|
|
Location: USA
Topic: Employment
Smokers Rights
The Morning Show with Mike and
Juliet
Smokers Rights, Firing Smokers, Smoker's Breath Air
Pollution
June 19, 2008 The Fox Network
http://www.mandjshow.com
 WATCH THE
VIDEO
Read more about Gary Nolan
See videos of Gary Nolan on MSNBC, CNBC, "Your World With Cavuto," Fox News...
It's
always funny watching liars trip over their own lies and nasty
fools trip over their own foolishness. ASH's newest
"Creating Fact Via Press Release" attempt presents the thoughts of their
creator, John Banzhaf, as he pushes the concept of firing all
smokers.
To
start off, he leads into the press release about the Fox News show by
talking about himself in the third person, something often
characteristic of a certain type of mental imbalance. The
substance of that lead-in displays another type as well. Gary
Nolan, Weyco's Weyers, and the gallant employee who quit rather than be
subject to unreasonable rules get no mention at all. But when it
comes to his own role, it's noted that the show features, "The
Man Behind the Cigarette Commercial Ban," the "Ralph Nader of the
Tobacco Industry," "Mr. Antismoking," and "The Law Professor Who
Masterminded Litigation Against the Tobacco Industry," i.e. Mr.
B.
Once
he's done quietly introducing himself to the reader, Mr. Banzhaf then
proceeds to spout various pithy bits of nonsense, including concerns
about men who go to strip bars and then work for women's rights groups
and the morbidly obese who might like to work for Weight Watchers
(Evidently the liquidation of the Ohio Antismoking Cartel has him a bit
worried about his own future job prospects.)
But
then he unloads his zinger, meant to support employers who fire smokers,
but opening the door WIDE open for the right of employers to hire only
smokers and thereby wipe out the "concern for the health of the workers"
ETS argument. Mr. Banzhaf suggests that, "...employers
are almost always in a better position to make wise decisions regarding
qualifications for employment than government bureaucrats at
agencies."
Thus,
by his own words, Mr. B. would support the right of "smokers only"
businesses, or even "Smokers and their friends only"
establishments.
Thank
you Mr. B. We'll be sure to note your opposition to government
smoking bans in the future.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers'
Brains"
http://encyclopedia.smokersclub.com/130.html
 New Study Concludes that Smoker's
Breath is Harmful to Children; Kids at Risk Even if Parents Smoke
Outside of the Home
June 24, 2008
A new study published in this month's issue
of Indoor Air concludes that
even when parents only smoke outside of the home, toxic smoke
constituents in their breath pose a major health risk to their children
indoors. This conclusion was based on the finding that: "There were
significant
differences in the median levels of air nicotine and PM10
between households in which smoking was reported as only occurring
outside, and the smoke-free households" (see: Rumchev K, Jamrozik K,
Stick S, Spickett S. How free of tobacco smoke are 'smoke-free' homes?
Indoor Air 2008; 18: 202-208).
The study compared indoor air
levels of respirable suspended particulates (RSP) and nicotine under
three conditions: (1) smokers smoke inside the home; (2) smokers only
smoke outside the home; and (3) no smoking at all. With smokers smoking
inside the home, the average nicotine level inside the home was 1.4
ug/m3. With no smoking at all, the average nicotine level was below 0.2
ug/m3. With smokers smoking outside the home only, the average nicotine
level was 0.55 ug/m3.
In response to the study, Action on
Smoking and Health (ASH) is promoting policies by which employers fire
all existing smokers or refuse to hire smokers, even if they smoke only
outside of work, in order to protect nonsmoking employees from the toxic
breath of the smoking employees. ASH is also arguing that smokers should
not be allowed to adopt children, even if they agree to smoke only
outside of the home, because their breath will expose children to unsafe
levels of tobacco smoke. Moreover, ASH argues that before children whose
parents are separated visit a parent who smokes, that parent should be
required to change clothes and rinse with mouthwash.
ASH states:
"This study suggests that society must go beyond merely protecting
children from being in the presence of parents and others who smoke in
their homes, and think about more effective measures to protect children
from parents who smoke anywhere." ...
"It also provides a strong
scientific basis for agencies which already refuse to permit smokers to
adopt children, even if the potential adoptees claim that they only
smoke outdoors, and never in the presence of the child."
...
"Judges in almost three-fourths of the states have issued
orders prohibiting smoking in homes to protect children involved in
custody disputes. But this study would permit the parent who obtained
the order to go back and strengthen it, perhaps requiring the smoking
parent to change clothing and use a mouthwash before the child visits,
predicts attorney Banzhaf, who has helped nonsmokers obtain some of
these court orders." ...
"We've always known that a smoker's
breath stinks. Now we know that it also creates indoor air pollution
which can harm children and perhaps some adults."
The Rest of the
Story
The rest of the story is that there is a fatal flaw
in the study which invalidates the conclusion: it is highly likely that
some smokers who claimed only to smoke outside the home actually do
smoke in the home, at least on occasion. This would have completely
explained the study result: that levels of smoke in homes with smokers
who claim to only smoke outdoors are intermediate between levels in a
smoke-free home and levels in a home with smokers who admit smoking
inside the home.
It is likely that some smokers are not being
honest about smoking inside the home because very clearly there is a
social pressure not to smoke in the home. With all of the publicity -
much of it due to ASH itself - about how smoking around kids is child
abuse and how smokers are child abusers, it is not surprising that
smokers would be hesitant to admit that they do smoke indoors with
children present. Thus, the hypothesis that smoke smokers are not being
honest about smoking inside the home is quite
plausible.
Importantly, this hypothesis would completely explain
the observed findings. Not all smokers are being dishonest, just a
proportion of them. Thus, the smoke levels among those who claim to
smoke only outdoors would be intermediate between levels in smoke-free
homes and levels in homes where the smoker admits to smoking indoors.
This alternative hypothesis is entirely consistent with the observed
findings of this study. Thus, unless the authors can disprove this
hypothesis or show why it is implausible or unreasonable, the study
conclusion is not valid.
The authors, however, do not provide any
evidence as to why this hypothesis is not plausible. In fact, they
reject this hypothesis without a word of explanation. They point out
that the results could be due to a true effect of outside smoking on
smoke levels in a home or to smokers not telling the truth and then they
simply conclude that the former is the correct explanation. But they
provide no evidence or even reasoning to suggest why the latter
explanation is unlikely to be correct.
I find this to be a
striking bias in the article (not atypical of the bias I am seeing these
days in many articles in the tobacco control literature). You have two
possible explanations for the study findings. Rather than objectively
evaluating the evidence to decide which hypothesis is likely to be
correct, you instead simply reject the least favorable explanation. That
is essentially what is going on here.
Of note, only 4 of the 39
households in which there was a smoker reported that smoking occurred
inside the home. On its face, this seems too good to be true and it
should have alerted the investigators to the likely possibility that
they were not obtaining accurate information about the smoking locations
in that household.
This study is plagued by a fatal limitation:
it is unable to objectively determine whether smoking occurred in the
home or not. Normally, one might not make too much of such a limitation.
But because the primary purpose
of the study was to determine whether outdoor smoking can result in
indoor exposure, it is inexcusable not to develop a means to validate
the actual locations where smoking occurred in these households. Or,
alternatively, to admit in the study discussion that dishonesty about
smoking locations could be an alternative explanation for the study
results.
There are four important implications to this
story.
First, it makes it clear that this study cannot be used as
evidence that outdoor smoking results in substantial secondhand smoke
exposure for children inside the home. Action on Smoking and Health has
either not taken the care to analyze the validity of the study or else
it is so excited about the opportunity to further lambast smokers that
it ignored the lack of validity of the study findings.
Second, it
reveals the increasing investigator bias in tobacco control articles
these days. This is a disturbing trend to me. It suggests that the peer
review system is not working particularly well for tobacco control. I
think perhaps part of the problem is that the articles are being send to
the same cadre of reviewers, all of whom are sharing the same bias
towards favorable results.
Third, it has unfortunate implications
for children. If tobacco control groups follow ASH's lead and tell the
public that smoking outside is of little help to protect kids, then many
smokers may well decide that it is not worth taking the trouble to smoke
outside and the exposure of children may increase, rather than
decrease.
Fourth, and most disturbingly, the misinterpretation of
this study's results may lead to efforts to bar smokers from the
workplace and to prevent smokers from adopting children, both of which
would be tragic mistakes.
Michael
Siegel, MD, MPH
Professor
Associate
Chair of Academics
Social
and Behavioral Sciences Department
Boston
University School of Public Health
715
Albany Street, Crosstown Center - 3rd Floor
Boston,
MA 02118
617-638-5167
FAX
617-638-4483
Email: mbsiegel@bu.edu
Read more from Michael
Siegel
The mask has fallen: America's
Tobacco Taliban is now pushing for laws to eradicate smoking. All smoking.
 Let me spell
that out, because I understand your disbelief. Action on Smoking and
Health (ASH), one of the country's most influential anti-tobacco
pressure groups, advocates a complete smoking ban.
"Wollt ihr den totalen Krieg?"
roars John F. Banzhaf
III, the group's Great Leader, as seductively as men with bulging neck
veins, drunk on their own totalitarian impulses, know how.
Banzhaf wants to go
all-out. No compromises. No smoking anywhere. Including in your home.
Not on your porch. Not in your living room. Nor in the crapper, the
toolshed, or the garage. He wants you never to light up, under
penalty of law, even when there are no children present, and even
when your closest non-smoking neighbor lives ten miles down the
road.
Over the span of only about a
dozen years, the message spread by Banzhaf and his ilk has morphed from
the blandly pleasant "Please don't smoke if you think it could bother
others" to an outright threat: "Give me those fags, dirtbag, or I'm
battering your front door down."
They said it would never come to this, that they were really only in it to stop smokers
from affecting the lungs of non-smokers. Oh no, they weren't against
liberty and choice at all, they claimed, on the contrary; they
came to protect liberty and choice — of those with an entirely
reasonable aversion to tobacco. People with asthma and allergies; people
with sensitive eyes and throats and noses.
And although maybe we never
quite believed that they would stop at the thresholds to our homes, and
although we knew enough to distrust the disturbing zeal of their crusade
and the cooked statistics with which they armed themselves, we let them
advance, inch by inch.
So now the ugly mug of busybody
fascism, of which we'd caught many fleeting glimpses before, has revealed itself in all its loathsome,
self-congratulatory, all-too-familiar smugness — oozing hatred and
fanaticism, and laughing.
[h/t Jacob Grier] http://www.bakelblog.com/nobodys_business/2008/06/tobacco-nannies.html
Evidence
weighted by the science of accumulation
Once again ASH
and their merry band of Nazi supporters, are climbing to new heights in
mountains out of molehill profiteering this week. Beyond the statements
by their Legal adviser adding more evidence, of his more than obvious
hatred for anyone, who dares to smoke a cigarette, actually cheer
leading a supposed right of employment restrictions and exclusions for
anyone who smokes on or off the job;
The right to
hire and fire is based in the free market employee having to accept employment
standards as depicted by the employer. In complete contradiction to the way they sold
smoking bans, by claiming employees were being forced to inhale
ETS?
The latest
testament to creating the modern day leper, directs even of you smoke
outdoors you still carry a health risk to non smokers, including by the
ever present emotional blackmail component, gratuitously in defense of
those poor defenseless children A risk carried into the home, on a smokers breath no less.
It seems we
don’t need to purchase the forty dollar article in order to evaluate its
true value. The researcher seems to be a little off, in his assessments
of how to measure ETS.
From the article found here;
Page
95
In
summary, Nicotine has been used frequently as a marker for ETS because
it meets three of the four primary criteria for a good marker. However
in individual situations, its direct relationship with other
compounds of interest in ETS is certainly not constant, and
while it is useful for providing comparisons with previous studies,
reliance on it solely is not
advised.
Page 98
“Most ETS particulate matter droplets are smaller than
those of MS [0.35 – 0.25 um] with a mass median diameter in the
range of 0.15 to 0.25 um “
The researcher
declaring bad breath a significant children’s health risk, is
gratuitously measuring a pretty wide range of particulate, which will no
doubt, include in the bulk of measurements; primarily contaminants of
sources other than ETS which present a much higher actual health
risk.
From
the article;
“Each
household was monitored for vapor phase nicotine and particulates with
an aerodynamic diameter of =10 µm (PM10).”
From page 96
explaining the concept of cigarette equivalents and information from the
chart on page 97; it seems highly unlikely nicotine measurements using a
smokers lungs after smoking, as the sole source of ETS, nicotine
measurements would even be in the measurable range. If any Nicotine were
detected at all, it is further beyond the realm of possibility the
levels associated to CEQ inhalation could come close to a range they
would represent any harm [long or short term] to anyone, including
children who have much less lung capacity, and naturally would inhale
much less than the figures presented.
FYI;
An adult would
inhale approximately 8.8 litres per minute times 60 minutes times 8
hours equals 4224 litres per day or 4.3 cubic meters of air. A child
would inhale roughly half of that amount.
One has to
assume K Rumchev, the author [who has no letters attached to his name]
is a student. The University itself has an entirely suspicious conflict
of interest here, which is not mentioned in ASHES news release. A hired
gun, creating conflicted research to suit any industrialist agenda.
Hardly the type
of research we can trust in matters of public health although we are
deluged with so many agenda driven theoretic reports of late, it gets
very hard to see any of them as credible anymore. You have to go back in
time 20-30 years before the health scare bandwagon got on track, to find
any semblance of legitimate science it seems, if it ever did, truly
exist.
Consider the
source and always follow the money… Curtin University;
“Curtin maintains a high level of involvement
with numerous Cooperative Research Centres (CRCs). A CRC is a company
formed through a collaboration of businesses and researchers. This
includes private sector organisations (both large and small
enterprises), universities, industry associations and government
research agencies.
Established in 1990, the
federally-funded CRC programme aims to turn Australia's scientific
innovations into successful new products, services and technologies,
making our industries more efficient, productive and competitive. The
program has a strong education component with a focus on producing
graduates with skills relevant to industry needs.”
I have read in
numerous studies the effect of sub micron particles being deposited in
the trachea-bronchial region and accumulating due to the lung being
unable to dislodge them. Cigarette smoke is often described as a major
hazard in a way it is least likely to cause that effect or as follows
that increased risk. It appears from this study;
The surface dimensions of cigarette smoke and
particularly second hand smoke are in the regions least likely to
accumulate within the lungs resulting in long term damage or "smoking
related" effects.
The chart at figure 4 on page 5 at three
different respiratory levels demonstrates the higher likelihood of
micron dimensions above one micron and below .01 microns demonstrating
much higher capacity and likelihood of being accumulated in the lung
cavities as described in the suspect studies mentioned. Cigarette smoke
and second hand smoke reside in the .25 micron range.
Surface
dimensions above one Micron or micro-meter ranges would be much more
consistent with particulate derived from diesel exhaust industrial
emissions and coal burning. The Nano-meter [nm] ranges of
Nano-particulate would include viral agents such as bird flu and SARS.
From the chart found here;
with cigarette smoke close to the .25
micron range you see once again, the accumulations expected are among
the lowest accumulation risk regions, which leave your lungs in the same
measures as they entered. Those forming highest risk of accumulations
and biological interactions and found most often in our environment, are
dominated by particulate much larger and much smaller than that found in
tobacco smoke.
It seems the studies depicting cigarette
particulate, in measures above the 1 micron range at less than or equal
to 2.5 or 10 micrometers, are gratuitously not accurate enough in the
definition or measurements of ETS particulate, because the broad limits
set in addition to a failure to properly identify surface descriptions,
have ETS lumped in with the bulk of materials much more likely, to
actually cause an increased long term health risk by
accumulation.
What this means
for non smokers being duped into supporting smoking bans, you are being
deliberately focused [bait and switch] on the lowest risk hazard by
developing hatred against anyone who smokes, you are inadvertently,
helping to protect the industries actually doing the most damage to your
health. And of course increasing that severe risk, of the defenceless
children we have to protect at all costs [[wink]]
http://lieberaldictators.blogspot.com/2008/06/evidence-weighted-by-science-of.html
TV Schedule, Fox Morning 6/19, Smokers Rights,
Firing Smokers, Smoker's Breath Air Pollution
Why Fire Smokers - Fox Morning 6/19 - Save
$12,000/yr
Smokers Breath is an Indoor Air Pollution
Hazard
2008-06-18 16:50:10 - Why companies should fire
smokers, and employ only nonsmokers, will be the topic of Fox's Morning
Show tomorrow [6/19] at 9 AM Eastern Time featuring "The Man Behind the
Cigarette Commercial Ban," the "Ralph Nader of the Tobacco Industry,"
"Mr. Antismoking," and "The Law Professor Who Masterminded Litigation
Against the Tobacco Industry," who will explain why it's both legal and
profitable to do so.
Public Interest Law Professor John Banzhaf,
Executive Director of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), also plans to
discuss a new medical study which shows that the breath of smokers
creates unhealthy levels of indoor air pollution, even if they do all
their smoking outdoors.
As the San Francisco Chronicle just reported,
employers -- finding that the "carrot" of free smoking
cessation program, financial incentives, and even
workplace smoking bans are not enough -- are increasingly using tough
tactics to deal with the escalation of medical care costs, and
especially the largest preventable component which is caused by smoking.
In addition to giving preference in hiring to
nonsmokers, a growing number of companies are requiring smokers to pay
more for health insurance, eliminating smoking breaks, banning smoking
even in company parking lot, firing smokers, and even testing both
employees and their spouses for nicotine.
www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/16/BUKG11A2VO. ..
An ever growing number of companies -- and even the
World Health Organization -- are refusing to hire smokers, a move which
court testimony indicates can save them about $12,000 a year for every
smoking employee.
Since employers cannot simply absorb these enormous
costs, every smoking employee wastes about $3,000 for every nonsmoking
employee which could otherwise be used for more comprehensive health
care benefits, child care, or simply raises.
As Prof. Banzhaf explains, court after court have
held that their is no right to smoke, and that both private companies
and governmental bodies can fire employees who smoke, even if their
smoking is always done off the job and on their own time.
"Smoking, whether on or off the job, causes the
same ballooning of health care costs, disability payments, days of sick
leave, and other costs to the employer," notes Banzhaf.
"Nobody has the right to any particular job. Under
our free enterprise system, employers -- rather than bureaucrats --
determine the conditions of employment, and employees who want a job
must accept the conditions.
The only major exception is that basing decisions
on factors like race, national origin, gender, disability, etc. are
prohibited since these are fixed conditions and don't adversely affect
the employer.
Smoking is an activity rather than an immutable
condition, and each smoking worker seriously affects the employer's
bottom line."
Banzhaf notes that many employers routinely fire
employees for conduct which occurs off the job.
Reporters usually cannot take part in lawful public
demonstrations (even though this involves their "free speech");
investment advisors cannot take vacations paid for by companies they
report on; professors cannot teach at other universities in their free
time; many employees cannot use "recreational drugs"; pilots cannot
drink before flying airplanes; and celebrities cannot engage in
"immoral" activities.
In each case, employees engaging in these
off-the-job activities can be fired because their actions have
on-the-job consequences for the employer.
If so-called discrimination
by employers based upon free-time activities of their employees were
prohibited, animal rights groups could be forced to hire hunters,
women's rights groups might have to hire men who patronize strip clubs,
weight control centers would have to hire the morbidly obese, and
antismoking and other health organizations might be forced to hire
smokers.
This makes no sense, says Banzhaf, suggesting that
employers are almost always in a better position to make wise decisions
regarding qualifications for employment than government bureaucrats at
agencies.
PROFESSOR JOHN F.
BANZHAF III
Executive Director and Chief Counsel
Action on Smoking
and Health (ASH)
2013 H Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006,
USA
(202) 659-4310 // ash.org
An online subscription or
single article purchase is required to access this article:
Indoor
Air
Vol.
18 Issue 3 Page 202 June 2008
How free of tobacco smoke are
‘smoke-free’ homes?
K. Rumchev, K. Jamrozik, S. Stick, J.
Spickett
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1600-0668.2008.00517.x
Outdoor smoking affects children indoors
16 June 2008
Helen Carter
Parents who smoke outside their house are still
exposing their children to the harmful effects of passive smoking, an
Australian study suggests.
The study found that the levels of respirable
suspended particles, including nicotine, were significantly higher in
houses where smokers lived than in smoke-free homes - even if they only
smoked outside.
The findings appear in the latest issue of Indoor
Air.
Lead author of the study, Dr Krassi Rumchev of
Curtin University of Technology, says the findings indicate that the
level of passive smoking by children at home may be underestimated, as
those whose parents smoked outside were exposed to levels of
environmental tobacco smoke high enough to cause harm.
"According to the study, smoking outdoors seems
inadequate to protect children," Rumchev says.
"[The] results demonstrate clearly that if parents
want a smoke-free environment for children, they need to stop
smoking."
She adds that children were more likely to have
respiratory illnesses including asthma, coughs and colds than those in
tobacco-free households.
Clinging on
The researchers urge doctors to advise parents to
quit and make their homes completely smoke-free.
Rumchev says smoke-free public places have worked
well and the next step is smoke-free homes for children.
Researchers measured nicotine and respirable
particles over 24 hours in the living rooms of 92 Perth households with
children aged between four and nine years old.
Although 39 houses (42%) had smokers, only 4% said
smoking occurred inside.
Levels were low in homes without smokers and
considerably higher in houses where smoking was reported.
"[The] findings are concerning, and it's a clear
message that more education programs are required and we need to
concentrate on making residential settings smoke-free," she says.
She says smokers appear to disperse pollutants into
the home when returning inside.
"When people come inside they're still breathing
out smoke and it contaminates the air. It's enough to do harm," Rumchev
says.
"Nicotine attaches to the hair and body, and
pollutants are dispersed into the air off clothes, because small
particles can attach to clothes."
Coughs and wheezes
Half of the children in the study had lower
respiratory symptoms, such as asthma, wheezing and shortness of breath,
while 42% had upper respiratory symptoms, including coughing and runny
nose.
Respiratory illness was more prevalent in
households with smokers than smoke-free homes. Children exposed to
higher air nicotine levels were three times more likely to have asthma
or wheeze than those not exposed.
The study also found that those with coughs or
runny noses were exposed to higher nicotine levels than children without
these symptoms.
The researchers found that air-conditioning or
opening windows did not sufficiently reduce environmental tobacco
smoke.
They also say that particulate levels related to
gas heating and cooking were accounted for in this study.
The study adds to previous research, which shows
that environmental tobacco smoke impacts more in early childhood when
the immune system and lungs are developing.
About 8% of childhood asthma and 13% of major lower
respiratory illnesses in Australian children are due to passive
smoking.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/06/16/2276063.htm
|
