Kansas Smoking Ban Booklet

Secondhand Smoke

and

Smoking Bans

__________

Is The Debate Really Over?

“Law-abiding business ownershave a right to operate their establishments free from thetyranny of government officialswho overstep their authorityand trample personal propertyrights, all while in pursuit of the extraction of fees.”

- 1851Center for Constitutional LawDirector, Maurice Thompson"

The Surgeon General's office takesthe award for disseminating widelythroughout the media the blatant liethat even brief exposure tosecondhand smoke can causecardiovascular disease and that inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke causes cancer."

- Dr.Michael Siegel"They have created a fear that is based onnothing.’’ - Dr. Philippe Even

Table of Contents, Why we Fight the Bans 1A Non-Smoking Doctor Opposed To Smoking Bans 2Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed 3Still Pooping In My Salad 4Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Are Just Smoke 6The Economic Losers From Smoking Bans 8The Air According to OSHA 13Huffing And Puffing 15Debunking Carmona's 2006 Surgeon General's Report 16Additional Reading 17Clearing the Air 18____________________________________________________________________________

Why we fight the bans

Well-meaning caretakers oftenuse scare tactics and propagandato discourage certain behavior bychildren. It's kind of understandable."You'll shoot your eye out!""That will stunt your growth!""Keep doing that and you’llgo blind!"To some degree these warnings are basedon exaggerations or downright lies propelledby wishes for what some see as appropriatesocial behavior.This is not, however, a good tactic to useon adults. Most of us know that a whiff of smoke does not cause anyone to fall over deadand that smoking does not automatically leadto lung cancer. We do know that throwingyour smoking customers out the door darnsure does cause business losses and closures.Perhaps the nannies have talked down tochildren so long that they don’t know how totalk eye-to-eye with adults. Perhaps they think lying to adults is the same as lying to kids, anappropriate way to accomplish what they seeas a greater good, an appropriateway to fulfill their agenda.This may work with someelected representatives – those whocannot or will not come to their own conclusions through searchingthe truth, but independent thinkers,including a growing number of elected representatives, are guidedby the discovery of truth and theyare rising up and shouting back against thepropaganda.True scientists follow a methodicalprocess to discover truth and discard falsenotions. Business owners make decisionsaffecting the security of themselves, their families and those on their payroll based onfacts, not wishes.Freedom-loving citizens know that their happiness can’t be bought with others’ stolenliberty.We do not appreciate lies, even for our own good. We want the truth, not propaganda.We want laws based on truth from unbiasedsources, not convenient lies and exaggerationsused to sell snake oil.

A non-smoking doctor opposed to smoking bans

A letter from a practicing physician and member of American Cancer Society

By Robert E. Madden, M.D

I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionateopponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based uponeconomic 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 pastpresident 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 tobaccosmoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) isvirtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even inbartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support theban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular productbased 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 thatenvironmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven butthere is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for ascientist 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 describedas a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hatesmoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections inrestaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those whochoose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronizeestablishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is todeny people of their rights.Respectfully, Robert E. Madden, M.D

Dr. Madden was contacted by Sheila Martin in preparation of this booklet. Dr. Maddenverified that he is the author of this letter and still holds the views expressed.