Jan 11, 2010

Special interest group still trying to kill workplace smoking ban with lies


In less than five months, Michigan’s bars and restaurants will be safe and smoke free after the workplace smoking bill that was signed into law last month, and people all over the state are looking forward to it with baited breath.

Not the opponents. Even though a decade-long fight that has overwhelming public support was won, they are not giving up. They have formed a Facebook group called “Amend the Michigan Smoking Ban.” So far, it has a whopping 446 members. That’s in sharp contrast to a group I am a member of called, “Michigan going smoke-free May 1st, 2010.” It has 61,766 members.

Good luck amending that law. I would like to see the lawmaker willing to introduce a bill to overturn something so popular.

Actually, I agree that we should amend the law, and hopefully that will happen soon. Proponents of clean air and public health will go after the exception for casinos.

This pro-smoking group has been floating an email trying to gain support. The first line says it all for me.

“We are not in any way funded, supported, endorsed or affiliated with the MLBA, nor the tobacco industry, any special interest, political group and/or party, whatsoever.”

That means this is just another attempt by the Michigan Licensed Beverage Association (MLBA) to prop up the tobacco industry. This group formed a web site last year to highlight debunked studies that say smoking bans hurt business and cost jobs. That is simply not true, and the results from the 37 other states and numerous foreign countries with smoking bans prove they are lying. No one has explained to me how less than 25 percent of the population can have than much of an effect on the economy.

Here’s another lie, “Michiganders were not asked if we supported this law, nor do we believe the State has the right to dictate to private business owners.”

Poll after poll said the opposite, and many people wanted to start petitions to put in on the ballot because the Legislature refused to act. In fact, it was only constant pressure from constituents that forced lawmakers to do the right thing. The government not only has the right to dictate to private business owners, they have a constitutional obligation to protect the public health.

But they save the best for last, and they just outright lie. Listen to these outrageous false claims:

“Studies show that for every customer gained by smoking bans, five are lost.” Show me that study. Study after study says the opposite, and the latest was from the University of Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy last May that said it will not hurt business.

“Drunk driving increases, on average, by 13% in areas where smoking bans are introduced. As patrons stay at home longer and consume alcohol, and/or are forced to drive longer distances to seek places where they can smoke while drinking.”

Where the hell did they come up with this BS? Do they think the 22 percent who still smoke only drink to get drunk? Where are they going to drive to seek places where they can smoke while drinking? There are only 12 states that do no ban smoking in bars and retirements. Indiana is the only state in the Midwest, and they are close to doing the right thing.

49 comments:

marbee said...

Thanks for the Facebook link! Count me in as a member! You state this law is popular. It won't be when you start losing hundreds of businesses like other ban states have. It won't be when thousands of people lose their jobs because the business no longer exists, or can barely keep their doors open! Good luck, anti-tobacco lobbyists who make hundreds of thousands of dollars in pay every year do one thing best, THEY LIE! And all for the special interest of big pharma and their cronies who are laughing all the way to the bank!

marbee said...

The government should not ever be allowed to take away our private property rights as business owners. If being smoke free was so popular it would not have taken a law to accomplish this. The only people who like the gov't interfering with commerce are those who can't think for themselves and need the gov't to do it for them!

marbee said...

I see on the RWJF (aka big pharma who funds smoking bans) website they are after tobacco, obesity, and alcohol! Buying smoking bans kills two birds with one stone. Shut down bars at the same time with smoking bans! Brilliant marketing scam with big pharma using our own government against business owners.
The second hand smoke scam is the exact same thing as the global warming debacle, one Big Lie. Tobacco Control organizations like the American Cancer Society, ASH, Tobacco Free Kids, etc., have become nothing but Perception Management firms. They are PAID to CREATE "truth". Created truth is controllable. This social engineering, uses select information involving falsehood and deception and influences emotions to an end. The difference between real and perception is like a stick of dynamite and the A-bomb. Wars can be created by altering perception! It was never about health, just money, as witnessed in NYC.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7626/

Michael J. McFadden said...

The article says, "This group formed a web site last year to highlight debunked studies that say smoking bans hurt business and cost jobs. That is simply not true,"

Really? Not true eh? Anyone who'd like to see what sort of studies claim bans don't hurt jobs just needs to read the article and AfterComments to Jacob Grier's column at: http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html where you'll see how researchers compete for million dollar grants by promising antismoking results BEFORE doing the research and then juggle government figures to hide the damage caused by the bans. This particular piece of research happened to be one where the data figures were easy to obtain and the lie was easy to expose: think about how much deception is behind all the studies where the data is NOT easy to check, or cases where basic data is simply erased from the public record (See the last few paragraphs of "Independently Confirmed?" {the one with the question mark after it} in the British Medical Journal at: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38055.715683.55v1#125618 for an example of such disappearing data.)

Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Amend The said...

Wow, cool! Thanks for the publicity!!!

Yeah we're small, we don't have the backing of any special interest groups or lobby like the "Michigan Smokefree" group, which is, funny enough, listed as under the pharmaceutical industry on Facebook groups. “Weird” eh? Ha-ha Yeah, not so much.

As for your libelous comments, no we really aren't affiliated with the MLBA or anyone. We're just your regular Michiganders, less any corporate backing. Yep, just plain old Dick and Jane’s with opinions of our own. Just like you.

The statistic of drunk driving increases on average of thirteen percent come from a 2008 study conducted by Adams and Cotti and published in the Journal of Public Economics. So, that's "where we got this from". Whenever you have questions, never hesitate to write and ask.

Many other statistics come from independent studies conducted by institutions such as St. Louis Federal Reserve, other state studies, University of Glamorgan, Wales, University of Wisconsin studies and on and on. They're on the internet-try Google. That’s where we find all these articles. But be careful, like we do-avoid special interest groups, pro or con. Hard to make a point when you regurgitate special interest studies.

One item I am curious about though. Why did you not mention that we continually ask. if this is so economically viable, then why didn't bar owners do this autonomously years ago? It is one of the most cut throat and competitive industries after all. And they certainly need to bolster the B-line regularly. If it were so profitable, would they not have done it on their own?

The other is, are all these bar and pub owners around the world, with stories printed in legitimate newspapers and reported via other legit mediums that point to smoking bans as a direct or indirect result of their businesses failure-are you saying they are all liars? Just wondering?

And again, thank you for the publicity.

Cheers,

Steve Mace
Amend The Michigan Smoking Ban

Communications guru said...

No, problem. I thrive on politicizing falsehoods. What special interest group is backing the Michigan Smokefree group? The American Cancer Society? That’s’ a special interest group? There is a question that this group was started by something called an e-cigarette, whatever that is, but that’s not why I or thousands of others joined it. Plus, how much money are they spending to start a Facebook group? The fact is not many people are backing your lost cause.

If my comments are “libelous” then sue me. The fact is they are not because my statements are true. Excuse me if I’m skeptical about your claim that you are not associated with the MLBA. You are using the same tactics, and you made it a point to deny it before you were even asked. Why not the Michigan Restaurant Association? They have lobbied against it for years.

The study is flawed. Again, where are these alleged 22 percent of Michiganders who still smoke and only want to get drunk going to drive to smoke and drink? I notice you ducked that question. Clearly, it’s flawed. In just a quick glance at it I noticed this, “Many would suspect a decline as smokers go to bars less often. Recent studies indeed show evidence consistent with bar patronage falling as a result of smoking bans being implemented.” That is simply not true, and there is no reliable, peer-reviewed study that proves that lie. Right off the bat, I found the study is flawed.

Why haven’t bar owners did this voluntary? Because they believe the bogus studies you provided that make the ridiculous claim that a smoking ban will hurt business. I’m still waiting for you to explain how less than 22 percent who still smoke can have such an economic impact. Just wondering?

I don’t know if you are aware of this, but this country is in the worst recession since the Great Depression, and people are simply not going to bars and restaurants as much. A drop in business has nothing to do with a smoking ban. I assume it’s the same in the many countries that ban smoking

So, who is going to introduce the bill to amend the law? Who is going to support it?

Again, no problem with the publicity, but that’s not really your problem. You have plenty of corporate money to buy publicity. You just have very little support. But, now that you have found my blog, I suggest you read the posts where I post study after study that supports the fact business is not hurt by a ban, and there are immediate health benefits to a ban.

Communications guru said...

That is correct; the state law is popular, as it is in the other 37 states with smoking bans, including Wisconsin. If it wasn’t, it never would have been passed here in Michigan. The Senate Majority Leader tried everything he could to kill it, but he could no longer ignore the pressure from voters. Now that you have found my blog, I suggest you read the posts on the smoking ban.

Well, we won’t “start losing hundreds of businesses like other ban states have” because that is simply not true.

What the hell does of “big phama and their cronies” have to do with a workplace smoking ban?

Communications guru said...

Now I have to think you, Mr. Mace for the publicity. I appreciate you helping to increase the traffic to my blog by posting it on your facebook group. Granted, 400 some people is not a lot, but I still appreciate it. I love debunking lies on the smoking ban.

But I would hardly describe something that has more than 60 percent support in Michigan as “the fringe element.” I would describe it as the majority of Michigan residents. Wouldn’t you?

Communications guru said...

The government not only has a right to regulate public health, it has a constitutional duty to do so. You should check out Article IV, Section 51 of the Michigan Constitution. This legislation is not about the state trying to interfere with a business decision. It is about the state protecting the public's health just as it does with regulations about how restaurants store, handle and prepare food. We don't leave it up to businesses to decide if they will require their employees to wash their hands before preparing customers food, what temperatures they should maintain their food at, or what procedures should be taken when handling food. We require certain regulations be followed to protect the health of the public. It is no different with secondhand smoke.

The reason the minority of bar and restaurant owners who still allow smoking have not voluntary gone smoke free is because they believe the lie that it will hurt business.

Communications guru said...

Again, what does “big pharma” have to do with a workplace smoking ban?

As for deadly secondhand smoke, there is no doubt it kills. You not only have the EPA and two Surgeon Generals reports, but you have the results from the states and countries that have a smoking ban. They report an immediate and measurable benefit in health after a ban goes into effect.

Communications guru said...

That is correct sir, “This group formed a web site last year to highlight debunked studies that say smoking bans hurt business and cost jobs.” Again, how can less than a quarter of the people who still smoke have such an effect on business?

Amend The said...

I have read several pro-ban studies. But I don't like fiction much, so I'll stick with the 1000's of bar owners around the world that went out of business, and cite smoking bans as the direct and indirect cause. You are yet to touch that issue, I see? Interesting. Is it difficult, even for you, to call men and women forced out of business liars?

As for your libelous comments, it's not us you have to be concerned with suing you, I would imagine if anyone it would be the MLBA.

As a supporter of the democratic party myself, in my opinion, it is the fringe element that has destroyed the party. State and federal. These kinds of fringe blogs, conservative and liberal, are poisonous to our country. In my opinion, you are a part of the problem. Never a part of the solution. Keep some of your toys in your stroller. Don’t throw them all out during your fits, or you’ll have nothing left to play with, but yourself.

I'll leave your uber-ideologue rant blog now with this; we'll just see what has happened this time next year. Does that sound fair?

We will continue our pursuit of what we support, and you continue with what you support. That USED to be the American way. We USED to have the right to have differing opinions, free of hinderence and being slandered. But that sadly has become the norm in our great nation. "Speak if you dare, then duck". Its a real shame.

So this time next year, you can launch into a denial fest at that time, via continuing to call bar owners that have had to reduce hours, lay off employees, or even close-veterans associations that have lost branches and staff… at that time, you can find some alternate “reason” for why they closed. Even when they are quoted in the press as citing the smoking ban as the reason.

I have very little time or patience for those that only love the "sound" of their own voice.


Military man to military man-Best of luck to you Sir.

ChrisB said...

Wow!!!
The writer of an article on his site claiming –
"A special area of interest is the role of corporate media in politics as we move closer and closer to one huge corporation owning all of the media outlets in the country and stifling all independent and critical voices."
- promotes, without question, the science owned, created and funded by one huge industry stifling all independent and critical voices.
You condemn, without independent evidence, independent and critical views and hold Pharmaceutical opinion in greater regard than all others.
Wake up --- It’s despicable self-promotion and mis-direction yet you rely on their ‘facts’ and funded anti-smoking studies for empirical evidence.
The peer reviewing you hold in high esteem is no better than back-slapping and the marking of projects by their classmates. Have you ever googled those peer reviewers and noticed how their careers and interests are so intertwined?
Most concerning however is that a claimed conservative -
Conservative – Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change. Traditional or restrained in style. Moderate; cautious. Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism. Tending to conserve.
- can be so accepting of change without accepting the potential for damage to that which society has created over time.

Communications guru said...

The studies are based on the “1000's of bar owners around the world.” None of them went out of business because of a workplace smoking ban. I have more than “touched the issue,” I have debunked the issue. Once again, how can less than a quarter of the population have such an economic impact? I noticed you have not touched that issue.

I have not made any “libelous comments,” because nothing I have said is untrue. Considering you and the MLBA are one and the same, I challenge you to sue me.

Again, what is fringe about something that more than 60 percent if Michigan voters support? You can call me names all you want, but that will not change that fact. Plus, this is a bipartisan issue. Just take a look at who voted for the bill and who voted against it. In fact, your state Rep, a Republican voted for hit, as did your state Senator, a Democrat.

Also, the Democratic Party is just fine. I also don’t think many Democrat are fans of Mike Bishop, Mitt Romney or Twitter Pete Hoekstra like you are, nor am I bothered by someone who never votes.

Once again, who is going to introduce the bill, and who will support it? Yes, I will continue with what I support, and that is what led to this bill finally getting passed, a true grassroots effort. “That USED to be the American way?” When did it change? I’m giving you every opportunity to try and debunk the truth. In no way am I trying to stop you. You tried to debunk the truth and failed, but you had the opportunity and can do so here at anytime. But I will continue to call you out when you try to float those debunked claims.

I’m sorry I can’t wish you the best of luck in your misguided effort. Too many people have been killed by secondhand smoke, and too many people worked so hard and so long at the grassroots level to get this done to give in to a fringe minority.

Communications guru said...

That is correct sir; you have accurately described my blog.

Seriously, “without independent evidence?” I have presented numerous peer reviewed studies on both the negative effects of secondhand smoke and the effects smoking bans have on business. “Pharmaceutical opinion” – whatever that is – does not enter into it.

Who said I was a conservative? The media is conservative, I am not.

ChrisB said...

Independent evidence is that which is in no way connected to a specific interest group. A simple search into academic and 'charity group' funding shows where the funding comes from and Robert Wood Johnson is more than a minor player with a corporate background. Their pharmaceutical funded findings have benefited from a major media presence through their funded groups and as such are a major corporate media stifling all independent and critical voices. ...... AND as such – pharmaceutical opinion does come into it.
So often I hear of flawed results from those ‘evil’ tobacco manufacturers but only from those who enjoy various benefits from those ‘saintly’ drug manufacturers. Please note that nicotine from big tobacco is evil but nicotine from pharmaceuticals is therapeutic – but Nicotine is simply Nicotine wherever it comes from and, from experience (peer reviewed by my unfunded friends who also gave up smoking after discarding NRT ‘cures’ and going cold turkey), a ‘patch’ was far less pleasurable than a cigarette.
Who is the Expert? The one who looks or the one who does? Authority is too quick to ignore those who work on the frontline in favour of the academic behind a desk. I would hope that all those with a public voice accept a breadth of opinion.

Anyway it seems suitably Liberal for a Conservative blog to accept articles from a Progressive whose obvious commitment to Conservatism is confirmed in his profile photograph. I’ve also got photos from yesteryear but accept today’s wrinkled reality; the Progressive damage of time!!

Communications guru said...

Sorry, “pharmaceutical opinion” has nothing to do with a workplace smoking ban. The bans are not designed to help people quit smoking, they are designed to protect innocent people from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke.

Here’s an independent study you can try to poke a hole in. It’s from the Michigan Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy released on May 29, 2009, and it concluded the state's bars and restaurants would not be hurt by a proposed workplace smoking ban.
http://closup.umich.edu/publications/mrb/UM-NIS-release-smoke-free-legislation.pdf

Your last paragraph doesn’t make any sense. I am a liberal/progressive – which are the same thing. This is a liberal blog. It’s the mainstream media that is conservative, and that is one of the main topics I write about. I am the only one who posts on this blog, but opposing comments do not bother me because I can stand up to scrutiny.

The fact is progressives and liberal have helped make this country great.

Amend The said...

When you say “60% of Michiganders”, are you referring too the grade school level "poll" that was done by the Michigan Campaign for Smokefree Air. That's laughable, Chief. 62% or something to that effect? The choices being Strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, strongly disagree". Jesus man, I "somewhat agree". Doesn't mean I support this industry hobbling bill. Math doesn't lie. But when you twist the formula such as polling 600 people from an unknown demographic, and will not release the actual statistics, if they in fact exist… well kind of defeats your point.

To be honest, I have my doubts about your "debunking" abilities. You are an economist or regurgitator of Health industry studies. Wait a minute, “health industry economic studies”… sorry had to stop to laugh there for a moment.

Please take the time to cross the border and see the streets full of empty bars, that was once the vibrant bar scene of Windsor, Ontario. Stop at any of the surviving bars and ask them what happened. They’ll tell you what happened. Within the first sentence of the response you will hear the words, smoking and ban. I did, and I asked. Un-baited questions-that is exactly what I was told. Go and debunk that Chief.

It actually wasn't me who posted about your narcissistic blog, but I'll pass on the thanks for you. Again, that you for diving up our numbers and support with your silliness and nonsense. I love reading what the fringe has to say. You remind me how absolutely crazy this country has gotten. Cheers for that Chief.

Communications guru said...

Chief? No, how about one of the most respected polling firms in Michigan, EPIC-MRA. Here’s a link. And, it was 66 percent, chief.
\http://blog.mlive.com/peterluke/2009/03/michigan_smoking_ban_backed_by.html
http://www.tcsg.org/sfelp/public.htm

Now, where is your poll that says people don’t support a workplace smoking ban. Even if you were right that it hurt business, this is a public health issue. It’s just a bonus that it increases business for bars and restaurants or does not hurt it.

Funny, on your little facebool group you call me an “ill-informed bandwagon supporter. Devoid of logic, knowledge and more keen on his opinion being the only opinion. His "facts" which are only opinions are devoid of substance.,” yet you have not answered a single question I have posed or presented a single bit of evidence to support your opinion.

In the end, it doesn’t matter much because the next time the law will be amended will be to bar it in casinos.

Again, tell me how 22 percent of the Michigan population can have such an economic impact. Tell me how the University of Michigan study was flawed, chief.

Again, how can something has 66 percent of the support of Michigan residents be described as the fringe, chief. The fact is you are the fringe minority. I’m glad I drove up the numbers a whipping six, but 488 is a long way from 61,766, chief.

I would also say you remind me how absolutely crazy this country has gotten, chief, its fine, with the exception of the tea baggers.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Guru, I'd like to commment on several things you've written.

1) You talk about the "bogus studies" showing bans hurt business but you haven't said a word about how one of the major new studies used to claim bans do NOT hurt bars was shown to have promised to deliver "ban friendly" type results BEFORE doing the research and then hid the decimation of the bars behind the wider restaurant figures. Again Guru, I ask you to read the Aftercomments at http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html and defend what what the antismoking researchers do in such studies.

You also speak of "respected polling firms" used by Antismokers. I believe one of them is "The Mellman Group" ? Visit the MG's web site and you'll find this promise they make to their clients:

http://www.mellmangroup.com/win.htm


"Some pollsters simply report on opinions. We use the most sophisticated analytical tools available to understand the motivations of consumers and voters so we can intervene in their decision-making processes to produce the outcomes our clients want."

Guru, visit http://TheTruthIsALie.com and if you have ANY substantive criticisms of anything you find there please feel free to come back here and expose my failings to the world.

I'll be back.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Michael J. McFadden said...

Guru, two more quick questions if you don't mind:

1) You wrote, "The bans are not designed to help people quit smoking, they are designed to protect innocent people from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke." Guru, if that's true then why do ban advocates consistently argue against any arrangements that would provide smokers with comfortable indoor areas to gather and relax with their friends with separated ventilation provisions as outlined by ASHRAE? And why do they fight against proposals for ventilation/filtration equipment for smoking areas that would provide air CLEANER than the air outdoors?

and 2) You mentioned the "economy" as a cause of problems. Care to comment on this graph based on official Minnesota State Gvt. figures at:

http://arclightzero.web.officelive.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf

Guru, when that graph is extended through the end of 2008, the "Worldwide Economic Meltdown" shows up as little more than a blip at the end of the smoking ban disasters.

- MJM

Communications guru said...

Ah, back to selling your book again I see, Mr. McFadden. Unlike you, this is not my job, but I’ll do what I can to expose your “failings to the world,” but I don’t have nearly that reach.

I went to the blog post you provided a link to, and I did not see anyone saying they “promised to deliver "ban friendly” type results” but you.

Yes, I speak of respected polling firms, like EPIC-MRA. I don’t recall mentioning the Mellman Group specifically, but after going to their page, I don’t see your problem. Here’s a better poll, and that’s the history of the bill in the Michigan Legislature. The sponsor of the substitute bill that was finally passed - Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks - did so because he was tired of being hounded by the overwhelming number of people who supported the bill. The Senate Majority Leader did everything he could to stop the bill, but even he could no longer ignore the pressure of the overwhelming majority who support the ban. This is from the Detroit Free Press.

“Jelinek said it was time to compromise, as he and other lawmakers were frequently asked by the public for a smoking ban.
"Residents are going to come out of their houses," Jelinek said. "Many people won't go to bars and restaurants because they don't like the smoke."
http://www.freep.com/article/20091210/NEWS06/91210040/Public-smoking-ban-heads-to-Granholm%5C-s-desk

I too, will be back.

Communications guru said...

That is correct, the bans are not designed to help people quit smoking, they are designed to protect innocent people from the harmful effects of secondhand smoke, at least not the one I am familiar with.

As for these indoor areas, do you really think smoke respects artificial barriers? Apparently, smoke cannot read the signs that say no smoking. In the House Regulatory Reform Committee back in March, Dr. Greg Holzman, the medical officer from the Michigan Department of Community Health (DCH), debunked the myth that the ventilation system will make a difference. “There has been no ventilation system that clears out secondhand smoke,” he said. “There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke.”

I skipped your graph and went directly to the report. It was interesting that one of the conclusions said, “Areas that already had a smoking ban also showed a significant drop in gross receipts
(down 6.3 percent). It is difficult to understand how this could be related to the smoking.”

I agree.

How can the less 22 percent of people who still smoke have such an economic impact?

Michael J. McFadden said...

You shouldn't have so blithely "skipped the graph" Guru. I believe it not only shows a loss far greater than 6%, but also shows that greater loss occurring directly, to the month, at the times the two stages of smoking bans rolled in. I have a graph extending through 2008 that I'd be happy to email you directly if you provide an address for such.

Your quote about ventilation only applies within the same room. Check the full ASHRAE code and statements on smoking and if you choose to quote from them, do it fully and honestly: most Antismokers only quote the part concerning same room smoke clearance and ignore the section on separated rooms.

As for the "no safe level" trick, the same could be said about alcohol and sunshine, but there's no move to protect workers from the nonsense of evaporated alcohol - See:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#103642

or to ban patio dining. The only time you hear "no safe level" used as a decision-maker is with regard to tobacco smoke. It's a political, rather than medical or scientific, judgement.

Finally, the "failings" I asked you to expose would be at the link I listed: www.TheTruthIsALie.com - and I didn't see you mention anything at all from that link. I extend the invite again.

As for your Ad Hominem slap at "selling my book," perhaps you didn't notice that in all the lines of argument and information I presented, the book was mentioned only once - as an identification of who I am and what "competing interest" I might be accused of. Would you think it better if I hid my identity and interest behind an anonymous handle so that someone perhaps could "expose" me and point the finger of deception in my direction?

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Communications guru said...

I skipped the graph because it’s your interpretation to get what you want. The report shows drops in revenue are because of the worst recession since the Great Depression. I’m still waiting for you to explain how 22 percent of the population can have such an economic impact. I’ve asked that of every single pro-smoker, and not a single one has even tried.

Are you honestly telling me a bar and restaurant can have a separate room for smokers? Who is going to serve them? This is a workplace smoking ban. As a former smoker, I’m at a loss as to why you can’t step outside for some three minutes and have a smoke. When I was in the Navy, they made you go outside, and you could not even smoke in the lounges or on the mess decks. That was 1ike 17 years ago. The Navy. That’s where I started smoking, and I could on occasion buy a pack of smokes for 25 cents.

You mean the "no safe level" fact. I’ll go to your propaganda site when you answer how 22 percent of the population can have such an economic impact.

You book is mentioned at the end of every one of your posts, just like the one I’m responding to.

Again, who is hiding behind an anonymous handle? Plus, I’m not an “anti-smoker.” Smoke all you want, but you have no right to put anyone else’s health in jeopardy because of your habit.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Guru, you asked fair questions, and I'll answer them fairly. My graph shows the figures accurately. If you found an inaccuracy in it please point it out. If you skipped it then how would you even KNOW that it showed an "interpretation to get what (I) want" ?

The graph ends at the end of 2007: a year BEFORE the "Great Depression." I offered to send you an extended graph in which you would SEE that Great Depresssion hit at the end of 2008 and you'd find that it is MINOR compared to the effects of the smoking bans - all fully and accurately based and portrayed direct from the MN government figures which are there and referenced for you to check if you want.

How can 22% have such an impact? Simple: the smoking population tends to frequent bars, casinos, and perhaps even full-service restaurants in a greater proportion than the nonsmoking population. Antismokers have admitted this, although they like to characterize it as a "co-addiction" problem. I've answered your question so now I would expect you to politely follow through with your commitment: "I’ll go to your propaganda site when you answer how 22 percent of the population can have such an economic impact." Please remember, I've asked for specific substantive criticisms, just as I've provided you with specific substantive responses to your own concerns.

As for separate rooms, I've seen many bars with separate rooms that don't have waiting service. People go up to the bar, order their drinks, then go sit at a table. In terms of restaurants, ever hear of something called a buffet? Or been to a McDonald's? Not all restaurants need table waitstaff.

In terms of your last comment: show me a single scientific study indicating that the levels of smoke that might somehow "leak" out of a separately ventilated room would put others' healths in "jeopardy."
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Communications guru said...

I disagree that your graph “shows the figures accurately.”
No one said anything about the "Great Depression." I said the worst recession since the Great Depression that officially began in 2007. Like the report said, the decrease in nonsmoking establishments cannot be explained by a smoking ban.

You still have not answered how 22 percent have such an impact. When I was a smoker, the only thing that increased when I went to the bar was smoking, not my drinking. That stayed the same. There is not a single piece of evidence that proves your false assumption that the “smoking population tends to frequent bars, casinos, and perhaps even full-service restaurants in a greater proportion than the nonsmoking population.” Even if that were true, are you honestly saying those 22 percent will no longer go to bars and restaurant because they can no longer smoke inside? No way.

There is no more evidence of that than there is of a smoking ban hurting business. I’m still waiting for you to answer the question. A separate room with separate ventilation where smoke can’t escape and where no employee has to enter? I’m not buying that myth either.

See the U.S. Surgeon General’s report.

carraig said...

http://www.irishexaminer.ie/opinion/editorial/pub-closures--decline-must-be-tackled-109615.html

Here - from the first country in the world - Ireland - that implemented a smoking ban.

It really built up their business....

Communications guru said...

I didn’t know Ireland was the first country in the world to ban smoking, but good for them anyway one way or the other. Most countries have. I’m missing the part where a smoking ban has anything to with it.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Gypsy, you wrote, "You still have not answered how 22 percent have such an impact."

Gypsy, I fail to see how you can call this "not an answer" : I wrote, "Simple: the smoking population tends to frequent bars, casinos, and perhaps even full-service restaurants in a greater proportion than the nonsmoking population. Antismokers have admitted this, although they like to characterize it as a "co-addiction" problem."

I believe that DOES qualify as an answer, even if you don't agree with it. You then go on to challenge me to provide a "single piece of evidence that proves ... that the smoking population tends to frequent bars ... in a greater proportion than the nonsmoking population."

Here you go: I provide ANOTHER direct answer: "You know how bars are portrayed in the movies. Everyone in the dimly lit room has a cigarette in one hand and a scotch in the other. Where there's smoke, there's probably alcohol, too.In this case, Hollywood has it right. Clinical studies have shown that smoking and liquor often go together. People who smoke are far more likely to abuse alcohol. And, people who drink a lot tend to smoke heavily." From:

http://www.myoptumhealth.com/portal/Information/item/The+Great+American+Smokeout?archiveChannel=Home%2FArticle&clicked=true


You then ask me: "are you honestly saying those 22 percent will no longer go to bars and restaurant because they can no longer smoke inside?" Of course not. But a certain proportion, and I believe a fairly large proportion, will be annoyed enough about being kicked out in the cold that they'll stay at home instead. Over in the UK pubs were closing at a rate of 3/week before their smoking ban. In the first year of their ban that rate shot to 27 per week (BEFORE the "recession" hit) and is now up to 52. That's a 900% increase in pub closures AFTER their ban and BEFORE their recession.

Would you like MORE evidence? How about the words of bar owners themselves? After all, unlike the Antismokers pushing an agenda, they have NO reason to lie: all they care about is whether their bars make money. Read what they have to say, in their own words, in the hundreds upon hundreds of examples gathered from news articles and displayed at: http://www.smokersclub.com/banloss3.htm and then tell me there's "no evidence."

btw, you might try to move the "recession" up to 2007, but if you hadn't "skipped" the graph at: http://arclightzero.web.officelive.com/Documents/MNGraph.pdf you'd have seen that the first massive drop in revenues occurred in 2005-2006.

That's an example of why you should look at contrary evidence rather than just assuming you know you're right and skipping it. You mention the Surgeon General's Report. Have you read it? I've read all 20 or so of them concerning smoking since 1964 (although I'll confess to merely having skimmed the latest since it's largely a rehash of what I've seen over and over - outside of Carmona's editorializing. Tell you what: browse through your copy and see if you can find ONE mention of the phrase "no safe level" in the main body of the report itself.

Go ahead... And if you get bored, I'm still waiting for you to return my politeness and respond to my request for specific criticisms of the points raised at www.TheTruthIsALie.com

Thank you.

- MJM

Michael J. McFadden said...

Sheesh... Sorry about calling you Gypsy, Guru. Nothing intended - I was just on a site called Juggling Gypsies and it was a bit embedded in the forebrain!

Communications guru said...

I wrote “You still have not answered how 22 percent have such an impact” because you haven’t.

The smoking population don’t go to bars and restaurants any more than non-smokers. I know when I quit; I sure had more money to spend on other things. Not only that, there is not an ounce of proof to back up your wild claim.

Seriously? You’re offering movies as your proof? Oh please. Like I said before, when I smoked, I smoked more when I drank. My drinking did not change. Then the only people hurt by a workplace smoking ban is the tobacco companies, and that’s what this is really all about.

There is no evidence that the 22 percent or even a portion of them stay away from bars and restaurants after a smoking ban because they don’t. There is no credible evidence that a smoking ban hurts business.

The recession officially occurred in 2007, and the official definition is two consecutive quarters of falling GDP. But the fact is the economy began to go south after September 11, 2001.

Like the study you are hanging your hat on says, the decrease (in business) in nonsmoking establishments cannot be explained by a smoking ban.

“How about the words of bar owners themselves? “ More opinion based on nothing. I’m not an anti-smoker, but I do have an agenda; public health. The fact that business is not hurt by a smoking ban is just a bonus.

So, at what is a safe level of secondhand smoke. I’m going to take the word of the Medical Director for the Michigan Department of Community health over yours.

I can’t wait until May 1.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Guru, the movie quote was chosen SPECIFICALLY from an antismoking source so as to avoid bias. There are many other sources in support of the claim that drinkers, particularly heavy drinkers, smoke far more heavily than their teetotaling counterparts. You truly appear to present a case of someone who will accept no argument and no evidence counter to your own personal anecdotal experience. You state such things as the economy going south since 2001 as the source of the sudden 900% increase in pub failures in the UK in the single year following their 2006 ban after previous years of steadiness, you hold your own singular experience as being more reliable than that of hundreds of business owners quoted on the ban loss pages, you deny the absolute and sudden two stage loss changes perfectly timed to the smoking bans in Minnesota... there's really NO evidence that anyone could present that would please you, and seemingly NO way to convince you to honorably fulfill your end of the bargain and offer substantive specific criticisms of the material at www.TheTruthIsALie.com


I believe that any casual readers who read through our discussion thus far and examine the evidence presented will come to a fair conclusion. I feel comfortable resting my case unless you have something new and substantive to offer.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Not Anonymous said...

Quarter GDP since 2001

2001 Q1 -0.49%
2001 Q2 1.23%
2001 Q3 -1.41%
2001 Q4 1.58%
2002 Q1 2.72%
2002 Q2 2.18%
2002 Q3 2.36%
2002 Q4 0.20%
2003 Q1 1.70%
2003 Q2 3.62%
2003 Q3 7.06%
2003 Q4 3.52%
2004 Q1 4.19%
2004 Q2 2.22%
2004 Q3 2.14%
2004 Q4 2.52%
2005 Q1 3.04%
2005 Q2 2.78%
2005 Q3 3.50%
2005 Q4 1.31%
2006 Q1 4.73%
2006 Q2 2.65%
2006 Q3 9.31%
2006 Q4 2.92%
2007 Q1 1.20%
2007 Q2 3.18%
2007 Q3 3.55%
2007 Q4 2.10% 25 str Pos qtrs
2008 Q1 -0.73%
2008 Q2 1.45%
2008 Q3 -2.70%
2008 Q4 -5.48% Official recession
2009 Q1 -6.59%
2009 Q2 -0.74%
2009 Q3 2.22%

As you can see, the economy dipped following the 911 attacks, but came back quickly. By 2003 the economy was growing at it's best rate in 25 years.

So your assertion of a recession since 2001 is either wrong, a myth or a lie.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Thank you Not Anonymous! Excellent research. I'd never seen those figures before.

- MJM

Not Anonymous said...

You're welcome. By the way, those numbers listed are the adjusted rates. They always adjust them after about two weeks from the original date. Most of the time they are adjusted downward. Those are the adjusted rates, not the original rates.

For instance, sometime in the next couple of weeks, they will come out with the fourth quarter GDP growth or loss. Sometime in February, they will adjust that downward.

Communications guru said...

No, the movie quote may be cute, but it’s not based in fact. Again, people smoke more when they drink, but there is no evidence that smokers drink any more than non-smokers. And, you have not presented any evidence either.

That is correct, the economy had been going south since 2001. The very study you provided a link to said, “Areas that already had a smoking ban also showed a significant drop in gross receipts (down 6.3 percent). It is difficult to understand how this could be related to the smoking.”

I believe that any casual readers who read through our discussion thus far and examine the evidence presented will come to a fair conclusion. I feel comfortable resting my case unless you have something new and substantive to offer.

I can’t wait until May 1. Only 12 more states to go.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Truly amazing.

- MJM

Communications guru said...

Ditto

Michael J. McFadden said...

Hey Guru! At least we ended up agreeing with each other!

;>
MJM

Communications guru said...

On what, that Michigan will be the 38th state to go smokefree?

Stephen said...

Just wanted to pop back by and let you know the page you so proudly held on high and declared some kind of public triumph, The Michigan Smoke Free May 1st blah, blah, blah page of Facebook. Yeah well got some bad news... its a front for an e-cigarette company. Listed in their info is the link to their webpage http://losethelighter.com/ please feel free to verify that.

The sheeple get had again. C'est domage nes pas?

Communications guru said...

Even if that were true, so what? The 112, 184 members only care about Michigan going smoke free on May 1, as do the 11,700 people who joined “Support the Smoking Ban in Michigan” and the 7,066 who joined the Michigan Campaign for Smokefree Air.

So how is your group called “Amend the Michigan Smoking Ban” going?

Michael J. McFadden said...

Hello again Guru! Just back for two things:

1) Unfortunately the page holding my above referenced graph for the ban damage in Minnesota has been erased. It is reproduced with an update though on page 18 of the freely readable, downloadable, and printable "New Stiletto: Lies Behind The Smoking Bans" at:

http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/257.html

Apologies for the inconvenience, but the Stiletto has other good information as well.

and

2) You were asking how Amend the Smoking Ban in MI was going, and it's doing quite well. A lot of bars seem to now be aware of and are implementing the following practices as found legal in Illinois, Ohio, and Suffolk NY:

===

It's important to know what the ban law DOES and DOES NOT demand!

Businesses are *NOT* required to act as actual law *ENFORCERS* in any sense, and do *NOT* have to physically eject smokers or call authorities unless they *WANT* to.

Businesses *ARE* required to *POST* no smoking signs, *REMOVE* fire-safety equipment (ashtrays), *INFORM* smokers of the law violation, *ASK* smokers to stop or leave, and refuse them service *WHILE* they are smoking. (*NOT* throw them out or refuse service when they are not smoking.)

Read the law itself and share it with bar owners: it's short, simple and direct. Read it here:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2009-2010/billenrolled/House/pdf/2009-HNB-4377.pdf

Share this with bar owners, workers, and patrons. They'll thank you for it.

Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Communications guru said...

Again, there is no credibility study that proves a workplace smoking ban hurts business. The fact is there is no way just 20 percent of the population can.

Mark my words; the only change to the workplace smoking ban in Michigan will be to include casinos.

Sorry, Businesses are ARE required to enforce the law; just like they can’t serve alcohol to a person who is intoxicated. Just like that law, if they don’t enforce the law they can say goodbye to their liquor license.

Michael J. McFadden said...

Guru, you wrote, "Businesses are ARE required to enforce the law"

Guru, I provided a link directly to the law itself. Show me where I have said ANYTHING inaccurate about it, and show me where it says that businesses are required to enforce it in any way beyond what I have stated.

Thank you.

- MJM

Communications guru said...

That is correct; Businesses are required to enforce the law. Are you saying a bar owner can ignore the law?

Michael J. McFadden said...

Guru, while it is possible that you have simply already forgotten what I posted just three posts above, I have a hard time believing it. Businesses are required to FOLLOW the law -- not ENFORCE it. As I noted above, in the state of Michigan:

Businesses are *NOT* required to act as actual law *ENFORCERS* in any sense, and do *NOT* have to physically eject smokers or call authorities unless they *WANT* to.

Businesses *ARE* required to *POST* no smoking signs, *REMOVE* fire-safety equipment (ashtrays), *INFORM* smokers of the law violation, *ASK* smokers to stop or leave, and refuse them service *WHILE* they are smoking. (*NOT* throw them out or refuse service when they are not smoking.)

====

The problem lies in the fact that they have been deliberately misled about what the law requires and many of them have taken on extra duties of enforcement that are actually not required anywhere within the law.

- MJM

Communications guru said...

There is no difference. Following the law in enforcing it. They can ignore the law at the expense of their liquor license.