Topeka — A tense legislative stand-off over a statewide indoor smoking ban may erupt next week.
House Democratic Leader Paul Davis of Lawrence said Friday that supporters of a ban may try to override a proposal in a House committee that contains numerous exemptions that would allow smoking in public, indoor places.
To do that, supporters of a ban will try to pass a motion in the House to concur with a tougher ban that has already been approved in the Senate.
“The votes are very close,” in the 125-member House, Davis said.
Davis said supporters of a ban have become concerned over the “watered down” House bill.
House Bill 2642 would allow businesses, such as restaurants and bars, to allow indoor smoking if they had separate ventilation systems for smoking sections and paid a nominal fee. Clean air advocates say the bill also would overturn more than 30 local ordinances that have tighter restrictions, including the one in Lawrence.
The Senate bill would ban indoor smoking. But supporters of the House bill oppose a provision in the Senate bill that would allow smoking in state-owned casinos. They say that’s unfair to private businesses.
Gov. Mark Parkinson has said that he’s not crazy about the casino provision but said the Senate bill is far superior to the House bill, which he called a “fraud” and said he would veto.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
kewlb (anonymous) says…
just as i really dont care to smell somebodies farts,and other people dont wana smell mine.i dont wana smell cancer stick smoke.take it outside.i worked in the medical feild for 12 years delivering oxygen to patients,and atleast 90% were from smoking probs.I dont smoke,but i do fart occasionally,i dont expect other people to sit and smell me,and farts do not cause cancer or other health risks that smoking causes.
rewag (anonymous) says…
i guess if u wouldnt go looking for farts to smell you probably wouldnt smell them.....same for cigarette smoke......i cant see how something legal to use can be made illegal.....i feel if a city passes a smokeing ban the shouldnt collect any tax dollars on the sale..lets tax something everyone uses.....toilet paper maybe? say $1.00 per roll tax......hhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm youd probably just steal it from public restrooms then
jafs (anonymous) says…
Listening to music is legal, but not if it interferes with another's right to quiet enjoyment of their home.
Free speech is legal, but inciting to violence is not.
Swinging your hand around in public is legal, but not if it connects with someone else's face.
Etc.
There are many examples of activities which are legal in themselves but become illegal when they interfere with another's rights.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"As to the annoyance of smoking, a compromise between smokers and non-smokers can be reached, through setting a quality standard and the use of modern ventilation technology."
There is a very good compromise available-- if you get the urge to smoke while in a public space, go outside.
That said, I think there should be an allowance in smoking bans made for a limited number of nicotine dens. They should have limited seating capacity (say 50 or less,) prohibited from selling food or having live music, and there should be a prohibition of any employee being exposed to second-hand smoke.
smartin1955 (anonymous) says…
If you want to avoid second hand smoke, stay out of places that allow smoking. OWNERS, based on the free market, decide what they want to offer in their business. As long as the State makes a fortune from tobacco, and grant sponges get a fortune in grants from nicotine replacement companies, (including KU) this hounding won't end. The object of this hysteria is, after all, NOT to ban the selling of tobacco, but to demonize users onto the products of Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer. Who also make big campaign donations.
tange (anonymous) says…
The best smoking remedy: turkey.
( served cold )
jafs (anonymous) says…
harley,
When the exercise of one person's freedom affects others, that is a perfectly sound place for legal/government involvement.
Our society attempts to protect all of the citizens' rights, not just yours.
geneb (anonymous) says…
spam alert!
Google harleyrider's text: "If it were harmful, what would be the proper reaction?"
And if you really want to fill up your cache, google "harleyrider1978" (his main alias).
Every msg board in the country is flooded with harley's spam. No site is safe.
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
GeneB might not like what Harley says, and neither of us might like it when he pastes big blocks of text about his viewpoint sometimes, but this IS a country where people are encouraged to speak their beliefs. And at least, unlike GeneBorio and tobacco.org, Harley hasn't been raking in any grant money through TTAC and RWJF and the NicoGummyPatchyProductPushers and their supporters.
People like Harley and Snowbird and the other people Gene's been slamming all over the internet don't get any funding at all that I know of, and I both know a lot of the people involved through years of emailing and know their reasons for fighting antismoking propaganda.
Some of them have had their lives and businesses ruined by poorly based fears and hatreds; some are simply frightened of the willingness with which people have handed regulation of our everyday private lives and choices over to Big Government; some are furious over the constantly growing propaganda against smoking and smokers in the paid media (not all of it obvious to the unsearching eye btw... check out TheTruthIsALie.com and read Lie #2 for an example); and some are angry just because they smoke and have seen their initial willing concessions to reasonable requests (nonsmoking flights and sections on airplanes, nonsmoking public buildings where people have to go or which are public institutions) taken and snowballed into one total imposed ban after another. Did you know that now standing on a street corner smoking can be a crime (In some California towns) or, conversely, walking down a street smoking can be a crime (Thailand and I believe also in some California and Japanese towns)?
Some people have even had to worry about or have actually lost their jobs, their housing, or seen their their happy and healthy children taken away from them because of this extreme madness over wisps of smoke or, growing recently, even the insanity about "ThirdHand Smoke."
So yes Gene, they DO post to lots of news boards. They don't have money for ten minutes a day of MTV or Superbowl ads, or for big fancy press releases twisting every new study into a characature of its actual findings, but the internet is a free voice for people to respond to propaganda, and most of these news stories involve at least traces of that propaganda... and sometimes entire bucketloads.
And you'd like to see that taken away so the $900 million dollar a year "Tobacco Control" propaganda machine can roll merrily along its way crushing anyone who dares to speak up against it. I don't know whose sites might be safe or not from them Gene, but I know you folks have invaded and co-opted entire countries with your hatred. And that's something I'm willing to fight in any way I know possible.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
jafs (anonymous) says…
Michael,
You really think the "anti-smoking" group is the one to worry about, not the "pro-smoking" one?
Tobacco companies have for years obfuscated, minimized and flat out lied in order to pretend that their products aren't addictive and harmful.
Their profits are quite high.
The fact that many are concerned about the ill effects from smoking, and being exposed to others' smoke is nothing to be alarmed about.
The fact that some companies will in fact make a little bit of money from helping folks stop smoking (if they want to) is nothing compared to the ongoing profits of the tobacco industry.
After all, when someone stops smoking, they'll stop using those products. Cigarette smokers will smoke for their entire lives - some will even continue once they get lung cancer.
geneb (anonymous) says…
Yeah, I get it. "The Ends Justify the Means." We all get it.
Holocaust deniers, tea-partiers, terrorists or chihuahua fanciers--anyone with an ax to grind can claim the same.
The pro-tobacco fanatics have plenty of websites, they post on youtube like mad, they even write "books" and "studies." Nobody pays any attention, of course, so they want more. They hijack every message board in the country, turning them into their own private PR outlets--from which they can link back to each others' sites, increasing ad revenue.
No one who set up a message board so that their community could discuss local issues foresaw this kind of massive, unceasing, site-promoting fax-blasting.
It's spam, pure and simple, no matter how they shave and parse their lame excuses--after all, that's their specialty.
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Interesting responses from both jafs and Gene. I'll respond separately to them.
Jafs:
Yes, I think the antismoking group is the one to worry about. Cite the last example you know of where a Free Choice group got a law passed requiring smoking anywhere.
Yes, tobacco companies, just like any other company, spent years lying about their products to the public. The big difference is that they got caught and now every sheet of toilet paper they doodle on gets examined under a microscope. How many studies on burgers and health do you think the McWhopperies have carried out and buried because they didn't like the results?
Yes, their profits are high... but nowhere near as high as the governments. The estimates I've seen over the years peg tobacco company profits at between 25 and 50 cents a pack after a lot of work. The government (and nonsmokers indirectly) makes ten times that much per pack for NO work.
No, The fact that many are needlessly alarmed and have their lives impacted by trumped up and exaggerated worries about others' smoke is most definitely something to be alarmed about when it impinges upon our lives and freedoms.
And no, the "little bit of money" the NicoGummyPatchyProductPushers make is most certainly *NOT* a "little bit." How much does a chicklet piece of chewing gum cost to manufacture? Maybe half a cent? How much do they sell the Nicogummies for? 50 cents apiece? That's a 100x markup if my figures are correct (I haven't actually tried to buy any of the gums so I'm not really sure... but even if they're 5 cents apiece that's STILL a 1,000% profit... with *NONE* of it going to taxes. Nice scam, eh?)
And no, a lot of people DON'T "stop using those products" for a long time - if ever - and meanwhile the companies continue racking up that 1,000 to 10,000% profit. And no, "Cigarette smokers will NOT always smoke for their entire lives." I don't know the exact figures, but I think that about half of them quit, successfully and without great ill effects or "Nicotine Replacement Therapy," when they're between 25 and 50/60 years of age.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Gene, "The Ends Justify The Means" is the motto of the Antismokers, not the Smokers. Anyone who looks at your campaign and its "collateral damage" is well aware of that. And as much as you try to denigrate those fighting your excesses as "Holocaust Deniers" or "Flat Earthers" or "Chihuahua Fanciers" no one who does any reading in the area will buy that schtick Gene.
You say "The pro-tobacco fanatics have plenty of websites" ? Gene how dumb do you think people ARE? All anyone has to do is go to Google, type in "smoking" and look at the first page of results. Once someone does that Gene they'll see the value of your arguments. And what about other media? How many TV spots, billboards, newspaper ads, radio ads, press-conferences, multi-million dollar conferences, etc etc have you seen from the Free Choice folks? Want to count them up and display them here?
In terms of message boards you have something of a decent point at last. Yes, since we have no funding the Free Choice folks DO try to get their message out on message boards. And some of them abuse the boards with extended multi-post-postings of thousands of words. But for the most part the people who comment on news stories from the Free Choice side do so responsibly and with useful information that a lot of people would ordinarily never see. After all, WE don't have the money to buy ten minutes of commercials a day on MTV or million dollar spots on the Superbowl: that's your specialty Gene.
As far as spam goes... I think that's also in your lap. How much do you get paid for your tobacco.org work per year Gene? And how much has come from the NicoGummyFolks or from laundered MSA Big Tobacco money? As I've noted before, I've known a lot of the Free Choice folks either personally or through extensive emails, and I sure as hell know WE ain't gettin' paid. Posting one's beliefs, arguments, and opinions to relevant articles and blogs on your own time and without grant money paying for your lunch is NOT "spam" Gene. Being funded to attack such folks WOULD be considered spam however.
- MJM
jafs (anonymous) says…
MIchael,
I completely disagree, of course, and don't think we'll change that.
Smoking has clearly been shown to be dangerous to one's health and the health of others who inhale the smoke.
I submit again that the amount of money made on helping people stop smoking pales next to the amount of money made from selling cigarettes to addicts.
And, btw, if people need to keep using those products, that is a clear indication of how addictive cigarettes are.
If you don't like how much government is making from cigarette sales, you should be glad that people are quitting(and support the products that help them do so).
I'm not sure what the comparison with fast food chains is supposed to mean.
Having grown up in a house with two heavily smoking parents, I can personally attest to the ill effects of second hand smoke.
Also, my mother died of lung cancer.
If you want to argue that people have the right to kill themselves, that's fine.
But to try to pretend that smoking, and second hand smoke, aren't harmful, is just stupid.
cthulhu_4_president (anonymous) says…
Yet another chapter in the battle between the people who choose to use their freedom to put what they want into their bodies, and the people who hate them for it.
To imply that cigarrettes are not unhealthy is dishonest. To imply that smokers are unaware of this is equally dishonest.
McFadden has it right on the head. Contrary to popular belief, we do not have a constitutional right to be safe wherever we go. If I have a peanut allergy, I'm sure as heck not going into Five Guys anytime soon, but I can't sue them to make them stop giving out peanuts. They are hazardous to my health, and I avoid them as a consequence. Likewise, consumers should and will avoid smoking establishments if they choose, but it is up to the businesses to decide whom they will cater to, just as Five Guys decided that no one with a peanut allergy would ever be able to set foot in their establishment (to my knowledge, there are no outrage campaigns to take away Five Guys right to allow peanuts). We inhale more carcinogens from walking along a busy street than ever from any one second hand smoke source in the same time period. Where are the outrage campaigns for this issue? Where is the legislation that must put sidewalks at a minimum 20 feet from a street? It's right there on the floor with my anti-peanut agenda: worthless attempts to change behavior that I don't agree with.
My final 2 cents is an anecdote, and not meant to offer evidence to support any claim: I know multiple people who have been chewing nic gum for 10 + years, and are now developing dental problems from it! The ads are right, they can stop you from smoking, but they won't stop you being addicted to nicotine.
By the way, I am a lifelong non-smoker. I simply believe that freedom is more important that my comfort.
MJM: reading about your book on Amazon. Consider another copy sold!
geneb (anonymous) says…
revealed: the true reason for all this ugly spamming--
The flatly-admitted desire to drive site traffic by people who can't get into Google's top 10 (!)
Nice.
"It's spam, pure and simple, no matter how they shave and parse their lame excuses."
I rest my case.
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Heh... Gene, try typing "Antismokers" into google and then see who's worrying about what. LOL! Gene, I invite readers to go back up and read our posts and make their own judgements for themselves.
Jafs, show me one place in any of my writings, where I say smoking isn't harmful. Here are three extensive references to choose from and read:
Antibrains.com
TheTruthIsALie.com
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/...
I believe that your claim shows that you are unwilling to read material that may disagree with you, even when you have the opportunity to offer specific refutations of what's in it and expose its weaknesses to the world.
- MJM
jafs (anonymous) says…
Michael,
I don't have any more time to spend on this.
The fact that smoking, and exposure to cigarette smoke, are harmful to one's health is clear to me.
I believe people have the right to destroy their own health, but not others.
The issue from a public policy standpoint is that certain activities are harmful not only to those who engage in it, but also those who are exposed to it.
Another example would be playing extremely loud music.
Many Americans seem very aware that our country was founded on an attempt to preserve individual rights and freedoms, but less aware that in the attempt to preserve these for all, sometimes individual freedom must be curtailed.
There are many instances in our society of this - it's illegal to incite to violence, for example, even though our First Amendment protects our right to free speech.
cthulhu_4_president (anonymous) says…
Jafs: by the logic in your last post, you would then join me on my anti-peanut crusade at Five Guys, correct? The logic in the two viewpoints is almost identical, and it meets your criteria ( as I interpreted them) as a public health crisis:
-5 Guys uses their rights to endanger my health by distributing peanuts.
-It doesn't harm those who engage in it, but only harms those exposed to it (does this make it worse than smoking? At least smokers get a dose of their own medicine, literally.).
-5 Guys individual freedom must be curtailed to protect the public health of peanut allergy sufferers.
So, can I count on your support at the first anti-peanut5guys rally? If not, why not?
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Cthulhu, actually there has been a push for "peanut free flights" because of people claiming serious reactions to particles of peanut dust in the air of flights where they are served. And your example of 5 Guys is right on the mark: Using antismoking logic, why should workers be denied the right to work in restaurants simply because the restaurant wants to serve shellfish or peanut-derived sauces and such. Patrons who wanted peanuts or shellfish in their foods would be free to eat them at home so it wouldn't actually be a ban, right? And all would then be free to work at and eat in restaurants without fear of involuntary exposure and death.
- MJM
geneb (anonymous) says…
Yeah, yeah, yeah, I invite them to read your messages too. Not that anyone's here anymore but us foxes. Harley's spam took care of that.
But if anyone successfully plowed through your messages above, they'd be well-acquainted with all your unclever variations of:
"It's so because I said it's so."
"I'm rubber and you're glue."
"They MADE me do it."
And my fave,
"Aw, your mother wears combat boots!"
Yes, this forum's become a schoolyard brawl. And just as a brawl disrupts education at school, it destroys message boards.
Though it's been removed, Harley's post effectively ended real local discussion of a statewide smoking ban in Kansas--on whatever side.
And that's a shame. More so since it happens regularly, on many boards, because of just this sort of spam from 6 or 7 people. If I ran a board, I'd be furious--How dare they? How DARE they hijack my board for their agenda?
You see, the spammers really don't have to convince; they just have to _wreck_.
A normal discussion of science brought down to a shambles is a win for the forces science has offended.
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Gene wrote, "A normal discussion of science brought down to a shambles is a win for the forces science has offended."
So are you talking about Third Hand Smoke here Gene? I'd agree that it's pretty much a shambles of science. Not much more so than most of the press releases about secondhand smoke though. Or maybe you're talking about ban effects studies that hide the decimation of bar employment in the much fuzzier statistical cloud of restaurant employment so they can proclaim "Smoking bans don't hurt bar and restaurant employment!" Or maybe it's the dozen or so studies proclaiming that "protecting people from secondhand smoke" instantly reduces heart attacks - virtually all of which have been ripped into shambles almost as soon as they were published.
The true spam Gene is the material flooding our media from the nine hundred million dollar Tobacco Control cartel. Attacking uber-long boilerplate multi-posts is reasonable. Attacking nail stylists, bar owners, truck drivers, and other ordinary people who've taken time out of their lives to do some reading and research and who then try to communicate what they've found to other people reading about smoking studies and news stories is unforgivable.
Gene, you're wrong and you should apologize to those people you've followed around the internet with your accusations and smarmy innuendos.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
jafs (anonymous) says…
ct,...
Well, your analogy is somewhat flawed.
1. Businesses do not possess individual rights, since they're not individuals.
2. Cigarette smoke has a variety of carcinogenic substances in it - breathing it is bad for all of us, even if we don't have sensitivies or allergies.
A better analogy would be if a bunch of people wanted to go around in public grinding up peanuts and throwing the dust in the air - seems kind of silly, doesn't it?
And it still would only affect those who are sensitive/allergic to peanuts.
But, if I were trying to figure out the peanut issue, I guess I would try to look at how many people were affected adversely, and what freedom would be curtailed by restricting that.
By the way, although there is no specified right in the Constitution to go out to a restaurant without breathing cigarette smoke, there is also no specified right to smoke.
cthulhu_4_president (anonymous) says…
"A better analogy would be if a bunch of people wanted to go around in public grinding up peanuts and throwing the dust in the air - seems kind of silly, doesn't it?"
------------------------------------------
Amazingly silly, but I don't think that my original idea is flawed. Businesses that serve peanuts can have peanut debris end up a good distance away, and for some people even contact with a peanut shell can trigger a lethal reaction. For the purposes of this analogy, I would argue that the effective 'range' of peanuts is at least equal to smoke, and probably greater.
--------------------------------------
"And it still would only affect those who are sensitive/allergic to peanuts."
------------------------------------
So? Don't they have a right to breathe the same public air that you do, and enjoy the right to do it safely? Very insensitive to allergy sufferers.
--------------------------------------
"But, if I were trying to figure out the peanut issue, I guess I would try to look at how many people were affected adversely, and what freedom would be curtailed by restricting that."
----------------------------------
Well, what freedoms would be curtailed are the freedom of a business to provide goods and services within the law. After 5 guys goes down, then we could stop any bar from serving peanuts, then we could go after the grocery store, and finally we could stop peanuts from being farmed in America for good! This is the only real way to %100 stop the suffering of peanut allergy sufferers. The entire point of the peanut tirade was to demonstrate how legislation like this is actaully not an issue of public health, but an issue of modifying behavior that some find objectionable. It is the law saying 'You'll be better off if you just think like me.' That such a message is so mainstream in a country that pretends to be a democracy is alarming. It's a one-sided war against those who want to eat peanuts, and those who hate them, just as smoking is a one sided war against people who choose to ingest what they want, and the people who hate them for it simply because they find it repulsive.
--------------------------------------
"By the way, although there is no specified right in the Constitution to go out to a restaurant without breathing cigarette smoke, there is also no specified right to smoke."
---------------------------------------
Um, by the way, this is a ridiculous and frankly alarming argument. There is no specified right for me to sit naked in my living room and eat green jello while watching Bambi, is there? If I do it, am I a criminal?
cthulhu_4_president (anonymous) says…
Some important reading for barryp. I know it has lots of big words, but just stick with it!
http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/deec/...
Now, can the adults with the mental capacity to construct a logical argument please talk?
Boston_Corbett (anonymous) says…
The national people who swoop in on this topic remind me of a local Pretentious Cow.
jafs (anonymous) says…
ct...
You seem to have missed my points.
I submit that the analogy between restaurants serving peanuts and smoking in public is flawed.
1. Businesses aren't individuals and don't possess individual rights.
2. Smoke from cigarettes is harmful to everyone, not just those who are sensitive to it.
It is still an issue, of course, if people are in serious danger while walking down the street.
And, the question of whether people should have the freedom to subject others to inhaling harmful substances while in public is most certainly a public health issue.
My last comment was in response to those who claim there is no Constitutional right to be safe while out in public, ie. at a restaurant.
That may be true, at least in a very narrow way, but it is also true for smoking.
The difficulty is in applying the principles of the Constitution to situations/issues that have come up in modern times with which the framers/founders were unfamiliar.
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
So Jafs, I'm still waiting for you to back up your assertion that I have claimed that smoking is not harmful to the smoker. Were you telling the truth when you said that? If so, please back up your claim with the evidence or else the rest of your material will be cast in doubt as well.
Or, of course, you could always just apologize.
- MJM
P.S. I'm also waiting for your specific substantive criticisms of anything I wrote at either:
http://TheTruthIsALie.com
or
http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/PASAN/...
Go ahead: If you think my arguments are weak or my facts are incorrect, show the world...
jafs (anonymous) says…
Michael,
I feel no need to discuss this further with you.
Smoking is harmful to smokers, and cigarette smoke if inhaled is harmful to non-smokers.
There is no legitimate issue here to debate.
jafs (anonymous) says…
A personal story:
My mother, who was an otherwise intelligent woman, chose to smoke heavily for 30-40 years. During that time, she argued that science cannot prove "causality" - ie. that smoking "causes" lung cancer.
She got lung cancer, and even though she quit immediately after her first operation, died from it eventually.
jafs (anonymous) says…
One more:
I grew up in a house with two heavily smoking parents.
When I became an adult and left, I lived in almost exclusively non-smoking houses, and never smoked myself.
A few years ago, I went to a chiropractor for some allergy treatments. After one of them, I smelled like cigarette smoke for several days thereafter. It seemed as though there had been some kind of residue stored in my body that was being released through my pores.
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Jafs, I'm sorry about your mother. Your note about the aftereffects of the chiropractor visit however lead me to believe that you may actually need some help with something known as ASDS: AntiSmoking Dysfunction Syndrome. You can read more about it and maybe explore the beginnings of help for it at:
http://www.wispofsmoke.net/recovery.html
Meanwhile I take it you were indeed not able to find anything at all in the way of substantive criticisms of anything I wrote in either the Stiletto or TheTruthIsALie. And I note you have not apologized for claiming that I said smoking is not harmful to the smoker.
- MJM
geneb (anonymous) says…
McF's quite the little apology whore, isn't he? Must be tough being Homecoming Queen. Something deep-seated there, I'm sure. Yet, somehow, he's incredibly tolerant of unending reams of boilerplate spam. No apology needed there. I suspect if such concerted destruction of message boards ever came from the other side, he wouldn't be so lenient. He'd demand an apology! Of course, tobacco control people just don't do that sort of thing. It speaks volumes.
Oh, while we're on the subject --
>>"try typing "Antismokers" into google and then see who's worrying about what. LOL!" <<
OK, I did. In fact, I googled "antismokers' brains" in quotes just to be sure.
Wow. Impressive numbers. 13,900 links! Why, at $20/pop, any book salesman or viral marketer would be ecstatic. I can see why McF's not worrying; he must be "LOL!"-ing all the way to the bank.
Proud work!
Especially since he doesn't "have the money to buy commercials" or, presumably, any other PR services to help him get into that exclusive Google Top Ten list that gnaws at him so poisonously. I know, you'll say lack of money is the same excuse any mugger, dine-and-dasher or other service-stealer would use to justify their actions, but c'mon--so what if he's not in the Top 10 on "smoking?" Those massive "antismokers" links are quite an achievement all on their own. In fact, you have to wonder--how did he do it? How'd he get the word out with such barn-burning efficiency?
Well, let's see, judging by the first few hundred links, I see some are from fellow travelers and blogs of course, and some book sale sites. But--here now, what's this? A large proportion of the Google links mentioning his book are from . . .
-- wait for it now, it's so predictable, I don't know why I didn't realize it before, I'm such an innocent--
. . . his own posts on the message boards of the mainstream media!
DOH!
Forbes, LA Times, Wall St. Journal, cbs, cnet, AllAfrica, newspapers, radio stations, college papers, every state, every continent, you name it, no one's immune, no subject too far afield for his trademark to get slapped on the board. There's even been a book sale right here at the Journal-World, and at last count, though it's hard to keep up, McF has posted all of 7 links back to his sites on this page alone; and the night is young. . . .
Oh, proud work!
No wonder he so vigorously defends spamming, and eschews any apology from harley--for whom I have a new-found respect. Yes, harley, you I owe an apology to. You're not so despicable after all. You're a regular choir boy. At least you're not out using others' message boards to pump up your book sales.
jafs (anonymous) says…
Michael,
Thank you for your comment about my mother.
Wow - that's a pretty hateful site you directed me towards. And I'm not sure why - I simply reported my experience honestly - ask my wife.
I didn't read any of your links, and based on the site I just looked at, I'm not likely to do so.
There is no legitimate issue here.
It is well known that cigarette smoke contains carcinogenic substances.
When you breathe cigarette smoke, you are inhaling those substances.
To claim that breathing cigarette smoke is not harmful is to claim that inhaling carcinogenic substances is not harmful - it's an absurd proposition.
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Heh... Gene seems to have missed the fact that I posted two links to his own tobacco.org! LOL! The idea of the links good sir is to offer people like Jafs an opporunity to read something substantial that might go against their belief systems. Unfortunately, as we saw just above here with Jafs, such people tend to be highly resistant when it comes to such reading or at least claim to be when they can't find anything to criticize in it. I could of course simply post massive cut and pastes of boilerplates of my arguments, but I don't think such behavior is polite to the other readers of the board or to LJWorld itself.
Anyone reading my posts will of course note that every one of those links was made within the context of either providing information to back up a particular argument or made specifically as an invitation to Jafs to stand behind his words and show any example of where I had claimed smoking not to be harmful. He never backed up his claim, nor did he seem to feel the value of his word was worth trying to read anything that might help him do so.
Oh, Gene? While you're busy counting things you might want to count how often I sign my name with a note as to my competing interest (which you would probably like to try to frame as a "sales pitch" or somesuch) and how often I simply sign with my initials. Any real salesman would tell you that they'd never pass on an opportunity to mention their product name. Heh... though I have to admire the antismoking statistics trick of translating 14,000 links into 14,000 sales! LOL! And then going on to assume that the books cost $0 to produce. Hey, that's no farther out than using computer formulas to generate imaginary death numbers I guess.
For a final note, just as I asked Jafs to stand behind his words, now I'll ask the same of you Gene. You note "no one's immune, no subject too far afield for his trademark to get slapped on the board." OK Gene, out of those 14,000 links, can you name three where I have "slapped my trademark" on "subjects too far afield" ? Should be easy work for you Gene with all the links at your fingertips. Find three board discussions about puppy dogs, or crocheting, or stellar evolutionary theory where I popped in and just "slapped (my trademark) on the board." without the issue of smoking bans/taxes/etc having already been there. Go ahead good sir... I'll check back.
- MJM
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Jafs wrote, "To claim that breathing cigarette smoke is not harmful is to claim that inhaling carcinogenic substances is not harmful - it's an absurd proposition."
Jafs, you have a fundamental problem with understanding Paracelsus' concept of "the dose makes the toxin." Is it harmful to breathe the air in your local mall if it has fountains that splash microscopic water droplet in the air? Those droplets, in most areas, have asbestos in them you know. Is it harmful to be in an enclosed stadium with another human being? That person will be exhaling all sorts of nasty toxic things like acetone, benzene, and suchlike into the air as part of their natural excretory bodily metabolism. Is it harmful to be at a restaurant where some inconsiderate alkie has ordered a martini? Alcohol is Class A Carcinogen AND a highly volatile liquid after all.
Worrying about such things would be crazy unless there'd been a 20 year campaign spending hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars brainwashing people into worrying about them needlessly. The same can be said about low levels of secondary tobacco smoke. Jafs, even if you take the heavily criticized EPA Report figures as gospel, all they actually said was that if you spent 8 to 12 hours a day living and working with smokers who smoked around you regularly for 30 to 50 years in relatively unventilated/unfiltrated air conditions...
.... that even THEN your extra risk of developing lung cancer would be roughly 1 in a thousand (based on the EPA's claimed 19% increase over the base lifeime rate of about 1 in 200 for nonsmokers.)
So that's why it's either crazy or deceptive to use words such as "harmful," "threat," "toxic," or "deadly" to describe the exposures most people would get in any decently ventilated modern public setting.
- MJM
Calliope877 (anonymous) says…
If you know a place allows smoking, don't go there. A business should be allowed to choose for itself whether or not to permit indoor smoking.
jafs (anonymous) says…
Michael,
Again, given the hateful nature of the site I looked at from you, I'm not particularly interested in any of your other sites.
I agree, by the way, that the dangers of various toxic substances will probably vary with the levels of exposure - that's simply common sense.
However, given the levels of pollution in our air/water/earth, I see no need to increase the carcinogenic substances that I am exposed to on a daily basis.
You know, in Chicago, they had a water report that showed low levels of radioactive particles which were under the allowed maximum. Frankly, I don't think any radioactive substances should be allowed in our water supply.
It is very hard to measure/test the results of long-term exposure to a variety of harmful substances, each of which may be low in level in absolute terms.
Having breathed second-hand smoke in a variety of settings, I find it unacceptable. Based on my experiences, it seems clear to me that it is not good for one's health.
The very act of smoking in public involves putting smoke into other people's lungs - I'm not sure why anyone thinks this is ok to do.
For example, it is generally illegal to play music so loudly that others can hear it if they don't want to. This is even less of a health issue, and more of a simple comfort one. If we think that people have the right to not hear loud music, why on earth wouldn't they have the right to breathe air without cigarette smoke in it?
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Jafs, since my main other site that I'd recommended to you was sent an entire WEEK before I recommended the site you claim to be "hateful" (ref for my site: http://TheTruthIsALie.com and ref for readers to see what Jafs considered hateful - which in reality is NOT my site: http://www.wispofsmoke.net/recovery.html ) I do not feel that's a very strong excuse for not having read the previous material that you were supposedly basing you claims on. I continue to find it impolite and unacceptable that you neither retract or apologize for your claim about my statements or offer backup for it. ( ::sigh:: does this mean Gene is going to call me a whore again? )
The rest of your points regarding exposures in your last post are somewhat more solid but the laws are not supposed to be based on comfort issues: listen to the testimonies given in support of the laws and comfort is rarely mentioned other than as an aside to the health and economic arguments. I believe it would be wrong to have a law mandating that ALL restaurants, malls, and bars should be required to play constant loud music or to have a law forbidding them all from doing so. I feel the same way about smoking. Additionally, there's a great difference between loud music and background music and between a smoky unventilated bar and a restaurant that allows for a smoking section and provides a high level of directed ventilation and air filtration.
Gene seems to still be busily looking for my trademark slapping on puppy dog boards as he's responded to me neither here nor on the other main board where he's been attacking me.
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
jafs (anonymous) says…
Michael,
I will apologize if I misstated your position as soon as you apologize for directing me to an extremely offensive site that attempted to paint me as narcissistic, paranoid, etc. My experience with smelling like cigarette smoke was real - I am neither narcissistic nor paranoid.
My "claims" as you call them, are based on personal experience and common sense.
Laws against loud music are most definitely based on some notion of personal comfort - our society recognizes somehow that we should be able to walk down the street in public without being assaulted by loud music.
Given that, it seems reasonable to propose that we have the right to eat at a restaurant without being assaulted by cigarette smoke.
Just out of curiousity - do you smoke?
MichaelJMcFadden (anonymous) says…
Jafs, I don't feel the site was "extremely offensive" but I'll certainly apologize for directing you to a site that disturbed you. You will now apologize for misstating my position I hope? (of course it took me at least four requests, but hey, better late than never I guess.) For others who might wonder what site was offensive and don't want to search upward, it was:
http://www.wispofsmoke.net/recovery.html
Your claims, that I interpreted to mean that long after you had quit smoking or going to smoky places that a chiropractor massaged you and suddenly "cigarette smell" began emanating from your body are, unfortunately perhaps, strange enough that I doubt I could ever believe them unless you are able to come up with some objective clinical research supporting such a phenomenon. Note: that does NOT mean that I'm saying you're lying. I believe it more likely that you suffered from a delusion... which is partly why I referred you to the site you called "hateful" and "offensive."
No one is saying that laws against LOUD music are necessarily wrong. However laws against ANY music in public places would be. You most certainly have the right to eat at a restaurant without being assaulted by either music OR smoke. It would be wrong to have a law insisting that ALL restaurant were required to allow smoking or required to play music. It is also wrong to have a law saying that NONE are allowed.
The important thing, at least in America, is that as an individual you should have a choice.
Yes, I do smoke. And if we were on a board discussing sexuality and I were a staunch defender of Free Choice in that area, would you feel similarly comfortable in asking if I was gay? It may be an innocent question on your part, but all too often I've seen it used to set the stage for the responses "Oh, THAT'S why you feel that way." or "Oh, you're only saying that because it's the addiction talking. Can't reason with an addict after all." However, I'll accept that you might just be curious.
- MJM
jafs (anonymous) says…
Michael,
I apologize for inadvertently misstating your position.
1. I have never smoked cigarettes.
2. The chiropractic treatment was not massage.
3. My wife called the smell to my attention.
You are free to believe it or not, but it happened - I was as surprised by it as you are.
If I (and others) have the right to eat at a restaurant without be assaulted by music or smoke, why is it wrong to ban smoking in restaurants?
And, yes, I'm not surprised to find out that you do, in fact, smoke. And it does affect your arguments, in my opinion.
1. Smoking is known to be unhealthy, yet smokers engage in it.
2. Smoking is highly addictive.
3. Smokers feel (due to the addiction) that they "need" to smoke, despite the fact that there is no actual need for that.
4. In their pursuit of filling that "need", they seem to justify activities that they most likely would not justify under other conditions.
As a group, I would possibly argue that smokers, by virtue of their addiction, and the ways in which it affects them physically and mentally, are less likely to think clearly about the issue than non-smokers.
Personally, I recommend that you quit, for your own health, and, if pertinent, for the health of your family.
jafs (anonymous) says…
Another personal story:
After my mother's death, I was staying with a lifelong friend who smokes.
He commented in passing "lung cancer sucks", and when I looked at him and said "Yes it does, so don't die from it" with the implication that he should quit smoking, he said "f*** you".
That's the kind of strange attitude smokers seem to have - my mother had just died from the disease, he commented on how it sucked, and yet when I, a lifelong friend, out of concern for him, made my comment, that was his response.
Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
missy00876 (anonymous) says…
Once upon a time we all had choices. We could choose to smoke, we could choose to not wear a seatbelt, we could choose to use our own free will. Thanks to the radical people and those lemmings that follow them we now have very limited choices. If I were a rational adult and knew a place I wanted to patronize allowed smoking, and I didn't want to be around it, I would logically NOT go there. How hard is it for people who don't like smoking to avoid places that still let you smoke in them? Is it not that simple, are there not hundreds of other businesses that would welcome a non-smoker? Is everyone so sensitive and crybaby like nowadays that we are so afraid they will get their feelings hurt we cower to them? If I had an alcoholic family member and didn't like drinking could I choose to not go into establishments that offered alcohol? Hmmmm, now there's a thought. I LIKE to smoke, I choose to smoke, I make choices everyday with everyone else's best interest in mind. I don't smoke around my children nor grandchildren, I don't smoke in places that allow it but others aren't smoking, I try to use some common sense. But I do NOT like that I am being discriminated against because I choose to do something that others are "sensitive" to. If you don't like it then choose not to be around it, it's quite simple don't you think?