Man loses round in smoking ban fight

Full story: KOB.com Eyewitness News 4 - New Mexico

Stephen Brown was so opposed to New Mexico's ban on smoking in public places that he got himself cited for lighting up in a Catron County bar just minutes after the new law took effect.
Comments
1 - 20 of 75 Comments Last updated Sep 29, 2008
First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Dogwatch

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Such a baby
shirley

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

1

Funny, isn't it? We allow the sale of a toxic poison, alcohol, to anyone 21 year old or more, yet a cigar or pipe is banned from the same bar or tavern?
confederate1978

Portland, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

2

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...

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.
confederate1978

Portland, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

1

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.

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.
confederate1978

Portland, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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.

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.(jerry.arnett@gmail.com) 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: http://www.heartland.org/article.cfm... .

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:
Mr Clean

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

4

2

1

shirley wrote:
Funny, isn't it? We allow the sale of a toxic poison, alcohol, to anyone 21 year old or more, yet a cigar or pipe is banned from the same bar or tavern?
I don't see your humor. Most everything has toxity, even water in the right amount. While I don't support his cause, why bring up alcohol as issue here? Bring it up in a seperate forum.
Dogwatch

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Confederate, you're a nuisance. Like a fly. Go away. New Mexico doesn't need input from Tennessee
AStar

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Hey, look everybody!
It's Doctor Jerome Arnett, Jr., con-artist clown of the tobacco industry!
Wow! Arnett's the flim-flam artist recommended by well-known druggie and liar Rush Limbaugh!!
Now, don't believe those hundreds of studies conducted around the world that have confirmed the fatal effects of second-hand smoke! What do all those snobs know about cancer, anyway?

Since: Apr 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Good to know more and more places are enforcing a smoking ban. That stuff is disgusting.

Next on the list: Ban the sale of smokes.
marge

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

2

2

the clean air act here in new mexico
was written by the late dee johnson
and her goon squad.
when it passed,
queen marty i mean king marty
decided to add to it and try to
take cerdit for no smoking on
city proptery includeing the airport
funny thing the airport is run by the city but owned by the gov and reg by the faa.
now the queen imean the king of
mean is trying to tell us what he thinks we should buy out of snack machines putting blind people out of work.
what you fools need to do when the next election comes up wither its
for city mayor or gov and marty runs for eather one is find some one
that aint afraid of the nut bag and run agenist him and do what harry calahand would do. whats that you ask?
prosecute him with his own system and get rid of the parasite.
Mr Clean

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

1

1

I want to thank the State of NM in when they allocated money to a program in helping smokers quit. In part it helped me. However, in the middle of the program it was shut down because the funds were diverted to other programs and who knows where else. Remember when the tobacco companies were sued and that money was to help people quit? Just a fraction was allocated. I'm so proud of our federal & state govenment in that they look after our best interest.
ClusterF

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

KenGuy wrote:
Good to know more and more places are enforcing a smoking ban. That stuff is disgusting.
Next on the list: Ban the sale of smokes.
I think they should extend the smoking ban to diesel powered vehicles. Those fumes have got to be poisonous. Sure, big trucks have to use diesel, but pickups and passenger cars sure don't.

“Valkyrie”

Since: Feb 08

Alamogordo

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Cigarettes are legal. If they want to outlaw them, they should make it illegal to grow tobacco (will never happen) and to manufacture cigarettes.

How can they ban something that is LEGAL??

Since: Aug 08

Golden Valley,Az.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Dogwatch wrote:
Confederate, you're a nuisance. Like a fly. Go away. New Mexico doesn't need input from Tennessee
Can't handle the facts.
Remo Williams

Los Lunas, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Only two things really cause cancer..........
Life and overexposed white mice.
We all die.......... of something.

“Old Sailors Never Die.”

Since: Aug 08

Land of The Brave

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

3

3

2

ClusterF wrote:
<quoted text>
I think they should extend the smoking ban to diesel powered vehicles. Those fumes have got to be poisonous. Sure, big trucks have to use diesel, but pickups and passenger cars sure don't.
And while we are at it we need to ban f*rting in public places. After a good bowl of beans and chili that smells worse than any cigarette I ever lit up. Then we can ban coal, which is used to generate over 60% of our electricity, so the silly little electric cars people are buying now will have no way to get charged up.

Since we have a large agricultural base here we need to send task forces to all corners of the state with large hammers and corks to stop all the livestock from polluting our air with methane gas.

I think we should ban sewage treatment plants. The effluent, cleaned up water, that comes out of these things are used to water golf courses, the largest waste of water and real estate known to man. Lets all use outhouses instead. Wait a minute!! We already have a ban on outhouses! Crap, I guess we are stuck.

You see what I am getting at folks? We don't need the government telling us how we are supposed to live our lives. If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't come to my house. If I am at your house I will not smoke in it. It's the same for private businesses. If they allow smoking, don't patronize the place. Go to another bar, restaurant or whatever that does not allow smoking. If you keep going to a place that serves watered down drinks or sorry food, it's your own fault, not the business owner. But, does that give you the right to ban the business or force it to close?

It's all about Big Brotherism. We do not need government telling private individuals how to run their private business. All it takes is ten cents worth of paper, a magic marker and scotch tape to hold it up. Smoking allowed or no smoking allowed. It's that simple. But, nobody in government, or many in business, can figure it out.

“Valkyrie”

Since: Feb 08

Alamogordo

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Whisky River Crabb wrote:
<quoted text>
And while we are at it we need to ban f*rting in public places. After a good bowl of beans and chili that smells worse than any cigarette I ever lit up. Then we can ban coal, which is used to generate over 60% of our electricity, so the silly little electric cars people are buying now will have no way to get charged up.
Since we have a large agricultural base here we need to send task forces to all corners of the state with large hammers and corks to stop all the livestock from polluting our air with methane gas.
I think we should ban sewage treatment plants. The effluent, cleaned up water, that comes out of these things are used to water golf courses, the largest waste of water and real estate known to man. Lets all use outhouses instead. Wait a minute!! We already have a ban on outhouses! Crap, I guess we are stuck.
You see what I am getting at folks? We don't need the government telling us how we are supposed to live our lives. If you don't like cigarette smoke, don't come to my house. If I am at your house I will not smoke in it. It's the same for private businesses. If they allow smoking, don't patronize the place. Go to another bar, restaurant or whatever that does not allow smoking. If you keep going to a place that serves watered down drinks or sorry food, it's your own fault, not the business owner. But, does that give you the right to ban the business or force it to close?
It's all about Big Brotherism. We do not need government telling private individuals how to run their private business. All it takes is ten cents worth of paper, a magic marker and scotch tape to hold it up. Smoking allowed or no smoking allowed. It's that simple. But, nobody in government, or many in business, can figure it out.
AMEN!

“Old Sailors Never Die.”

Since: Aug 08

Land of The Brave

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 25, 2008
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Remo said it.

I think I will pour myself 2 fingers of sippin'whisky, light up a cheap, reservation made cigarette and relax.
confederate1978

Portland, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Sep 26, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mr Clean wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't see your humor. Most everything has toxity, even water in the right amount. While I don't support his cause, why bring up alcohol as issue here? Bring it up in a seperate forum.
you sir,have bought the entire anti-smoking agenda propaganda hook line and sinker. I suppose you like to drink on occassion,you know your favorite watering hole maybe..........well they kicked out the smokers and thats not all they want..........robert wood johnson foundation is behind the bans along with much of the biased and psudo-medical community........well heres one for the drinkers out there.

NOTICE THEIR AFTER ALCOHOL TOOOOOOOOOO.

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/RWJfoundation.htm ...

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has created a nation-wide network of temperance-oriented groups and individuals and has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into supporting the anti-alcohol agenda and activties of that network. For more, visit Robert Wood Johnson Foundation: Financier of Temperance.

http://www.alcoholfacts.org/index.html

Behind the Neo-Prohibition Campaign

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
By: Dan Mindus

America’s anti-alcohol movement is composed of dozens of overlapping community groups, research institutions, and advocacy organizations, but they are brought together and given direction by one entity: the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF). Based in Princeton, New Jersey, the RWJF has spent more than $265 million between 1997 and 2002 to tax, vilify, and restrict access to alcoholic beverages. Nearly every study disparaging alcohol in the mass media, every legislative push to limit marketing or increase taxes, and every supposedly “grassroots” anti-alcohol movement was conceived and coordinated at the RWJF’s headquarters. Thanks to this one foundation, the U.S. anti-alcohol movement speaks with one voice.

http://www.consumerfreedom.com/article_detail ...

now after you get alcohol prohibition too,whata ya gonna say when I told you their comming after you too..........
Yosemiti Sam

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Sep 26, 2008
 

Judged:

1

1

1

They are second class citizens! Their rights shouldn't trump those of us who prefer to breath clean air!!! &Y%%*%*

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 4
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Reserve Discussions

Search the Reserve Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
NM, Arizona senators on wildfire tour Jun '14 Mary 1
NM Republican Martinez claims NM governor's seat (Nov '10) May '14 kyle richards 232
1,200 firefighters battle record New Mexico blaze (Jun '12) Jun '12 non-resident trapper 6
Smoke shifts directions from Gila fire (May '12) Jun '12 non-resident trapper 5
Only two utilize Red Cross services (Jun '11) Jun '12 non-resident trapper 5
Record-Setting N.M. Fire Expected to Burn for W... (Jun '12) Jun '12 non-resident trapper 2
Locals among 19 county manager candidates (Sep '11) Sep '11 yucko 4
•••
•••
•••
•••

Reserve Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Reserve People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Reserve News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Reserve
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••