If anti-smoking groups were communicating their messages effectively they wouldn't need to spread lies about secondhand smoke to promote smoking bansDr. Siegel's latest online article almost gets the rest of the story right:
This column should summon the warning bell for all tobacco control groups. It should alert these groups that the anti-smoking crusade is pushing people too far and that if unrestrained, it will lead to the abuse of personal freedoms, rights, privacy, and autonomy.
If anti-smoking groups were communicating their messages effectively (or perhaps I should say: if anti-smoking groups were communicating the most appropriate messages), then I truly don't believe that a prominent newspaper like the Herald-Sun would be running a column like this without editing it for such offensive material.
The key phrase is:
If anti-smoking groups were communicating their messages effectively..........then (the rest of the story should read) there would be no need to promote the lies they espouse to promote smoking bans.
Lies because each and every smoking ban claims that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard. However, numerous pro-smoking ban groups conducted air quality testing in smoking allowed bars and restaurants and the test results have determined that secondhand smoke levels are 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA established workplace air quality regulations.
The St. Louis Park, MN. Environmental Health Department test results prove secondhand smoke levels are 15.4 - 500 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.
The American Cancer Society test results prove secondhand smoke levels are 532 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.
British Medical Journal published and peer reviewed test results prove secondhand smoke levels are 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.
Johns Hopkins / American Cancer Society published and peer reviewed test results prove secondhand smoke levels are 29.6 - 238 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.
Look, I've said it numerous times before; getting smokers to quit voluntarily is a noble cause when it was conducted through voluntary education and marketing. Smoking bans on the other hand are coercive, collusive, and frankly bordering on racketeering in my opinion. No company or organization should be able to use the force of government (smoking bans) to sell their products. Yet time and time again, it seems clear that this is the modus operandi of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Johnson & Johnson Company.
So Dr. Siegel, if you're truly interested in reporting The Rest of the Story, it is that smoking bans are an unnecessary intrusion of personal freedoms, rights, privacy, and autonomy. Secondhand smoke IS NOT a workplace health hazard as per Occupational Safety & Health Administration regulations.