The definitive case against smoking bansSecondhand smoke claims have been greatly exaggerated, as proof consider these air quality test results by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal......proving that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
All nullify the argument that secondhnad smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Meanwhile the damaging effects of smoking bans significantly reduce the number of hospitality establishments in the form of business closings while eliminating jobs at an alarming rate:
So if the “hazard” from secondhand smoke is greatly exaggerated, and the effects of the bans are even more hazardous, then what was the driving motive to begin with? For that answer we have to look at who or rather what corporate interests are funding the smoking ban activists and non-profit organizations to spearhead the efforts……None other than the Nicoderm manufacturer Johnson & Johnson Company’s private political foundation, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), a very dubious and profit motivated source of $446+ million to push the smoking ban agenda. But a payoff is well assured, current over the counter smoking cessation product sales (such as Nicoderm) in the U.S. is $500+ million annually, and industry executives anticipate that figure will be $4.6 billion annually in just a few short years…….as long as their rent seeking efforts yield a smoking ban all across the globe.
It’s ironic that the same Democrat lawmakers who decry corporate greed, are only too happy be the in the pocket of the largest drug manufacturer behind the scenes, to lead and sponsor the smoking ban legislation agenda. Smoking ban laws are all about corporate greed, rent seeking legislation with enough collusion to understand that racketeering, or RICO charges could and should apply to all facets and players of the smoking ban movement.
So the next time your local politicians start talking about enacting public policy for the "good of the people", ask yourself do they really mean the "good of the corporation?" or the politician who just stuffed his or her pockets?