Monday, April 30, 2007

The Minneapolis Star Tribune gives final instructions to lawmakers.....the puppets seem eager to heed their master

The Minneapolis Star Tribune published this editorial instructing lawmakers on how to finally pass a statewide smoking ban.

A smoking ban - without loopholesLawmakers shouldn't falter in final phase.

Published on April 30, 2007, -->

You have to marvel at the tenacity, brio and sheer creativity with which pro-tobacco forces have fought the statewide indoor smoking ban that Minnesotans desperately want. Last Thursday, as the House debated clean-indoor-air legislation, pro-smoking lawmakers staged an eight-hour marathon that involved more than two dozen amendments and culminated in a rhetorical tour de force when Rep. Tom Rukavina, DFL-Virginia, insisted that today's indoor ventilation systems are so powerful that....(available to purchase, StarTribune has removed above hyperlink)

The instructional manifesto then goes on to cite the local propagandist ministry of lies, which we know as MPAAT, (now ClearWay MN):

But a recent study by ClearWay Minnesota, a local nonprofit, found that county and city smoking bans passed in 2004 did not hurt sales or employment at eating and drinking establishments.

Yet, the truth is that MPAAT / ClearWay MN published data which shows that smoking bans eliminate business in 7 out of 10 hospitality establishments, as this table from ClearWay MN, which counted customers before and after smoking bans were enacted, shows:


And apparently their "study" conveniently overlooked these 110 local establishments which closed their doors due to business losses from city and county smoking bans. Furthermore, MPAAT seems to think that they can hide the fact that 3,000+ jobs were also eliminated in those same bar & restaurant closings.

The statewide smoking ban was clearly local partisan politics as usual......with a DFL pro big government, state control of every aspect of your life agenda. And of course, the local propagandist media (Star Tribune) cheer leading that state control agenda to the very end.

But even if this poorly thought out legislation does pass, watch for a lawsuit to challenge the unequal protection under the law.

Prohibitory law does apply to tribal reservations, even though DFL leadership carefully crafted this law specifically to exempt their campaign contributing "friends" at the casinos.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/03/if-minnesota-state-lawmakers-do-pass.html

Thursday, April 26, 2007

The British Medical Journal published air quality test results which measured secondhand smoke levels.....

But the BMJ failed to report what those test results really mean.

Here are the those results, and how they compare to workplace air quality safety standards.

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html

Saturday, April 21, 2007

EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW?



Welding smoke is far more hazardous than secondhand smoke. And air quality testing shows that welding smoke is regulated to safety standards by OSHA, so lawmakers allow OSHA do do its job rather than ban welding smoke.


Secondhand smoke on the other hand, though proven to be 15 – 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality regulations, requires government intervention (smoking bans) according to paid activists and some lawmakers. British Medical Journal published air quality test result proves secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA workplace air quality standards…….This double standard however, and the air quality testing link here prove that a special interest agenda might be the real motive behind the demand for bans.

Otherwise, if health were the real concern we would show some consistency, either by allowing workplace air quality regulations in our bars and restaurants.......or by imposing a ban on all other potential workplace air quality hazards.

Also see: Rent Seeking Legislation

(Ventilation equipment is allowed in the industrial workplace to remove welding smoke, why not in the hospitality workplace to remove tobacco smoke? The fact that Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, money via RWJF is used to finance smoking ban lobbyists is the likely reason......it's all about making money not concern for health)

Friday, April 20, 2007

Dutch lawmaker states that even if cigarette smoking is banned, marijuana smoking in establishments will continue

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSL1954429320070419

The reason that smoking ban lobbyists are OK with this hypocrisy is because Johnson & Johnson Company, the parent company of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation; which funds all of the smoking ban efforts; sells alternative nicotine products......not alternative cannabis products.

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Scotland's smoking ban has caused a loss of £100million in beer sales after just one year

Story here:

Paul Waterson, chief executive of the Scottish Licensed Trade Association, said up to £100m(million) has been lost in beer sales since the pub smoking ban came into effect.

Graham Page, of market analysts AC Nielsen, which conducted the research, said: "We didn't begin to see the real effects of the smoking ban until September."

None of this is news to Clearing the Air, nor the thousands of U. S. hospitality establishments (and tens of thousands of employees) who are experiencing the same revenue losses caused by smoking bans.

Lawmakers need to wake up to the devastating economic crisis triggered by smoking bans and the real motive for these bans.

Private property business owners should make this free market decision on their own........not government nor pharmaceutical nicotine special interests.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Property owners should decide logo



I found this graphic online here of all places.
I'm not sure who the creator is but I like the simplicity of the message.


Update: The Smoking Lobby Forum contacted us to let Clearing the Air readers know that they.....specifically Gregory created the logo above......good job.

Bumper stickers and signs should be coming out soon.....?

Sunday, April 15, 2007

Judge rules that smoking ban is unconstitutional

The full story is here.

Excerpt:

The status of the statewide smoking ban is unclear after an Adams County district judge declared the law unconstitutional. ..........although other courts can use it as guidance.

District Judge Robert Doyle said the ban is unconstitutional because it exempts cigar bars.

"There's really no reason to make a differentiation between a smoking bar, a regular bar, a smoking lounge and cigar bars," said Michael Martin, the lawyer for Oasis.

The inference then is that the smoking ban violated the equal protection under the law amendment.

The bigger picture and most likely challenge will be to any smoking ban where any exemption is made......tribal casinos here in Minnesota come to mind, they are exempted from a proposed statewide smoking ban here. But as I explained in an earlier posting, they cannot be exempt especially in light of this Minnesota Senate ruling.

I welcome bringing the tribal casinos into the debate......for they have the money to fend off the smoking ban lobby. And better yet.....the DFL leadership here in Minnesota is loathe to enact a ban if the tribal casinos are affected.

We'll pay close attention to this new method of reversing smoking ban laws.......

Saturday, April 14, 2007

Quitting smoking is not always the best advice......especially if your new crutch is Chantix

An acquaintance writes about his success in quitting smoking.......though the health effect outcome was less than desirable.

....So I quit smoking using a new drug by the name of "Chantix"; the stuff blocks the nicotine receptors in the brain, not sure how it works...So late last week I started getting thirsty. .......Then it started getting worse, I would wake up in the night to go, and thirstier than I've ever been in my life, my mouth was so dry I started getting sores on my tongue.....decided to call the nurse "on call". After telling her the symptoms she said come into the ER now. I mean NOW...."

.....sounds like high blood sugar......."So what is normal then” and she says "80 to 140". "So what is my number?” I asked again, and she answers "Um I'm not sure" Frustrated I ask, "What does the damn machine read?" I don't know, this machine only goes to 500, then it just blinks, critically high ... critically high.....

.....They run all the tests to be sure, but yup, I'm a diabetic now.......

According to this website reporting the side effects of Chantix comes this ominous warning:

Following is a list of treatment-emergent adverse events reported by patients treated with CHANTIX during all clinical trials

......METABOLISM AND NUTRITION DISORDERS. Infrequent: Diabetes mellitus, Hyperlipidemia, Hypokalemia. Rare: Hyperkalemia, Hypoglycemia......

Coincidence????........

Hopefully for Sequel, the negative side effects of Chantix are temporary......I know if I had to chose, I'd take smoking over diabetes.......but that's just me.

World Health Organization Report - "Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer"

"Passive" has also come to be known as "secondhand smoke"

The story is found online here:

Telegraph article copy

Democratic leadership in MN love smoking bans and taxes.....lots and lots of taxes



Even though Minnesota has a $2 billion+ surplus.

Taxapalooza......be sure to watch the video.......

http://www.taxapalooza.com/

Friday, April 13, 2007

Smoking bans reduce tobacco use and sales right?

That's what the pro-smoking ban lobbyists and lawmakers tell us over and over.......Why should we doubt them?.......Here's why, because once again they're wrong.

Secondhand smoke is not a hazard as indicated from BMJ published air quality tests results:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/another-bmj-published-air-quality-test.html

And according to revenue data cigarette sales are on the increase:

MASSACHUSETTS (WWLP) A study by the campaign for tobacco-free kids shows a 3.2 percent increase in cigarette sales.

And yes, smoking is banned statewide in Massachusetts bars and restaurants, but as you can see neither an increase in tobacco taxes nor smoking bans decrease cigarette sales.......in fact they both increase sales.

When will politicians stop believing these pharmaceutical nicotine funded activists whose real motive seems to be hundreds of millions of dollars in special interest RWJF / Nicoderm funding....not your health.......nor a decrease tobacco sales.

Thursday, April 12, 2007

As a society should we support the use of fraudulent science in order to arrive at a desired agenda?

Walter E. Williams writes:

The EPA claimed that 3,000 Americans die annually from secondhand smoke, but there was a problem. They couldn’t come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study’s confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths.

The Congressional Research Service said, “Admittedly, it is unusual to return to a study after the fact, lower the required significance level, and declare its results to be supportive rather than unsupportive of the effect one’s theory suggests should be present.” The CRS was being kind. This kind of doctoring of research results would get a graduate student expelled from a university.

In 1998, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer released the largest-ever and best-formulated study on ETS. The research project ran for 10 years and in seven European countries. The study, not widely publicized, concluded that no statistically significant risk existed for nonsmokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

During the late `90s, at a Washington affair, I had the occasion to be in the presence of an FDA official. I asked him whether he would approve of pharmaceutical companies employing EPA’s statistical techniques in their testing of drug effectiveness and safety. He answered no. I ask my fellow Americans who are nonsmokers: Do you support the use of fraudulent science in your efforts to eliminate tobacco smoke nuisance in bars, restaurants, workplaces and hotels?

You say, “Okay, Williams, the science is bogus, but how do we nonsmokers cope with the nuisance of tobacco smoke?” My answer is that it all depends on whether you prefer liberty-oriented solutions to problems or those that are more tyranny-oriented.


Which leads me to ask the obvious question:

Or should society use science to test a hypothesis......and then report the facts.......whether the results support the agenda or not?

I submit to you that the latter method is the proper manner to implement public policy.

It is clear that the pro-smoking ban lobby is not interested in facts nor science........I would however, hope that lawmakers would show some interest in the proper manner and role of science to determine public policy......it doesn't look good though.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Another BMJ published air quality test measuring for secondhand smoke, co-authored by James Repace, shows no hazard

This air quality testing of secondhand smoke concentrations is published in the British Medical Journal and is co-authored by none other than pro-smoking ban activist James Repace.

The problem for these authors is that they didn't stop to analyze what the airborne nicotine readings they obtained meant.

Their results as published, cited, and peer reviewed in the BMJ are as follows:

There was an 83% reduction in air nicotine concentrations from median 35.5 µg (microgram) /m3 to 5.95 µg (microgram)/m3 (p <>
At baseline, three bars (16%) were below the 6.8 µg (microgram)/m3 air nicotine .......... at follow up this increased to 10 (microgram) (53%).

Again, reminding readers that OSHA has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for airborne nicotine of 0.5 milligrams (mg) / m3. (0.5 mg (milligram)/m3 = 500 ug (micrograms) /m3). OSHA PEL's are the safe acceptable level of exposure for an 8 hour day / 40 hour per week time period.

So 500 ug divided by 35.5 ug = 14.08 times SAFER than OSHA regulations

And 500 ug divided by 5.95 ug = 84.03 times SAFER than OSHA regulations

While 500 ug divided by 10 ug = 50 times SAFER than OSHA regulations

Thus once again, air quality testing of secondhand smoke concentrations proves that secondhand smoke IS NOT a health hazard.

Thank you Mr Repace, BMJ and others for making my point over and over. Science is certainly not on the side of the pro-smoking ban movement.

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

New way to reverse the smoking bans in your local city, county, or state

On the Bob Davis show this morning Dr. Levy from the CATO Institute was the featured guest.

I called in to ask the following question:

"If secondhand smoke levels were found to be safer than OSHA levels......wouldn't that nullify the entire issue?"

Dr. Levy's response was that if secondhand smoke was proven to be safer than OSHA permissible exposure limits (PEL) it may pre-empt all smoking bans......because a federal agency's regulatory authority (OSHA) would supersede state, county, and municipal smoking bans.

Proof that that secondhand smoke IS safer than OSHA regulations has been confirmed in multiple studies.....one is even peer reviewed and published in the British Medical Journal:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/04/bmj-published-air-quality-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/11/johns-hopkins-air-quality-testing-of.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2004/04/american-cancer-society-test-results.html

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2006/02/air-quality-testing-and-secondhand.html

Further to note:
OSHA itself has stated regarding secondhand smoke:

"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000 )...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."

-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

It would be great if an organization like CATO, Forces, Center for Consumer Freedom, Competitive Enterprise Institute or law firms around the country would use the above information to pre-empt smoking bans everywhere........imagine the sense of freedom in restoring the free market system across the globe.

Oops

I'm guessing that the pro-smoking ban pharmaceutical interests didn't finance this study:

Smoking may avert parkinson's risk

RWJF is certain to be up in arms over this story.

Thursday, April 05, 2007

BMJ published air quality test results show secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor workplace AQ regulations

The British Medical Journal published results shown here, were conducted using methodology which measured for the marker chemical nicotine which in turn indicates the total airborne concentration of secondhand smoke present, and as scientists around the globe have stated:

Nicotine is the only unique or "trace" chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air. And then our comparison to OSHA guidelines is the logical manner in which to determine if secondhand smoke levels pose a health hazard, as you can see, according to OSHA, the authority on workplace safety and indoor air quality, they do not. If you wanted you could measure every airborne chemical in secondhand smoke and then compare them to OSHA guidelines for each specific chemical, the results would be the same, if not more dramatic.

And the BMJ test results which ranged from 0.1 - 122* micrograms (ug) / cu. M, are actually 4 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor air quality permissible exposure limits (PEL) for the secondhand smoke component -nicotine.



(partial OSHA permissible exposure limit table)

The OSHA safe level of exposure for nicotine for an 8 hour day, 40 hour week time period is 0.5 milligrams (mg) / cu. M; which is the equivalent of 500 micrograms (ug) / cu. M.

Checking the math:

500 ug divided by 122* (see above) ug = SHS AQ test results are 4 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.

500 ug divided by 0.1* (see above) ug = SHS AQ test results are 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.

The significance to this find is that pro-smoking ban advocates, particularly in the medical community tried to claim that our earlier AQ results (which proved secondhand smoke was 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations) were invalid because they were not published or peer reviewed........now however, the identical secondhand smoke air quality test results are not only peer reviewed and published.......but published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) no less.

Clearly now, we can battle and reverse the exaggerated and fabricated claims made by pro-smoking ban, Nicoderm funded, activists.......using their own data.

Important note:

The pro-smoking ban activists will claim ".....OSHA doesn't have a standard (permissible exposure limit) for secondhand smoke."

The proper response is that ".....OSHA is much more scientific than our detractors claim, OSHA has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for all the components of secondhand smoke"

Example: OSHA doesn't have a PEL for welding smoke.......but OSHA regulates welding smoke levels in the workplace by measuring the individual airborne chemical components of welding smoke and then compares the results to individual established PEL's.

See OSHA table:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992

If you have any questions email me from the "view my complete profile link" at upper right.

Wednesday, April 04, 2007

Secondhand smoke air quality test results measuring nicotine cited by the British Medical Journal.....proves secondhand smoke is not a health hazard

Clearing the Air has uncovered a secondhand smoke AQ test result published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) which not only used the same methodolgy as the St. Louis Park Environmental Health Department, and Roswell Park / American Cancer Society which I always use in testimony........but the results prove that secondhand smoke concentrations are 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor air quality standards require for secondhand smoke.

The methodology used was to measure for the marker chemical nicotine which as scientists around the globe have stated:

Nicotine is the only unique or "trace" chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air. And then our comparison to OSHA guidelines is the logical manner in which to determine if secondhand smoke levels pose a health hazard, as you can see, according to OSHA, the authority on workplace safety and indoor air quality, they do not. If you wanted you could measure every airborne chemical in secondhand smoke and then compare them to OSHA guidelines for each specific chemical, the results would be the same, if not more dramatic.

And the BMJ test results which ranged from 0.1 - 192 micrograms (ug) / cu. M, are actually 2.6 - 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA indoor air quality permissible exposure limits (PEL) for the secondhand smoke component -nicotine.

The OSHA safe level of exposure for nicotine for an 8 hour day, 40 hour week time period is 0.5 milligrams (mg) / cu. M; which is the equivalent of 500 micrograms (ug) / cu. M.

Checking the math:

500 ug divided by 192 ug = SHS AQ test results are 2.6 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.

and

500 ug divided by 0.1 ug = SHS AQ test results are 5,000 times SAFER than OSHA air quality regulations.

The significance to this find is that pro-smoking ban advocates, particularly in the medical community tried to claim that our earlier AQ results (which proved secondhand smoke was 15 - 25,000 times SAFER than OSHA regulations) were invalid because they were not published or peer reviewed........now however, the identical secondhand smoke air quality test results are not only peer reviewed and published.......but published by the British Medical Journal (BMJ) no less.

Clearly now, we can battle and reverse the exaggerated and fabricated claims made by pro-smoking ban activists.......using their own data.

(BMJ test results are also backed up on our servers here.)

Important note:

The pro-smoking ban activists will claim ".....OSHA doesn't have a standard (permissible exposure limit) for secondhand smoke."

The proper response is that ".....OSHA is much more scientific than our detractors claim, OSHA has a permissible exposure limit (PEL) for all the components of secondhand smoke"

Example: OSHA doesn't have a PEL for welding smoke.......but OSHA regulates welding smoke levels in the workplace by measuring the individual airborne chemical components of welding smoke and then compares the results to individual established PEL's.

See OSHA table:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992

If you have any questions email me from the "view my complete profile link" at upper right.

Tuesday, April 03, 2007

Nancy Pelosi and the spineless Democrats practice being subjected to Islamic sharia law



Which will come in very handy when they surrender to muslim terrorists.

Pelosi draped a scarf over her head as she entered the historic mosque and stopped at a tomb inside the mosque said to contain the head of St. John the Baptist........"We have no illusions but we have great hope," she said.

Democrats are predictably weak when it comes to national defense.......and speaker Pelosi highlights the very reason why we must ensure that we never again lose the White House to the liberal kumbiyah party.


Negotiating with terrorists is surrendering to terrorists.

Hey Nancy, did that head scarf coming with a form fitting burkha?

At least one corporate executive has the backbone to take on the global warming alarmists

From the New York Sun comes this story:

One of the guest speakers was Bob Murray, founder and CEO of Murray Energy Corporation and probably one of the few CEOs brave enough to challenge the militant climate control movement that threatens the future of America's economy.

Bravo Mr. Murray,

I am as sick of these "global warming charlatans" as you are.

It would be nice to see other corporate executives tell these rent seeking activists to shove their carbon credits where the global warming sun doesn't shine.

Monday, April 02, 2007

Liberal Minnesota state lawmakers' dislike for tobacco is only exceeded by their desire to legalize pot

Wright County Republican covers the Minnesota drug cartel story here:

Truth about DFL Reefer Madness

Of course the common denominator to both these issues is the money behind the lobbying efforts. Liberals and the DFL love money, especially when it's not theirs.

Liberals prostitute themselves to the pharmaceutical nicotine interests who lobby lawmakers for a statewide smoking ban using hundreds of millions dollars in Nicoderm funding to push that agenda. While private billionaires like George Soros spend millions of dollars on lawmakers to get their agenda of illegal drugs legalized.

They must be smoking something if they think we don't see the hypocrisy in those two diametrically opposed agendas.

I predict this legislative session will prove to be the downfall of the DFL here in Minnesota and elsewhere.........don't bogart that joint DFL'ers, it's gonna be a long ride home in 2008.......and besides the secondhand smoke is deadly......right? .....wink......wink.

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