THE NEW FRONTIER OF ASH – BANNING SMOKING IN THE HOME!

In a press release issued on Wednesday, Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) – a Washington, D.C.-based national anti-smoking group – called banning smoking in homes the next front in the war on smoking and cited a new survey showing that a majority of people in Ireland expressed support for a total ban on smoking in homes and cars.

According to the press release: “A clear majority wants smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling. This could expand the latest front in the war to protect nonsmokers, says the man who started the nonsmokers’ movement by getting smoking first restricted and then banned on airplanes and then in workplaces and public places, and who is racking up victories in the battle to ban smoking in private dwellings and cars.

What are your thoughts? Will this ever materialize? How will this affect the industry? 

37 comments ↓

#1 Joe Camel on 06.29.08 at 7:55 AM

Will this bastard be allowed to trash the Fourth Amendment to further his despicable cusade?

We’ll see.

#2 Troubadour on 06.29.08 at 11:02 AM

It’s amazing how the anti smoking movement continues to trample on an individuals rights. THis is just not a tobacco issue. The government and all it’s liberal fanatics continue to interfere in the lives of law abiding citizens. Yet criminals walk the streets with more rights than law abiding citizens. Folks this issue is more than just a smoking issue as it will move over into other areas of your life. For the government to impose laws that will not let me smoke in my own house is totally ridiculous! For God’s sake when will this ever stop!

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

#3 fra59e on 06.29.08 at 1:20 PM

I don’t care what people do IN THEIR OWN SPACE, but I will raise holy hell if they expect me to passively put up with them dumping their problems on others without consent. Let them do as they like IN PRIVATE – spit, fart, masturbate, smoke their cigarettes – I DON’T CARE – but I do not want to see them, smell them, or pay their costs. Hey smokers, my face is NOT your ashtray, GO AWAY.

#4 mandyv on 06.29.08 at 2:13 PM

This was never about health, just fanatics who want to control law abiding, tax paying citizens, the stench of brainwashed smoke- haters, intolerance is NOT heathy.
Ventilation should have been the way forward. The smoke-haters are in a minorty, otherwise these vindictive bans would never have needed to be forced upon everyone. LIES to reach fanatics agendas are not healthy either. Prohibition did not work for the puritans the first time around, it did not work for smoke-hating, drug addict, Hitler either.

Fanatics should never win.

freedom2choose.info for tolerant non-smokers and smokers alike

forces.org

#5 Chris on 06.30.08 at 5:34 PM

Filthy Nazis I say. They’ve become a bit more sophisticated though this time around. Brainwashing governments before spewing out their lies and propaganda amongst the people.
It will all end in tears. The truth always comes out and facists are always defeated

#6 Karen on 06.30.08 at 5:46 PM

Why on earth would a ‘clear majority want(s) smoking banned in all homes, even if children are not present, and even if the smoke is not drifting into an adjoining dwelling’?

#7 DaveA on 06.30.08 at 6:04 PM

Hitler was the man who first banned smoking in public places in 1942, and extended it to public transport in 1944. Come on ASH pick up the baton. Is it a concentration camp for offenders?

#8 enraged on 06.30.08 at 7:55 PM

I’m just waiting for an ASH poll that asks,

Should smokers who refuse to give up be forced to wear armbands to mark them out as misfits

Yes

No

Don’t know

Should a detention centre be made available so that smokers who flout the Smoking Ban experiment can be detained indefinitely

yes

No

Don’t know

If I remember rightly ASH said they had no intention of calling for smoking to be banned in homes, Deborah Arnott stated there was no way to enforce it. Unless they’re thinking of offering cash incentives to children to inform on parents and neighbour to inform on neighbour.

Or maybe demanding that CCTV be installed in every home.

There’s anthems in both America and Britain that should have the words changed.

The words, Land of the Free and home of the Brave should be deleted from the US one

The words Land of Hope and Glory should be deleted from the British one.

#9 Native Son on 06.30.08 at 10:05 PM

It’s great to see the outrage against a proposal like this but what is often the case is the public media is that folks on the side of freedom are pushed aside so that the liberal point of view gets spewed as if was the honest truth. Even folks within the anti-camp are now defecting as they see the radical tobacco haters rise to new levels.
This was the real agenda and those who believe that it has gone too far need to stand strong and fight back.

#10 CIG GUY on 07.01.08 at 5:47 PM

FREEDOM IS AT RISK! WE MUST STAND TALL! FIGHT THESE LUNATICS WHO WANT TO EVADE OUT PERSONAL SPACE! ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! SOUNDS LIKE WE NEED A BOSTON SMOKE PARTY!

#11 Johnny Boy on 07.01.08 at 9:14 PM

I presume this looney will join Labour and ASH UK in the political wilderness for about 15-20 years as the nannying, bullying government has alientated the entire country so badly Labour has been totally ignored by voters in recent Council elections and hammered into the ground (5th spot for also-rans and Looney Parties) and lost their deposit at the last by-election.

I’d like to see this Irish ‘research’. Is it as bent as the news from Ireland when they banned smoking and sent to Britain how ‘successful’ the ban was when the truth was Irish Pubs were going bankrupt as they have now (2,000 and counting) in Britains decimated industry (Lie No.1).

Lie No.2 was how passive smoking damages non-smokers health. Check our the LA California 39 year long study into passive smoking or the UN’s own 1998 WHO Study both of which shows no health dangers, either short or long term, to non-smokers.

I presume this Irish research treads the same dishonest path as the health fraud and the economic lie and the recent Scottish Health Minister purporting a “17% reduction in heart attacks since the ban” which was a study not peer reviewed whose statistics were trashed as rubbish and The Times included as a Top 10 entry to their ‘Junk Science’ claims for 2007.

We can also add more research claims that English heart attacks have dropped like the Scottish rates reported in The Independant or Daily Mail and also trashed as yet more junk science.

So I fully expect this so-called Irish ‘research’ to be filed where it deserves in the file arked ‘bin’ along with all the other disingenuous and dishonest garbage from these extremist creeps.

#12 Jersey Guy on 07.02.08 at 2:28 PM

Unfortunately, I live in one of the staes that just perpetuates the lies. I think we just need to actively get the word out and do it though forcefully but yet rationally not becoming easily targeted fanatics. Get the facts presented clearly – communicating the message to all!

#13 Johnny Boy on 07.02.08 at 10:28 PM

Jersey Guy,
I’m from Guernsey 🙂
I saw on Channel TV last Wed the Jersey Health nerd trot out a claim for “saving 170 heart attacks”. It’s the same junk science claims trashed in England and Scotland.
Go to http://www.freedom2choose.org/ and sign in on the Forum ok. I joined 3 months ago and am looking for a Jersey contact to start the ball rolling here in the Channel Isles and I will introduce myself to you there ok.

#14 Jersey Guy on 07.03.08 at 4:27 PM

Johnny Boy,

What are you in need of?

#15 kentucky rebel on 07.06.08 at 9:57 PM

Kinda find it hard that something like this would ever happen but the way the anti folks mislead folks it seems like we need to start a counter movement. I love my tobacco. I’m on board to get the word out!

#16 smokey on 07.08.08 at 4:39 PM

Wow could this really happen? Makes me wonder what else folks one day will try to take out of my house. They for sure are not taking my guns or my bibles!!!

#17 TAZ on 07.09.08 at 5:46 PM

The following is a part of an except from an article written by Michael Siegel – ENTIRE STORY CAN BE FOUND ON THE BLOGROLL (THE REST OF THE STORY)

ASH Reiterates its Claim that 30 Minutes of Secondhand Smoke Increases a Nonsmokers’ Risk of a Heart Attack to that of an Active Smoker
Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) has reiterated its claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke increases a nonsmoker’s risk of suffering a heart attack to the same level as that of an active smoker.

On its web site, ASH now repeats its claim that “even 30 minutes of exposure to small amounts of drifting secondhand tobacco smoke can increase a nonsmokers’ risk of a heart attack to that of a smoker.”

ASH states that its claim is based on the following two statements made in the scientific literature:

Statement 1
“the effects of even brief (minutes to hours) passive smoking are often nearly as large (averaging 80% to 90%) as chronic active smoking.”

Statement 2
“Even 30 minutes of exposure to a typical dose of secondhand smoke induces changes in arterial endothelial function in exposed non-smokers of a magnitude similar to those measured in active smokers.”

The Rest of the Story

This claim by ASH is not only inaccurate, but it is absurd on its face. There is no way that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke can increase the risk of a heart attack to the same level as that observed in a chronic, active smoker. If this were true, then the tobacco industry could legitimately claim that: “active smoking is no worse [in terms of heart attack risk] than being exposed to drifting tobacco smoke for 30 minutes.” Obviously, a smoker’s risk of a heart attack is far greater than the risk for a nonsmoker exposed to secondhand smoke for a half hour.

So ASH has got it completely wrong here. But how? How could ASH so thoroughly distort the science that it became blatantly false?

The answer is that ASH has conflated endothelial dysfunction with heart attack risk. Both statements #1 and #2 above relate to endothelial dysfunction. What the key study found (there is really only one study here, but the same study is being referred to in both statements) is that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increased endothelial dysfunction (as measured by coronary flow velocity reserve) to the same extent in nonsmokers as in smokers.

The study did not find that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke increases heart attack risk to the same level as that of smokers.

Had ASH stated: “even 30 minutes of exposure to small amounts of drifting secondhand tobacco smoke can increase a nonsmokers’ risk of endothelial dysfunction to that of a smoker,” or “even 30 minutes of exposure to small amounts of drifting secondhand tobacco smoke can decrease nonsmokers’ coronary flow velocity reserve to that of a smoker” then the statement would
have been correct.

But by distorting the statement to assert that a nonsmoker’s risk of a heart attack is increased to the same level as that of a smoker, ASH has factually misrepresented the truth.

I am not accusing ASH of intentionally lying. Another possibility is that they are lawyers and not physicians, simply do not understand the difference between measuring endothelial dysfunction and measuring heart attack risk, and are simply out of their league in interpreting science like this. However, if this is the explanation for this scientific misrepresentation, then it is still inexcusable. A public health organization that puts itself forward as being a trustworthy source of medical and scientific information to the public has a responsibility, I believe, to be reasonably careful in crafting its public communications. If scientific incompetence is the explanation for ASH’s dissemination of false information, then ASH remains guilty of failing to exercise even the most minimal level of care in communication of health information to the public.

#18 TAZ on 07.09.08 at 6:40 PM

HERE IS ANOTHER ARTICLE I FOUND TODAY ON THE TMA SITE!

United States
In an opinion piece published in Right Side News, Dr. Jerome Arnett Jr., a pulmonologist from Helvetia, West Virginia, said “[t]he abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty scientific outcomes” have resulted in “the deception of the American public on a grand scale” about the possible health effects of exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and the “government overregulation” to implement tough anti-smoking legislation. (Right Side News 07/08)

#19 NWTobacco on 07.11.08 at 1:51 AM

Wow – I’m really glad to see someone take this issue. It’s really a needed discussion. I do believe that this is getting out of hand. I grew up in a family where my parents both smoked. One still does. The other passed away but had no smoking related issues. Thev 4 siblings have no evidence of smoking related issies either. So I just think the drug industry is continually perpetuating the crusade so they can continue to grow their consumer base. Don’t know many folks that have quit using a nicorette!

#20 virginia blend on 07.15.08 at 12:37 AM

It does not surprise me that folks would continue to attack our civil liberties. But what still astonishes me is that groups that typically support civil liberties are just so quiet on this topic. I still remember an old saying my grandfather use to sayto me as I grew up. The more you rely on government the more they take from you and this is jusat another case to prove the point!

#21 SMOKEY on 07.18.08 at 12:36 AM

People have nothing better to do than evade law abiding citizens privacy. I read where folks in the Chicago suburbs are looking to ban fireplaces in homes. Where will it stop?

#22 TOBACCO KILLS on 07.23.08 at 2:43 AM

I think its a great thing to see tobacco banned in the homes. Tobacco should just be banned every where!

#23 JD on 07.24.08 at 11:03 AM

Tobacco is not the issue but smoking indoors with limited ventilation can be a problem. In certain public settings I can understand the need for some restrictions regarding smoking but in the privacy of one’s own home, government should not intrude unless illegal activity is taking place. Tobacco in itself is not the problem – burning the flavorings and other chemical additives used in standard cigarette production creates several toxins that can be harmful and irritating to some people.

#24 OTP Kid on 07.24.08 at 3:21 PM

Looks like we have one of these leftist, queer, activist types on here going by the name Tobacco Kills. In all liklihood,my guess is that he is unemployed, still lives with mommy and likes to kick a soccer ball around in the park with little 10 year old boys he just met.

#25 TOBACCO KILLS on 07.24.08 at 10:28 PM

OTP Kid,
You must have been the bully in the park that took his ball and went home when things didn’t go your way. Why don’t you refute me rather than attack me by calling me names. Just check the death roll of the the millions tobacco has killed. I actually did play soccer in my collegiate years. No kids there! So refute me I’ll take you on!

#26 NWTobacco on 07.26.08 at 9:09 AM

TKills,

It’s very obvious that you have been brainwashed by the anti-tobacco establishment. You probably work for Big Pharma which lies so they can profit from the tobacco industry. Producing NRT products that don’t work but produce a steady stream of profits. It’s obvious you have never looked at the test results of the relative harm of the different forms of tobacco. It’s folks like you that report the scientific facts inaccurately to mislead the public. If folks can use smokeless products to reduce their dependency on cigarettes than so be it! It’s a giagantic step in the right direction. If there are other forms of tobacco that can be used that are safer than so be it! I do not think that you understand that prior to “smoke” tobacco did not present the issues it does today. Once heard it stated simply as “It’s the smoke stupid!”

#27 JD on 07.29.08 at 10:59 AM

Having spent a considerable amount of my sales and marketing career in the tobacco industry, I know from some of my friends in the scientific community that it is not tobacco directly causing the problem but the additives that are burned and other issues that involve individual genetics that are at the root cause of tobacco alledgedly “killing” people. Just as nicotine has been blamed incorrectly for “killing” people.

As a personal example re; genetics, my wife was recently diagnosed with a genetic liver disorder. The disorder called ALPHA-1 relates to an enzyme secreated by the liver that protects the lungs. This genetic disorder has only come to light in the past 7-10 years following the mapping of the human genome. She was a casual smoker 30 years ago but has never had or currently has a lung problem. Instead she now has a diseased liver. Why? Doctors do not know.

If we as a populus begin to demand further research into other problems that are related to the lungs for example, we may be able to discover methods to counter problems that are inherent in our individual genetic makeup instead of bashing things without all of the scientific evidence with an unbiased point of view.

#28 John Rolfe on 08.02.08 at 11:58 AM

It is too bad that Tobacco Kills does not offer us on this blog some way out of the tobacco epidemic, given that everyone here already knows that tobacco is harmful. What others here agree, however, is that we do not routinely substitute the word “tobacco” for the word “smoking” since many of us anyway, based on what I have been reading here, know that there are forms of tobacco use that are much less harmful — 98-99% less harmful — than others. We also know that the rate of decline in the smoking prevalence rate in most developed marked has declined in the past several years and that society is down to the hard-core smokers who are not or will not or can not quit. Now the question for Tobacco Kills, is what does the quit or die Tobacco Control movement offer these people? More demonizing of consumers and manufacturers even if that no longer works? So yes, Tobacco Kills, let’s have this debate: if you care so much about human life how come you don’t want tobacco companies to have the right to communicate these relative risk levels to the public so the public can make an informed choice not to smoke…but to get their nicotine in some other less harmful form if they can not or will not quit and certainly have not quit?

#29 NWTobacco on 08.02.08 at 3:31 PM

John Rolfe,

I’d like to add the point that there are those who just out right want to smoke regardless of whether there are health claims related to smoking. I know enough folks that believe it is within their civil rights as long as it is not affecting others to choose to smoke. Does everyone who smokes die – yes, but do they all die from smoking – no!
Driving a car kills – do we tell people no more driving? Where is the Anti Driving Coalition? Drinking diet soda has been linked to cancer – is there a Anti Diet Soda Coalition that is harrassing the beverage industry? Where is the Anti Tanning Salon Coalition to protest the cause that tanning causes cancer. Me thinks that someone is behind the scene funding the anti smoking coalition which is truly spewing a misrepresentation of the facts. I get so tired of all the folks who use data from reports but just pick out portions that they can use to support their cause. And the public is just so misinformed.

#30 TOBACCO KILLS on 08.09.08 at 6:39 PM

Mr. Rolfe,

How are you capable of saying that there other forms of tobacco that are 98%-99% safer. Where is the proof? Can you actually provide this or are you just so blinded by the profits of the tobacco industry? Tobacco kills how many people when smoked, second hand and even referencing that some forms are safer implies that some people still die from it. Is the number close to 450,000 people each year. Is that not enough to just say enough is enough it needs to go away? Tobacco companies be trusted? Are you kidding? I mean look at how history has proven that they lie. I mean how do we know that a new product won’t be found to be more harmful in the future. I also don’t think that FDA regulation is the answer as that organization is not capable of figuring out whether a tomato kills or a jalapeno kills. So I would much rather see proof of what your saying. I do know a lot of people are dying because of tobacco! If there was a toy out in the industry that caused harm to a child would it not be banned? Would folks not demand that it be made safe? If one could make tobacco safe I’d be for that but what are the chances of that ever happening. Just by referencing harm reduction means harm still exists. So further enlighten me and I will consider your scientific and medicallt driven proof.

#31 TAZ on 08.14.08 at 5:15 PM

The question I ask is how much money was spent on this project? Like the results were not obvious? Can we all say, DAH?

United States
A study conducted by researchers at the Boston University School of Public Health in Massachusetts and scheduled to be published in the October issue of the American Journal of Public Health found that teens living in households that allow smoking are more likely to perceive the habit as socially acceptable, compared with teens whose parents have banned smoking at home. (Newswise 08/13)

#32 TOBACCO KILLS on 09.13.08 at 1:37 AM

John Rolfe,
It’s been some time but I have yet to see a response from you as to who has proven that smokeless is 98% safer than cigarettes. Can you provide scientific prove or you just make up the claim?

#33 John Rolfe on 09.15.08 at 2:44 PM

My apologies for the delay in responding to your request for evidence regarding the 98% less harmful claim for smokeless. This comes from many noted authorities in the tobacco control field including Jonathan Foulds at the RWJ supported New Jersey School of Medicine and Dentistry who runs a leading smoking cessation program, and from Bill Godshall who runs Smokefree Pennsylvania, and from Dr. Brad Rodu a pathologist at the University of Louisville, and several hundred other researchers in public health who have also noted that oral cancer rates higher for cigarette smokers than for snuff users and that the lung effects on snuff users are pretty close to nil whereas COPD problems are the principal health effects for smokers. What data to you have to disprove these authorities?

#34 Bill Godshall on 09.18.08 at 2:09 PM

In response to postings by Mike Sawyer (aka Tobacco Kills), an average of 437,902 deaths in the U.S. were attributed to cigarette smoking annually from 1997 to 2001. Source: MMWR 7/1/05 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5425a1.htm

In sharp contrast, epidemiological studies estimate that smokeless tobacco products are attributable for no more than several hundred oral cancer deaths annually in the US. Cigarette smoking also poses a far greater (5-10 times greater) risk of oral cancer than does smokeless tobacco use.

In sum, daily cigarette smoking poses about 100 times greater risk of premature death than does daily smokeless tobacco use.

Smokers can greatly reduce their risks of disease and death simply by substituting smokeless tobacco products (or even less hazardous nicotine gum, lozenges or inhalers) for cigarettes.

Brad Rodu and I authored a peer reviewed article on this issue entitled “Tobacco harm reduction: an alternative cessation strategy for inveterate smokers” http://www.harmreductionjournal.com/content/3/1/37

Since Mike Sawyer has received many different e-mails from me containing research and news articles about the comparable health risks of different tobacco products, I don’t understand why he posted those comments and criticisms on this blog.

#35 IRON CITY SMOKER on 09.22.08 at 1:03 AM

The Tobacco Kills guy probably supports legalization of pot! Look at California banning cigarette sales but wanting to legalize pot. I wonder if you can smoke pot in public?

#36 TAZ on 01.13.09 at 11:46 AM

San Jose Mercury News
January 13, 2009 –
SAN JOSE, CA – Going far beyond other California smoking ordinances, Belmont, a town of 25,000 residents just north of Palo Alto, passed a smoking ban that extends indoors — to apartments and condominium units, the San Jose Mercury News reports.

The controversial ordinance, effective January 9, is the most restrictive smoking law in a state that already prohibits lighting up in any public commercial building — restaurants, bars and businesses. Belmont’s law extends the ban to any “multistory, multiunit dwelling.” Transgressors will be fined $100.

Enforcing the latest restriction will be “complaint driven” — In other words, neighbors will be required to “rat out” a violator to get the wheels of justice moving — or in Belmont’s case, the designated code enforcement officer.

“I’m more like the stick than the…pointy tip,” said Kirk Buckman, an officer for Belmont’s community development department who is in charge of extinguishing the city’s smoking offenders. “But it’s all part of the job. They enact ‘em. I’m paid to enforce ‘em.”

The controversial residential ban has some Belmont residents upset.

“I’m very agitated,” said Howard Odessky,” who lives in a 16-unit apartment building. “I’ve had three cigarettes in my apartment already this morning…I’m going to continue to smoke in my house, in Belmont…I don’t want to be a jerk about the whole thing, but, after all, a man’s home is his castle.”

The ban passed the city council by a 3-2 vote.

#37 Bill Godshall on 01.13.09 at 1:54 PM

Other municipalities (especially in California and elsewere with high incomes and low smoking rates) are likely to enacted comprehensive smokefree ordinances like the one in Belmont. Similarly, many hotel chains, condo associations, apartment buildings and other multi unit dwellings have implemented smokefree policies in the past several years, and many more are likely to do so in the next several years.

These are additional reason why smokers should switch to far less hazardous smokefree tobacco/nicotine products, or at least use them as a temporary substitute when/where smoking isn’t permitted.

Leave a Comment