Third Hand Smoke
By Dave Hitt on Jan 5, 2009 in Junk Science, Nanny Nation
The war on smokers proves the axiom “The first casualty of war is the truth.” After the real dangers of primary smoking were publicized a lot of smokers quit, but not enough to satisfy the nicotine nannies, who concocted a new danger: second hand smoke.
Smartenized® people know that SHS is the biggest scam since homeopathy, but it still has been used to harass and vilify smokers and install smoking bans that put thousands of bars, restaurants and bingo halls out of business. Their goal is to force smokers to quit by making it impossible for them to smoke anywhere and to turn them into social pariahs who are hated and feared by the unwashed masses.
The scam has been fairly successful. At one point about half the US population smoked. Now less than a quarter of them do. But this is not enough for the Nicotine Nazis – their religious zeal won’t let them rest until they eradicate smoking from the entire planet. Consumed with their self-righteous zeal they’ve now concocted a new scam: Third Hand Smoke.
Years ago people in the smoker’s rights movement joked about third hand smoke.  Now, as further proof that our society has become so absurd that satire is nearly impossible, the press is now all abuzz about this new fictitious danger, described as deadly toxic particles that hang out long after the second hand smoke is gone. It started with an article in the once respectable New York Times.
Dr. Jonathan P. Winickoff, evidently desperate for his fifteen minutes of fame, has published a study that, on first glance, appears to bolster this ridiculous claim. “Your nose isn’t lying,†he says. “The stuff is so toxic that your brain is telling you: ’Get away.’â€
The article closes with the statement that Third Hand smoke contains polonium-210, “the highly radioactive carcinogen that was used to murder former Russian spy Alexander V. Litvinenko in 2006.” This is yellow journalism at its worst.
Michael McFadden, author of the book Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains
“A 30 cig per day smoker gets 1 picocurie per day.
“A typical nonsmoker living or working with smokers would get at most about 1/100th of that per day, more likely only 1/1,000th with good ventilation and/or a more reasonable amount of indoor smoking, so about one femtocurie.
“A child would have to live with a smoker for roughly three trillion days to absorb the dose that killed the Russian.”
And that is for second hand smoke. Since Third Hand Smoke is a fictional construct, we can only base our calculations on assumptions. (These calculations also come from McFadden.) Assuming that 1% of this deadly stuff has been spread on the 10,000 square feet of surface area in a typical 2,000 sq foot house, and also assuming that your method of cleaning is to having your infant lick the kitchen floor clean once a day, the kid would have to lick the floor for one hundred trillion days to accumulate a fatal dose. That comes out to about 274 billion years. The universe is about 13.8 billion years old. The half life of Polonium-210 is a mere 138 days. So in order to ingest a fatal dose, the not only would the floor licker have to keep at it 20 times longer than our universe has existed, we’d also have to completely rewrite the laws of physics to keep the stuff dangerous long enough to do any damage. That wouldn’t even slow down a nicotine nanny, of course – they have quite a bit of experience rewriting the laws of physics.
If the NYT had any ethics they never would have allowed this statement to get past the editor, and would have chastised the writer for including it. Fortunately, ethics and accuracy haven’t been an issue for them for quite some time.
So how did the doctor come up with his proof? Did he visit the homes of smokers and carefully measure particulates on every surface? Did he check out the interior of smoker’s vehicles and measure chemicals on their clothes? Hell no. He did a phone survey to see how many people believe this nonsense. That is the entirety of his research. He had someone call a bunch of people and ask them questions (and we can only guess how loaded these questions were) and presented the results as proof that third hand smoke was deadly. And the New York Times, in their wisdom, published this under a scary headline. Yessir, that there is some real fine and dandy science. Noting wrong what that scientific method, nuh uh.
Of course The Today Show, which is always delighted to jump on any junk science bandwagon, did a story on this. And what a story it was, with computer graphics of a lit cigarette leaving blood-colored stains splattered all over a living room and car interior.
Ignoring the fact that this study was nothing more than a phone survey of uninformed opinions, Dr. Nancy Snyderman expounded on this new scary danger to children. (It’s always for the chilllllllllldreeeeen, isn’t it?) She opened with the fiction, “We know that second hand smoke kills 50,000 people a year.” (Care to Name Three, Nancy?) She went on to say, “Everybody has been on an elevator, and a smoker gets on and you can tell immediately who the smoker is, because you smell those toxins.” You’re not just smelling smoke, you’re smelling toxins. Oooo, scary. “The same stuff that comes out of the tailpipe of a city bus.” She goes on to say, “If you really can’t kick the habit you have to smoke outside. And then I would say guess what? You have to change your clothes. They have to go right into the washing machine, because you are a walking toxic dump.” She didn’t go so far as insisting the smoker then needs to take a shower to wash that deadly stuff off, then call in an decontamination unit to clean up the bathroom, but I wouldn’t be surprised to hear some other nicotine nanny make that claim.
MSNBC, who is to journalism what Britney Spears is to music, claims that “Even if you don’t smoke around your children, the study finds that toxins from tobacco smoke can linger in the air, on hair and clothing, long after the cigarette is put out. Those toxins can be easily transferred to a baby or small child. Researchers found that even at low levels tobacco particles can be associated with cognitive problems in kids.” (For the chilllllllldreeeeeen!) The study, of course, showed none of these things, but MSNBC has always found that reporting is so much easier when you just make shit up.
There is no end to the fictions nicotine nannies will create to justify their venomous hatred of smokers. This is their latest one, but, but we can be sure there are more to come. Smokers who politely smoke outside, often in inclement weather, to avoid annoying people with second hand smoke, are now horrible evil bags of toxins that will kill your children. And while the idiocy of this will be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain cell, we can be sure that plenty of stupid people will swallow this lie and use it as an excuse to harass smokers even more.
Your criticisms of other people’s arguments would appear more reasonable if you weren’t still relying on a challenge to “name three” which you admit “can’t be done, even if the numbers [are] legitimate”. If you want to fight against bad arguments you should not indulge in them.
Andrew | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
Dave, WinniethePooh is so innocent of knowledge that he thought this was a whole new concept. If you read the article he sounds like he’s discovered the Holy Grail or something.
Unfortunately I beat him to the punch.
Five years ago in “Brains” I wrote this:
===
On the family level, homes are disrupted as one parent joins the ranks of the Innocents or the Neurotics and comes to believe that the other is attacking the health of their children. This familial destruction can happen even if the offender smokes only outside, as Antismokers frighten worried spouses with the idea that burrowing molecules of “toxic smoke†are carried in on clothing and then leap out to cause “mini lung cancers†in children. One Crusader urged parents to “pretend that smoke carries HIV and clean your home accordingly,†while expressing concern about new particles carried in on clothing (Message-ID:19980327211 62100.QAA27026@ladder01.news.aol.com).
===
and several months ago Blithering Banzhaf of ASH fame and fortune had this:
http://www.pr-inside.com/smoker-s-breath-creates-indoor-air-r657051.htm
about “smokers breath”
Finally, my original computations on this nonsense weren’t done for Po210 as much as they were on “nicotine resudues” from a similar nonsense study done several years ago. I’ll have to dig a bit to find it but {In my best Arnie voice} I’LL BE BACK!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael J. McFadden | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
Oh! If Dave doesn’t mind another long comment here… If Dr. WinnieThePooh really thinks third hand smoke is something New & Improved that he’s invented, he ought to consult with long-standing Free-Choice fighter Terry Gray who wrote the following in the Jefferson Review about four years ago:
===
———————————————————- http://jeffersonreview.com/articles/2004/122704/gray.htm
THE BEST OR WORST OF TERRY’S TIDBITS – By Terry Gray
SMOKING IN HOMES. October, 2004
Ever since fanatic anti-smoking groups began their nonsense, they have assured us all that they do not want to eradicate tobacco or come into our homes. Those fighting the bans called them liars and justifiably so. They have lied about most everything else when pursuing their oppressive legislation, and freedom fighters have seen their ilk before. We know these fanatics.
I’ve told you why they don’t want to kill tobacco; they make too much money from it. But when it comes to legislating where one may smoke, they are all over the place. The Ontario Medical Association now says, “The OMA is recommending government turn its attention to raising awareness around the issue and, possibly, instituting a ban on smoking in any homes, vehicles or facilities that offer childcare services.â€
This isn’t about smoking around kids, however. This is about smoking in homes where kids live or visit and cars in which kids ride, even if kids aren’t present when someone is smoking. “The reason, (sic) is that cigarettes release gaseous chemicals in smoke that condense on surfaces, and are then re-released later.â€
Tobacco smoke is magical, don’t you know? It lies in wait in the form of a solid and then suddenly turns to gas when kids are around and pounces on them. That sounds like a fool’s mission. Since tobacco smoke is so crafty, it would seem that while in the gaseous state it would fly around seeking out children rather lying dormant and waiting for children to come to it.
The OMA is talking about home businesses for the most part and, for right now, only those home businesses that serve children. However, this is just another brick in the oppression highway.
“This report will lead the way in taking action against SHS in spaces that children should feel safe and protected,” said Dr. John Rapin, President of the OMA.†Coming soon to a home near you.
Cigarette smoke doesn’t just get on surfaces in buildings; it also gets on smokers’ clothes. We smokers are walking arsenals of tobacco toxins. Our lungs serve as conveyors of death, and our clothes are like the bandages of lepers. Egads!
Those “No Smoking†signs that you see plastered all over everything may very likely change to “No Smokers†if the nannies have their way. “Smokers’ elevator in the rear.†“Smokers must report immediately to the biohazard room for detox before being admitted to other areas of this building.†“No valet service for smokers, sorry.â€
I smoke, and there is a brownish film on my car windows when I’m cleaning them. There is no doubt in my mind that the film is solidified tobacco smoke. In the hopes of getting rid of this film, I invited some kids to go for a ride with me. I expected to hear some evil sound like that of a demon awakening while the solid poison altered itself to a gaseous state and attacked. However, it was very anti-climatic. The film didn’t move, the kids didn’t cough, and I’m stuck with a bottle of Windex and a shop rag. I thought I was on to something.
I would like to point out that the OMA does not provide any hard statistical data. They do acknowledge various “studies†but they provide no details. Further, all the studies that they do cite are studies that have been funded by other nannies, like – Louis Gleeson; Ontario Campaign for Action on Tobacco (OCAT), Michael Perly; (OCAT), Ontario Medical Association, Ontario Tobacco Research Unit, Conference on Tobacco and Health, Physicians for a Tobacco-Free Canada, EPA, and Stan Glantz. Glantz has admitted that he has filed falsified reports. Go figure
Michael J. McFadden | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
Thanks a lot for posting this Dave. I also went on to read the ‘Name Three’ article you came up with. It was an excellent read, and very insightful. Keep up the good work.
Time Bomb | Jan 5, 2009 | Reply
I think I love you. Just because it’s so nice to see someone else debunking this bull. I’m really kinda sick of this anti-smoking hysteria, as the same people screaming are driving away in their monster SUVs and slathering on hairspray.
Steff | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
Ahhh! OK! I *said* I’d be back! :>
I did my own first third-hand smoke analysis back in June 2004. Here’s the analysis, and below it is the letter I sent asking the study’s author some questions. He never answered – big surprise, eh?
====
The corresponding author of the study sent me a copy and I just spent the last hour or so going over it and doing some thinkin’ and kalkulatin’ and I came up with several interesting things… always assuming that my math is correct, which it may not always be. :>
In homes with smokers who almost always smoke outside and virtually never in the presence of their children, those children DO have the potential to absorb stuff like nicotine through such activities as “licking surfaces” (tables e.g.) To absorb the equivalent of a single cigarette, if I read the figures correctly, one would have to lick clean all the elements of ETS off of 900 square feet… roughly 150 living room coffee tables.
To absorb a cigarette’s worth of ETS elements from the dust in a house, it would take a bit more work: you would have to carefully collect ALL the dust from about 5,000 square feet of surfaces and then eat it all. I’d have a hard time doing that in my house… it’s only 1,200 square feet.
The study seems to have been more carefully conducted than most Antismoking studies. The main bias is shown in the wording of the conclusions and such where the authors keep emphasizing that “smoking outside may reduce exposure but does not protect the infants.” A truer conclusion would be that it DOES reduce exposure although it does NOT give the infants 100% “protection.” The word “protection” itself is Antispin because it implies a danger, and of course no danger to such levels of exposure has ever been shown.
Oh! One other interesting side note: using the figures from this study, one would have to conclude that if you sat in a fully smoking home (i.e. one or more adults regularly smoking indoors with you) for 8 hours a day you would breathe in a bit less than 3 cigarettes worth of ETS a year. If you were actively working as a waiter (or whatever) in such a home the figure would be higher, but still unlikely to be over 10 per year.
====
And the letter that the researcher irresponsibly ignored despite a polite followup request two weeks later:
Dear Dr. Matt,
Many thanks for sending me the study on nicotine being brought into the home. I did some back-of-the-napkin figuring on it and came up with the following. The figures don’t seem to relate well to the statement in your study that “smoking outside may reduce exposure but does not protect the infants” and I am wondering if perhaps I am reading your figures incorrectly. Can you advise?
Here is what I came up with:
In homes with smokers who almost always smoke outside and virtually never in the presence of their children, those children DO have the potential to absorb stuff like nicotine through such activities as “licking surfaces” (tables e.g.) To absorb the equivalent of a single cigarette, if I read the figures correctly, one would have to lick clean all the elements of ETS off of 900 square feet… roughly 150 living room coffee tables.
To absorb a cigarette’s worth of ETS elements from the dust in a house, it would take a bit more work: you would have to carefully collect ALL the dust from about 5,000 square feet of surfaces and then eat it all.
Please let me know if I’ve confused the figures in some way. As noted above, the above figures would not seem to fit with the ordinary meaning of “protecting” someone from harm.
– Michael J. McFadden
====
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains” and “TobakkoNacht! – The Story”
Mid-Atlantic Director, Citizens’ Freedom Alliance
Director, Pennsylvania Smokers’ Action Network
(LOL! Just thought I’d do a FULL sig file for a change!)
Michael J. McFadden | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
Thoroughly enjoyed reading this article, it’s gratifying to know that insanity hasn’t gripped everyone completely. One thing I’m curious about, is why we in Canada haven’t heard boo in the media about electronic cigarettes. I hear they’ve been in use in the U.K. for some time, people smoking the smokeless vapor producing gizmos and ingesting nicotine to their hearts content everywhere tobacco smoking is banned. Is it possible that the anti-smoking lobby here is so ferocious that even a smokeless cigarette is offensive? If it looks like a cigarette than it’s evil?
Natasha | Jan 6, 2009 | Reply
The smokeless ciggrette is making some headway in the states – I’m seeing more ads for them and hearing from people who like them – but they’ve stayed under the radar of the mass media. My guess is that when they become popular enough the nannies will concoct stories about how dangerous they are, but for now they don’t want to give them any free publicity.
There have been other smokeless cigarettes introduced, such as the Eclipse in the mid-nineties. The nannies went ballistic – they want cigarettes to be as deadly as possible for two reasons – they despise smokers, and are scared to death that something less dangerous might attract new customers. They have the same reaction to Snus, and form of snuff distributed in pre-loaded pouches that is popular in Norway and Sweden. It is far less dangerous than smoking and doesn’t create any second hand smoke, but the nannies still rally against them. They will always oppose any tobacco use that decreases the danger to smokers.
Back to Third Hand Smoke: I just sent this letter to the New York Times. I know a half dozen other people who have sent letters outlining the dishonesty of the article. I’ll be surprised if any of them get printed.
Dear Editor,
If someone were to make claims about the universe was only 6,000 years old, and offer proof that consisted entirely of a phone survey about what people believed, I doubt you’d print it in the “Research” section. Yet that is exactly what you did with your article “A New
Cigarette Hazard: ‘Third-Hand Smoke'” Dr. Winickoff made a lot of claims, but didn’t offer a shred of evidence to back them up. All he had was his phone survey. The wording of your article strongly implies that his study backed his claims, when it did no such thing.
You should print not only a retraction, but an apology to your readers. And you should be ashamed of yourself.
Regards,
Dave Hitt
Hittman | Jan 7, 2009 | Reply
I for once actually agree with Andrew. Even if there are people actually killed by secondhand smoke, you probably couldn’t name them. And so what even if you could? There might not even be all that many. I can name at least one person (who can be verified) who was killed by having sex with a horse, but obviously there isn’t an epidemic going on.
Harley | Jan 7, 2009 | Reply
Would love to see this somewhere in mainstream media… apperently none of the anti-smoking extremist panic-mongers have an up-to-date encyclopedia which is where this is pulled from, under nicotine…
For instance, recent studies suggest that smokers require less frequent repeated revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Risk of ulcerative colitis has been frequently shown to be reduced by smokers on a dose-dependent basis; the effect is eliminated if the individual stops smoking. Smoking also appears to interfere with development of Kaposi’s sarcoma, breast cancer among women carrying the very high risk BRCA gene, preeclampsia, and atopic disorders such as allergic asthma. A plausible mechanism of action in these cases may be nicotine acting as an anti-inflammatory agent, and interfering with the inflammation-related disease process, as nicotine has vasoconstrictive effects.
With regard to neurological diseases, a large body of evidence suggests that the risks of Parkinson’s disease or Alzheimer’s disease might be twice as high for non-smokers than for smokers. Many such papers regarding Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s Disease have been published. More recent studies find that there’s no beneficial link between smoking and Alzheimer’s, and in some cases suggest that it actually results in an earlier onset of the disease.
Recent studies have indicated that nicotine can be used to help adults suffering from Autosomal dominant nocturnal frontal lobe epilepsy. The same areas that cause seizures in that form of epilepsy are also responsible for processing nicotine in the brain.
just thought some of y’all might get a kick outta that one
H. Williams | Jan 7, 2009 | Reply
Harley wrote, “I can name at least one person (who can be verified) who was killed by having sex with a horse, but obviously there isn’t an epidemic going on.”
Harley, obviously you missed the After-Party at the last World Antismoking Conference on Keeping Organizations Smokeless (WACKOS).
Oh. Wait. My mistake. Those were sheep. Sorry!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael J. McFadden | Jan 8, 2009 | Reply
Dave — Regarding the repost of the NY Times article on the LPIN.org website, you’re absolutely right that I should have editorialized a bit and not simply reposted part of the article. We use the site to alert readers to latest trends — no matter how much we disagree or fight against. Of course, we find the issue of Third Hand Smoke ridiculous and should clearly have made that notation on the site. Sorry about the confusion!
-Dan Drexler
LPIN Vice Chairman
Dan Drexler | Jan 8, 2009 | Reply
Mike,
WACOS? Love it.
Dan,
I didn’t post that comment on your blog, but it makes a good point. This kind of thing is one of the reason’s I’m a small L Libertarian. It is a classic example of people trying to control other people by bludgening them with junk science.
Nice site, BTW.
Hittman | Jan 9, 2009 | Reply
H. Williams,
For some reason my spam filter flagged your comment, and one you left in response to another post, as spam. I have no idea why it grabbed yours and ignored two comments containing the phrase “sex with a horse,” but now they’re cleared for everyone to enjoy.
Dave Hitt | Jan 11, 2009 | Reply
Unlike the rest of the anti-smokers, I don’t care if you want to smoke. I smoked for 15 years and quit. I also don’t care if you take a gun to your head. Go ahead, make my day. Don’t try to justify the safety of any hand smoke. I don’t care what anyone else does, I keep my home free of chemicals and SMOKE. Cooking smoke, fireplace smoke, any smoke. Its called a good exhaust system. So go smoke your brains out, while your at it,smoke some crack too. Don’t bash people for wanting to live a healthy and full life. Smokers will never understand until they rid themselves of the voluntary chemicals. There is enough crap in this world that we don’t have a choice about. There is no need to rush death, its coming anyway.
I don't care if you want to kill yourself | Jan 18, 2009 | Reply
The anonymous ‘I don’t care’ wrote, “I keep my home free of chemicals and SMOKE. Cooking smoke, fireplace smoke, any smoke. Its called a good exhaust system”
Even a visiting Antismoker here agrees that all that’s needed is a decent ventilation system to keep one’s home or business free of smoke at any real level of concern. All we need to do is expand that understanding to the wider world.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael J. McFadden | Jan 18, 2009 | Reply
I don’t consider myself an anti-smoker, I’m a non-smoker, and nobody smokes inside my house. Enjoy killing yourself slowly!
I don't care if you want to kill yourself | Jan 18, 2009 | Reply
LOL! “I don’t consider myself an anti-smoker” immediately followed by “Enjoy killing yourself slowly!”
I think that about says enough… though I may have to add a new category in future editions of Brains. :>
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael J. McFadden | Jan 18, 2009 | Reply
I have yet to meet a racist who will admit to being racist. I have yet to meet a nicotine nannies who will admit to being an anti-smoker.
Some people are so comfortable in their delusions that nothing can shake them from them.
Dave Hitt | Jan 18, 2009 | Reply
I have yet to meet a smoker who can admit that they just don’t have the will power to lead a healthy life. You would rather be an addict. I’m not telling smokers to quit, this world is far too over populated with addicts. Be my guest, smoke away.
I don't care if you want to kill yourself | Jan 19, 2009 | Reply
I have yet to meet a smoker who will admit they won’t quit because they lack will power. I don’t tell smokers to quit, this world is over populated with addicts. They eradicate themselves by their own choice.
I don't care if you want to kill yourself | Jan 19, 2009 | Reply
And, as usual, I don’t care exemplifies the lack of understanding about smoking that’s common among nonsmokers and even among many ex-smokers.
The “addictive” qualities of smoking vary WIDELY from one person to another. I’ve known people who were EXTREMELY addicted to smoking… despite the fact that they smoke cigarettes with literally 1/100th the nicotine delivery of the ones I prefer and despite the fact that they absorb another 1/10th factor since they simply take quick short puffs in their mouth and blow them out immediately.
They’re absorbing almost no nicotine at all, yet in both the cases I’m thinking of the smokers are VERY “addicted” and have been unable to give up smoking despite the price rises and the bans AND having an attitude of wanting to quit.
I’ve also known smokers who smoke very nicotine rich cigarettes (or inhale even heftier cigars) on a regular basis who give them up for varying periods in varying situations with very little distress.
Smoking “addiction” is VERY different than the sorts of things the word was classicly used for before the social engineers began playing Orwell in order to better justify playing the propaganda card of “dragging out the children” against Big Tobacco. Once they could play it all as a Big Evil Drug Pusher Addicting Innocent Children they had the cat in the bag and they ran with it.
In reality, “addiction” to smoking is very different for different individuals and is realistically very different than the classic “addictions” which the term was created to describe.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael J. McFadden | Jan 19, 2009 | Reply
From the I don’t care voter;
Has it not occurred to you, after 15 years of smoking, unless you have employed a hazmat team to take apart your walls. The level of third hand smoke in your home denotes it as a hazardous waste site.
You be sure to inform your broker when you sell it, because full disclosure is the law.
I think I might call the local snitch line and inform them in case you forget, just so we can all be protected.
My neighbor dutifully after having been informed of the potential danger, tearfully chose protection of her children. Knowing a previous tenant had been a smoker and despite the work she had done to clean every day. The New York times article explained it clearly there was little doubt. She was still poisoning her children to a level which threatened their very lives. What else could she do? Not having the resources to move to a safer environment, if indeed one could be found.
She did the only thing a sane person could do, and voluntarily handed over her children to family services. Secure in the comfort the Government would not knowingly endanger her children and if anyone can find a “third hand smoke” free environment and raise those children in a safe manner, surely the experts can.
Kevin | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
As a responsible person would do, I purchased a home after I quit, and before my child was born you idiot. Then, I gutted it and remodeled it completely as to rid any toxic waste from the previous owners. See, Icare for my family’s health. You must not have any children. If you do, God help them, or child services, which ever comes first. You should spend more time trying to rid your miserable life of bad habits and stop trying to justify the deadly lifestyle of smoking. I no longer wish to communicate with idiots. I will not see any more responses from this page as you show no intelligence. Say what you like about me. I’ll live in my delusions and have a happy, healthy, non-smoking life with my family.
You should be more careful about who you bash. You see I am a firefighter, and I’ve seen too many families lose their home because of careless smoking. One family lost their daddy. Its an ugly habit that kills in more ways then you can imagine. You might understand that if you saw that families face when we pulled their charred daddy from the ashes of a once happy home. Then again, your probably to busy bashing some non-smoker to care about a healthy life.
I don't care if you want to kill yourself | Jan 24, 2009 | Reply
IDCIYTKY, if you didn’t have smokers to hate, where would you direct all that bile? Racism and homophobia are no longer fashionable, so you’d have to direct it at someone else, or you’d explode. Who would it be?
Dave Hitt | Jan 26, 2009 | Reply
And I though he didn’t care. If I made him/her mad, that suggests I am controlling him/her.
That’s a really scary prospect. lol
Sounds like a fireman who would set a house ablaze to create a hero, when he/she puts it out.
Governments promoting divided communities give these kind of people traction and they always come out of the woodwork in droves. It’s all part of the strategy.
Here is a link to explain the personality type, a new category the anti-people brains.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=2352969&pageindex=1#page
And this
http://www.smokershistory.com/propagan.htm
Kevin | Feb 1, 2009 | Reply
Anti-smokers are concerned with the health and well-being of not only themselves, but those around them – including their own children. One can only assume that anti-smokers do everything in their power to see that their lifestyles don’t infringe on the rights of others to lead a healthy and comfortable life.
Anti-smokers would never:
1) Drink and drive
2) Drive too fast
3) Drive vehicles that emit poisonous exhaust fumes
4) Build a campfire; light a fire in the hearth; or burn leaves, wheat stubble or any other rubbish
5) Allow their families to consume foods consisting of things that have been touted as “bad for you†(such as cholesterol, trans fat, excess sugar, etc.)
6) Offend others with body odor, foot odor, flatulence, colognes, air fresheners and smelly foods
7) Base their anti-smoking opinions on the fact that they simply don’t like cigarette smoke
One can also assume that because anti-smokers are ever-vigilant, well-educated, independent thinkers, their own research consists of reading, with an open mind, balanced articles and reports citing a variety of sources and findings that both agree and disagree with their own opinions. Furthermore, anti-smokers can back up the fact that our Government has never lied to us or covered up the truth about anything for any reason. Ever.
Angela | Feb 3, 2009 | Reply
That’s an impressive strawman you’ve built there, Angela. Your argument seems to be that ‘anti-smokers’ are fallible human beings who sometimes do things that are, or in some cases just sound superficially like they ought to be, analogous to smoking, sometimes disagree with people who are demonstrably corrupt, and some of them have not read the original research (which is deathly boring and costs a small fortune). Can you honestly say that all ‘pro-smokers’ have read any research to justify their actions, never knowingly endanger another human being, and that no ‘pro-smoking’ politician has ever lied to the public?
Andrew | Feb 3, 2009 | Reply
Andrew, I think your straw man has more straws than Angela’s. Those on the Free-Choice side of the argument usually recognize that they’re fallible and that LOTS of things they do in life have somewhat negative consequences for others. As soon as you walk into a room with someone you are excreting all sorts of poisons into the air and forcing them down the innocents’ throats.
I think on the whole the more serious “non-professional” Free-Choice proponents (which make up virtually all of us, although you could claim that since I “sell” a book that I’m a professional) have read more studies than the serious “non-professional” Antismokers (of which I don’t think there are too many: there’s just too much easy money to be had on that end of things for anyone who’s on that path in any serious manner.) Your comment about the “deadly boring” and “expensive” studies is misleading and it’s misleading in exactly the way Antismokers want: they don’t WANT people to read and think about the studies because doing so would spoil the nice propaganda of the press-releases and presentations that misrepresent them.
Heh… and I like the way you’re asking Free-Choice folks to find an “honest politician.” Do you make much money on bets like that?
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael J. McFadden | Feb 3, 2009 | Reply
Thanks very much for your input.
I have read many articles and reports on the issue of passive smoking and haven’t found one solid reason that smokers should have fewer rights than any other groups. My opinions are not based on the views of any individual politicians, but rather on the industry that anti-smoking has become, and how governments worldwide have handled the issue.
My observations, while admittedly sarcastic, are only meant to point out the hysteria and hypocrisy of anti-smokers, and the possibility of similar and legitimate arguments that could be made. This is not to say that smokers are more aware, vigilant or respectful than anti-smokers. Smokers just happen to be the trendy prey of the moment.
Anti-smokers seem to think that smokers are – as you put it – demonstrably corrupt. I simply believe that taking away the rights of one group based on fear-mongering media spin and mass hysteria more than facts is just wrong. The persecution of smokers (which is what the majority of the fuss amounts to, as far as I’m concerned) has gotten ridiculous and way out of hand.
While I’m at it, you can ponder this:
Both smokers and non-smokers can develop lung cancer. If a non-smoker develops lung cancer, then obviously there are causes other than smoking or even passive smoking. Convince me that 100% of lung cancer deaths in smokers are caused by smoking. Better yet, convince me that at least a percentage of those deaths could have been prevented if the victim had stopped smoking – or never started in the first place.
The next time you hear smoking death-toll numbers, try not to let the media brainwashing affect your ability to think independently, and question, “How could they possibly know that?” Think about it.
I recall a house fire several years ago, in which the house next to mine burned nearly to the ground. I’m quite certain that the occupants were not smokers because the firemen didn’t evacuate the neighborhood for fear of a pack of cigarettes bursting into flames and releasing toxins into the air.
When will it all stop? Anti-something-or-others will be looking to infringe on your personal rights long after the last cigarette butt is crushed out and the dust settles from the dominoes falling.
Angela | Feb 3, 2009 | Reply
I don’t think it is. Scientific literature is simply not available to anyone without an institutional login. It’s prohibitively expensive.
Hang on. Are you really claiming smoking isn’t even dangerous for the smoker? That’s just mental. Sorry, but it is.
On the other hand, it’s entirely false that 100% of lung cancer deaths in smokers are caused by smoke and I’d never try to convince you of that or claim it in the first place. But a percentage of them are. You just have to look at the incidence of cancer in smokers and non-smokers. It’s significantly higher in the first group. Sure, there’ll be some confounding factors to that, but is it too much of a stretch to imagine all that tar they inhale might contribute to unhealthy lungs?
That said, no death can be prevented. But not smoking postpones it.
As a scientist, my first instinct with the news is to ask exactly that. And with something like a death toll from smoking I know how they get the numbers because I’ve studied epidemiology. You get the incidence of a disease in non-smokers and you subtract it from the incidence of the disease in smokers. Then you run stats to see if that’s significant. It’s easy. Really.
Doing something for passive smoking is harder because the definitive test would be unethical and the ones we can do are affected by many confounding factors, and that’s why there’s so much more uncertainty. But personally I would say the best argument for the smoking ban is not direct epidemiology (which will never give us an answer we can be totally confident in) but simply that it brings the rules on cigarette smoke into line with those for all other kinds of airborne workplace particulate matter. (That said, if you want to criticise those other rules, go ahead. I’ve certainly never researched the justification for those — it didn’t seem necessary to read scientific papers to justify the idea that workplaces should have as little smoke in as possible. That seemed obvious.)
Since allowing smoking makes an explicit exception in existing health and safety regulations to accommodate your habit, the question is not whether “smokers should have fewer rights than any other groups”; it’s whether smokers should have more rights than any other groups. And I don’t see why they should.
Andrew | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
Andrew wrote, “the best argument for the smoking ban is not direct epidemiology (which will never give us an answer we can be totally confident in) but simply that it brings the rules on cigarette smoke into line with those for all other kinds of airborne workplace particulate matter.”
So are you saying that bars with smoking should have to meet the same sort of OSHA particle air quality standards as offices and factories?
– MJM
Michael J. McFadden | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
I don’t doubt that smoking is bad for you (and I’m certain you didn’t really need to ask that of me), and I’m aware that the disease is more prevalent in smokers. I have no problem with smoking being banned INSIDE public buildings. I’m not arguing for smokers to have the right to smoke indoors at all. I’m well aware of the “DISCOMFORT” caused by cigarette smoke. Even smokers don’t want to be trapped in the unventilated, designated smoking area. I simply don’t think there’s enough evidence to substantiate snuffing out a smoker’s rights altogether. I don’t believe that smoking OUTDOORS puts any more toxins in the air than exhaust fumes, fireplaces and the like. (My former neighbor’s fireplace used to choke us all night long when we were INSIDE our house.)
Smokers do not have more rights than others by being allowed to smoke outdoors. Allowing smoking – OUTDOORS – does NOT make an explicit exception in existing health and safety regulations. You have a right to drive your car, build a campfire, operate a lawn mower, choke your neighbors out with your fireplace, etc.
If anti-smokers are really serious about all of this, why go about it half-assed? When everyone on the planet is smoke-free, there will still be all of the aforementioned “airborne particulate matter”. Or would that be too inconvenient?
What is all this hatred about anyway? You can go out to eat, go to a bar, go to a movie, do your shopping, fly or cruise anywhere – whatever you want – without having to deal with cigarette smoke. Do you really, truly believe that you’re going to become gravely ill and die early because some smoker, somewhere in the world, lit up outdoors?
Perhaps we should all quit doing everything on the off-chance that some group of quacks decides that everything we do is harming everyone else – even though they can’t substantiate it.
Angela | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
I forgot to address one issue:
My question was not whether or not there are more smokers than non-smokers dying of lung cancer. My question is, how can anyone possibly know the number of deaths that can be directly attributed to smoking? You can throw numbers out that are alarming, but how accurate are they really? How many lung cancer deaths in smokers are attributed to smoking when it might have been caused by asbestos or flour dust in large, industrial ovens?
People my age have been subjected to second-hand smoke everywhere as we grew up. Shouldn’t the lot of us be toting oxygen tanks and inhalers by now?
Angela | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
@Angela
I agree: smoking should be legal outdoors. I think it’s inconsiderate to do it in a group situation without asking, even outdoors, but I think a sensible law about that would be both impossible and absurd. That said, a bad argument is a bad argument even when the point it aims to prove is true.
Your question about the accuracy of death tolls (for primary smoking) is fair, but the answer is that they’re really pretty accurate. Is there any reason to suppose that smokers are more likely to work with flour dust or asbestos than non-smokers? Probably not. You would assume these things would average out between the two groups. They won’t always, of course. For example, the group of non-smokers probably includes more health freaks. You can control for this, though, if you identify it beforehand.
Then there are statistical tests you can do, and the result is something like ‘smoking increases cancer risk by 20%, but due to the finite statistical power of our study, that number may reasonably be anywhere from 15% to 25%’. (Those are example numbers I just made up.) You can combine samples from studies, if you choose them well, to refine that number until the margin of error is negligible. Without looking into it myself, I would think that the carcinogenic effects of primary smoking are sufficiently well studied by now that the numbers are as precise as is realistic.
@MJM
I just don’t see why people who work in bars should have laxer safety laws protecting them than people who work in offices or factories. (It may be that there is a good reason for this but I can’t imagine what that would be.) I’m not going to comment on OSHA rules, though, as I don’t know enough about them to do so usefully.
Andrew | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
Thanks, Andrew, for your input on the numbers, although my argument in that respect is only secondary, at best, to my greater concerns.
I agree, as do most smokers I know, that it is inconsiderate to light up in a group situation – such as fairgrounds, concerts…that sort of thing. At the same time, it is easy enough in those situations to move to a more comfortable breathing space.
All of my arguments come down to three basic concerns:
1) Smokers are treated with an undeserved lack of respect.
2) Smokers will have a basic right stripped away from them and/or be criminalized for it.
3) If society tolerates the manipulation of a group of people, then what will society be like by the time our children and grandchildren are adults?
Angela | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
Andrew and Angela, if you take a few minutes to read the “ETS Exposure” section of Brains, reproduced for free at http://www.Antibrains.com you will find that there is *NO* “exception for bars with smoking” etc.
Tobacco smoke concentrations, even in older fashioned bars with relatively poor ventilation, never even come CLOSE to approaching OSHA standards of concern. When I spoke to OSHA people in the 1980s and warned them they’d be under pressure to ban smoking they laughed at me because the idea was so ridiculous.
When ASH mounted a lawsuit to try to force them into banning smoking they turned around to ASH and told them that if the lawsuit wasn’t dropped that they WOULD set an explicit “smoking standard” and it would most definitely be one that recognized an acceptably safe level of workplace smoking.
ASH dropped the lawsuit and ran.
Smoking bans are bad laws based upon lies. To see a good, although one-side and brief, examination of those lies download the “Stiletto” at:
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html
If you find *ANYTHING* of substance in there that you have substantive criticism of, please share it here for all to see and I will respond.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com
Michael J. McFadden | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
Angela wrote, “People my age have been subjected to second-hand smoke everywhere as we grew up. Shouldn’t the lot of us be toting oxygen tanks and inhalers by now?”
Angela, as you well know, that’s not the case… and because you are old enough to realize that, you have some perspective to see how the antismoking movement has lied to people and created virtually baseless fear. Younger people unfortunately don’t have that perspective, and even older people for the most part have succumbed to the constant pounding of the media to the point where they think most smoking restrictions are reasonable from a health threat standpoint (as opposed to the standpoint of simple preference).
To fully understand the psychology behind the changes and the methods that have been used to achieve those changes I’d have to recommend Brains itself: something like the Stiletto, though honest and accurate in what it covers, doesn’t even scratch the surface of that information.
– MJM
Michael J. McFadden | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
Michael
I apologize for my sarcasm. I can’t seem to help myself when it comes to this issue.
I should clarify my point – that the lot of us are actually not sick from the environs in which we grew up, but that if all the media hype had any reasonable basis, we should be.
As one of five children who grew up in a heavily smoking household, I can attest to the fact that the five of us rarely missed school due to illness. The five of us are still rarely ill and reasonably healthy in our adulthood.
Thanks for your recommendations. When I can get my hands on a copy, I’ll be sure to read your book. I promise!
Angela | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
Angela, I would also recommend “Hyping Health Risks” by Geoffrey Kabat. It’s a lot more technical than Brains but he examines other “health scares” that have sunk into our national consciousness and the reasons for their promotion as well.
If you do decide you want Brains just hit Amazon. They get them to your door in less than a week from what people have told me!
– MJM
Michael J. McFadden | Feb 4, 2009 | Reply
At the risk of being simplistic, death is 100% i.e. all people die. One way or another.
The larger issue is that as we speak laws are being created which set dangerous precedents that usurp constitutional freedoms in the name of public health.
I really wonder what the anti-smoking contingency will think of this whole campaign when laws are passed which infringe their own rights.
It is happening now. For example, in the California family courts, you can be accused of being unfit and negligent if you do not refer your children to psychological or psychiatric counseling or refuse to submit to a psychological evaluation. This is in the name of “public health” and “protecting children.”
The next target is evidently obesity in the name of “public health.” This campaign is well underway and I am quite sure that we will see just as much hatred and fear spawned from that program.
Both of these have profit motives with a veneer of altruistic and philanthropic interest, just like the anti-smoking campaign. Overlooked is that the medical industry, pharmaceutical industry and the psychological industry are all mega industries, which savor the profits that come from captive markets mandated by law.
One of the major purposes of the constitution was to prevent the majority from passing laws to impose their wishes on minorities. If you study the history of law, it appears that the a major purpose of our judicial system is to prevent private citizens from taking matters into their own hands, lynching, scapegoating and vilifying at will.
Dangerous precedents have been set.
God help us all.
Nikki Alden | Apr 5, 2009 | Reply
Well stated Nikki. Fortunately for the moment the other “movements” are relatively without funding (Tobacco Control gets over 800 million dollars a year according to the American Med. Assn. reports.) and they also have a somewhat smaller “natural base.” Still, that base can grow and who the Q *knows* what sort of funding might pop up for them in the future: even ten or twenty million from the BP drug pushers would give them the sort of jump start the Antis got in the early 90s with their California tax.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael J. McFadden | Apr 5, 2009 | Reply
Even though third hand smoke is a myth, the manipulation of cigarrette content of nicotine by tobacco companies is not, nicotine is an highly addictive substance that should not be perpetuated upon our children.
Mr Wayne | May 10, 2009 | Reply
I’m an asthmatic and I avoid any place that I know smokers will be. I believe in smokers right to smoke cigs, marijuana, crack and whatever else they want. I do NOT do any of it. My problem is, why do I have to smell it? Do it privately in your home. I’d rather legalize coke since I don’t have to ‘smell it.’
I would favor legalizing marijuana, but we all know these addicted (it’s an addiction, it’s not your fault) smokers will smoke outside.
They need to get their hit so they can function in a social society or bar. It quells their brains, it’s a release from the ‘bad scary world.’
Respect your neighbors and do your addictions in private…and if your neighbor is offending you in some way…try talking to them. $20 says when someone offends you, you’ll just go light up…nice repeating cycle of addiction =)
Chris | Oct 3, 2009 | Reply
Chris, if you have trouble with asthma and the smell of smoke you should be AGAINST government mandated smoking bans! Remove the bans and smokers will be safely inside those bars and restaurants that decide to allow smoking and you’ll have absolutely no contact with them. The bans have moved them out into the streets or into the bathrooms of the places you go to and you’re encountering smoke all the time.
Write to your legislators and tell them to get rid of the bans!
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Michael J. McFadden | Oct 3, 2009 | Reply
Mr McFadden is totally right, most people can see it but the bans make smokers go outside, as for the marijuana smoking, its not addictive, and that does have some million studies to back it up… its not good either but not addictive.
Diego | Oct 3, 2009 | Reply
In my beliefs, you are simply weakening your immune system by trying to overprotect it.
Angela | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
smoking actually helps a lot with asthma. I have friend who cures herself this way and some doctors also do it. Doctors once prescribed it for many breathing problems, because it works !
Since all this non smoking ban, children have paid the price by having a 800% rise in asthma problems.
but big pharma profits tremendously from our lack of knowledge and wisdom of those who proceeded us.
as for the smell .. it would only be fair for them to ban bad breath, farting, other body odors and perfume. Most perfume stinks and gives me an immediate headache. Oh and the smell of fish gives me nausea. Why don’t they ban that to.
My point is … that it’s discrimination and not justified to treat smokers with any less respect as other citizens.
Hope your asthma get’s better.
Angela | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
Marijuana is very good ! Don’t smoke it myself but know that the oil from the plant cures cancer !
Look up Dr.Melamede, professor in University of Colorado who gives a class about the medicinal properties of cannabis.
If this were more widely know, legal and prescribed, the hospitals would be pretty empty as this plant can cure most diseases and is for us a lost treasure.
So, I think it’s reasonable to say that the governement has more chances of killing you with it’s policies and
laws then cigarettes do !
and I have a really hard time believing that smoking causes disease. First of all, the stats are totally bogus and totally contradict studies done before the nannies started to take hissy fits.
Actually, in way to many studies, the smokers got less cancer then the non smokers.
Look up D. Kitty Little .. she is now diseased, but you will see that she was certainly not nuts and explains how pollution was the obvious cause of lung cancer before the nazis decided to attack us.
How did this end up being forgotten and tossed aside??
Still today, many scientists believe that radiation is the cause of most cancers and studies with mice have shown smoking to be a protective factor against radiation. The little smokers got less cancer then the non smokers ..
There is something seriously wrong with all this anti-smoking information.
Those scientists believe that the gov invested tons of money in this campaign to make people believe it was their fault they were getting more cancer and not the gov’s fault. The second would have cost them billions, apparently.
So my question is .. are we being protected or are we being endangered?
Lung cancer was once a rare disease, though people smoked without restriction.
Japan : 64% of men smoke and still less lung cancer then us ! The same can be observed in many countries and certain populations seem to be totally immuned. Like the eskimos who are heavy smokers. Zero cancer. Cig smoke or pollution?
Angela | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply
just so there is no confusion, the last posts were made by me and I am not the same Angela as above, though I do also come from a healthy smoking family :D
Angela | Jun 3, 2010 | Reply