Below is a letter that I sent to the IL governor concerning a statewide smoking ban. Pardon the typos but I was in a hurry because he was supposedly ready to "enthusiastically" sign the law. As it happened, the bill was quietly shuffled back to the Senate for exemptions.
May 1, 2007
Governor Rod Blagojevich
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
I recently sent letters to state legislators regarding HB0246. For you, I am summarizing the letter. The reports, studies and articles can be found online, and I have placed them on http://www.stahlheart.com/Governor.html for your convenience. When considering HB0246, I urge you to take stock of the following factors:
(1) Economics—For a host of reasons, smoking bans are very bad for the economy. Many states try to recoup the losses by raising tobacco taxes despite advice to the contrary from economists.
(2) The public image of relying on junk science—Too many experts—even anti-tobacco experts, such as Enstrom, Wheelan and Seigel and congressional committees/departments—have denounced the popular ETS studies, including the Surgeon General’s reports and the EPA meta-analysis. Remember Judge Osteen’s decision based on the "creative" science use by antismoking zealots? (And the WHO is continually embarrassing itself with studies tthat do NOT support bans—but that doesn’t stop the spin machine, does it?.) ETS is simply NOT a health threat. As the scandals of antismoking funded research come to light, the negative impact on both science and politics is nontrivial.
(3) The political climate (voters)—The climate is changing rapidly. Now that the antismoking frenzy has wreaked havoc on many economies and bred suspicion of charities, voters—smokers, nonsmokers, "closet" smokers—are increasingly making their displeasure known in the political arena. Look at the recent election of the Champaign City Council—and, even now, the mayor is talking about a total repeal regardless of whether or not you sign this bill. Well all know that voters can be apathetic, and that is certainly frustrating for a politician. However, sometimes, voters really do vote. It’s worth noticing.
(4) The problems of aligning yourself with the antismoking movement—The antismoking movement has become so frenzied with unbridled hypocrisy that the unintended consequences have become unhealthy and even deadly. The key phrase that is being popularized is "the pot calling the kettle black." The only way to enact a smoking ban without branding yourself a hypocrite is to enforce the ban in governement buildings—talk to Bill Black—and outlaw the sales of cigarettes completely. May I suggest the purchase of RJR’s smoking lounge in Chicago for the homeless? Although associating yourself with the antismokers at this stage could be considered courageous, it would most certainly be foolhardy.
In addition, please weigh the social turmoil engendered by fueling the smokers-versus-antismokers hostilities, which pertains to both economics and public relations albeit indirectly. People are quickly forgetting that our greatest gift is each other. I couldn’t possibly cover the overwhelming documentation of the pratfalls. However, all of these points are outlined and discussed below. At the very least, please read the concluding paragraph.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Stahl
20 Fields East
Champaign, IL 61822
217.355.1681
BluerRoseGarden-at-aol-dot-com
(1) Economics
Martiga Lohn, Associated Press (February 18, 2007),
State smoking bans putting pressure on coffersFrom the
American Medical Association, "In total, for FY2006 the states have allocated $551 million for tobacco prevention, a small increase from FY2005 funding of $538.2 million, but barely one-third of the $1.6 billion minimum the CDC recommends."The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty – July 2003, vol. 53, no. 7--Concludes with "This approach [of bans], in addition to being morally destructive, is bad economics as well."
WorldNetDaily (March 14, 2007), I’ll do it…if I can smoke
The historical relation to
Prohibition.Another article from a nonsmoker (February 23, 2007),
Smoking bans: Good public policy? Or simply a great pharmaceutical marketing plan?Kansas Business Rights—
What the anti-smoking folks ‘forget’ to tell you"
Impact of Smoking Ordinances on Restaurants"—A 2004 study was conducted by the National Restaurant Association to assess the impact, if any, of smoking bans on tableservice restaurants:…restaurant sales decline more than 50 percent when counties implement 100 percent smoking bans that include both the dining and bar areas. With smoking banned completely in the entire restaurant, total annual sales declined an estimated 55.2 percent within a year’s time in some restaurants. Restaurant sales decline when counties implement 100 percent smoking bans (excluding the bar area). Total annual sales declined an estimated 49 percent at restaurants where such bans were enacted two to three years prior to the survey. Restaurant sales decline when cities/towns implement 100 percent smoking bans (excluding the bar area). Annual sales declines were estimated at 36 percent at restaurants where these bans were enacted four or more years earlier.
Many states have attempted to regain some of the economic losses through higher taxation of tobacco products. This measure was strongly encouraged by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s SmokeLess States program, which is now defunct. The 2002 "
Strategic Thinking on State Tobacco Tax Increases" from the SmokeLess States programs reported, "For the most part, this unprecedented success [in raising cigarette taxes in 21 states] can be attributed to state fiscal crises resulting from the downturn in the national economy. State policymakers were desperate to find new revenues to plug growing deficits in state budgets." However, raising sin taxes to fill budget holes is frowned upon by economists as evidenced in "Relying on sin taxes reveals the contradictions in the state budget" from the Washington Policy Center.Save Ohio Jobs –" The smoking ban in Toledo, Ohio has had a severe economic impact. The loss to the general economy and jobs has been dramatic. We are determined to prevent that from happening to the city of Cleveland. After researching the Toledo, Ohio fight, I thought we had the antis. But, alas, they realized their old argument that business would increase was no longer viable because of Toledo, they decided to use the 'level playing field' trick!"
The only winners in smoking ban ordinances are large chains, fast food restaurants and pharmaceutical companies. Of these, the pharmaceutical companies, such as Johnson & Johnson and
Pfizer, have a large stake in advocating smoking bans with selling smoking cessation products and drugs. In fact, thanks largely to the efforts of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, J&J has made out like a bandit, even while sparing no expense in lobbying. (J&J recently acquired Pfizer.) I urge politicians to avoid making decisions based on drug money.Is this really what you want for the Illinois economy?
(2) The public image of relying on junk science
For beginners, see
The Scientific Scandal of Anti-Smoking by J. R. Johnstone, PhD, and P.D.Finch, Emeritus Professor of Mathematical Statistics."
Why I Voted Against the Statewide Smoking Ban" by Minnesota Representative Tom Neuville describes his science-based reasons for opposing a state smoking ban. (Two updates are now included.) He includes the very condemning revelations by Dr. Melvin First, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Health at Harvard; Dr. Alvin Feinstein, who taught at Yale School of Medicine and has been called "the Father of Clinical Epidemiology"; Dr. Gary Becker, a Nobel Prize winner; Dr. Michael Seigel, a doctor specializing in preventative medicine and tobacco control, currently a professor of Social & Behavioral Sciences at Boston University and recipient of the Dr. William Cahan Distinguished Professors award from the Flight Attendent Medical Research Institute. (Representative Neuville is a nonsmoker whose degree is in Chemical Engineering.)To get an idea of how badly science has become tainted by the antismoking movement, become familiar with a long-term study by Enstrom and Kabat, "
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98" (British Medical Journal, vol. 326, 17 May, 2003). The study concluded:The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Also, from the Results section
, "No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98.
More importantly, become familiar with the reaction of the American Cancer Society (ACS) to the publication. Enstrom responded by creating the
Scientific Integrity Institute. Enstrom is a nonsmoker and the data for his research came from the American Cancer Society (ACS). In addition to a violation of a standard embargo on media reports to an upcoming release of an academic article, the ACS began a campaign to discredit Enstrom’s work and barraged the publisher with unfounded criticisms, including a ludicrous accusation that Enstrom’s funding biased his work. (The vast majority of the funding came from anti-tobacco sources.) At one point, a letter was sent from antismoking guns to the University of California Vice Provost for Research (among other hotshots) attempting to bar tobacco industry funded research. Fortunately, in a February 2005 Nature Medicine article, the UC Vice Provost for Research, Lawrence Coleman, had the horse-sense to state, "Academic freedom must be absolute or no one has it." Finally, in 2005, the UC Academic Senate adopted a strong resolution supporting the right of UC faculty members to accept research support from any source that adheres to UC policy. The ACS’s campaign has since backfired. With cries of the pot calling the kettle black, many researchers are now eyeing work funded by antismoking, pharmaceutical, and pro-ban entities with greater skepticism. Even a long-time anti-tobacco advocate, Dr. Elizabeth Wheelan, has written "Blackballing sections of the science community," which is a vocal objection to "In March 2005, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced new rules purporting to eliminate 'conflict of interest' among its employees - including banning all consulting (paid or volunteer) for biomedical companies, and prohibiting employees or their families from owning stock in any biotechnology or pharmaceutical company."Enstrom quotes Dr. Michael Siegel, MD, MPH, who is a tobacco control researcher, as telling JAMA (Journal of the Amerian Medical Association), "We're really risking our credibility [as public health professionals or officials] by putting out rather absurd claims that you can be exposed briefly to secondhand smoke and you are going to come down with heart disease or cancer. People are going to look at that and say that's ridiculous." From
Siegel’s blog , in reference to criminalizing smoking in the presence of children in the home (as a form of child abuse), he says, "I am deeply disturbed by this alarming turn of events in the anti-smoking movement." The question here arises that, if secondhand smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is lethal, then wouldn’t the first order of business be to protect involuntary passive smokers, i.e., children? Yet, the smoking bans have thus far been geared toward behavior modification in adults to protect other adults--adults who can choose where to drink, dine, work, socialize, etc…. This is a BIG clue that experts in the pro-ban business never really believed in the dangers of ETS."
Warning: the health police can seriously addle your brain""
Second-hand Smoke is Harmful to Science.""
Report on the misuse of science in the administrations of George H. W. Bush (1989-1993) and William J. Clinton (1993-2001)"—Referring to an Executive Order to ban smoking in all federal buildings, justified by relying on a 1992 EPA report, Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders, the students’ report says:However, prior to [the President’s] executive order, the cited report was subject to review by the House Committee on Agriculture (July 1993), the House Committee on Energy and Commerce (July 1993), and the Congressional Research Service (November 1995). Each determined that the procedures taken by the EPA in producing their report were scientifically questionable and perhaps politically motivated. The report was also subject to a lawsuit filed by six tobacco companies in early 1993.
World Health Organization, "Multicenter case-control study of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer in Europe.":
Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.
The Telegraph published an
article exposing the WHO study. The then-editor of the Telegraph, Dominic Lawson, wrote a commentary in The (London) Independent, Feb 17, 2006. This commentary from across the Great Pond refers to the Enstrom/ACS mess and, more interestingly, the WHO study:At that time, when I was editor of The Sunday Telegraph, the paper, under the headline "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer - Official", revealed that the WHO had initially kept under wraps the results of its latest research into passive smoking in seven countries, which showed not only that there was probably no link between passive smoking and lung cancer, but that it might even have a protective effect.
Action on Smoking and Health - but not, interestingly, the WHO - made a formal complaint, on grounds of inaccuracy, to the Press Complaints Commission. After an exhaustive investigation, lasting several months, the PCC rejected the complaint.
"
Mortality from Cancer and Other Causes among Airline Cabin Attendants in Germany, 1960–1997," American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 156, No. 6. This study came from the Department of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, School of Public Health–WHO Collaborating Center, University, Bielefeld, 33501 Bielefeld, Germany. On p. 564:We found a rather remarkably low SMR [Standardized Mortality Ratio] for lung cancer among female cabin attendants and no increase for male cabin attendants, indicating that smoking and exposure to passive smoking may not play an important role in mortality in this group. Smoking during airplane flights was permitted in Germany until the mid-1990s, and smoking is still not banned on all charter flights.
See a rather humorous if caustic Australian commentary from a nonsmoker, "
Fags: It Ain’t So Black And White," which comments on the Wu-Williams study (China; 1990), "the most heavily populated study of all, rather hilariously showed that ‘passive smoke’ actually reduced the incidence of lung cancer."The problems created in research by antismoking interference are too numerous to list here. When confronted with these problems and findings of actual research, most people can only resort to a humble disclaimer of bias in all scientific research. Personally, I am greatly saddened by the loss of confidence in science. However, for politicians, public policy based on bad science—such as claiming that ETS is a class A carcinogen or banning smoking in federal buildings based on a faulty EPA report—is sure to spell legal and public relations problems; see "
The Second-Hand Smoke Charade" with respect to the Osteen ruling and "Ties to GOP Trumped Know-How Among Staff Sent to Rebuild Iraq" with respect to how well-received an anti-smoking campaign was in the Iraq government. (In that second article, the American assigned to head the anti-smoking campaign turned out to be a closet smoker! I knew there was humor in politics!) A quote from The Citizen, Auburn NY, "Nonprofits are all smoke and mirrors" indicates possible legal problems of pro-ban charities, "They are also misusing their tax-free nonprofit status to lobby for anti-smoking legislation. This could be crossing over into possible legal and ethical issues." In any event, the junk science behind smoking bans is quickly coming to light, and the public image of those who rely on junk science to promote poor economics is very bad indeed.(3) The political climate (voters)
I encourage politicians to avoid smoking bans like the plague, especially when 25% of Americans say that they are smokers. In the recent social/political climate of ostracizing and demonizing smokers, we can safely say that the percentage of "secret smokers" has probably been fairly high. Moreover, many anti-ban articles, letters and studies have been written by nonsmokers, most of whom feel that the bans are an intolerable form of government intrusion. I was most struck by a letter from a nonsmoking veteran who was appalled at the erosion of freedom.
Anti-ban campaigns, such as
FOREST and FORCES and The Smokers’ Club and Freedom to Choose and NYC CLASH and SADIRELAND and…et cetera, are multinational, ubiquitous and very political. Most of these anti-ban groups are preparing for litigation. (I strongly urge you to consider the evidence that has been gathered by FORCES.) More than that, a new political party has formed in Scotland to repeal the smoking ban. The economics and science of (1) and (2) are rapidly being exposed, and those factors have an impact on voters. Existing bans are being whittled away on Constitutional grounds and by popular demand.Legal problems and litigation are running rampant as a result of smoking bans. State legislatures are becoming a farce in places like Colorado and Ohio. See, for example, "
Smoke ban inspires 'who's on 1st' routine" (April 28, 2007). Then, there’s Pittsburgh, "County's smoking ban halted by court: 'No smoking' signs come down as bars, restaurants get respite from ban until challenge to county law decided" (May 2, 2007). In fact, much of the antismoking movement is becoming comedic fodder. When the rationale for smoking bans in restaurants is that some people have breathing problems, one wonders why so many nonsmokers have breathing problems. The fact that smokers fare better against Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, TB, have a better survival rate in fires and more also makes for lively discussions when tobacco taxes are raised to cover health costs. One wonders when nonsmokers will be taxed for the additional medical treatment they require.Look how well hypocrisy goes down in
Canada:I really think it's outrageous. I mean our lawmakers bring in these laws that cost private businesses thousands and thousands of dollars — and I mean not just businesses but small fragile businesses ... and then they flagrantly disregard the law in their own circumstances…For these guys to sit there and callously cast these votes without a regard — being smokers themselves and knowing how difficult this is going to be for businesses like mine — and then to turn around and disregard the law themselves, that smacks of the highest form of hypocrisy.
The European Union will have a tough time enforcing smoking bans, given
European Parliament Abandons Smoking Ban:The question now for EU citizens is simple, Why should they obey laws the lawmakers themselves refuse to ? A question for the Irish to consider is, Should Irish smokers now follow the example set by the European lawmakers and start smoking everywhere until the silly smoking ban is lifted in Ireland ?
And guess who’s got the best (only?) Club in town that allows smoking? Will it be the Democrats or the Republicans? Guess you’ll have to find out in
Boehner's Favorite Smoke-Filled Room. And how well do you think this goes down with business owners who have lost profits—and, sometimes, their businesses—to smoking bans enacted by these politicians? After all of the complaining about ETS and the attempts to legitimize the complaints with official pseudo-science, business owners who lose their shirts from these bans are called "whiners"? This really doesn’t look good for politicians who don’t pay attention.Clearly, the political climate for smoking bans is certainly changing. Smoking bans are far more popular with politicians than witth citizens—and the bans are very unpopular with businesses. The recent City Council election in Champaign clearly indicates that voters are displeased with the recently enacted smoking ban. The voters have spoken once, and I guarantee that they’ll do it again—especially in the Heartland where people value their neighbors over junk science and foolish politics. See
Champaign mayor to seek smoking ban repeal on May 15. Oh, my.
(4) The problems of aligning yourself with the antismoking movement
Although the supposed rationale for smoking bans is to protect the health of nonsmokers, the unintended consequences are extremely unhealthy.
On this last note of hypocrisy, please note, from The Florida Senate, December 2004, "The United States is the largest producer and consumer of phosphate rock in the world and the leading producer and supplier of phosphate fertilizers in the world. Florida provides approximately 75 percent of the nation’s phosphate supply and approximately 25 percent of the world supply." Florida enacted a statewide smoking ban on July 1, 2003. So, Florida legislators are worried about the polonium in tobacco smoke, but not the polonium in phosphate fertilizers used in agriculture! Then again, they had $4.35 million from American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and the American Lung Association to help them worry about the polonium in tobacco smoke—but not about phosphate fertilizers.
The idea that antismoking is healthy is a dangerous preconception in too many people, but the hypocrisy is becoming frighteningly apparent. If states had truly wanted smoke-free—or, rather, smoker-free—establishments, then those states would have used the money from the tobacco industry settlements to finance incentives for businesses to go smoke-free. Governor Blagojevich, the only way to implement a smoking ban without being branded a hypocrite is to outlaw the sale of cigarettes at the same time.
(*) Social difficulties
Above all, smoking bans and antismoking hysteria tend to engender divisive attitudes and hostile relations between citizens (and even between family members; see "The Little Puritans" by Bob Morris, NY Times, March 11, 2007). If I were to believe antismoking propaganda, then I would believe that nonsmokers never feel the need to wash their hair or clothes unless they’ve been to a smoky bar or restaurant. Similarly, I would believe that smokers wish to be engulfed by smoke while eating and drinking. It’s a safe bet that smokers are actually are fans of proper ventilation and nonsmokers are just as hygiene-savvy as anyone. If this type of miscommunication continues, then we can expect more serious confrontations later. See (vii) on the hypocrisy list above.
(*) Conclusion
I wish we had the time and space to cover the more
humorous aspects of antismoking hysteria in science, the media and politics. However, I am sure that you have many other weighty issues before you. (Well, okay, maybe one very humorous note from Charlie Brooker.) I know that the anti-tobacco movement has been very vocal and powerful. Given the scientific shenanigans of antismoking guns, we can’t be surprised when one stamps his foot and declares, "THE DEBATE IS OVER!" Naturally, no antismoker would want us to scrutinize their procedures, statistical adjustments, data culling, sampling bias or anything else. I remind you that modern thinking discourages debating, arguing or compromising with children who throw hateful-tantrums; we simply give them a Time Out until they can behave themselves. This is a matter of personal freedoms and business rights to be discussed by grown-ups. Just remember that the free market provides both smokers and non-smokers with drinking and dining options that suit their preferences, and I am quite sure that mature adults can rely on ventilation and common courtesy to keep people (voters) happy. As for health issues, ninety-nine-point-nine percent of your health is right between your ears—but a little yoga doesn’t hurt!
I believe that pipe smoking contributes to a somewhat calm and objective judgment in all human affairs.
--Albert Einstein (at age 71), upon becoming a lifetime member of the Montreal Pipe Smokers Club.
It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to [smoke in the air].
-- former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber at a World Health Organization conference in 1975 (This date is NOT a typo)
The main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help people like me pay the mortgage, is it has legitimized the concern that people don’t like cigarette smoke. And that is a strong emotional force that needs to be harnessed and used. We’re on a roll, and the bastards are on the run.
--Stanton Glantz(1990)