Melissa, I'm so proud of and thankful for you and your friends and family!  I sat in the periphery (sp?) and watched your battle through your blog.  If you can do this in your home town, Tobacco City, USA, you can do this anywhere!

You're the best!

Becky

Becky,

I could not have done it without the encouragement I received from so many folks like you!!! Really appreciate it so much!!!

Melissa

Melissa, this is fantastic news.  Congratulations!  I assume my brother, Phillip, was extremely supportive.  Way to go!

Brad

Hey, Melissa: Great article! Thanks for including me in it, though I don't feel I did that much.  You all laid the groundwork while I was working on trying to get Bowling Green to go smokefree.  As you know, we haven't made it there yet.  It has been an honor and a priviledge to work with all of you to pass this monumental public health ordinance! Glasgow is literally a breath of fresh air!

Joyce

Bradley,

Phillip absolutely supported us by coming to all the council meetings.  He was on of a handful of physicians who came to the very first educational meeting in 2008 when the American Lung Association, and many area reps spoke.  I was astounded after all of that information presented that anyone could oppose the ordinance. This entire endeavor taught me so much about human nature.  I never really knew I had ever met anyone who didn't care if they missed an opportunity to save a life but I now know that world is full of them, clothed in "business owner's right to choose" outfits.  It really hurt me to hear two of the council persons say, and I paraphrase "well, if they were made sick by the cigarerette smoke, they deserved it because they should have known better than to go in there".  Should I say the same about a building that collapsed on some folks once?.  Should they have had it inspected just before they went in? 

Joyce, don't be modest!!! You were the spark we needed to keep us going! 

Melissa

Only in Glasgow, Ky huh Dr. Shirley? Don't think much of this town or its citizens do you? Well I find it amazing that a doctor is so incompetent to not understand that the dose makes the poison. If a patient of yours takes an entire bottle of medication that you prescribed is it your fault? By your logic it would be. So why would you prescribe your patients medication knowing full well they could die from it? That's right, because it's the dose that makes the poison and you get to cover your tail by printing directions on the bottle whether or not you actually consult your patient on the safe dosage of the medication you are pushing. The same goes for smoking and your rediculous claims as to its hazards on society. I would expect you to know as a doctor that even a smoker's lungs will regenerate if they stop smoking, but yet you seem to forget this little detail when talking about non-smokers. Does smoking make your lungs stronger so that when you quit they will be able to regenerate or is this miracle automatic for 99.9% of all human beings clearly negating the assertion that brief exposure to second hand smoke is so harmful? I would go with the later.

If second hand smoke is so harmful why does it take decades of not only heavy smoking but also constant exposure to their own second hand smoke for adverse affects to begin to surface, but yet you argue that non-smokers are dropping dead left and right because of their brief exposure to diluted second hand smoke?

Tell me "doctor" what is the ppm threshold for exposure for second hand smoke to be considered harmful? What is the ppm in ANY of the local restaurants? OSHA seems to disagree with you on your assertion that the health of non-smokers is being risked by smokers. We've had decades to study the effects of smoking but yet the EPA, FDA or any other government agency fails to see a reason to ban this product even though they've banned truly harmful products such as those that contain asbestos or lead-based paint.

Your arguments are flawed, if not out right lies. You're attitude of those that oppose you is poor and childish and I question your competence and integrity. You can name-call and decieve all you wish but until you can answer why smokers live so long after smoking for decades while non-smokers are supposedly dropping like flies from the less then 1% exposure to second hand smoke that smokers themselves are subjec to then I have no choice but to question your comepetence and your integrity.

Ed,

I really appreciate your post.  It reinforces for those looking from the outside in just how far behind we are with regard to this issue. For your first question:  Don't think much of Glasgow?  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It is because I love this area that I don't want to continue having to send 31 year olds to bypass surgery and why so many of us support a smoke free stance for public buildings.  We also hope that a by-product of this legislation will be that we will  manufacture fewer nicotine addicts, we'll have less illness, less monetary expenditure, more grandparents! for now, the early benefit is an immediate decrease in smoke exposure, that way , even if 1 person of the 16,000 in Glasgow is smoke sensitive, they can breath in any place they wish to dine, do business, etc. 

   Also, couldn't agree with you more that the dose makes the poison, but unfortunately, no one really knows what level of exposure is deadly for an individual, so we must side with safety on this one. There are numerous case reports of a single exposure to an allergen that produces death in asthmatics.  No one should have to wonder if they are going to need an inhaler if someone lights up in a business.

As for your ppm question, that's highly variable, but ask any asthmatic.  Just walking into a place of business where someone smoked earlier can trigger increased wheezing and yes, an increased risk of death for days.

About the issue with OSHA and the FDA.  Asbestos was on the market for years, even cyanide at one time could be bought just about any where without regulation.  Everything was legal at one time or another until we LEARNED.  We are continuing to learn about 2nd hand smoke, even "3rd hand smoke" which causes difficulties in folks with lung issues such  as cystic fibrosis.  (Ask the vanderbilt clinic about that or you can google "3rd hand smoke" if you would like more information, it's smoke left in clothing, curtains, etc.)

Lastly, not certain where you went to medical school, but you need to give back your diploma.  Most people don't regenerate lung function after they quit smoking, they just decline at a less rapid rate.  Other things though, like bronchitis, and wheezing do improve, but just to help you, you might google the word "fibrosis".  That might help you beyond what I can try to explain to you here.  

 Good luck and celebrate clean air everywhere with us in Glasgow Kentucky.  We are finally becoming a progressive city on this issue.  Like one of our city council folks said, "We'll all just have to get used to it!" ....and we will. It's not that big of a deal to step outside for just a minute to be considerate and try and save someone from becoming ill.  Everyone else in the world that's passed this legislation "got used to it" too.  

Melissa

I appreciate your post as well as it perfectly illustrates the problem with the witch hunt against smokers. You admit to not knowing how hazardous if hazardous at all second hand smoke is but yet still throw out claims like having to send 31 year olds off to have bypass surgery insinuating that second hand smoke is the cause. Just how many people in their early 30s have you sent off to bypass surgery? 1? 3? Out of how many patients? I highly doubt it is a significant number and hardly a case for the causality of second hand smoke. What were the dietary habits of these young people? What about their genetic history? Did they smoke and if so how much did they smoke and for how long? You seem to blame smoking and ignore the more logical and more predominant causes, most of which are genetic and not environmental.

The same goes for people with asthma as well. Asthma is not caused by smoking or exposure to second hand smoke, it is a disease, most likely genetic, that can be triggered by any irritant including pollen and pet dander, and yes even smoke, but only at a highly concentrated level for most cases, much higher then your average restaurant. By your logic we should be eradicating all plants and animals so that those 5% of the population can “breathe a little easier”.  As a doctor wouldn’t you agree that someone whose asthma could be triggered by the same air that 95% of the population is exposed to without causing problems would be considered an extreme case? Wouldn’t you agree that someone who “wonders if they are going to need an inhaler if someone lights up in a business” would also need to wonder when they are sitting at a red light behind a truck blowing out black smoke or at a park just after the grass has been cut? How about walking into a paint or perfume store? I would think time and effort would be better spent educating those extreme few in finding ways to reduce their risk by choosing one of the more predominant non-smoking facilities rather then forcing everyone to conform to your theory that second hand smoke is the cause of every asthmatic’s problems.

As far as asbestos goes, it only confirms my theories. The ancient Greeks discovered asbestos and also discovered the harmful side affects. They new long before we did that it caused respiratory problems because there is a clear pattern associated with asbestos exposure and respiratory problems. Tobacco was around even centuries before asbestos, even used for medicinal purposes, and yet still no clear pattern can be associated with it’s use other then the problems with the abuse. If a person smokes more then a pack a day since they were teenagers it is almost a guarantee that they are going to have medical problems as they get older, however this is true with any and all substances from alcohol to fried foods. And yes, I would also agree that those with cystic fibrosis, another genetic disease, not something cause by smoke, should be educated to reduce their risk by choosing non-smoking businesses instead of demanding to eat or shop at one of the few remaining smoking establishments.

Lastly, I don’t have a diploma to give back, which is why I’m appalled that a layman has to correct a doctor about their misinformation. Lungs, as does every part of the body, do repair themselves after the constant damage has stopped. If I cut my hand do I have an open wound for the rest of my life or does it close itself after a healing period? When bypass surgery is performed do the stitches hold the graphs together for the rest of the person’s life or do they eventually fuse on their own? Whether or not the wound completely heals or leaves a scar (fibrosis) would depend on the severity of the cut, assuming no other genetic issues are present to interfere with that healing process. If I do have a genetic disorder that prevents healing I think it would serve me better to take an active role in reducing my own risks rather then asking the world to dull all sharp objects for my benefit. There are air quality standards from OSHA and the EPA, so it seems that there is in fact information on the ppm threshold of what is hazardous and what is not, and as a doctor campaigning for smoking bans I would hope that you would be aware of this information and also be aware of pm2.5 rates in local restaurants before making the claims that you are making.

The point is, where is the pattern? Where is the observed evidence that smoking causes cancer? I fully admit that abusing the product by smoking more then a pack a day will cause health issues. I fully admit that those very few with extreme cases could be irritated by even second hand smoke, but to use misinformation, especially be someone who is supposed to educated enough to know better, to force the remaining minority of smoking establishments to conform to your untested theories when other and equal choices are available is wrong. If you truly want to do some good then start a program that helps people that choose to quit smoking on their own. Help low income people by providing them the medication needed to stop smoking. I believe one major factor keeping people from trying to quit is that the cure is more expensive then the habit and isn’t even guaranteed to work. Would you be willing to begin a program and work with smoking cessation companies to provide help to those that need it without the outrageous fees?

I believe it is more honorable to truly help the community who wants your help rather then intentionally deceiving the public and the City Council and putting them in a position where they are now vulnerable to lawsuits since they have passed an ordinance that restricts rights and could have a negative economic impact all from your distorted truths and misinformation.

It still apears to me the good doctor is shaking the stick of Mayor Bloomberg, another anti-tobacco zealot that likes to use the term health to involve himself into private business affairs without regard for truth and integrity.  His latest debacle is curb salt use and to set standards in restaurants in New York City.  The harm he's doing can be likened to the same rediculous approach being espoused by the good doctor White.  See:

 http://healthlibrary.brighamandwomens.org/RelatedItems/6,615802

Forgot to give you this one:

http://www.smokescam.com/heartstudy.htm

MWS, this is fabulous news and I congratulate you. You will see major drops in MI in your area with the reductions in second-hand (and hopefully first-hand) smoke. Just look at studies from other jurisdictions - there are now two meta-analyses of these supporting strong benefit. People will breathe easier.  You should feel justifiably proud for performing such a great public service for your community.

Dan 

Dan,

Do you see meta-analysis as a true scientific approach to finding data? I do not see how taking statisitics from other unrelated studies and mixing them together to find a conclusion in such a way that's easy to manipulate the outcome as a way to find a definate causality. Especially when data can be easily handpicked to ensure a specific outcome. Show me a study using the real scientific method of observation over an extended period of time and I will be convinced, however all the ones I have seen show no significant health risk. Every single "study" thrown out by anti-smokers is ALWAYS a meta-analysis.

I really do feel it's about time to dispell the SHS/Asthma link that doesn't exist.  Smoking has been on the decrease since 1960, and asthma has been on the increase during the same period.  Perhaps this may explain why:

 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17919705

Dan, thanks! Just want to reiiterate to you that I appreciate your support as well.  It was an interesting endeavor to say the least!!! We will soon  be on our way to increasing the number of grandparents who will be around to enjoy their grandchildren in south central Kentucky.  The number of folks who have congratulated us and thanked us is heartening!  Practically NO ONE wants to eat a meal with "tar" as a condiment, much lesss be sickened by it.  Most of all though, it's the employees who are appreciative.  They can go to work and come home without smelling like an ash tray, but best of all NO ONE will ever be sickened by their  smoking co-worker's inconsideration again!

Ken, my impulse is to say to you, like my brother and I did when we were just small children:  you dumb d-OH d-OH head (sorry, don't know how to spell d-OH, but it sounded like 'dough" when we said it.  Asthma rates have "increased" chiefly because we can now diagnosis it.  PFT's and testing modalities are far more sophisticated.  Air pollution is also on the rise. The smoking prevalence, I'm sure you'll be happy to know, has increased in certain subgroups, like teenage girls.  

How are these examples for a scientific method?   Asthmatic tries to work in a restaurant because they have no other choice for employment......smoke sensitive.....almost dies here in one of our restaurant parking lots before she can get her epi pen into her vein.  You see, when you are the one WITHOUT asthma, it's easy to be indignant.  Even if there was one chance in a million that your smoke was going to harm someone, why take that chance?  Why not just step outside?  Not a Big deal for you.....just get up and do it.  But, it could be a big deal for someone trying to work where you are inhaling and exhaling your burning weed.  I don't know how one can be so inconsiderate of someone else's pulmonary concerns.  That's pretty darned cold. 

Melissa 

Missy

In military jargon, dumb ass.  Testing for the disease of asthma may have improved but determining the presence of asthma is still strait forward and has been for years.  Testing for the treatment of asthma has improved significantly and the determination of causes and treatments have just improved recently.  We all have known the existence of Vitamin D for many years but not till recently have we learned of its importance to metabolic processes.  It has recently been discovered that prenatal deficiency of vitamin D is a precursor for infant asthma. With our current lifestyle of primary indoor living and deprivation of sunlight, we are creating an epidemic of asthma.

Lack of vitamin D is not the only culprit for asthma. I subscribe to the theory of high circulating insulin (Insulin Resistance) and its effects on the pulmonary system and inflammation that restricts normal breathing.  Perhaps this will shed some light on it:

http://www.pulmonaryreviews.com/09sep/C1.html

To address your “scientific method” you know as well as I there are many different triggers for asthmatics; mold, dust, combustion engine exhaust, any combustible material, paraffin, cooking oils, perfumes, deodorants, vinyl, and dandruff to name a few.  Your restaurant worker will come into contact with just about all of these triggers during the course of her/his normal day to include secondhand smoke.  If secondhand smoke is his/her only trigger, it would behoove the worker to avoid it if at all possible but not to expect the remainder of the population to solve her/his personal responsibility.

As business is private property, not public property and just because a proprietor invites public use of his property does extend an invitation to have government to run his business.  As a private citizen I’m not obliged to patronize or labor in an establishment that I fell unsuitable to me.  By the same token I have no right to demand the proprietor change his establishment to suit my needs.

As for the education of potential workers and their ability to find suitable employment, where in  your scientific model does that blame belong to me as a restaurateur?

 Ken,

You are so right! Why didn't I see this all along?? Smoking is good for you! It's saved thousands of lives and dollars and it smells great! Asthmatics love to breath smoke and no one should ever be guaranteed safety in any public building no matter what business they are trying to transact or where they eat!  My in laws did not die of lung cancer from smoking and none of my 30 year old angioplasty and bypass patients ever smoked in their entire lives.

  All of the cities in the world that have gone smoke free fell immediately to communisim, as a matter of fact, "Big Brother" just jumped out from behind the door like the boogey man and took all their rights away.    Everyone in each town got assigned a number and they can only go to the bathroom in their own homes if they ask permission.  (Just ask the folks from that town in California that went smoke free about two decades ago.....they are all wearing uniforms and can't choose what color to paint their living room without checking with Big Brother......it's been total and utter devastation of their freedom. )

Lexington Kentucky is a military zone and we are greeted with the militia at every entry. We all have to order our salad with the same dressing and everything when we go there. There was truly no greater disaster in the history of our nation than  having cities go smoke free. What on the earth were we thinking?  

Everyone, bring your newborns and toddlers, your asthmatic family members and COPDer's, those with heart disease and bad allergies!!! It's time to light up and save the world!!!! You know, it would even be better if we could put some sort of a tent around our heads so we could keep the smoke in.....sort of increase the dose of tar.  Hey, we could even boost the economy with a newly patented smoking tent! We could even make one that's family size or party size,.......anything to keep the smoke from escaping. After all, our lungs long for it! They were made to inhale smoke!

My new slogan!  "Smoking: Good for people, good for business.......good for everyone"   I demand that my air be saturated everywhere I go. Here's to your health!!! Smoking is good for you........just ask the Marlboro man!!!

April Fools

Fools indeed

Missy, sure hope you  like Medicaide patients because your'e fixing to get alot of them with Obama Care. Oh I forgot, you took the hippocratic oath.   That's the problem, I took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution guess we have a conflict of oaths.  Personal responsibility and self reliance be damned, we have the government looking out for us.  This is specially reassuring when we stop and think there is over 47% of total households that pay no taxes.

Maybe we all ought to move to San Francisco and let their council decide what we should do and not do. After all, they are mostly vegetarians and support the notion that gay partners deserve equal access to survivor social security benefits as the surviving spouse.  Makes not a wit that they don't produce children and families.

Just remembered, I can't go, I don't have a bikini.

Happy April to you too.

Melissa,

When

Melissa,

When reading your replies the statement "full of sound and fury signifying nothing" comes to mind. Your replies are full of arrogance but completely void of any solid information. Worse then that you even sink so low as to use someone's unrelated death in your idiotic diatribe because you rely on those that do not know any better to fall in line to your rhetoric without checking facts. If the scientific evidence truly points out that exposure to realistic amounts of second hand smoke is hazardous then why do you not present this evidence? Why do you only present statistics from invalidated "studies" and anecdotal stories twisted to suit your agenda? If it is true, there must be scientific evidence.

We LOVE medicaid patients, as well as No-caid patients. About 1/3 of our patients have NO INSURANCE what so ever.  We don't do a wallet biopsy before we treat ,..never have and never will.

Melissa

I believe I can be "Exhibit A" of a never smoker.  Next month I will be 87 and pass easily for 60. I am 6'3 215 lbs. My recent complete physical revealed  nothing that needed to be added to my chart .I served 3 years in te US Army where smokes were pressed on us in our rations. Many business flights when smokes came with lunch on the plane.20 years ago I buried the last of my smoker friends. When I was only 10 years old Cigarettes were known as "Coffin nails'I decided then that they were not for me.

Mr. Mercado del Toro lived to be over 115 years old having smoked for 76 years of his life.

George Burns lived to be over 100 years old while smoking cigars for most of his life.

Wencelao Moreno, aka "Senor Wences" from the Ed Sullivan Show lived to be 103 while smoking most of his life.

Marie-Louise Meillur lived to be 116 years old after smoking most of her life.

George Cook lived to be 108 years old after smoking for 85 years.

Jeanne Calment lived to be 122 years old after smoking most of her life.

I have no problems with someone wanting to help their community, however forcing the community to obey what you feel is the “right thing” is not the right way to go about it. I’m sure Hitler believed what he was doing was what was best for his country, but certainly not an honorable person wouldn’t you agree? Just because someone thinks they are doing what’s best doesn’t really mean they are doing what’s best. I believe the “right way” for her to help the community would be to offer free programs to low income people that want to stop smoking but cannot afford a treatment that may or may not work for them.

Why is it selfish of me to want to allow business owners to decide whether or not they want to allow smoking in their establishments? Why is it selfish of me to want to smoke inside a facility that allows smoking but it’s not selfish of anti-smokers to demand every single facility fits their desires when other, voluntary establishments are already smoke free with a ban ordinance? They have a choice already of smoke-free places to visit, why demand the remaining few bend to their selfish wants? And the biggest problem of all, the FACT that not a single doctor or anyone else cares to have an honest and open debate when their views and resources are challenged but yet they love to spew stats after stats from invalidated studies based only on statistics gathered from other studies. IF SHS was in fact so harmful I would be all for Dr. Shirley and her campaign, but I wouldn’t really need to because the EPA and or the FDA would already outlaw smoking based on scientific evidence, if it actually existed.

This issue WAS NOT voted in by the people, it was voted in by a margin of one vote by members of the city council voting for the wants of their cliques disregarding the FACT that more people, including non-smokers are against this ban. Gay rights is another issue, but I agree with you, their rights should not be restricted even if a majority feel it’s their religious duty to deny equal rights to them. The same goes for smoking. If you throw out the argument, the false argument, that second hand smoke is hazardous all you have is that smoking annoys those that do not smoke. If we want to start regulating what annoys people then be prepared to not be able to leave your house at all. I also disagree that little can be done about other irritants. It would be expensive, time consuming and would hinder the growth of society, however ALL these irritants could be eliminated one way or another, which is exactly what I am trying to avoid.

1)      Can you provide any physical, scientific evidence made from actual observation that second hand smoke is in fact harmful? At what concentration is SHS harmful. If I start my car in my garage and let it run for 20 mins with the doors closed I can safely get in my car and leave for work? If I let that car run all day long and stay in the garage with the doors down then I’m going to die from toxic fumes. The dose makes the poison and brief exposure to diluted SHS is no more harmful then sitting behind a truck spewing black smoke behind them.

2)      Why should I have to step outside of an establishment whose owner chooses to allow smoking while you have more abundant choices of non-smoking restaurants? Why don’t you just go to a restaurant that already suits your needs instead of forcing everyone to bend to your desires?

You blame COPD on smoking, but that is far from the truth. It can be caused by overexposure to ANY irritant, again reiterating that it’s the dose that makes the poison. COPD can also form in non-smokers simply from the absence of alpha 1-antitrypsin without smoking or SHS being a factor at all.

Ed, Big Pharma has tried just about everything in the book to increase their sales of pharmaceuticles.  Once they became void of useful drugs they became interested in tobacco. They invented smoking cessation drugs which is nothing more than different types of nicotene delivery devices and thus tobacco companie became their competitors.  Big Pharma tried the fear tactics of smoking and tried to convince smokers to use their drugs to kick the habit. They had somewhat a success but not enough to suit them.  Next they tried to create the guilt trip and created the fear of secondhand smoke to demonize smokers.  At first the public didn't accept their argument so they moved to illegalize smoking in public places and fought to have private businesses reclassified as public. This is where the battle actually began.  They tried to convince members of congress of the validity of their argument, pouring millions into campaigns and seeking zealotry for their cause.  The fund organizations such as Smoke Free Kids, Non-Smokers Rights and give grants in the millions to other organiztions such as American Cancer society, American Heart Association, American Lung Associaton and others to push their cause.  Most of the so-called studies in the Universities by Researchers are paid for by Big Pharma, more specifically Robert Woods Johnson Foundation to try and prove the hazards of SHS.

The smoking cessation drug business is now approaching nearly five billion dollars annually. Most of the drugs that are being pushed are nothing more than a different form of nicotene delivery devices and are just as additive as cigarettes.  Other drugs, such as Chantix are worse than smoking itself and tend to promote aggressive behavior and suicide.

The sad part that's not getting much attention is the financial impact this elaboraqte scheme is having on peoples livelyhoods. Small businesses going broke, cutting back on staffs, and loss of business capital.  Many thousands of service business personnel have lost their jobs and many more of which have had their income reduced.  These facts alone have effected states, cities and countries abilities to pay for lost businesses, unemployment benefits and SCHIP insurance for under priviledge children.  Remember Nacy Pelosi said the needed approximately $50 Billion to cover SCHIP.  Well, they're not going to get it from tobacco sales so they are going to take it from the non-smokers as well.

One must be careful for what they wish for, especially when their agenda is based on Junk Science.

I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.

Respectfully,
Robert E. Madden, M.D

’

 This article comes from 3 weeks ago in the Parisien 

They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.

What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?

PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more  pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.

It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...

I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.

Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!

The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.

Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?

The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be  good,  but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.

Why not speak up earlier?

As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Le Parisien

And yet there is no shortage of scientific evidence. At the meeting, Dr Lynn Goldman (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD), presented data from the recently published Institute of Medicine (IOM) report that reviewed 11 studies looking at smoking bans in different regions and countries and showed that the bans were associated with consistently observed reductions in the risk of MI [1]. The benefit was observed early, often within a year of the ban being implemented.

OH really!

Wednesday, 9 June 2010
Latest smoking ban/heart attack study is pure junk science

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/06/latest-smoking-banheart-attack-study-is.html

Have you seen the study by NBER researchers which found that heart attacks rates are just as likely to increase as to decrease after the imposition of smoking bans. The study, CHANGES IN U.S HOSPITALIZATION AND MORTALITY RATES FOLLOWING
SMOKING BANS, concludes:

"U.S. state and local governments are increasingly restricting smoking in public places. This paper analyzes nationally representative databases, including the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, to compare short-term changes in mortality and hospitalization rates in smoking-restricted regions with control regions. In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction
or other diseases. An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."

The researchers further suggest:

"We also show that there is wide year-to-year variation in myocardial infarction death and admission rates even in large regions such as counties and hospital catchment areas. Comparisons of small samples (which represent subsamples of our data and are similar to the samples used in the previous published literature) might have led to atypical findings. It is also possible that comparisons showing increases in cardiovascular events after a smoking ban were not submitted for publication because
the results were considered implausible. Hence, the true distribution from single 23 regions would include both increases and decreases in events and a mean close to zero, while the published record would show only decreases in events. Thus, publication bias could plausibly explain why dramatic short-term public health improvements were seen in prior studies of smoking bans."

Smoking ban opponents have long suspected that the cities chosen for smoking ban heart attack studies were cherry picked. For instance, the Illinois Licensed Beverage Association warns on its website:

"Researchers can deliberately sift through enough small local jurisdictions with smoking bans to find a few aberrations in heart attack rates and then claim that elimination of exposure to secondhand smoke will dramatically reduce incidents of heart attacks. Please don't be taken in by misleading claims based on very select data samples."
http://www.ilba.net/cgi-bin/ILBA/info.pl?domain=info&name=SmokingBan..