Indoor Smoking Ban Halts Scientific Research on Smoking (Nanny of the Month, June 2015)
This month's Nanny of the Month award goes to the Garden State for its anti-smoking zealotry.
They're fining folks for cursing in Arlington, Virginia, and banning dead people from driving in New Jersey, but this month's Nanny of the Month award is going to the Garden State for its anti-smoking zealotry, which has reached an absurd new low. You would think New Jersey would welcome a company that wanted to conduct research that might actually help people kick the habit. But such research is actually prohibited under the state's Smoke-Free Air Act. New Jersey claims the law protects people's health by banning smoking in most indoor public places—even labs that want to study the health effects of traditional cigarettes compared to vapor based e-cigarettes.
State Sen. Jennifer Beck (R-11th District) has introduced a bill that would exempt medical and scientific labs from the Smoke-Free Air Act. That seems like something everyone can rally around, right? Nope! It turns out that a major anti-smoking organization, the Global Advisors on Smokefree Policy (GASP), opposes even this limited (and socially beneficial) expansion of indoor smoking.
"They can do the study outside, just like everybody else has to," says Karen Blumenthal, executive director of GASP.
So to sum up: smoking is so bad that we should ban as much of it as possible, including smoking that might help more people quit smoking. Got it?
About 90 seconds.
Nanny of the Month is written by Ted Balaker (@tedbalaker), produced by Balaker and Rich Camp, and edited by Camp. To watch previous episodes, go here.
Follow Nanny of the Month on Twitter (@NannyoftheMonth) and submit your nominees for next month!
Scroll down for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel for notifications when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
There is no appeasing SJW. Just gave them all of your money and commit suicide, and even then, they'll still be pissed off at you for polluting Earth with your corpse.
We don't need no stinking science!
They can't do any research outside in New Jerksey. Everyone knows the rancid, toxic air of the Garden State would taint any experiment.
You're collectivizing the air molecules of New Jersey.
also REJUN WHOR
They are the GLOBAL Advisers huh ?
Global not just Joisey Advisers
I think indoor vaping is either already banned now in NJ or most likely will be, so who needs a study? It's obviously all about signalling anyway.
Gah! What I hate about these people is that they wake up each morning with purpose; albeit an insane purpose -- but purpose nonetheless. O to believe a thing absolutely and to work towards indubitable goals; what is that like?
Well, of COURSE they don't want scientific studies to happen. The more the issue gets examined, the likelier it is that their "Secondhand Smoke" fraud will get exposed.
BINGO!
OSHA also took on the passive smoking fraud and this is what came of it:
Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence: Third Edition
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/131.....rd-edition
This sorta says it all
These limits generally are based on assessments of health risk and calculations of concentrations that are associated with what the regulators believe to be negligibly small risks. The calculations are made after first identifying the total dose of a chemical that is safe (poses a negligible risk) and then determining the concentration of that chemical in the medium of concern that should not be exceeded if exposed individuals (typically those at the high end of media contact) are not to incur a dose greater than the safe one.
So OSHA standards are what is the guideline for what is acceptable ''SAFE LEVELS''
OSHA SAFE LEVELS
All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes.
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes.
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes.
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time.
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So, OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
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 Sec'y, OSHA.
Why are their any smoking bans at all they have absolutely no validity to the courts or to science!
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://web.archive.org/web/200.....cation=ufi
"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."
In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
Your link didn't work.
http://web.archive.org/web/200.....obacco0409
And it's not even up to date.
http://cot.food.gov.uk/sites/d.....on2009.pdf
Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!
It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge's 'opinion' (aka 'decision'):
(2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
(2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
therefore, for ITL to 'withhold judgement' as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
lung cancer.
[9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
individual's cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
(paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
[9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer's negligence
case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
consumer of the manufacturer's product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
knew of the product's potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
[7.181]).
You left out the salient point that this pertains only to individual cases in courts of law, not to epidemiology in general. So McTear refutes nothing.
Well, no, testing smoking outdoors would be fundamentally different from how smoking indoors works. So scratch one up for scientific ignorance.
But at least NJ's finally going to do something about all those dead people driving on the roads!
We're so fucked.
I'm actually starting to sympathize - puff - with the tobacco companies.
Irritated by all these assholes getting paid millions for a vice of their own choosing. After all, NO ONE forced people to smoke.
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com
http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin.....l-help.bmp
Start making cash right now... Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I've started this job and I've never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here...
http://www.jobnet10.com
http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin.....-tests.jpg
I do hope that all non-smoking Nannies will first weigh-in and remove the excess pounds from their own frames so that they can see more clearly to remove the specks of cigarette ashes from the eyes of smokers...
http://www.businessinsider.com.....dy-2014-08
Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
This is wha- I do...... ?????? http://www.online-jobs9.com
http://www.plusaf.com/linkedin.....ything.jpg