Then he said, very matter-of-factly, “That is exactly the tactic the government is using to take away our rights and freedoms. A little at a time is taken and by the time we wake up, to what is happening, it will be too late. ‘1984’ will be here and Big Brother will be watching."
The move to ban smoking in Cobb County parks is a move toward reducing the rights of a segment of our population. It is demagoguery short and sweet, using scientific evidence of one kind and redirecting it to another arena.
I am an ex-smoker, very strongly opposed to smoking and a vocal advocate of quitting. I know, first hand, the health costs of living with the “devil weed,” having smoked for the better part of 50 years, beginning in my early teens and quitting 13 years ago next month.
On the other hand, I am also a strong opponent of big government. When acting to restrict our freedoms, or deny us a right, government has a responsibility to show just cause. Instead, in this case, they are relying on propaganda induced prejudice and public gullibility.
The adverse effects of second-hand smoke in closed quarters on a continual basis cannot be denied. Yet little credible research has been done to prove that random, short-term exposure in an uncontrolled outdoor environment is substantially harmful. After reading half a dozen research documents, it became evident that the research has been confined to environs such as sidewalk cafes, sporting events and outdoor concerts, where people are in close proximity to each other. Such research is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
I could find no critical examination of areas such as parks, hiking trails, picnic areas, etc. In fact, Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor at the Boston School of Public Health, and an outspoken critic of second hand smoke, stated “There is no evidence that fleeting second-hand exposure in an open space is significantly harmful.”
The best conclusion in the documents I read was that standing within two feet of a smoker for an hour, while he smokes two cigarettes you will inhale a significant amount of harmful air. However, once you increase the distance between you, or the duration of exposure, the severity diminishes.
Automobile emission is known to be a dangerous pollutant, the sustained and prolonged breathing of which can cause serious respiratory damage. So, at the same time we ban cigarette smoking in our public parks, should we not, also, ban automobiles?
A 2003 study by scientists from Rice University found that microscopic bits of polyunsaturated fatty acids released into the atmosphere from cooking meat on backyard barbecues were helping to pollute the air. The smoke from burning charcoal or wood can irritate and increase respiratory problems. Canada considers charcoal a hazardous substance, and charcoal bags must carry a warning label, similar to that the U. S. requires on cigarette packages. Maybe then, we should ban fires in Cobb County parks, along with smoking and automobiles.
Much of the support I have seen for this ban is based, not so much on the health factor, as the personal prejudice factor. Many people consider smoking a filthy, disgusting practice while others find smokers socially irritating.
If the decision to ban smoking is based, in any way, on the “irritant” factor, then there are any number of other things we should consider banning. A partial list might include uncontrolled children, dogs, music devices, strong perfumes, abbreviated clothing, loud talking, etc.
If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea of legislating a sector of the people out of a right, based on flimsy, poorly researched science. If you want support, show us the science to justify it.
Cobb County has a lot of problems which need to be addressed. We do not need to waste any more time on this non-issue.
Pete Borden is a masonry contractor in east Cobb.
Follow us on Twitter!
Our benighted populace seem totally unaware of our collective smoke-filled past: smoke from factories, chimneys, and other wide-ranging fires that somehow we endured throughout our long history on earth.
We now live in a world of moaning and whining pansies, who cavil at any obstacle or unpleasantry, and urge somebody to do something; make a law!
Page 3: Second-hand tobacco smoke kills 600,000 people each year.
Page 5: There is no safe level of exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke.
Page 18: Second-hand tobacco smoke is dangerous to health
I can only assume that the "original" report you reference was written in 1948; but the latest report from 2009, is crystal clear.
However, even though I am not a stubborn person, I still have serious doubts. I liken the change in the report you read to the same "phenomenon" known as global warming. That is: to prove your point and satisfy those who fund you,and to keep the funding coming in, falsify your data.
PS I will research the latest data.
I did some research on the issue. The WHO report does define SHS as harmful. I am not convinced. One thing I have tried to do in my life is not allow my decisions to be made by fear. I will, first, iterate my position on smoking--I hate it- I wish no one would smoke. It is dirty, smelly and particularly for the smoker, dangerous to their health.
That said, I again go back to the matter of SHS (Second Hand Smoke). I found many refutations.
I am posting one opposition view:
From an article by Dr. Michael Siegel , Dept. of Community Health Services, Boston Univ. School of Health.
Subject : Banning Outdoor Smoking June 01, 2011
"Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is encouraging local anti-smoking advocates throughout Canada to deceive the public in order to promote widespread outdoor smoking bans that cover wide-open areas such as parks, streets, parking lots, sidewalks, curbs and retaining walls.
Specifically, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada instructs local advocates to tell the public that: "Even in very small concentrations, second‐hand smoke causes immediate, short-term and long-term harm to people exposed to it. ... The long-term harm can include premature death from cancer or heart disease."
Thus, Physicians for a Smoke-Free Canada is instructing local advocates to claim that even very small concentrations of secondhand smoke causes heart disease and cancer.
In addition, the physicians group is encouraging anti-smoking advocates to deceive the public about how well outdoor smoking bans are working. Advocates are told to: "Plant stories in the media about non‐smokers politely asking smokers to move to a designated smoking area or outside the smoke‐free area and smokers complying. Create the impression that the bylaw is working...".
"First, it is not true that "very small" concentrations of secondhand smoke cause heart disease and lung cancer. The evidence that secondhand smoke exposure causes these chronic diseases comes from studies of relatively high levels of chronic exposure to secondhand smoke, such as that experienced working for many years in a workplace with tobacco smoke or living for many years with a smoker. There is no evidence that merely a brief exposure to secondhand smoke, such as might be experienced in a park or on a street, is sufficient to cause heart disease and lung cancer. In fact, the effects brief exposure to secondhand smoke are reversible and one would therefore need to be regularly exposed to secondhand smoke for many years in order to develop heart disease and lung cancer.
Where are the physicians getting their information? From the U.S. Surgeon General, of course, who claimed - incorrectly and without any scientific support - that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer."
I suggest two things, 1: Those who are opposed to smoking-- are so convinced by questionable evidence that they are right that they would block other people's rights and 2. A whole kettle of philosophical and psychological reasons come to the fore when people are fed information (true or false) that includes health threats. The argument comes forth then, that they would rather err on the side of the angels and stop everyone from smoking to protect everyone , including the smoker.
I sincerely hope smokers will heed the dangers and stop smoking. I believe there a are enough smoking controls in place and that non-smokers are really stepping on the rights of smokers.
Remember, I am a non-smoker and hate it, but I am also a person who respects the rights of all.
I also believe that Dr Siegel's article reflects strongly on how the anti-smoking lobby will lie to accomplish their ends.
That is why I referenced global warming in my first response.The alarmists learned their trade from the anti-smoking campaigns of the past.
It comes down to the old issue of when does one man's rights intrude on another person's rights?
I read the World Health Organization original report on smoking. The actual results were lost in the feeding frenzy of the anti- smoking crusaders Find the report, tread it--second hand smoke harm is a myth.
That said it is a disgusting, foul smelling and dangerous to the smoker habit, but the smokers have rights too. I do not consider it unfair to designate one half a park as smoking and the other non-smoking.
It's just that in my experience anti smoking people are very intense about having their way.Smokers feel guilty and usually do not stand for their rights because of that guilt.
In a PERFECT world, no one would smoke. Please post here the day the world becomes perfect.
Good article.
But when it doesn't, it is the overstepping of the government.
I can't wait to enjoy the parks without the smell of smoke wafting from the idiot at the end of the bleachers.
This is a knee jerk reaction by one lone commissiomner to a non-issue. I would suggest you do the research like Borden obviously did, but you won't do it. Your personal likes and dislikes always take precedence over other other people's rights.