Free Republic

The states have cut anti smoking funding to the bone and Illinois just shut their quit line completely along with others.............WHANNNNN

You thought you won back in 1900 all were REPEALED BY 1923!

Get ready repeal time is coming............

DO YOU MIND IF I SMOKE? Yes, do you mind if I fart?

Go right ahead as you would anyway............sane as us smokers lite up when we want and where we want. You think these bans will last much longer! I wouldn’t count on it the move is already afoot to begin the repeals in many states right now.

Schuman’s Expert Witnesses Testify in Secondhand Smoke Trial

The plaintiff’s expert witnesses spoke up on day three of David Schuman’s case against his housing cooperative, Greenbelt Homes, Inc. (GHI), for its failure to prohibit the nuisance created by his townhome neighbors, the Popovics’, secondhand smoke.

Courtroom and Plaintiff’s Townhome Register Similar Carcinogen Levels

But, an incident from Repace’s testimony Thursday came back into play Friday during cross examination. Goecke pointed out that on Thursday, while demonstrating the carcinogen monitor, Repace had measured the concentration of carcinogens in the court room — which is in a smoke-free building — and the amount he recorded there was similar to what Repace had reported recording in Schuman’s townhome in July of 2011.

greenbelt.patch.com/articles/schumans-expert-witnesses-testify-in-secondhand-smoke-trial

As you can see even in a smokefree courtroom the same so called levels were read in Schumans own Kitchen in his house! The so called scientist was none other than a fellow prohibitionist and JUNK SCIENTIST,Tornado Repace!

Talk about being laughed out of court...................btw these prohibitionists create whats called ‘’risk assesment studies’’ Purely fictional and nothing more than statistical magic to create fear and bigotry against smokers!

The rise of a pseudo-scientific links lobby

Every day there seems to be a new study making a link between food, chemicals or lifestyle and ill-health. None of them has any link with reality.

http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/13287#.U6ibAzYo59A

Manufacturing the science to meet the agenda, in black on white. Does anyone still have doubts?

‘’Bal laughs when asked about the role of scientific evidence in guiding policy decisions. “There was no science on how to do a community intervention on something of this global dimension,” he says. “Where there is no science, you have to go and be venturesome—you can’t use the paucity of science as an excuse to do nothing. We created the science, we did the interventions and then all the scientists came in behind us and analyzed what we did.”

Read under the title :
Tobacco Control: The Long War—When the Evidence Has to Be Created

http://www.milbank.org/uploads/documents/0712populationhealth/0712populationhealth.html

the 4700 compounds is theoretical even on OSHAs part. As they have never identified and trapped more than about 800 actual chemicals and they cant even trap those everytime as they are so small they can barely be measured.

That strongly contradicts your main argument that second hand smoke does not raise the risk of cancer. As for the mechanisms by which environmental tobacco smoke induces that higher risk, is there really any point in quibbling here whether it is one single component of tobacco smoke or, as I suggest, an effect of the combination of chemicals present?

There never was any risk.............that’s the point and the point OSHA made about the studies being useless.

OSHA / NIOSH RESEARCH

In 1991 NIOSH { OSHA’ research group} Looked into ETS although at the time they recommended reducing ETS exposure they found the studies lacking.

NIOSH recognizes that these recent epidemiological studies have several shortcomings: lack of objective measures for charachterizing and quantifying exposures,failures to adjust for all confounding variables,potential misclassification of ex-smokers as non-smokers,unavailability of comparison groups that have not been exposed to ETS, and low statistical power.

Research is needed to investigate the following issues:

1. More acurate quantification of the increased risk of lung cancer associated with ETS exposure,including determination of other contributing factors[e.g.,occupational exposures]that may accentuate the risk.

2.Determination of the concentration and distributuion of ETS components in the workplace to help quantify the risk for the U.S. working population.

a.The association of ETS exposure with cancer other than lung cancer
b.The relationship between ETS exposure and cardiovascular disease
c.The relationship between ETS exposure and nonmalignant resporatory diseases such asthma,bronchitis and emphysema, and
the effects of ETS on lung function and respiratory systems
c. Possible mechanisms of ETS damage to the cardiovascular system,such as platelet aggravation,increased COHb leading to oxygen depravation,or damage to endothelium
d.Effects of workplace smoking restrictions on the ETS exposure of nonsmokersand ETS-related health effects in nonsmokers

After ten years of no conclusive research and lack of studies that didn’t eliminate the bias OSHA decided that the studies did not have substance and here is there present policy.

Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)

Because the organic material in tobacco doesn’t burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

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

Michael R. Fox.
Nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor.
- Of those chemicals present in ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) only a very few can be classified as toxins or carcinogens. Some basic physics, a bit of chemistry and a series of rather simple mathematical calculations reveal that exposure to ETS is hardly a dangerous event. Indeed, the cancer risk of ETS to a non-smoker appears to be roughly equal to the risk of becoming addicted to heroin from eating poppy seed bagels.

“Robert Nilsson,
Professor of Molecular Toxicology, Stockholm University, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology.

“The one-sided preoccupation with enviromental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a causative factor of lung cancer in nonsmokers may seriously hinder the elucidation of the multifactorial etiology of these tumors.”

In the book ‘What Risk?’ Professor Nilsson puts children’s risk of passive smoking in this perspective:
“Looked at another way, a child’s intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10 hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested from eating one grilled sausage”””

Epidemiologists Vote to Keep Doing Junk Science

Epidemiology Monitor (October 1997)

An estimated 300 attendees a recent meeting of the American College of
Epidemiology voted approximately 2 to 1 to keep doing junk science!

Specifically, the attending epidemiologists voted against a motion
proposed in an Oxford-style debate that “risk factor” epidemiology is
placing the field of epidemiology at risk of losing its credibility.

Risk factor epidemiology focuses on specific cause-and-effect
relationships–like heavy coffee drinking increases heart attack risk. A
different approach to epidemiology might take a broader
perspective–placing heart attack risk in the context of more than just
one risk factor, including social factors.

Risk factor epidemiology is nothing more than a perpetual junk science machine.

But as NIEHS epidemiologist Marilyn Tseng said “It’s hard to be an
epidemiologist and vote that what most of us are doing is actually harmful
to epidemiology.”

But who really cares about what they’re doing to epidemiology. I thought
it was public health that mattered!

we have seen the “SELECTIVE” blindness disease that
Scientist have practiced over the past ten years. Seems the only color they
see is GREEN BACKS, it’s a very infectious disease that has spread through
the Scientific community with the same speed that any infectious disease
would spread. And has affected the T(thinking) Cells as well as sight.

Seems their eyes see only what their paid to see. To be honest, I feel
after the Agent Orange Ranch Hand Study, and the Sl-utz and Nutz Implant
Study, they have cast a dark shadow over their profession of being anything
other than traveling professional witnesses for corporate hire with a lack
of moral concern to their obligation of science and truth.

The true “Risk Factor” is a question of ; will they ever be able to earn
back the respect of their profession as an Oath to Science, instead of
corporate paid witnesses with selective vision?
Oh, if this seems way harsh, it’s nothing compared to the damage of peoples
lives that selective blindness has caused!

JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS”
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.

http://web.archive.org/web/20090412022844/http://cot.food.gov.uk/pdfs/cotstatementtobacco0409?hc_location=ufi

“5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”

In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.

The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

Yes…the 1992/93 EPA report on second hand smoke was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.

Here’s some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:

2006 Surgeon General’s Report (excerpts)

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.

Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.

The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

And finally…..

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library…;.

If you actually read the surgeon generals report it used mostly “The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship” and even then if you read page 21 they admit that the use of meta-analysis on observational studies is not a widely accepted and controversial practice and yet they do it anyway.

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library…;.

Smokers’ lungs used in half of transplants

Almost half of lung transplant patients were given the lungs taken from heavy smokers, with one in five coming from donors who had smoked at least one packet of cigarettes a day for 20 or more years

Despite this, new research shows that those people given the lungs of smokers were just as likely to be alive up to three years after transplantation as those who had organs from non-smokers. In some cases, they had improved survival rates.

“Donor lungs from even heavy smokers may provide a valuable avenue for increasing donor organ availability,” says André Simon, director of heart and lung transplantation and consultant cardiac surgeon at Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust.

“Our findings provide for the first time real world figures for the perceived risk of implantation of lungs from donors with even a heavy smoking history, and they show that such donor lungs may provide a much-needed lease on life to the critically ill patient whose chances of survival diminish with every day or week that passes by on the waiting list.

“I believe that candidates significantly decrease their chances of survival if they choose to decline organs from smokers.”

Lung transplantation is a life-saving therapy for patients with end-stage lung disease, but a shortage of organ donors means people are dying while waiting. UK Transplant Registry data show that only 20 per cent get transplants within six months. The figure rises to 51 per cent after three years, but by that time nearly one in three patients has died waiting for a transplant.

Transplant patients who are given smokers’ lungs (right) are just as likely to survive as those who receive organs from non-smokers (left), a study has revealed. Some patients even had higher survival rates’’http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550424/Smokers-lungs-just-likely-transplant-patients-alive-non-smokers-organs.html#ixzz3DmLHYLj9

discussion of ‘smokers’ black lungs’ started in the comments today. It’s the widespread belief that smokers’ lungs turn black. Rose pointed out that it all started with James I about four centuries ago. She also dug up some refutations:

“Dr. Duane Carr – Professor of Surgery at the University of Tennessee College of Medicine, said this: “Smoking does not discolor the lung.”

Dr. Victor Buhler, Pathologist at St. Joseph Hospital in Kansas City: “I have examined thousands of lungs both grossly and microscopically. I cannot tell you from exmining a lung whether or not its former host had smoked.”

Dr. Sheldon Sommers, Pathologist and Director of Laboratories at Lenox Hill Hospital, in New York: “…it is not possible grossly or microscopically, or in any other way known to me, to distinguish between the lung of a smoker or a nonsmoker. Blackening of lungs is from carbon particles, and smoking tobacco does not introduce carbon particles into the lung.”

And Brigitte even found a Youtube video:

There is even this (in German) in which a forensic medic states that these “tar” lungs do not exist.

Rich White’s Smoke Screens reports the same:

This was confirmed by Dr Jan Zeldenrust, a Dutch pathologist for the Government of Holland from 1951 – 1984. In a television interview in the 1980’s he stated that, translated from Dutch, “I could never see on a pair of lungs if they belonged to a smoker or non-smoker. I can see clearly the difference between sick and healthy lungs. The only black lungs I’ve seen are from peat-workers and coal miners, never from smokers”.

If any of that hogwash you said was even close to true,theyd never live even in their own homes.

Every so called chemical in tobacco smoke is also in the natural air everyone breathes everyday. In fact on average your daily smoking chemical dose from the natural air equals about 14-15 packs a day..........You cannot escape the chemicals or the doses they are to small to even matter.

Perhaps you would rather just outlaw yourselves and all the other human carcinogen machines from even existing! Or the New Building VOC’s that release constantly in new buildings that also can create a cancer risk. He should also want to ban Cooking,Campfires, Industrial output, Barbecuing,Breathing,having indoor plants that release constant Isoprene! You see no matter the contempt and daily scares these folks toss out you will never escape natural elements and chemicals such as whats in tobacco smoke or the normal everyday air we all breathe and exhale. We are all sources of the same thing these prohibitionists are trying to outlaw and criminalize!

NIH report on carcinogens

If you want to learn about which chemicals cause cancer, or just want to feel more paranoid about getting cancer, check out the 2012 NIH report on carcinogens.

One of the more exciting findings is that human beings themselves are possible carcinogens, by virtue of their natural emissions of isoprene:

Isoprene is formed endogenously in humans at a rate of 0.15 µmol/kg
of body weight per hour, equivalent to approximately 2 to 4 mg/kg per
day (Taalman 1996), and is the major hydrocarbon in human breath
(accounting for up to 70% of exhaled hydrocarbons)

Don’t breathe on me!

Natural occurrences[edit]

Isoprene is produced and emitted by many species of trees into the atmosphere (major producers are oaks, poplars, eucalyptus, and some legumes). The yearly production of isoprene emissions by vegetation is around 600 million tonnes, with half that coming from tropical broadleaf trees and the remainder coming from shrubs.[1] This is about equivalent to methane emission into the atmosphere and accounts for ~1/3 of all hydrocarbons released into the atmosphere.

Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.

1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. “Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity” (Dillow, 1981:10).

1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.

1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. “You can’t do that on Fifth Avenue,” the arresting officer says.

1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: “Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do.”

1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.

1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/13163/reference-manual-on-scientific-evidence-third-edition

These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.

So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''

OSHA SAFE LEVELS

All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 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.

Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!

Ya better look at those ratios in the turn out!

It was not overwhelming and the voters were told one thing that bars would be excempt,so you go to court and the supremes say it means bars included!

Besides the criminals the ACS hired to get petitions signed!

This is great news,it positively proves that the nazi smokefree advocates efforts are increasing smoking rates just as we all figured they would,its what has happened in scotland,ireland and england........besides the only way these kids can get tobacco is to buy it from the black market that the smokefree advocates caused with higher taxes from schip........isnt capitalism wonderful,it meets the needs of EVERYONE.

Tennessee Highway Patrol Ticket Quota Uncovered

SPRINGFIELD, Tenn. - A memo seems to spell out a ticket quota policy for the Tennessee Highway Patrol. NewsChannel5 Investigates found proof that quotas do exist in Middle Tennessee.

Law enforcement supervisors at every level said quotas are bad policy and they insist quotas do not exist.

A memo was posted at the THP headquarters in Springfield for all troopers to see and the message in black and white seems crystal clear - write more tickets or else.

Sgt. Cliff Babits name is on the memo posted this past February. Troopers are warned the number of tickets written will influence their evaluations and that ‘low activity is a killer.’

The author writes, ‘Let me stress I am not putting a quota on anyone.’ But on the very next page there’s a three to five point scoring system.

Troopers are rewarded for a higher score, 600 citations per year = 60 tickets per month. This is average and average is 3.

Then 700 citations per year = 70 tickets per month. This is slightly above average and that could get a trooper a 4.

Finally, 800 citations per year = 80 tickets per month. This along with excelling in your other duties can justify a 5.

Attorney Fletcher Long obtained a copy of the memo from an angry client. He’s long argued in court that quotas exist with no success, but now he has proof.

“It’s appalling. Absolutely appalling,” said Long. “It’s just very clear here that’s the quota system.”

Perhaps most disturbing to those who’ve seen the memo - this paragraph: ‘Effective immediately, a trooper that does not produce above average activity (17.5 tickets per week) will not be able to work grant overtime in my county. If a trooper doesn’t earn it, he or she will not get it!’
http://www.newschannel5.com/Global/story.asp?s=10642784

So was THP sergeant Cliff Babits pressured by higher-ups to produce more tickets? If so - how widespread is the quota policy?

NewsChannel5 Investigates put those questions to Col. Mike Walker, head of the state highway patrol; you’ll be surprised to hear what Babits has to say about the memo. That part of the story Tuesday at 10 p.m.