Chicago Smoking Ban
By Mike O’Cull
The proposed ban on smoking in public places in Chicago, championed by Alderman Ed Smith (28th Ward) is one of the most hotly debated and controversial issues in the city’s entertainment and nightclub communities. The ordinance would prohibit all smoking in public places, including bars and restaurants, as well as within 25 feet of the entrance to any building in which smoking was banned. As one might imagine, emotions run high on both sides of the fence. Opponents of the ban claim the ordinance will adversely affect the bar/nightclub/entertainment business in the city by driving customers out of the bars onto residential streets to indulge their habit or, in the worst-case scenario, to the suburbs, which are still mostly smoke-friendly.
Supporters of the ban see it as a clear-cut public health issue that should not be compromised. Other cities around the country have passed similar laws with varying degrees of success. New York and Los Angeles seem to be adapting to their smoking bans and maintaining their entertainment scenes, while smaller cities like Madison, WI, which went smoke-free on July 1st of this year, are seeing bar owners struggle to keep their doors open and are reporting up to a 60 percent drop in business, according to NBC5.com. The Capital Times newspaper in Madison reports things have become so tough for bars in that town that Ald. Lauren Cnare has put forth a proposal that would allow a “hardship clause” to any establishment that can show at least a 10 percent decrease in sales for the months of July, August, and September of this year compared to the last three years. This clause would allow these businesses an exemption to the law until an advisory referendum on the ban is held in April 2006.
Chicago musicians, along with those who work in or own nightclubs that feature live music, will be some of the people most profoundly and immediately impacted by an all-out ban on indoor smoking in the city. Musicians, especially at the local level, are judged almost entirely on how many warm bodies they can pack into a club on a given night. Nightclubs and bars have long been places where patrons can still indulge the legal yet un-PC vices afforded those of consenting age. Part of the appeal of going to see a live band for many fans is enjoying those vices, namely drinking and smoking, during a show. An ordinance prohibiting smoking would fundamentally alter the nightclub experience for many people and could make getting the same number of those warm bodies into a venue much more difficult than it was before such a law was passed. Larger, more established rooms, such as Double Door and Metro, would most likely adapt to the ban and survive, due to their bigger-name entertainment and deeper pockets. Fans are already used to not smoking at indoor concert halls in order to see their favorite acts.
It is the smaller clubs that book up-and-coming bands where the pinch would be felt in full. These types of rooms are half-tavern and half-venue and depend on the revenue generated by each and every music fan/customer. If that pool of fans is legislatively cut by 10, 20, or 30 percent or more, it is questionable if these rooms would be able to stay open.
Not all involved take such a gloom-and-doom stance on the issue, however. Some musicians feel the risk to public health from indoor smoking is a far greater concern than a shift in bar economics or artists’ fan bases. Among them is Chuck Cox, a vocalist with Chuck Cox & The Johnson Principal and Backward Black.
Cox has been out of the live music scene for the better part of the last two years due to sinus/respiratory conditions that prevent him from being around smoke of any kind. When he finally took himself out of the smoke-filled bar environment, his symptoms disappeared. Banning indoor smoking would allow Cox, and those in his position, to return to performing live music, which had previously been a big part of his life. When asked if he felt the Chicago music scene would experience economic hardship as a result of the ban he says, “Not at all. I believe there will be a net gain. People will go to bars and clubs no matter what. The smokers still want to drink, and non-smokers will be more likely to spend time there as well.”
Another supporter of the ban is Chicago Tribune music critic Greg Kot. Asked what he thought might be the effects of an official no-smoking policy, Kot responds, “It may cut down on some people going to clubs initially, but eventually people will get used to it. Folks in New York City certainly have adapted, which I didn’t think was possible. If the clubs can survive it in New York, they can do it here.”
Some statistics seem to be on Kot’s side. A study done by the New York City Departments Of Finance, Health & Mental Hygiene, Small Business Services, and the New York City Economic Development Corporation in March 2004 of the effects of New York’s smoking ban — one year after the law was passed — shows nothing but good things happening for the restaurant and nightclub industries in the city. The report finds business tax receipts in bars and restaurants are up 8.7 percent after one year of being smoke-free. Other findings are that employment in these industries is up by more than 10,000 jobs and that New Yorkers seem to overwhelmingly support the law. With 97 percent of New York bars and restaurants in compliance with the smoking law at the time of the study, the data suggests that the anti-smoking crowd was correct in forecasting no ill economic effects to nightlife businesses.
The American Lung Association Of Metropolitan Chicago says on its Web site that recent economic studies of El Paso, Florida, Massachusetts, and other smoke-free places have also shown no negative business impact.
Other area performers do not share the optimism of the NYC statistics. Pat Davey, guitarist for local hard rockers Drop, foresees the exact opposite results to the ban. “Bars are notorious for drinking and smoking,” he says, “and a ban on smoking will cripple the business from the lowest to the highest level. Drinking and smoking are part of the freedom of being an American adult. Non-smokers have the right to walk into a place and the right to walk back out if they don’t like it.” When asked how he thought a ban would impact the crowds his band would be able to draw at shows in the city, Davey predicted a loss of up to 40 percent. Lest one think this perspective comes from a hardcore Marlboro man, Davey adds, “For the record, I am a non-smoker and I have cancer.”
Similar thoughts are voiced by blues diva Sharon Lewis. Lewis is a mainstay on the local blues scene, a part of the business that has historically been a difficult place to earn a living even with full vice indulgence, and she worries that a smoking ordinance will make her job even tougher. “I think [the ban] would result in smaller crowds for the live entertainment venues,” she tells us, “which, in turn, would result in less money for the acts.” She also states, “I have worked at clubs that have smoking and non-smoking rooms; the smoke-free rooms are usually empty.” Lewis also worries that laws such as this are part of a growing trend towards governmental micro-management of peoples’ lives and behavior. “I do feel this is just the beginning of defining otherwise legal activities as criminal.”
The question of personal freedoms as they relate to the smoking ban begs to be investigated. Cigarettes are, after all, a legal and heavily taxed product. True concern for public health would require complete and total prohibition of all tobacco products, the arrest of those who sell or use these products, and a re-classification of tobacco more in line with marijuana, cocaine, and all other illegal drugs. Government, of course, is slow to consider this, as tobacco generates huge amounts of revenue. Their strategy seems to be to allow the business of tobacco to continue, but to be able to fine smokers for smoking anywhere but in their own homes.
There have been efforts to come up with compromises that will let those on both sides of the issue still play in the same sandbox. There has been talk by Ald. Thomas Tunney (44th Ward) of allowing smoking in bars and restaurants after 9 p.m. A plan to prohibit smoking but letting bars apply for a smoking license has also been put forth by 42nd Ward Ald. Burton Natarus. The use of outdoor patios for smokers, as in the clubs in Los Angeles, is not seen as a viable option in Chicago, due the inclement weather that goes on for months at a time in the Midwest. Ald. Smith, who declined to be interviewed for this story, however, seems to be unwilling to discuss any sort of middle ground or any other outcome than his “Clean Indoor Air Ordinance” being made the law of the land.
For now, smoking is still legal in Chicago bars and things remain as they have always been, and it is doubtful that any of these measures will come to pass in the immediate future. Smith’s last attempt to pass this sort of legislation never came to a vote. What is clear is that the entertainment and nightclub business is most likely in for drastic changes, in Chicago and across the country. There have not been many cases of smokers winning in these sorts of situations and that trend will probably continue.
Hopefully, the non-smoking contingent will be willing to put up with the increased drink prices and higher cover charges that clubs may need to implement in order to make up for their predicted loss of smokers’ revenue. A moderate position would be the most successful solution, but moderation is often hard to come by when dealing with such an emotional issue. Both sides have made compelling arguments for their positions and seem committed to the ongoing debate. It will be interesting to see which camp is the last man standing when the smoke clears.
Tags:Features Monthly
on October 24th, 2005 at 10:08 pm
I just found your story today on Google. Even though I missed it at the time of publication, I thought I would still share my views with you…
Garnet
Dear Chicago Alderman/Chicago City Council Members: (sent to individually to Chicago representatives)
cc: Mayor Richard M. Daley
Mike Ditka
Letter to the Editor at Chicago Sun Times
RE: PLEASE REVIEW VALIDITY OF HEALTH CLAIM BENEFITS BEFORE YOU VOTE….
You, as a council member will be participating in a major vote next week to determine the future of Chicago. Before you consider the passage of a smoking ban, perhaps you should question the health claims that have initiated this ban proposal. Please take a few minutes to read the following editorial in the Sun Times by Dennis Constant, the director of research for the Chicago-based Illinois Taxpayer Education Foundation, before you make your final decision.
I still cannot believe that Chicago is considering committing economic suicide and refusing to learn from the misery existing smoking bans have already created. Enforcement of existing bans is already a problem and civil disobedience is spreading. Why on earth would a strong city that is supposed to represent its residents even want to enact a draconian smoking ban? Chicago is already 80% smoke free! All public buildings, transportation, shopping venues and office environments are already non-smoking. 70% of restaurants are smoke free.
These hospitality smoking bans are beginning to remind me of the scene in Planet of the Apes, when the gorillas were rounding up the humans. Only in this case, it’s the wealthy and powerful Anti Smoking industry rounding up smokers to demonize them and use the threatening heavy boot of government enforcement to force social change and share in their pharmaceutical partners’ profits.
The prohibition of the 1920’s was a disaster. Smoking bans will be considered the plague of the early 21st century by our descendents. It’s time to broadcast that “the emperor really doesn’t have any new clothes!” Second hand smoke is NOT a measurable health risk!
Sincerely,
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker’s Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
——————————————————————————–
http://www.suntimes.com/output/otherviews/cst-edt-ref22b.html
Case against secondhand smoke vanishes into thin air
October 22, 2005
BY DENNIS CONSTANT
Despite the claims of anti-smoking groups that research studies have conclusively proved that secondhand tobacco smoke causes lung cancer, the city councils of Arlington Heights, Evanston and Wheeling rejected smoking bans. The three Illinois municipalities have created significant restaurant industries that play an important role in their economies, and the council members concluded that the risks of loss of businesses were not worth the health benefits that some claimed would result from a ban on smoking.
Now the Chicago City Council is considering banning smoking in virtually all restaurants, bars and commercial buildings.
Anti-smoking groups with a collectivist political agenda, allied with “cancer industry” organizations that rely on fear to enhance their considerable cash flow, have filled the media with claims about secondhand tobacco smoke that are questionable at best, and fraudulent at worst. It’s important to look past their shrill propaganda and examine their claims without bias.
The keystone of their argument for banning indoor smoking is that exposure to “secondhand” smoke is a serious health hazard that causes lung cancer. To hear them tell it, there simply is no debate: Studies conclusively have shown a causal connection between lung cancer and secondhand tobacco smoke. In fact, the research studies tell a different story — a story that largely has been ignored by the media.
A study often cited by anti-smoking groups is the 1993 study by Michael Siegel, “Involuntary Smoking in the Restaurant Workplace,” published in the Journal of the American Medical Association, which declared that non-smoking restaurant workers have a 50 percent higher risk of lung cancer than the general population. However, a peer review of the study completed in 2000, authored by Martha Perske, revealed that the claimed 50 percent increased risk was based on six studies that had absolutely nothing to do with secondhand smoke in restaurants, bars, or anywhere else.
Small increased risks for lung cancer were found in food service workers, but there was no evidence in any of the six studies that food service workers had been exposed to tobacco smoke!
According to Michael Fumento, writing in Health Care News, in 2003 professors James Enstrom of UCLA and Geoffrey Kabat of the State University of New York reported in the British Medical Journal that their 39-year study of 35,561 Californians who had never smoked showed no causal relationship between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality.
Fumento also reports that in 1999, an Environmental Health Perspectives survey of 17 studies of environmental tobacco smoke and heart disease found only five that were statistically significantly positive. And in 2002, an analysis of 48 studies of environmental tobacco smoke found only 10 studies that were significantly positive, one that was significantly negative, and 37 that were not significant in either direction.
Fumento adds that in 1975, when many more individuals smoked in restaurants, cocktail lounges and transportation lounges, the concentration of tobacco smoke then was equivalent to 0.004 cigarettes an hour — a very small amount.
Despite the claim of anti-smoking groups that scientific studies unanimously have shown that secondhand smoke is killing thousands from lung cancer, the truth is that the vast majority of such studies failed to find any statistically significant link.
The arguments of anti-smokers are sometimes ludicrous. They claim that smoke contains 4,000 poisons and carcinogens, but a 2005 California EPA analysis found only 405. Not only that, the average American diet contains about 10,000 poisons and carcinogens. Perhaps Chicago should ban food instead of tobacco.
Dennis Constant is director of research for the Chicago-based Illinois Taxpayer Education Foundation.
on October 31st, 2005 at 11:28 am
hi!
While reading this article the one thing that stuck was when Lewis stated that she worries that laws such as this are part of a growing trend towards governmental micro-management of peoples’ lives and behavior and this is just the beginning of defining otherwise legal activities as criminal… Its should be the right of the owner of the bar if e wants people to smoke in it or not… its their bar isn’t it?…what right does the gov. have in this. (unless they hav the power to control what people do)..slowly but suringly we are losing our rights.. i truely can’t believe this is happening.. it worries me of what sorts of laws will come about in the future.. 80% of chicago is already smoke free! god damn can’t people compromise! its not like hundreds of lives are at risk from people smoking at a bar or club!! thess non-smokers have pushed it too far. those are places where people go and enjoy themselves…not have to go out in the cold everytime the want a smoke.. come on people lets not repeat the 20’s….
on October 31st, 2005 at 1:07 pm
I love to see live music, and I love to drink good beer and other alcoholic beverages. However, I absolutely hate having to bathe in cigarette smoke while enjoying these activities, to the point where I refuse to patronize places where there is smoke in the air. Obviously, this has significantly reduced the number of venues where I can enjoy live music and/or alcohol. If smoking were banned in bars, I would go to bars much more frequently, and I know a lot of people who feel the same way. None of the pro-smoking arguments seem to recognize this potential increase in revenue from all the closet fresh air addicts who would come out in droves if we had some place to go. The smokers have held court in the public watering holes long enough. It’s time to put them where they belong, out-of-doors with the rest of the air pollution.
on November 2nd, 2005 at 12:42 pm
Although i am a young, intelligent, college graduate I am also within the prime demographic group for many restuarants and club venues. I am also a non-smoker who would like to add to the ever growing comments about the smoking ban.
One thing i would like to mention is this, personally speaking as a club hopper one might say, i dislike the presence of smoke especially when i am trying to enjoy a good drink or a pleasant conversation. Quite frankly its annoying and very irritating. Like one of the commentors before, i probably would invest my time and money in more venues that had smoke free policies.
The thing that i find most interesting are the comments made against the smoking ban. How we “anti-tobacco industry addicts” i believe are simply attacking smokers deliberately and forcing them out to the streets. They complain how chicago is 80% smoke free. Ok and thats all well and good, but what about the other 20 percent. Do any of these antagonists think about who is living there and being exposed to this kind of environment? Probably not.
As a Biology /Pre-med student, i can tell you of all the many things that is placed in tobacco that most people are unaware of, but thats another story. I will simply leave it at this; Nicotine isn’t half as bad as the other additives and chemicals. So for those individuals who think otherwise, including “Da Coach”, dont try to convince me that secondhand smoke is virtually harmless!
As a child i grew up constantly around secondhand smoke, my mother smoked for nearly 15 years of her life. Thankfully she quit about 8 years ago, not before her habit caused comparable respiratory health issues to her body. i myself have vulnerabilities to respiratory infections because of it.
My last comment to all those against the ban is this. Dont chastise us for not supporting your habit. Dont like the cold? Then Quit! we didnt tell you to smoke. I could understand if you were in a private sector, like your own home or even a smokers only social club. But your not, your inhabiting a public space and your endangering (even if its remotely) the lives of others. Its one thing to not care about your own well-being, but to disregard others lives, to justify your addiction, thats just inhumane or ignorant, which ever works better.
Thank you
on November 4th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Jake - I second your opinion 100%
on November 7th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Nathaniel (Jake and Chris),
I urge you to take your well-written ideas, print them out and send them to your Aldermen. It is ignorance that continues to draw out this argument (have you seen the boo-hoo ‘Hookah Bars Will Get the Axe’ article the Tribune ran?). The simple fact is that smokers are afraid to give up their right to openly pollute themselves and the area around them. We are not asking them to quit; we are asking them to go outside.
The simple fact being overlooked is that the ban works everywhere else it has been instated. It comes down to laziness; get up and go outside to smoke your cigarette. If you were only affecting yourself when you smoked, this would be a different topic all together. When I am tying off my arm, I don’t make the guy sitting next to me take a poke too.
If what garnet says about second-hand smoke not being as harmful as the media (who are mostly backed by Big tobacco monies) says, the fact still remains; I don’t want to go out for a drink and come home smelling like a smokers’ breath.
on November 8th, 2005 at 7:59 pm
When the doors have been closed by many night clubs and restaurants to which anti-smokers want exclusivity, then where will you intolerant people go? If you want a non-smoking environment, then open your own club. You tend to make statements that you have not researched, just because you have read or heard them somewhere. Can you document your statements? Do your own research, before spouting your parroted dogma from the ANR and the other Tobacco Extremist Health Groups.
It may be the smokers who are being discriminated against at this time, but if the anti-tobacco social forces at work now are successful in banning smoking, how will you feel when disregard for private rights continues to spread and you are their next victim?
I also noticed that it took a post from me to activate responses on this subject. So much for the initiative and originality of non-smokers.
Garnet Dawn
on November 8th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
Madison has a no-smoking ban at their bars/restaurants. Granted it was nice not having a smoky bar when I went there, outside was pretty dirty. The sidewalks had a ton of cigarette buts and in front of the bar/restaurant was crowded with smokers.
I think of the Rush/Division bar area and it’s already crazy busy on the sidewalks on weekend nights. I can’t imagine what it would be like with a bunch more people standing out there smoking, making it more congested than it already is.
Just a thought.
on November 10th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
A quick response to Jill: There are always cigarette butts outside. Campus, downtown, etc. have been riddled with them as long as I can remember. The ban will neither increase or decrease smokers’ tendencies to throw cigarette butts on the ground. What it will do is decrease the tendency of the thousands of “social smokers” to light up in a bar, which contributed to most of the indoor nastiness to begin with. These people will not be going outside to smoke, as they are not addicted. I think we’ll start seeing fewer and fewer people outside as time goes on.
on November 10th, 2005 at 2:44 pm
Response to Sheila - Anyone who “socially smokes” is addicted and will “socially smoke” with everyone else outside.
on November 16th, 2005 at 5:53 pm
Garnet,
I find it amusing to hear people classify us, “anti-tobacco social forces”, “extremists”, “eco-loving tree huggers”, these are just a few of the ridiculous things that i have heard recently.
Now, truth be told, there are many extremists groups out there, that would want nothing more than to burry the tobacco industry. I am not one of them, nor do i know any.
Lets face the facts, the whole argument comes down to this; we as non smokers dont want to be exposed to an individual’s personal decision, however right or wrong it may be. This is why nudists are illegal, why drunks are locked up, and why beggars are disliked so much. It shouldnt be our problem as well as yours, that my friend is selfish and ignorant, in all due respect.
We are not a liberation front, we wont jump in our X-wing fighters and plot attack after attack on your deathstar. we just want to be able to go out and enjoy the nightlife like you do.
Yes we probably could have our own nightspots, but lets face the facts, to start from scratch with any business is not easy, and how many financial institutes will literally back you on a loan, saying “my gimmick is a smoke free club”
You list “extremist” organizations like the ARN, well what about the American Cancer society, the CDC, ALA…hell even the god damn Surgeon’s general for crying out loud. Are these all extremists groups? Clearly not
Lets not forget where we came from, people. A half a century ago, Tobacco was pushed drastically in all forms of media, and they didnt have the scientific knowledge to know that adding household cleaners and other chemicals to leaves could be harmful. Women, minorities, even children have all been targeted at some point in the past century. This is not “anti-tobacco slander”, dont believe just listen to the biases and propaganda from any radio commercial from the booming years, to post-vietnam. thats your people, not ours! if anyone should really be upset, it should be us, because this has gone on for so long.
Before i go i just want to add, i am conducting a smoking cessation program at my University tomorrow, and i will be taking polls if possible on this very issue.(shameless plug)
on November 20th, 2005 at 4:09 pm
I would like to reiterate what other educated and health conscious have said, and that is this: With the wealth of information out there clearly supporting that second-hand smoke is not only harmful, but in fact may be deadly (see research done on airline personnel of the 50’s), it sickens and worries me that the American public keep voting down these smoking bans.
I understand the concerns of business owners who fear that business will decline with a smoking ban, but in the long run, do you really think that these people are going to sit at home night after night smoking their cancer sticks angrily as they write to their congressmen?? NO!! They are still going to go and see their favorite band play and drink their favorite beer at the town pub.
I just moved to the Midwest from Massachusetts, where a similar debate went on for some time. Now, every restaurant and bar in the state is smoke-free. Do you think Boston bar owners are struggling? NO! I would argue that they are enjoying more business, as many health-conscious and educated people are getting out more and enjoying places they didn’t go before.
I have lived with asthma for my entire life, quite probably because both of my parents smoked from before I was born. Of course, back then, the scientific evidence supporting that second-hand smoke is harmful wasn’t there. Now, I still suffer from severe asthma symptoms when I am around cigarette smoke. Just last night, I was forced to leave a bar where I was (trying to) enjoy a band perform. I waited outside in the car for the show to end while my boyfriend sat by himself. Why should I be forced out of these places? Something is wrong here.
My question is this: I know I am not the only one who feels strongly about this issue. How can we all get together to get something fixed here? Please email me your comments! (vvieira2@uiuc.edu)
on November 22nd, 2005 at 7:32 pm
I do not believe the majority of people are extremists. They are simply jumping on a popular bandwagon because it is painless to them and presents no present inconvenience. The populace of Germany in the 1930’s did the same thing until it was too late. The Hitler regime initially formulated many of the smoking ban policies our government is instituting today. Below you can read my opinions of the ASC, ALA and AHA. The CDC has also become another branch of our government that has published some of the most glaring distortions of scientific research to date. What makes you think they are beyond reproach, just because they are government backed or represent the non-profit health industry?
What is surprising is that more and more non-smokers are becoming opposed to smoking bans. In response to the last few posts, I am going to include an e-mail I sent in response to a Michigan reporter last week, stating my/our pro-choice advocate position.
—————————————-
Subject: new proposed smoking ban in mid-Michigan
Hi Ms. Dawn:
I’m ……….., a reporter at …………………., in Michigan. I’m doing
a story about a proposed ordinance that would ban smoking in all workplaces
in Saginaw County, excluding restaurants. I’d like to ask you a few
questions about that — as someone who represent the interests of smokers.
My questions include:
1. Ordinance proponents say the measure is needed because of the dangers of
second-hand smoke. Is second-hand smoke as dangerous as they claim?
Answer) NO!
To answer your first question, here is a direct quote from Michael McFadden’s book “Dissecting the Antismokers Brain”, which explains (as simply as possible) why SHS is not a valid threat. Studies continue to fail in proving harm from ETS. The results lie in the interpretation and the dose. Many health specialists’ $100,000+ annual incomes depend upon their continued efforts to prove toxicity and expand smoking bans. If ETS or smoking had ever truly been proved to be a health hazard, smoking would be illegal.
The bottom line is that spending an evening in a smoke filled bar is less harmful than consuming a glass of water or the harm derived from exposure to direct sunshine while dining outdoors on a sunny day.
“As for toxicity, there has never been any official claim that all or even many of these compounds are toxic at all. The Surgeon General’s exact wording was that some of those compounds are toxic without any reference to proportion or number. The Surgeon General also carefully avoided the question of what quantity of any of these would actually be toxic. Such a question is normally considered by scientists to be fundamental to any such discussion but which, in the case of the infinitesimal quantities involved when speaking of secondary smoke, would clearly indicate all of them to be toxicologically harmless………
To return to the case of our nonsmoker, and to take one particular element that is often pointed to in Antismoking publications, let’s look at the toxic chemical “arsenic.†Now we all know that arsenic is toxic, but we also all know that if we wanted to kill someone with arsenic we’d have to give them a certain amount to accomplish the task. How much? I don’t actually know the lethal dose of arsenic, but I do know that even the proposed new stricter standard of arsenic in drinking water of 10 ppb (parts per billion) allows for 10 nanograms (billionths of a gram) of arsenic to be present in one gram of “safe†drinking water.
Ten nanograms per gram equates to about 5,000 nanograms for a sixteen-ounce tumbler of water. Now, in 1999 a landmark analytical study was done by all four major tobacco companies under the coordination and according to the standards of the Massachusetts Department of Public Health. This study examined the total smoke output, both mainstream and sidestream, of 26 brands of U.S. cigarettes. Forty-four separate smoke constituents were measured. Measurements of total arsenic in the smoke output of their average brand style gave a value of 32 nanograms. In most well ventilated smoking situations our nonsmoking water drinker would inhale no more than about 1/1000th of this: an amount equal to about three hundredths of a single nanogram. See Appendix B for an explanation of why this exposure assumption is reasonable (The 1999 Massachusetts Benchmark Study. Final Report. 07/24/00).
Thus our nonsmoker would have to sit in a room with a smoker while that smoker smoked more than 165,000 cigarettes to get the same “dose†of arsenic that he or she would get from their government-approved watery beverage! Actually, under 20th century standards of 50 ppb for safe water the smoker would have to smoke 825,000 cigarettes. So is it correct to say that the nonsmoker is “threatened by toxicity†from ordinary levels of exposure on this basis? Of course not… unless we want to completely redefine the concept of threat so that we’d all flee in blind stumbling panic from a glass of water!”
Question) If it’s not dangerous, what’s has driven that perception to become accepted as reality. Whose agenda is it?
Answer) Big pharmaceuticals and multiple “health” organizations. It’s all about money and power.
These bans are the agenda of the massively wealthy and powerful non-profit health organizations (Tobacco Free Kids, ACS, ALA and AHA) who work in coordination with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. RWJF has financial holdings in Johnson & Johnson worth just a shade over $5.4 billion dollars (”the largest single shareholder of Johnson & Johnson common stock”). Johnson & Johnson distributes nicotine inhalers and patches under the Nicotrol name brand through its subsidiary McNeil Consumer Products. They provide grants for anti-smoking activities. The major non-profits are also inter-related to the major pharmaceutical industry.
This has been done under the guise of public health. The health extremists must continue to expand their activities to ensure steady additional income to support their extremely expensive infrastructures. “Smart Money” rated all three major charities (ACS, ALA and AHA), active in anti-tobacco activities, at the bottom of the 100 largest charities. As free choice advocates, we have a nationwide boycott against the “big three”.
The ACS has even created a separate organization for political activities to protect themselves from violating their non-profit status. They have already spent $2 million dollars on marketing and a media blitz to promote the smoking ban in Chicago.
See below:
http://www.acscan.org/atf/cf/%7B2D9A46D9-9E8B-449C-A9E5-4628BA14BA2B%7D/2005%20final%20ACS%20CAN%20FAQ.pdf
ACS has created ACS CAN - Politically Active
“1. What is the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN)?
ACS CAN is a sister organization to the American Cancer Society (ACS Inc). It provides certain legal
protection to the (ACS Inc.), allowing us to steadily grow advocacy efforts without jeopardizing our
nonprofit tax status or violating IRS guidelines.
2. How is my contribution to ACS CAN different from the American Cancer Society?
ACS CAN is a separate legal and financial entity from ACS Inc. Contributions to ACS CAN are not tax
deductible.
3. What specifically will ACS CAN do?
Among other activities, ACS CAN will:
• Engage in more active lobbying on cancer issues for our constituents
• Educate the public and media more directly
• Create and distribute voter guides detailing candidates positions on specific health-related issues
to volunteers and donors. Host debates, town forums, and other events where candidate views on
issues are tested and discussed.
• Hold lawmakers accountable on their votes regarding cancer.
What does cancer have to do with politics?
Whether we like it or not, cancer is a political issue. Government officials make decisions about health issues that affect your life. Issues include cancer research, awareness, early detection and prevention programs, treatment, and access to quality care for all Americans. That’s why the American Cancer Society, an organization Americans have trusted for almost 90 years, is now enlisting the public to help carry the fight even further.
Together we can apply enough pressure-through letters, emails, phone calls and visits-that we can convince lawmakers fighting cancer should be a higher national priority.”
http://www.hoovers.com/free/co/factsheet.xhtml?&COID=46997&cm_ven=PAID&cm_cat=OVR&cm_pla=CO2&cm_ite=american_lung_association&abforward=true
American Lung Association
“Many Americans breathe easier because of the American Lung Association (ALA). With about 200 local offices, the century-old ALA is dedicated to the prevention and cure of lung disease, giving special focus to asthma management, tobacco control, and clean air. The association funds research, develops public education materials, disseminates information, sponsors conferences, and lobbies for health legislation. ALA is also loosely affiliated with the American Thoracic Society, a professional organization of lung physicians and scientists. The ALA receives funding from donations, corporate grants, membership dues, and other sources. One of its best-known fund-raising programs is its annual Christmas Seals drive.”
Question) 2. Do these kind of laws really overstep the bounds of government authority?
Answer) Yes, they are in violation of our Bill of Rights, Amendments 5 and 9.
Question) Does the government have any business regulating a small private business, even when it doesn’t deal directly with the public in its office space?
Answer) No, unless the space is leased and in conflict with building management policy. Fire insurance is much cheaper in a smoke free environment. However, reduced ventilation costs are an additional benefit to building operating expenses, when smoke is not present to “blow the whistle” on poor ventilation standards. Smoke free air does not mean clean air.
Question) How much of a violation of privacy is this?
Smoking bans are a violation of any private business, whether or not they choose to invite the public.
In a U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970’s involving leafleting Vietnam War protesters turned away from a shopping mall, the Supreme Court said a place of business does not become public property just because the public is invited in. By that same reasoning, a restaurant or bar is not public property.
Question) 3. What other concerns do you have about these kinds of laws?
Answer) Seat belt laws, “fat” taxes and the Patriot Act are already invasions of privacy. This will not end with smokers…..it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Smoking bans are an implementation of Fascist policies. Our government was not created to micromanage. We are a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. A Democracy is tyranny of the majority.
Government dictated bans and prohibitions are attempts at social engineering in it’s ugliest form. Discrimination and brain washing the public against a minority, through the threat of government enforcement is in violation of our US Constitution. Why should a pharmaceutically dependent population be condoned, while smokers are demonized?
Question) 4. Should smokers be up in arms about this? What can they do?
Answer) - Stop being complacent and apologetic.
- Learn that health threats from smoking have been grossly exaggerated.
- Write to newspapers and government representatives, objecting to interference in private business and life style choices.
- Attend city council meetings. Speak out. Our city, state and Federal representatives are supposed to serve us…not the other way around.
- Read our weekly newsletter at Smokers Club, Inc. http://www.smokersclubinc.com for updates on our states and national news. Learn what bans are doing in other areas.
Question) If possible, I’d like to talk to a local member of your group in Saginaw County, if one is available.
Answer) I’m sorry, we do not have a representative in your area. We are attempting to motivate more people, but need more volunteers. We have created a Michigan Smokers Rights forum at michigansmokersrights@yahoogroups.com.
Sincerely,
______________________________
Garnet Dawn - The Smoker’s Club, Inc. - Midwest Regional Director
The United Pro Choice Smokers Rights Newsletter - http://www.smokersclubinc.com
Illinois Smokers Rights - http://www.illinoissmokersrights.com/
mailto:garnetdawn@comcast.net - Respect Freedom of Choice!
on December 14th, 2005 at 12:22 am
Cox probably needs corrective sinus surgery instead.
I had this done after a minor car accident.
Had chronic sinusitis for about two years. Started the fall after I had the accident and was on antibiotics several times a year and in general was just miserable, physically and mentally.
Had I totally given up playing clubs “with second hand smoke”……and not had the surgery, I would still have chronic sinusitis. I had this condition whether the band was playing steadily or not. In my case, the sinusitis was caused by the injury, plain and simple.
No allergies here. They tested me for everything under the sun.
A bash to the cheek closed off a sinus channel and it had to be opened.
I only had an ocassional bout before the wreck and then all of a sudden I could not shake these things even with strong antibiotics. The ENT also corrected a deviated septum from birth.
Many people have this.
So I have one large maxillary sinus….from the surgery and a straight septum.
He also worked on opening the ethmoid sinus..which is where the injury was.
I had no problem with the spheroid sinuses behind the eyes. No polyps or anything like that either.
Leaving a K-12 teaching job helped too concerning my former sinus problems. The schools are germ cesspools.
I would still get sinus infections after the surgery, but not as often and the antibiotics actually helped when my sinuses were open for the medication to be able get in there to do its job.
However, leaving the school teaching job totally solved the problem for me.
When I feel an occasional possible bout coming on now like most normal people do every once in awhile …. my cure is some good strong spirits and a good night’s sleep;-)
Works like a charm almost every single time.
The MIdwest in general is the sinus capital of the US. Many people have terrible problems after they move to this area of the country from other places.
I was fortunate to find this good ENT who knew his craft.
Recovery from the surgery was not a big deal, just a few days of taking it easy.
I personally enjoy the smokey clubs. I made much money as a musician before our ban and seek work in towns without a ban as there is still money to be made in these places.
Your clubs will be hurting because of this ban. I am from a midwestern city and we are really hurting here.
You do not hear the whole story concerning NYC either, only what the press wants you to know. I have a number of friends who play in the Big Apple and unless you are a national artist playing the Blue Note, times are tough.
on January 5th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
Okay, a few things.
1. Restaurants and bars are NOT public places. They are private places owned by private citizens who have the right to run them however they want, because they bought them with their own money. Public property is government property. Restaurants are not owned by the city. You are taking away the freedom of business owners, and also hurting their business. I hear you right now, “but their business will actually improve!”. How arrogant of you to assume that you, who don’t own a business, know so much more than the owners do about how to run their own business. And besides, it’s none of your business!!
2. If there was a demand for smoke-free establishments, business owners would ban smoking. This is their right, and smokers would have no problem with that. It’s called freedom. Many do that now. Good for them, It’s all about choice, right? Smokers aren’t saying that ALL restaurants should allow smoking, so why are non-smokers insisting that they get their way 100%?
3. If we take it as a given that smokers want to smoke and non-smokers don’t want to be around smokers, why don’t we compromise? Some restaurants would be non smoking, and some would allow smoking. Restaurant owners would choose. Why isn’t this enough? Why doesn’t this solve the problem?
4. You say you can’t go to restaurant x because the smoke bothers you. Too bad. If you think about it, you might not go to a resturant because their hamburgers suck, or it’s too dark, or the service is terrible. Should government step in and regulate that also? Is it really the role of government to control all aspects of our society? Can’t we think of other ways to work together and compromise rather than turning to the government? Can’t you find other places to go? Of course you can! Too bad smokers won’t have that freedom. They will have to stay home.
5. My buddies who are cops are really dreading the huge waste of time enforcing this law will be. I guess we don’t have any problem with 800 murders a year in this city, we have bigger, more important jobs for the cops to do! Also, think about this. If you see someone smoking, and call the cops, they’ll be done with the cigarette by the time the cops get there. The cops can write a ticket, but YOU need to take off a day of work as a witness if you saw the person smoking and the cop didn’t. That’s okay, your job isn’t that important, just like the business owner’s livelyhood isn’t that important, right?
6. When restaurants lose money as smokers stay home, you non-smokers will get to watch your favorite restaurants, the ones you claim to be so excited about being able to visit now, go out of business. The ones that survive will jack prices up. You DO realize that, don’t you?
7. I encourage everyone to buy everything online, and/or drive out to the suburbs to buy things, especially gas and cigarettes. Even better if you go outside of Cook County. Squeeze the city’s source of income-Watch the city die. I love my hometown, but I love liberty more.
on June 3rd, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Wondered how things were going in Chicago on draws at theclubs
At least to the best of my understanding your clubs have a window of time to get air filtration systems in the clubs, so I would assume it has not hit you hard as of yet.
Here in Columbus we are hoping that a SmokeLESS Ohio amendment will pass that will allow the 21 clubs to have a choice in the matter.
Still crickets here in the clubs in Columbus with the current draconian all-inclusive smoking ban in effect for the time being.
on September 5th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
All:
Just reading about the the timid Chicago ban.
We’ve had the ban in California, the entire state, for several years now and it is great. Last I heard money spent in bars has gone up, that’s according to the state liquor agency which collects revenue from bars.
MY wife and I personally go out to eat 6 or 7 nights a week now, versus 1 or 2 nights when there was no smoking ban. It was no fun going to a restaurant and hoping all the while you are there, that some jerk would not ight up.
As are as the second hand smoke controversy, I believe the surgeon general has put that to rest. Second hand smoke does cause cancer.
As far as the freedom to do what you want and not be restricted by government. It is the taxpayers who have to pay for the last days of the poor unfortunates who get lung cancer. I know because my sister was one of them, I can still hear her lament saying why did I ever smoke and as she slowly passed from us.
Her 2 visits to the hospital caused close to 1/2 million 20 years ago.
I am sure that it has to be 2 or 3 million now. I don’t believe there is any insurance policy that will fork out this amount, so we the taxpayer do.
Yours in clear air
Joe Nolan
on October 14th, 2006 at 5:02 am
HEY SMOKERS!!!! IS THERE ANYWHERE WE CAN STILL HAVE A DRINK AND A SMOKE???? HAVEN’T LEFT THE SUBURBS SINCE THE BAN!!
GOIN TO BLUE MAN ON SATURDAY…I WOULD APPRECIATE ANY SUGGESTIONS THANKS!!!
on January 7th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
I will not spend any money in any Illinois bars anymore, since the ban. But I stopped by a few to see if they are empty and they are. How will the state make up for the revenue loss? That’s right, raise your taxes. Call the gov’s office at 217-782-0244 to tell them to repeal the smoking ban. 80% of the people who go to bars smoke anyway!