TALKING POINTS

 

The anti-tobacco crusaders have a well-planned, well-funded strategy to get their way. Knowledge is power. Learn the truth and be able to combat anti-lies. The first section (in italics) is what they are told to argue; the second section is the truth. TO ENACT SMOKEFREE RESTAURANT LAWS: ANTI-RHETORIC: Nobody should have to breathe smoke to have a job. The health of restaurant workers is just as important as the health of bankers, doctors, lawyers, politicians and anyone else. Many restaurant workers do not have a college education. They are often teenagers trying to save money for college, single mothers trying to support a family, or less educated individuals who can't find other types of employment with comparable pay. These people should not have to compromise their health to have a decent paying job. TRUTH: Nobody will be forced to work at a place that allows smoking if the free market decides. Smokers can work at smoking-allowed establishments and non-smokers can work at smokefree establishments if they so choose. Free choice should decide in a free country. ANTI-RHETORIC: The Environmental Protection Agency has classified eight substances as Group A carcinogens. One of them is tobacco smoke. The other seven, including asbestos, benzene, arsenic, and radon, are illegal in the workplace. Tobacco smoke kills more than the other seven combined.   TRUTH: Federal Judge William O'Steen threw out the EPA's classification of tobacco smoke and criticized the agency for falsifying data and lying to the public. Here is what the studies really say: "In general, there was no elevated lung cancer risk associated with passive smoke exposure in the workplace. ..."Brownson et. al., 1992, American Journal of Public Health, November 1992, Vol. 82, No. 11 "... an odds ratio of 0.91 ... indicating no evidence of an adverse effect of environmental tobacco smoke in the work-place." Janerich et al., 1990 New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 6, 1990 "... the association with exposure to passive smoking at work was small and not statistically significant." Kalandidi et al., 1990 Cancer Causes and Control, 1, 15-21, 1990 "Among women exposed only at work, the multivariate relative risks of total CHD were 1.49 ... among those occasionally exposed and 1.92 ... among those regularly exposed to second-hand smoke [neither of which is statistically significant according to commonly accepted scientific standards]." Kawachi et al., 1997 Circulation, Vol. 95, No. 10, May 20, 1997 "No association was observed between the risk of lung cancer and smoking of husband or passive smoke exposure at work." Shimizu et al., 1988 Tohoku J. Exp. Med., 154:389-397 "We did not generally find an increase in CHD [coronary heart disease] risk associated with ETS exposure at work or in other settings." Steenland et al., 1996 Circulation, Vol. 94, No. 4, August 15, 1996 "... no statistically significant increase in risk associated with exposure to environ-mental tobacco smoke at work or during social activities...." Stockwell et al., 1992 Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 84:1417-1422, 1992 "There was no association between exposure to ETS at the workplace and risk of lung cancer." Zaridze et al., 1998 International Journal of Cancer, 1998, 75, 335-338 ANTI-RHETORIC: The tobacco cartel always claims that businesses will be hurt when laws require them to go smokefree. The evidence proves otherwise. Every study using sales tax data shows that smokefree restaurant legislation does not hurt business. In all cases, restaurant revenues stay the same or increase.  TRUTH: Only one study using sales tax data shows the above and it was done by Stanton Glantz, rabid anti-tobacco guru. He was shown to have 'diddled with the data' by economist Michael Evans and he even admitted using the wrong data in his study of smokefree bar ordinances in a letter to the editor of the Dominion Post in Morgantown, a small town in West Virginia. If you are really interested in the impact of this type of legislation on business owners, listen to the business owners themselves, not those paid to have an opinion. ONE study, not funded by the anti-smoker cartel, shows the truth: There are 1036 FEWER dine-in restaurants in California right now than would be expected by the state's growth rate. ANTI-RHETORIC: When laws required movie theatres to go smokefree, the tobacco cartel got movie theatre owners to say that smokers wouldn't go to movies anymore. When laws required airlines to go smokefree, the tobacco cartel got airline companies to say that smokers wouldn't fly anymore. When laws required restaurants in other cities to go smokefree, the tobacco cartel got restaurant owners to say that smokers wouldn't eat out anymore. When laws required stadiums to go smokefree, the tobacco cartel got stadium owners to say that smokers wouldn't buy season tickets anymore. In every instance, the tobacco cartel and the front groups it scared were wrong. TRUTH: Most smokers don't go to movies anymore, but that may be due as much to the availability of movies on video as smokefree ordinances. Many smokers don't fly if they can possibly drive to their destinations. Many smokers don't eat out or patronize bars or stadiums since smoker-hostile laws were enacted. This is not from a study, but from personal experience. My friends and I smoke and we don't patronize smoker-hostile establishments or businesses. Many businesses have been hurt by laws requiring restaurants and bars to be smokefree. Don't take anyone's word for it but the business owners themselves. ANTI-RHETORIC: The vast majority of people, including smokers, prefer to breathe clean air. The tobacco cartel and its propaganda machine will try to convince you otherwise. Contrary to tobacco cartel claims, most people prefer smokefree air.   TRUTH: We are not part of the "tobacco cartel and its propaganda machine." We are part of the one-quarter of the American public, 50 million taxpaying adults, whose rights are being taken away one-by-one by well-funded, maybe even well-meaning, health zealots who want to take all risk out of life. Contrary to the anti-tobacco cartel claims, most smokers want to be able to smoke at various times during their day, and most non-smokers don't mind.   Restaurants and Secondhand Smoke: ANTI-RHETORIC: Secondhand smoke is a public health issue. Secondhand smoke causes cancer, heart disease, and serious breathing problems. It agravates respiratory illnesses in children. There is no known safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. TRUTH: Every major study whose parameters were not changed to bolster a preconceived result shows little or no statistical risk from secondhand smoke. (See list above.) To understand more about risk assessment and confidence intevals, click here. ANTI-RHETORIC: Waitresses have the highest lung cancer rate of any female profession. TRUTH: If this is true (no study is noted to prove it), economic status, poor medical care, stress, and diet are more likely reasons than secondhand smoke. ANTI-RHETORIC: People with asthma and other breathing difficulties should be able to enjoy all eating and drinking establishments. TRUTH: Where does our Constitution say that EVERYONE should be able to enjoy EVERYTHING? That's simply a silly statement. The American way is to provide a choice. If someone with sensitive hearing cannot enjoy a bar with loud music, should all music everywhere be turned down, or should that patron be expected to find a place with softer music? ANTI-RHETORIC: Every study using sales tax data shows that smokefree restaurant legislation is good for business. TRUTH: Only one study using sales tax data shows the above and it was done by Stanton Glantz, rabid anti-tobacco guru. His study was shown to be false by economist Michael Evans and others, and Glantz later admitted using inaccurate data. The most recent study shows the opposite; and recent research in San Francisco shows its hospitality receipts down to 1994 levels. ANTI-RHETORIC: Smoking is optional. Breathing is not. TRUTH: When all else fails, use a catchy slogan. ANTI-RHETORIC: Our youth are exposed to this when they work or play in places where smoking is allowed indoors. Non-smokers have the right to breathe clean, hazard-free air. TRUTH: There are many hazards in the air, both indoors and out. For instance, the air in LA is 450 times more hazardous than government regulations allow. If the free market is allowed to decide, non- and anti-smokers--both customers and workers--will have access to smokefree restaurants, bars and workplaces, just as smokers--both customers and workers--will have access to smoking-allowed restaurants, bars and workplaces. That's the American way. ANTI-RHETORIC: Creating a smokefree environment is probably the single most effective tool to reduce both youth and adult tobacco use. TRUTH: No studies prove this statement. There are more smokefree places now than there have been in America in the last half of this century, but youth smoking continues to rise and adult smoking has reached a plateau at 25% of the population, where it has stayed for the past several years. ANTI-RHETORIC: Most smokers want to quit, but find it very difficult due to the addictive power of nicotine. Creating a smokefree workplace is one of the most effective ways to assist adults in their efforts to quit smoking. According to experts, implementation of a smokefree workplace policy brings a 25% reduction of workers' tobacco consumption. TRUTH: No studies prove this statement. Notice that the "experts" are not mentioned by name. More Americans have quit smoking than currently smoke, with no help from anyone. People who want to quit, quit. Many smokers have been harrassed to the point that they are ashamed to admit they smoke and don't want to quit. When smoking is called a "character deficit" by some of the most-loved people in the media, some smokers begin to believe there is something wrong with them and thereafter won't admit they smoke even when they do. ANTI-RHETORIC: Local efforts are required to deal with this problem; we can't count on state or national government to solve it for us. Our elected officials should pass smokefree workplace ordinances which protect workers from having to breathe poisonous smoky air. TRUTH: This is not an issue for national, state or local government. Governments should stay out of it entirely. The owners of these establishments should have the right to cater to those customers who want to engage in a LEGAL activity in their places of business. And it should the the staff's CHOICE whether or not to work there, and the customer's CHOICE whether or not to patronize the place. These ordinances are brought to the table, not by local people who have a problem with local smokers, either in public or in the workplace, restaurants, bars, etc, but by national professional anti-tobacco hate groups who get a tremendous amount of money for their efforts.