Clearing The Air

Saturday, April 29, 2006

Dr. Siegel condemns the tobacco control activists for their misinformation given during testimony before lawmakers to promote smoking bans

According to testimony given by the American Heart Association in support of a proposed smoke-free restaurant ordinance in Rochester, Minnesota: "When you leave a restaurant after dining...[tobacco smoke has] made your blood 'stickier' promoting blood clots."

The Minnesota Medical Association went so far as to include this fallacious health claim in its "Testimony Talking Points," which instructs anti-smoking advocates to testify that: "even brief exposure to secondhand smoke - just 30 minutes - increases hardening of the arteries, contributing to coronary heart disease."

The Rest of the Story
It is disturbing to me that inaccurate testimony is being given by anti-smoking groups in an effort to promote smoking bans. Although I have made it clear that I support most of these policies, I do not support the use of false scientific testimony to promote policy... read Dr Siegel's complete post here.

Dr. Siegel exposes the lies and deceipt being used by anti-smoking activists to force government policy change on small businesses. It's time for lawmakers to send these liars and charlatans packing. Especially now that a local government health department conducted AQ testing and determined secondhand smoke to be 500 - 15 times safer than OSHA workplace indoor air quality guidelines. And here the American Cancer Society air quality testing of secondhand smoke proved concentrations in smoking establishments are 532 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations.

Tuesday, April 25, 2006

Tobacco control activists discredit their own pro-smoking ban agenda

Ann Marwick, director of Pow'r Against Tobacco, an anti-smoking group that coordinates activities in Rockland, Westchester, Putnam and Orange counties, stated "A burning cigarette is more toxic to the people around it than it is to the person smoking it."

If you're on the (pro) free market side of the smoking ban debate.....you just can't buy better PR than that.

Thanks Ann for demonstrating the desperate measures your side is willing to sink to, it makes freedom of choice look like the more reasonable and honest solution.

Thursday, April 20, 2006

How to operate a successful multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical nicotine empire

1) Set up a "foundation" which has the outward appearance of "caring" for peoples' health.

2) Provide funding to innocuous non-profit organizations which have an interest in promulgating lies about secondhand smoke so that your pharmaceutical nicotine product sales increase after the passage of smoking ban legislation.

3) Teach retailers how to capitalize on new legislation which your pharmaceutical company funded.

4) Drink liberally at the end of the work day to ease your conscience of all the innocent people you put out of work due to your smoking ban lobbying efforts.

5) Finally, do fun stuff with all of the money you just made........buy an NFL franchise.

(for all you blog virgins click on the colored text for supporting data)

Sunday, April 09, 2006

Nicoderm marketing interests have been writing media op-ed letters. Additionally it appears that Nicoderm has a dubious connection with MPAAT.

Here are some excerpts from this RWJF grant designed to control the media. (RWJF owns 80,000,000 shares of Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson company):

Helped statewide coalitions develop op-ed pieces and letters to the editor that were timed to coincide with legislative campaigns to raise cigarette excise taxes.

Worked with grantees to help them understand the November 1998 $206 billion Master Settlement Agreement, and develop plans and strategies to secure funds from the settlement for state tobacco ...........control.

Developed training materials for grantees, including Media Plan Guidelines and a Proposed Tobacco Settlement Issues Review Paper.

RWJF selected the American Medical Association (AMA) as the national program office because it deemed that the AMA, the national membership organization for physicians, had the resources and credibility........

(The AMA) Was a large organization on the "right" side of the tobacco issue

Served as a liaison between SmokeLess States and other national organizations involved in tobacco control ........ The national program office worked with the Center for Tobacco-Free Kids, the AMA, the American Cancer Society, IMPACT, the National Cancer Institute's ASSIST program, the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health, American Legacy Foundation, American Lung Association, American Heart Association, the Advocacy Institute, National Institutes of Health, the National African American Tobacco Prevention Network and APPEAL. The national program office also reached out to state medical societies to encourage them to embrace tobacco-related issues and work with their statewide coalitions.

Authorized by the RWJF Board of Trustees in April 1993 for up to $10 million; re-authorized in April 1996 for up to $20 million, July 1998 for up to $6 million, and July 2000 for up to $52 million. Total authorizations were up to $88 million.

In addition, closer to home here in Minnesota, Nicoderm interests at RWJF had an in-house mole in our own MPAAT:

The first deputy director, Kathleen C. Harty, M.Ed., had spent many years working on tobacco-control issues at the Minnesota Department of Health and was a recipient of the Surgeon General's Medallion for her work in tobacco control. In February 1999, Harty left SmokeLess States (a RWJF program) to become executive director for the Minnesota Partnership for Action Against Tobacco (MPAAT), a nonprofit agency funded by the Minnesota tobacco settlement money.

The above paragraph highlights a serious conflict of interest between a private pharmaceutical nicotine company, its foundation (RWJF), and a supposedly unbiased MPAAT.

Read the above excerpts directly from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) website here. (found under appendix 1)

Monday, April 03, 2006

Dr. Siegel points out that 25 activist groups are making more false scientific claims regarding secondhand smoke

It tells me that these groups are getting desperate......desperate enough to spread more lies about secondhand smoke than ever before.

Read his post here.

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Financial ties between the anti-smoking activists and pharmaceutical nicotine interests

Since readers continue to ask, "……is there, per chance, any kind of relationship between, let's see, ACS, ALA, AHA, ANR and Glaxo Smith Kline.... or Johnson & Johnson Co. for instances?"

I have detailed and provided links in the past to show there IS a financial relationship between anti-smoking activists and pharmaceutical nicotine interests...it is the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF).

$99 mil from Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to the American Lung Association, American Cancer Society, American Heart Association:

http://www.rwjf.org/pr/product.jsp?id=14912

$1.5 mil from RWJF to American Non-Smoker’s Rights:

http://www.rwjf.org/programareas/grant.jsp?pid=1141&id=57556

Manufacturer of Nicoderm & Nicoderm CQ is ALZA: (check the box, manufactured by ALZA, distributed by GSK)

http://www.data-yard.net/infocoalition/alza2.htm

ALZA is owned by Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical company:

http://www.data-yard.net/infocoalition/alza1.htm (ALZA / Johnson & Johnson removed their website, backup is from previous ALZA website)

RWJF owns 80 million plus shares of J & J:

Check out RWJF financials here on page 8 of this pdf file

And by the way the financial interests of the pharmaceutical nicotine companies even extends to medical "studies" to influence lawmakers to take a pro-smoking ban stance.

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/037549.htm?gsa=1#int_grantinfo

http://www.rwjf.org/programareas/grantlist.jsp?pid=1141&page=6

http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/041522.htm#contents

http://www.rwjf.org/programareas/grantlist.jsp?pid=1141&page=7

So readers can stop asking: Is there a connection between these radical anti-tobacco groups and pharmaceutical nicotine (Nicoderm) companies?...The answer is a RESOUNDING YES!

Are we naive enough to think that just because lawmakers pass smoking bans people are going to obey them?

Smoking bans are not about health, since Clearing the Air readers know about the environmental health department air quality testing which proved secondhand smoke levels in bars and restaurants are 500-15 times safer than OSHA guidelines. So they (smoking bans) must be an effort to socially engineer the general population to adhere to a strict tobacco prohibition.....however, we know what Americans thought about prohibition then and the new resurgence, ie. smoking bans, are not likely to fare any better.

In fact here's a recent law breaker in our midst......oh my, how ghastly.

Which reminds me, because the politically correct media only reports when a smoking ban passes, we at Clearing the Air thought we would report the recent smoking bans that failed. The failed smoking ban attempts can be found here.

So take heart freedom loving Americans and business owners, prohibition didn't last in the 1920's......and it is certainly not a done deal now.....no matter how many laws politicians try to pass.

And of course, the fact that lobbying efforts toward smoking bans are almost exclusively financed by pharmaceutical nicotine interests also doesn't help their cause.

An insider exposes the tobacco control movement...

A commentator and tobacco control activist from another weblog provided some insight into the questionable industry that is tobacco control. Story here.

Saturday, April 01, 2006

When does an issue rise to a level of health hazard requiring government action?

I think if someone is going to goto lawmakers and claim we need a law for x,y, or z because x,y, or z is a health hazard. Then the initial hurdle ought to be to first prove that x,y, or z is a health hazard. And OSHA standards ought to be the gauge if the argument is that we need to protect employees' health....because OSHA is the agency that protects employee health regarding every potentially hazardous workplace situation.

If actual x,y, or z levels are below OSHA guidelines ie. safer than OSHA guidelines, then no organization has the right to bring that particular issue before lawmakers to demand an ordinance or legislation.

And in the case of secondhand smoke the ALA, ACS, AHA, AMA, ANR, ASH, etc. etc. and anyone else that recieved Nicoderm funding thru RWJF would be driven out of city hall & state capitols for wasting lawmakers' time on an issue which clearly does not rise to health hazard levels.....and only serves to financially benefit the pharmaceutical nicotine industry which funded such efforts. SLP/OSHA data proved secondhand smoke conentrations indoors are 500-15 times safer than OSHA regulations.

Columnist Craig Westover has another well thought out criteria for determining when an issue rises to a level of health hazard which then requires government action....but I will have to search for that later.

Also visit our sponsors at bottom of webpage

Boycott these special interests (J & J) who destroyed the hospitality industry & jobs

Why does UCSF researcher Stanton Glantz support smoking bans?

The beginning of a revolution

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

Statcounter