Smoking ban ignites civil rights conc...

Smoking ban ignites civil rights concerns

There are 9 comments on the Daily Iowegian story from Jul 7, 2008, titled Smoking ban ignites civil rights concerns. In it, Daily Iowegian reports that:

Smokers at Gordie's Bar and Grill in Centerville, enjoyed one last legal cigarette just before midnight, Monday, when the new smoking ban went into effect.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Daily Iowegian.


Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#1 Jul 7, 2008
Willa Parks, who doesn’t smoke, said she doesn’t need a law in place making decisions for her.“I decide if I’m going to be around smoke or not,” she said.“No one else has the right to make that decision for me, or anyone else.”

She said she’s concerned about the ban because it’s a civil rights issue.“This is an example of the government getting way too much authority,” she said.“Our free speech is already gone. We don’t have any privacy in our lives. Now this. I don’t feel like we’re living in a free country anymore.”

Rhonda Foster said she agrees with Parks.“This smoking ban is just another right taken away. I should have the right to come in here and have a cigarette if I want to. If other people don’t want to be around the smoke then they should have the right to go someplace else.”

Apache Clark said he is fed up with the government taking away the rights of working people.“I work 10 hours a day working horses,” he said.“When I’m off, I come here to relax, have a beer and a smoke. Now they tell me I can’t do that? And, they say they’ll even bust me if I’m out on the sidewalk smoking? We all need to wake up.”
Votes Count

Cresco, IA

#2 Dec 24, 2008
Make sure NOT to vote for this Governor ever again!!
This is NOT Russia, but He thinks it is!


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#3 Dec 25, 2008
Votes Count wrote:
Make sure NOT to vote for this Governor ever again!!
This is NOT Russia, but He thinks it is!
your a communist..........what part of private property dont you dont like it go some where still have a choise.Just remember when you push an agenda to far it always backfires and the complete reverse happens........thats the way alcohol control went in prohibition........they also had tobacco control back in prohibition and you can see how that failed miserably. repeal and let the people be free again or face the consequences of the 1920s and 30s all over again,it will get that bad.


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#4 Dec 25, 2008

Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger
Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.

Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.

Federal Government Reports

A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.

In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.

Flawed Assumptions

EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.

For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.

But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#5 Dec 25, 2008
Low Statistical Association

Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.

One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk. Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.

For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.

Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.

Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.

EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.

Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data.... In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association.... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."

The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#6 Dec 25, 2008
Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.

In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.

The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr.( is a pulmonologist who lives in Helvetia, West Virginia.

For more information ...

James E. Enstrom and Geoffrey C. Kabat, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98," British Medical Journal, May 2003: .

Air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:

All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.
US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...

A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.

So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#7 Dec 25, 2008

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke."

OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.

Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.
-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."
-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.

Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs.

The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:


"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS.

"We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples.

"For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold.

"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required.

"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.

"At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger.

"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?

"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible.

"It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."


Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#8 Dec 25, 2008
Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH).

Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.

Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.

Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:

"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level...

Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking,[it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.

As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."
-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:

"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts")--not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.
Just a parking ticket

United States

#9 Jan 12, 2009
When the “Coal Miner’s Daughter” Beverly Perdue took the North Carolina oath again and pledged to uphold the laws of North Carolina in front of President Pro Tem Marc Basnight and all of North Carolina was on a cool January Day. But Beverly Perdue’s knees were not shaking from the chill of a 7 knot breeze; it was because things were falling apart fast at the PCS Mine Site.
As it turns out, as Beverly Perdue was bragging about her roots as coal miner’s daughter and the millions of dollars her Father made from mining in her acceptance speech. She too has also benefited from mining, but not coal mining Phosphate Mining particularly the PCS Mine in Aurora , N.C. that she can almost see out her New Bern back door.
Both Sen. Beverly Perdue and Sen. Marc Basnight have been supporters of the PCS Mine for a long time. While Sen. Basnight had no ties to Mining, his family roots go back to his ex father in law was in the waste disposal business.
Major NC State and Federal investigations now concentrate on the illegal 5 million dollar a year payments from PCS/Texas Gulf Mine to the North Carolina Clean Water Trust Fund.
Sen. Basnight District has been used a hush money to spread around the Environmental Community to look busy and create window dressing that somebody is watching, and create cover for PCS to continue to operate without objections.
From inception the Clean Water Trust Fund has been accused as being a Slush Fund. Even to the point that a button was placed on Sen. Beverly Perdue’s desk in a political ad representing the Clean Water Trust Fund along with the North Carolina Rural Center also controlled by the pair.
Many of the projects like Bay River Sewage/River Dunes in Beverly Perdue’s District and the Sewer projects at Stumpy Point, Engelhard, and Pantego in Sen. Basnight District have been and are under investigation by the North Carolina State Auditors Office and other North Carolina State and Federal Agencies.
While Gov. Beverly Perdue, and Sen. Basnight have had the benefit of the “Clean Water Slush Fund “ as appropriately named by Rep. R L Clark and Rep. Fern Shubert from the beginning.
Sen. Basnight’s ties to the Solid Waste Industry and Sludge Dumping Industries, and Gov. Beverly Perdue’s loyalty to the mining industry has now created an out of control by design illegal waste depository site that stealing 78 million gallons per day from the United States Land Trust and is killing people by the thousands in North Carolina and Virginia.
Just as Gov. Beverly Perdue has promoted PCS to see how much damage the foreign company can do by increasing the size of the mine and the length term that PCS can illegally operate in North Carolina .
Sen. Basnight’s contacts in the Solid Waste and Sludge Disposal Business, and Public reports indicate Gov. Perdue and Sen. Basnight’s have conspired to make PCS a hand off project. This has enabled PCS to dump 5 times the amount of Toxic contaminates.
The scope of the dumping is gigantic, with whole train car loads of toxic waste from who knows where, being dumped back in the largest excavation site on the East Coast and buried. The train car loads disappear like a child’s matchbox toy on the beach.
The pumping at PCS Aurora Site needs to stop immediately, and all asset of PCS need to be seized to protect the Taxpayers of United States of America and the Taxpayers of North Carolina until evidence can be presented in the Glenn Hockney/ Hyde County 500 million dollars law suit against PCS is heard before Judge Britt in Federal Court in Greenville, N.C.
Please report details.
Charles W. Stuber Jr. Special Agent Federal Bureau of Investigation Capital Center Dr. Suite 460 Raleigh, N.C. 27626
M.Dale Swiggett The Redneck Environmentalist Publisher and Editor Waterfront Sportsman Magazine

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Centerville Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Seduce my wife (Nov '16) May '17 deadhead 5
Info on Sherry Osborne (Apr '17) Apr '17 Glow Worm 1
Josh and Melissa McIntire (Feb '17) Apr '17 That girl 8
Gary Ruchti (Apr '15) Mar '17 sally 2
Banned from reporting abuse on Topix (May '16) Mar '17 sally 2
I think I'm in love....... (Aug '16) Mar '17 love hurts 2
News City Council again looking at banning pitbulls (Apr '07) Nov '14 ffhhdfd34 14

Centerville Jobs

Personal Finance

Centerville Mortgages