Saturday, May 28, 2005

Deceptive tactics funded by taxpayer dollars.... now most Minnesotans have heard the outright lying radio ads which state every year 38,000 people die from secondhand smoke. Well even our own Lung Assoc. backs away from that false statement. In a comment from an earlier post, a reader took the Lung Assoc. to task for advertising those false claims, Bob from Am. Lung was quick to distance themselves from those ads saying their organization wasn't responsible. When businesses show up to testify against smoking ban legislation they always ask their opponents one question, " us one death certificate that proves even one person died of secondhand smoke....."...the room falls silent, and the anti-smoking activists never respond.

Well, an insider tells me that the source of those ads is none other than taxpayer funded MPAAT. Oddly enough, even a biased non-profit organization like Am. Lung wouldn't make such a blatantly false claim, but an out of control, irresponsible Mn. tax-funded department will. I'll say again what many of our top MN. politicians have already publicly stated, MPAAT needs to be disbanded. They were funded by a small percentage of the tobacco awards, to educate youth and smokers interested in quitting. They were not awarded money to spread lies and pay for smoking ban legislation.

The state legislators tabled the smoking ban legislation for two reasons:
1) the deceptive practices of the out of control MPAAT tactics, and
2) the St. Louis Park health department study which showed secondhand smoke is actually 150 times lower (safer than) OSHA permissible exposure limits. When will MPAAT learn that they are doing more to impede a statewide smoking ban than anybody else? I hope never.

By the way, I think the radio stations airing those ads, should also air the facts about the St. Louis Park Environmental Health Department test results regarding secondhand smoke. If they are going to air MN. taxpayer funded lies, they also ought to air environmental health department facts and their comparison to OSHA guidelines.

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage
  • Why a Non-Smoker Fights the Pro-Smoking Ban Lies
  • Is RWJF, a 501(c)3, violating IRS rules by funding pro-smoking ban lobbyists?
  • RWJF funds and promotes universal healthcare policies which are the basis for and primary objective of Obamacare
  • Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs
  • Is the smoking ban movement fueled by pharmaceutical nicotine interests?
  • Now that smoking bans have been implemented, what can be done?
  • How do smoking ban lobbyists profit from smoking bans?
  • Pharmaceutical interests project the alternative nicotine marketplace to be $4.6 billion +
  • WHO report secondhand smoke doesn't cause cancer
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? NO
  • Do smoker's cost society more money than non-smoker's? Part 2
  • Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?
  • OSHA standards prove SHS is not a health hazard
  • Tired of the nanny-state, big, socialized, corrupt, government legislation coming out of our state and federal capitols these days? Vote Republican in November 2010 & 2012

    Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11


    "Though we may not be able to protect your business property rights, we certainly support your Second Amendment Rights"

    Shop for Aircleaners

    Combustion Engine Emissions Eliminator (CE3)