Smoking ban advocate says some claims just smoke


In Kansas, accurate information is sometimes in short supply when talking about smoking bans. From Kansas Watchdog:

Opponents to a statewide total smoking ban say anti-tobacco advocates are playing a little loose with their facts.

They have an unlikely ally in Michael Siegel, a medical doctor and professor of community health sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health. He’s a long-standing anti-tobacco advocate, a proponent of smoking bans and a strong critic of bad science.

In a story published Feb. 18 on his weblog, “The rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary,” Seigel wrote, “It is irresponsible to disseminate conclusions that are not supported by any scientific evidence, especially if that information will be used to infringe upon the freedom, autonomy, and rights of individuals.”

Read the entire story at Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Just Smoke.

Additional coverage of recent legislative testimony on this issue is at Fuzzy “Facts” vs Freedom in Smoking Ban Debate and Smoking Ban Bill Causes Controversy in House Committee.


3 responses to “Smoking ban advocate says some claims just smoke”

  1. harleyrider1978

    According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke……..

    They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA’S minimum PEL’S on shs/ets…….Did it ever set the debate on fire.

    They concluded that:

    All this is in a small sealed room 9×20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.

    For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes

    “For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes

    “Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

    Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.

    “For Hydroquinone, “only” 1250 cigarettes

    For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time

    The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.

    So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :

    Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997


    The political shenanigans surrounding SHS/ETS go deep not only with the government and its health agencies but also to the big pharmaceutical companies and non-profit orginizations aka ACS,ALA,AHA and a meriad of others. All lobbying for smoking bans and their weapon of choise Propaganda paid for by big pharma and tax dollars. Studys made to order that second hand smoke is deadly. Take a memory note here too,over 250 studys on shs/ets have found it safe.

    Yet a simple look at the chemistry shows us that its:

    94% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide.

    3 % is carbon monoxide.

    3 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms……
    (1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).

    Now, how odd that when we search the smoke free activists sites not one of them mentions that water vapor and air are the main components of second hand smoke. Is this just a fluke or an outright omission to further their political healthscare against the general public.

  2. Benjamin

    Just leave it up to the business. How much more government intrusion do you people want?

  3. Craig Gabel

    How many people are we going to save by telling them they have to smoke in a airtight room where they can still smoke.
    As apposed to the much more smoke free rooms we had before the Wichita smoking ban went into effect. The argument is that it saves kids. Give me a break most smokers light up the minute they get the kids in the car, and I’m sure they all go out side to smoke at home (LOL). If lawmakers want to get people to stop smoking Congress should stop subsidizing tobacco growers, and ban the importation and production of tobbaco. Thats never going to happen where would they get all their reelection funds.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.