smokers than among white or Mexican American smokers at all levels of cigarette smoking. Whites and Mexican Americans had similar serum cotinine levels when they smoked up to 5 cigarettes per day, but serum cotinine levels increased significantly more for whites than for Mexican Americans with each additional cigarette smoked.”


The Battle lines are drawn.
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/153/8/807
“Compared with self-reported smokers, self-reported non-smokers comprised a higher proportion of persons who were female, were aged 65 years or older, had 13 or more years of education, and did not live below the poverty level”

“We can also postulate a number of explanations for the discrepancy between self-reports and the results of biochemical assessment among self-reported non-smokers. First, Blacks, as compared with Whites, may be highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke or may differ in terms of nicotine pharmacokinetics. These two possibilities would help to explain why Blacks who reported themselves to be non-smokers were more likely to have a cotinine level greater than 15.0 ng/ml. Indeed, several studies have found differences in serum cotinine concentrations between Black and White non-smokers. In these studies, Blacks had higher cotinine levels than did Whites, even after environmental tobacco smoke exposure and other factors were taken into account. Because racial differences in nicotine pharmacokinetics and genetic polymorphisms involved exist, different cut-off points are probably needed for each racial group”


NHAINES ethnic numbers omitted to enhance the prognosis;
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/2/135
“Our study sample was limited to participants aged 17 years or older who described themselves as non-Hispanic blacks, non-Hispanic whites, or Mexican Americans, who had a serum cotinine measurement and provided tobacco use information in the MEC, and who did not use any other significant sources of nicotine in the previous 5 days. Of the 12391 persons selected, 2271 refused the interview; 1315 were interviewed at home and did not visit the MECs; 281 did not answer the MEC tobacco questionnaire; 682 had no cotinine measurement; 434 reported using other significant sources of nicotine in the previous 5 days; and 226 were other than non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Mexican American.”


Acknowledged, yet applauded; Public health devolving to a cult of “normal” by decree.
A “normal” perspective, which delegates by ethnic divisions, genetically superior races.
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/17/1/25
“Several authors have suggested that Erving Goffman’s classic analysis of stigma and its resultant "spoiled identity" is consonant with how the meaning of smoking has changed in societies with widespread tobacco control. Goffman described stigmatisation as the transformation "from a whole and usual person to a tainted, discounted one", writing that "Stigma is a process by which the reaction of others spoils normal identity". Writing in 1963 before the first US Surgeon General’s report on smoking was published, Goffman did not list smoking as a stigmatized behavior but did list "blemishes of individual character" that included addiction and alcoholism.”

In discussions of increased health risk if we take the perspective that risks are additive we would have to believe risks can exceed the level of the highest listed risk available. On a scale of 0% [no risk] to 100% [Death] as consistent with the general public interpretation, additive risk would easily surpass 100% which can make no sense.

In claims casual or even lifetime risks of second hand smoke increases health risk by 30% [immediately or long term] in this perspective we can see when added to other risks such as the increased lifetime risk of smoking 89% the total would exceed 100% making any amount of casual exposures of second hand smoke, to a smoker immediately fatal. How is it in the same promotion the lobbies tell us only half of smokers die from smoking related diseases of all causes regardless of smoking? You can imagine where that would place the notion of risk from second hand smoke yet the public has been conditioned to believe much more.

For the general public it is not well understood the difference between risk and cause which is definitive. There are thousands of risks you will encounter through an average lifespan, which if taken literally would end that life immediately by theoretic calculations. It is no miracle the estimates so many times miss the mark, the nature of the process and the odds of probability tell us they should be wrong many times more than they are right, when using a linear model to calculate non linear data, The amount of variables in play some not even realized as yet, leaves more room for error than we could ever have for certainty.

By promoting the idea second hand smoke could impose an immediate and permanent health risk based on current methods and to such a degree it could ever be seen to rise above the other risks available, which we can not avoid is mischievous at best, and delusional fanaticism at worst. The risk of second hand tobacco smoke can never truly exist when it can be demonstrated a comorbidity factor of higher value is present. Such values by direct comparison would be outdoor pollution, Fireplaces, Cooking, Fragrances and colognes, and a host of thousands more, which if compared by identical methods would exhibit risk increases which would dwarf any enthusiastic numbers we see in the media every day, primarily produced by the Lobby inspired numbers of smoking patch salespeople.

What is being established in dividing communities in use of fear and coercion is the promotion of a conscious norm, which includes justification for laying blame for health costs of community. The back room efforts are forming a new set of calculations which demonstrate how those extra costs can also be assigned to racial groups, who will be allotted blame and exclusions in the same way as we now afford generally to smokers. That reality is growing and becoming much more public, within the Tobacco Control Lobby as we see already in the trial balloon in Ireland, permission is being given, to take a step too far.

Now consider what people really believe;. Governments and lobby groups who are supposedly convinced of the deadly nature of this risk factor, are pushing hard to have smoking in a car where a child is present made illegal. The demands made of protecting children from the dangers of child abuse as claimed, presuming all smoking parents are guilty, to such a degree a law is necessary. Those promotions are somewhat questionable, when observing the sentence proposed for child abuse, in limiting the courts to a fine of twenty five to one hundred dollars on average. What does that say to the victims of real abuse and the anguish they suffer? Will we be asked to allow the same leniency to child rapists soon? No one including the lobbies really believes what they are claiming. What is evident, many who don’t like the smell of the smoke are simply latching on to a proposal of child protection, which makes their lives more comfortable, in a way that they can justify their own angst of conscience, with plausible deniability, conveniently leaning on the words of others.

Fools Gold

Alas my friends if you hitched your wagon in support of smoking bans or global warming, you are more than obviously another willing victim of statistical fraud.

Hysteria and fears which are more closely related to your discomfort with the smell of the smoke, than any realistic harm originating from it. It is your fear which allows increased production of bureaucracy inspired fools gold, a growing epidemic which creates huge holes in the public purse and generously rewards those who play the game.

In the 50s and 60s more than half the population smoked in North America 54% in fact, now that those same people are getting older in an evolving population bubble, they are naturally dying from what has always been known as diseases of the elderly, such as cancers and heart disease which occur in the vast majority beyond 70 years of age. A population bubble actually predicted at birth and for many years after, to die at 65.

With an aging population it was expected we would see disease increases in these categories. Because more than half the population smoked and the fact slightly more than half of the so called smoking related diseases are found among smokers is only in reality a reflection of population norms in an aging population, and exactly what was known and expected for decades.

Half of smokers in this age group it is prophesied “will die of smoking related diseases”. Half of those who did not smoke will take up slightly less than half of smoking related diseases [4% less than half or 46%] close to 25% of each population group reflecting less than 25% of total mortality figures in both cases, so what is so scary? What we did not expect as the bubble moved was; despite the drastic reductions of smoking prevalence, little reductions of the disease numbers ever occurred, which we had always believed, were primarily caused by smoking.

No one thought to test other realities once our collective mind was made up, we just stuck to the belief system. Recently Stanton Glanz an avid anti smoker advocate citing information gleaned from his favorite list of research papers, implied; the increased risk of second hand smoke was .3 or 30%. He also stated second hand smoke was more dangerous than primary smoking, but that’s another story. If we look at the numbers that 30% fits quite nicely in the expectation of 4% less non smokers numerically would result obviously in 4% less mortalities from smoking related diseases. 30% of [4% reduction of the 25% of total mortalities classed as smoking related] This apparently demonstrates an elimination of any increased risk due to second hand smoke above population norms. It would also illuminate a tendency of the fanatics, to zero in on research limited to the population bubble, while attempting to present an increased risk in the past still applies to the current population today which creates much larger numbers. With absolutely no credit given to medical innovation in over 50 years and the numerous environmental changes we were told would afford us large benefits over the years, significant factors they seem to be glossing over when distributing ever increasing numbers in mortality predictions.

Statistical research studying population patterns often fails to recognize the split of smokers and non smokers as an evolving percentage number and the majority figure has changed significantly with no apparent effect according to the research. They also fail to realize; few don’t know what cigarette smoke smells like, so virtually all in the population have been exposed. In aging groups all were exposed in much higher volumes and for much longer durations than anything we would see today. Realizing this, how do you develop an increased employment risk with no non exposed control group to measure against?

The answer; You can’t!!!

No disease has ever been determined to have been caused by second hand smoke; there is simply a slim statistical association among 10s of thousands of other statistical associations. What was determined by calculation was; it might be possible. If we choose to ignore the other possibilities anything could be made, more possible. Similarly an association exists between breast cancers and an increased risk of 25,000% if a woman wears a bra, a much more definitive possibility we can ignore, for obvious reasons.

No cause is ever legitimately stated, just a possibility of increased risk. The claims of actual “cause” are a result of the exaggerations and deceptive ad agency spin produced for lobby groups, with obvious financial interests in their sights. Epidemiology is the science of speculation. Nothing is reproducible or even sustainable for long, as perspectives change with media hype driving popular opinions. Nothing grows beyond what a researcher believes, or more accurately; what the researcher wants others to believe. It is a system dominated by an old boy’s network, with strict control over public perspectives with research funding as a reward for the obedient, which serves to sustain the credibility of their promotions of the past, at the pleasure of enormous industry funded Charity foundations. [The guys who write the largest cheques]

People driven to fear will demand to be protected. Lobbies were funded to create political pressures. Gratuitously exaggerated fear did the rest. You now have smoking bans, global warming and fat pandemics, and who could forget the mad cows which destroyed the cattle industry and drove the prices of beef through the roof. SARS pandemics were used as a Whip in Canada who was resisting UN demands at the time. Canada was declared a risky destination by UN lobbies who eventually won, Canadian government obedience. Bird flu preaching pandemic fear from disease strains which do not even exist, resulted in stock piling of vaccines which can offer no protection, from an as yet, undetermined target disease. Irresponsible reporting is driving huge Health Scare expenditures with irresponsible claims. We have as a result a global expression of hypochondria. Hysterics and high drama in the media spotlight are claiming statistical victims wherever it can find them.

Bodies are being claimed now, in many instances multiple times, by multiple competing lobbies. The sum of risk calculations which are always stated as; predicted by the World Health Organization, realistically far exceeds how many are actually dying.

We have a duty to pay taxes, how many lives a government duty or obligation actually saves, by huge investments, is none of our concern. It just sounds so good, while promoting a political brand, when a politician reminds us how many lives they saved today, our level of gratitude in poll numbers actually measures how well we are being conned.

No one has caught on to the idea, surprisingly, that we will all die eventually and no death is really preventable. Nor has anyone considered, what is actually being said when claiming “there is no safe level of tobacco smoke” which is actually saying nothing at all, however the fear produced by that statement places it atop the many historic ad agency creations, as a legend in its own time. We could say there is no safe level of air, water or just about anything you could imagine the placement in relation to cigarette smoke has served its purpose admirably.

The real crime found in all this? The fear in our communities is driven by tax expenditures in support of professional radicals, resulting in the financing of highly deceptive media promotions, no more real than the fanatical sky is falling routine. Fears are then forcing legislators to make much larger expenditures in protecting us from what we believe to be much more dangerous than physical science could ever sustain.

Fools gold!!!

You really do; have nothing to fear but fear itself. Get it?

The Science of Intimidation

The greatest threat to our society, our cultures and to national security today, rests in the significant and unrestricted promotions of scientific fraud and terrorist acts, being echoed and indeed promoted in the media daily. A tool of industrial lobbies and UN domination strategies, by unelected officials no less. Dictators who seek to protect only the financial interests of their partners. A financial motive which pays a lot, to promote political domination.

Political leaders of all parties are attacked in media campaigns constantly, while demanding funding or power which politicians in seeking to preserve reputation, have little choice but to comply. They are not able to argue of course with the perspective saviors and protectors of the populace, Medical charities and health scare organizations, who masquerade as the voice of the people as well, through invented and purchased reputations, with absolutely no authority to do so. The evidence points consistently to top down actions to the people campaigns as opposed to the claimed grass roots of the people. Fear wins and terrorists are allowed to rule.

Reality today is controlled conspiracy creation, as outlined in many Lobby group promotional materials following the mold of HIA [health / wealth], interventions originating at the World Health Organization. HIA Blue prints instruct partners, in the facilitation of domination principles. [Yea and I'm a conspiracy nut, yawn].

Reality is purchased by financial advantages of Health Scare Prophets, in describing and accepting epidemiology as "the one true science” when in fact, it can only be judged legitimately as nothing more than the science of speculation. That speculation is controlled completely by what the researcher believes, or more correctly “what he wishes others to believe”, in spite of real science which, more often than not, proves them to be absolutely mistaken.

"Confounding effects" are always a matter of speculation and will always control the "risk factors produced" by the statistical model. With human intervention evident, all epidemiological conclusions will remain as always “Speculative" and "Subject to change as perceptions change"

To end all discussion, when you find, what you want to find, is absolutely ignorant of the process and absolutely deceptive in passing that information to the public in self serving press releases. A public who largely will never fully comprehend what is being presented. Although in time they will catch on, regardless of media credibility which will be lost, along with the credibility of scientific institutions that play this irresponsible game.

The considerable increased mortality and morbidity numbers produced directly by the lies of epidemiology will one day be calculated and those responsible held to account. Let’s hope they are tried in jurisdictions where the death penalty is an option, as appropriate justice, for extreme crimes against humanity. As the death toll of “disease management” and “Tax exempted, Industrial Philanthropy” continues to climb."

It is surprising with an analytic view of the world, anyone could be so naive as to buy into the Cult of Public Health. A theology of directed calculations in denial of time line and biological evaluation.

The Rio Summit took the benificial search for "cures" into a more controlled version of science known as "disease management" which provides protections for the larger industrial interests of this planet, who could never be held to account for the damages they do to societies. Management assumes all disease can be eliminated by controlling personal behavior. This all sounds perfectly reasonable at the surface, but when you look where it leads, ultimately we will have to punish disease outcomes and the recipients of those punishments will exist among the elderly and cultural groups decided by consensus evaluations to posses inferior genetic qualities.

We are of course talking about a re-emergence of the eugenics movement. A mistake in the past and still a mistake today. The dysfunctionalities of comparing one group to another, in theoretic research of epidemiology promoted of late by such questionable scholars as Stanton Glanz [Below] has only one endpoint, we saw once before, as six million perished because they did not meet cultural or physical expectations.

Image courtesy of smoke free Ohio

We are talking of hatred and divided societies here, with only one choice offered align or be punished in every conceivable way. When speaking of an addiction they also tell us is one of the most severe addictions known to man, that choice and the options offered are substantially reduced. Leaving one to wonder if they are being asked/told to quit, legitimately, or if they are being tortured to eliminate the possibility for many of them they ever could quit. The comfort of those who don't like the smell, is compensated indefinitely as the largest cash cow of our society will continue to produce indefinitely.

Those who are irresponsibly promoting fear and high drama, are far beyond any credible claims of protecting anyone. If judged in scientific terms; observing the true level of poison and the dose, with the absolute refusal to distinguish the many varied sources and varieties of the so call demon smoke. The kind of "science" being claimed is more than obvious not science at all we know it more simply as promoted hatred.

Anti smoker anti-fat, anti-alcohol all challenge individual rights and freedoms, that, from a scientific standpoint, negating religion, is still a morally reprehensible act.

Science does not support witch hunts or bandwagons because it is a pursuit of discovery, not a control of what might be discovered, in ad hominid attacks against the messenger who may step out of line. Or is it cherry picking what you want to believe, while denying the existence of what you don't.

The clear evidence claimed by the fanatic, is proof in itself of the deceptive nature of that clarity. If we knew what caused diseases we could cure them, which would reduce the health risks far more than limiting the exposures.

Do the fanatics actually believe; by eliminating cigarette smoke we will eliminate all the major diseases?
Even they wont allow the exaggerations to go that far.Calculated conclusions of population research are so very rarely consistent, without a lot of help along the way.

You are free to call the "cannon of proof" what you want, it remains as always speculation, elevated by fear to systemic fraud.

We have really moved along quite quickly on the anti smoker campaign, perhaps a little too fast for anyone to catch a breath and consider where we are going. Smoking Bans in cars is a big step moving from public spaces to personal spaces and the intrusions on parental rights. Once we open that box what else will we find as rational to support?

Where will all this lead we can look to the UK who have traveled a little farther down the road of disease management with a health care crisis much like our own. The costs of health care is the topic on everyone's mind of late, a growing crisis with an aging population. ASH an international ant smoker lobby group has aggressively pursued the notion of making smokers lives as difficult as possible in a promoted "hope" they "may" be forced to quit.

ASH have supported exclusions from medical treatments, employment and housing, bans in all public buildings and private businesses, in cars in in homes, Increased taxes for medical dependencies and recently; went one step too far in my opinion, by actually presenting documented evidence that Polish citizens living in Ireland have higher smoker prevalence than others while stating, the result would have significant impacts on the health care system.

Once we have been lobbied successfully and accept the car and home bans, will we too be lobbied to punish minority groups as well? Only time will tell, and the lobbies armed with their media bullhorns, will have the final say as they always do.

Genetic markers and the inevitable reduced facilities due to aging or disabilities [those once referred to as human ballast] are by far the most significant factor of predicting diseases and mortality figures. Now that we are well along on the road to personal responsibility judged by risk factors, for community costs, with apparently little regard to personal rights and freedom, it is hard to understand how we can avoid segmenting and punishing disease cost, by cultural identity, disability, or by age to illicit public scorn for growing old or as a result of those unfortunate enough to be born with the wrong type of genetic mappings. This was known once in a darker place in history as "the final solution". Will that be the end road of our solutions in managing the burden of disease as well?

Or have we already gone, quite far enough?



Polish people living in Ireland smoke much more than Irish people,
the results of a new study have found.


http://www.irishhealth.ie/index.html?level=4&id=12987


Number crunchers?

The Research Institute for a Tobacco Free Society

http://www.tri.ie/ResearchResults/tabid/61/Default.aspx

http://www.tri.ie/

"According to the findings, 61% of Polish males and 47% of females who live in Ireland are smokers. The majority of Polish people living here are aged 20-40 and in both countries, smoking prevalence is highest within this age group. However just 31% of Irish people in the same age group smoke.

RIFTFS director, Prof Luke Clancy, described the findings as ‘alarming’ and said that they would have ‘implications for our public health policy’."

More number crunchers?

The following can be judged entirely by how many would actually be exposed "long term" [Meaning 8 hours a day-7 days a week-for more than 40 years] to second hand smoke. In community as it stands? Very few including bartenders who work at bingo halls, would see the exposures discussed. As fear is an effective tool of advertising, they use it far to generously to maintain any level of credibility. On a linear scale your risks decrease or are eliminated according to your real life situation.

The largest perspective studies, which should be judged as much more reliable and credible than the sum of the tiny ones with varying results, [which incidentally when all are included tells us a contradictory story], in absolute opposition to what is being distributed here.

http://medjournalwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/doing-math-on-secondhand-smoke.html



"The evidence is overwhelming. In a review of 29 studies, Barnoya and Glantz (Circulation 2005) have calculated a relative risk of 1.3, that is an increase by 30 percent, for coronary heart disease, caused by long-term exposure to secondhand smoke."



This one pretty much sums it up..,

"Despite the fact that the dose of smoke delivered to active smokers is 100 times or more that delivered to a passive smoker, the relative risk of coronary heart disease for smokers is 1.78,⁵ (Figure 1). Rapidly accumulating evidence, however, indicates that many important responses of the cardiovascular system (Table 1) are exquisitely sensitive to the toxins in SHS. These mechanisms, rather than isolated events, interact with each other to increase the risk of heart disease. compared with 1.31 for passive smokers"

IS SECOND HAND SMOKE ACTUALLY MORE TOXIC THAN SMOKING?
SHOULD WE ALL START SMOKING, TO REDUCE OUR HEALTH RISKS?

Don't head for the smoke shack just yet.

What is not disclosed here? An elevation of 30% represents not a total risk elevation but an increase above the starting point. representing all in society, which has nothing to do with your personal life or mine who's actual disease factors would vary much more than our fingerprints.

Glanz in conjuring up a new demon; may well have destroyed the credibility of most of his other evidence. Sorry Stanton with all due respect realized.

He reduces a condensed list for various reasons, to focus on a select few which support his hypothesis and establish a risk of ETS at .3 which he proceeds to allude is much lower than what actually exists. His interpretations twist and turn like a roller coaster, primarily focussed on the endothelial effects, which could never be separated from the effects of stress or someone working in a cold climate moving into and out of heated spaces, or someone working in a warm climate who varies their body temperature daily when ever they walk into an air conditioned building or car. All of which by interpretations described in the research significantly increases the coronary risks of all the cases mentioned.

One of his studies, he points out some subjects included in the comparison group who were found to have low levels of cotinine in their blood, he surmised was proof of an increased effect, which should increase the risk. Never once considering as the researchers likely did, in confounding effects, if the levels are too low to be the effects of cigarette smoke, it could be assumed, the effects of ingestion of nightshade fruits or vegetables such as tomatoes or potatoes and egg plant.

In summation he deduces the population risk should be applicable to the entire population which would seem to be recognition; few in North America don't know what cigarette smoke smells like. If the exposures are so pervasive, by such minuscule amounts as would be encountered in 15 minutes. Everyone who knows what cigarette smoke smells like are as likely as a smoker is to die of a heart attack. Meaning smoking decreases your chances or at very least; does not increase your risk above that of the general population.

One has to realize the process of case control research and cohort studies, compare the exposed to the unexposed and compare disease outcomes. If we were to compare unexposed to unexposed groups we should see no difference. if those assumed to be unexposed, were actually exposed the research would have to be invalidated. If a non linear risk exists any increased risk found [including increases among his favorite studies] would naturally have to be the result of confounding errors or assumed to be associated with other factors. Which would dismiss all proof, a risk exists at all.

And in this corner....


The author below believes he has it bad; imagine being a defenseless smoker up against this lot. It would be interesting to see the reaction if someone actually pretended to light a cigarette in front of these lunatics. Do you think they would be holding their breath and running for the exits? Not likely because when you know the nature of the risk involved you can be confident you are not actually in harms way. Which has many of them doing human testing with no fear of harming the subjects, and machine testing in smoky bars personally yet, never once requesting a respirator.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2173898

"Enstrom cites the reign of terror over biology under Stalin as one example of politics trumping science. Though the Soviet case is rather extreme (we North Americans who dare question the scientific orthodoxy only have our careers threatened; not our lives, at least so far), it is not the most extreme. Many cultures were hobbled for centuries because of religious adherence to pseudoscience, and damage to people's health was one of the many results.

To conclude, I will offer a footnote to the Enstrom story, related to the session he hosted at the Congress of Epidemiology/Society for Epidemiologic Research, "Reassessment of the Long-term Mortality Risks of Active and Passive Smoking." Enstrom was not aware, at the time he wrote his article, that Jonathan Samet suggested to conference participants that they boycott (Samet's own word) that session. While this is hardly startling when mentioned at the end of a series of papers that describe exclusion, censorship, blackballing, and blackmail by the anti-tobacco establishment in their attempts to stifle dissent, its implications are darker than they seem at first blush: This was a real scientific meeting, not an anti-tobacco conference. A call for a boycott is not merely speaking ill of a researcher or study (time-honored traditions in science); it is a suggestion that others avoid even listening to presentations of evidence and analysis that those in power do not like. This is not legitimate scientific argument, or even a mere petulant protest. It is an attempt to promote the kind of self-censorship of thought examined by Orwell and mastered by Stalin. This took place at a premier scientific meeting in the field of epidemiology, and yet the suggestion did not appear to be denounced by anyone. This suggests that epidemiologists lack respect for their field as a legitimate science, and accept its role as a tool to be manipulated for advocacy, an attitude which seems attributable in no small measure to anti-tobacco activism and similar forms of advocacy."

Analysis

The physical toxic risk? they did test it themselves, in many workplace investigations; Never found a legal problem.

This information courtesy of Mark Wernimont; With my thanks.

You may be interested in air quality testing of secondhand smoke conducted by such names as Johns Hopkins, American Cancer Society, a Minnesota environmental health department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......of course all these groups originally conducted these tests to prove how "hazardous" secondhand smoke is in the workplace.....however, in fact the air quality testing proves that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

Additionally, there is a more urgent reason to oppose such anti-business legislation, here in the Twin Cities, smoking bans have closed down 155+ bars and restaurants eliminating thousands of jobs. As a frame of reference, in 2004 the last year without a ban, only 14 closed:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/01/100-bars-and-restaurants-put-out-of.html

Around the country smoking bans have eliminated 1,000+ establishments

http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm

Can anyone doubt that smoking bans are fueled by inaccurate and exaggerated data, and more importantly have contributed to the economic downturn we now experience.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2008/01/economist-at-federal-reserve-declares.html