Sections

For us, it’s no day at the beach

for The Brooklyn Paper
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

There’s one — and only one — reason behind the ban: Mayor Bloomberg’s own fervid disapproval of smoking and his sanctimonious vow to “make it as difficult to smoke as we possibly can.” Or, as Councilwoman Gale Brewer rephrased it in an unexpected moment of nannyish candor: “Guess what? We don’t want you smoking!”

In other words, it’s pure social engineering — another attempt at bludgeoning smokers into quitting by making their lives “difficult.” When asked by reporters to justify the ban, Health Commissioner Thomas Farley referred to it exclusively as “part of a broader strategy to further curb smoking.” (No, not a whisper about the “danger” to innocent lungs.)

Still, it’s imperative to have a rationale for a policy not seen since the heyday of Jim Crow or the aftermath of Kristallnacht, so enter, once again, that incendiary bogeyman: secondhand smoke.

“Outdoors?” you may ask (and will ask with incredulity if you’ve still got a functioning brain cell in your head). And for an answer, the city will provide you with the study on which it rests its case. (Pedants, you may Google “Klepeis, N., 2007.”)

The results of that study? If you’re sitting downwind within 18 inches of the business end of a Marlboro, you’re breathing in smoke. As Homer (Simpson, I mean) would say: D’oh. But picture that, please. Eighteen inches! Practically mouth-to-mouth resuscitation! An unlikely proximity, especially for anyone who’s terrified of smoke and who’d sensibly move away.

And there’s plenty of “away” in Coney Island or Central Park.

In fact, the study states, if you’re six feet away, you’re entirely out of range of the last limpid molecule of anything in the smoke. And, in any case, breathing in a few whiffs of smoke doesn’t mean that you’re being harmed. All smoke being equal (and believe it or not, it is), you’re equally exposed to almost all of the same chemicals in secondhand smoke when you’re walking past a car, standing near a stove, or dining at a table with romantically glowing candles. And guess what? You’re still here.

To whatever extent the public has been happy to go along with this ritualized hysteria, it’s simply the result of a decades-long barrage of anti-smoking propaganda — a series of whoppers and hyped half-science defined by Jacob Sullum in Reason Magazine as “official hate speech sponsored by the state … aimed at encouraging the average citizen to loathe smokers.”

As New Yorkers, unfortunately, are just about to learn, the results of maintaining such irrational loathing will be no day at the beach.

Linda Stewart is a member of Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment.

Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook
Subscribe

Get our stories in your inbox, free.

Like The Brooklyn Paper on Facebook.

Reader Feedback

lindaiswrong from PSLOPE says:
Linda, your post is obnoxious as your second hand smoke. To compare this new law to Kristallnacht and Nazis is an outrage and represents either a complete lack of knowledge about the Nazis or a complete lack of knowledge about the dangers of second hand smoke. Either way you are wrong.
My grandfather flew combat missions over Nazi Germany, he was decorated and survived being shot down. Do you know what killed him? Smoking. Go peddle your crap somewhere else.
Smoking is DANGEROUS to those who are exposed to it second hand. In fact it is so dangerous that even a jacket that is exposed to second hand smoke also gives off carcinogenic materials from that second hand smoke that is harmful as well.
The purpose of this law is not to make your life difficult, it is to save others the difficulty of dying from lung cancer from your stupid useless dumb dirty habit. There are few things as rotten as doing a 10 mile run in the park only to have a smoker ahead of you.
Harassment? Difficult? You have no idea what the word means. You have no idea about Nazis and you have no idea about Homer Simpson, CPR or even 18 inches.
Oh and one more thing, stop littering and pick up your damn butts so that I don't have to pay more taxes to subsidize your filthy litter habit either.
March 4, 2011, 12:27 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-ParkSlope says:
LOL!! PSLOPEr... it says a lot if you're doing a 10 mile run and there's a smoker ahead of you. Don't get out much?
'
You're incorrect about the purpose of the law. When speaking of it, as Linda noted, Bloomberg SPECIFICALLY spoke of his commitment to make smoking as difficult as possible.
'
Linda's facts about the science and the Klepeis study are accurate. It's available online: why don't you read it before throwing opinions around. With a bit of research you'll find something surprising:
'
There has never been a single scientific study showing any degree of actual real harm to anyone from the concentrations and durations of smoke anyone would normally be exposed to outdoors. Disagree? Fine: go find a couple of studies that you can defend and post them here to show me wrong. NOTE: "Studies" - not generalized reports, fact sheets, opinions, quotes from people, press releases, web sites, etc.
'
Understand? "Studies" -- as in peer reviewed research with the details availabel for critical examination. Hint: you won't find any: they don't exist. All that's out there are studies like Klepeis where they show that the wonders of modern nanoscopic technology can detect molecules of smoke exist.
'
Michael J. McFadden,
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 4, 2011, 1:42 am
Joanna from Brighton Beach says:
In fact, she's (the article writer) is not wrong. Three days after Kristallnacht, Jews were banned from parks and then from all public benches anywhere. One of the stated grounds was that Jews, even though apparently healthy, spread disease to the Arians.

Here's a quote from Goebbels: "The Jews have always been carriers of infectious disease. They should either be concentrated in a ghetto and left to themselves or be liquidated for otherwise they will infect the population."

Even the clothes of Jews were said to cause disease.

However, Park Slope, you do a really fine job of illustrating the kind of over-the-top loathing the writer talks about.
March 4, 2011, 1:45 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-ParkSlope says:
btw... if you read "Taxes, Social Costs, and the MSA" at:
'
http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7
'
you'll find that, even before the recent tax increases, it's smokers who have been subsidizing YOUR health care: not vice-versa. If you have any specific substantive criticisms of it please share them here.
'
- MJM
March 4, 2011, 1:51 am
Or from Yellow Hook says:
But Mayor for Life Mike knows that the smoke in Hookah Bars is harmless!
March 4, 2011, 12:51 pm
Sam from Bensonhurst says:
That lady from Park Slope is lucky she's still alive since her grandfather smoked. Unless, of course, he never once in her life kissed her with his foul, toxic, killer smoker's breath and she never touched his clothes.

Her comment is a triumph of bigotry over experience not to mention common sense.
March 4, 2011, 3:27 pm
LINDA IS STILLWRONG from PSLOPE says:
Sorry smokers your comments and linda's are actually wrong and there are plenty of studies that say so. Second hand smoke outdoors IS harmful and studies show so. Michale McFadden, you really are taking Bloombergs comments out of context, the reason he wants to make smoking difficult is because it will save lives, including those of non-smokers who have to put up with smoke outside at public places.
NO, smokers are not covering my health care, as I pay my own, and furthermore smokers healthcare costs, according to the the Centers for Disease Control, the country $96 billion a year in direct health care costs, and an additional $97 billion a year in lost productivity. Also we do pay people to pick up the butts and that is a fact. I would rather spend that money on bombing the Taliban than on a stupid dumb dirty drug addict habit.
The study you cite actually DOES show that outside second hand smoke is bad for people if they are within 7 feet of the smoker. You should read the entire study, nice try though.
So I guess we all just make smokers stay in a bunker 7 feet away from everyone and then we are safe? Thats your best argument? Even the study you throw out to support your position of "no harm" from outside second hand smoke actually shows harm.
And Sam, my grandfather died before I was born, but nice try, jerk.
Here is just one study on secondhand smoke out side, (there are many more though) which says you need to be at least 21 feet away from a smoker outside before air gets anywhere close to being background. Find it at http://www.repace.com/pdf/outdoorair.pdf
March 4, 2011, 10:22 pm
Eric from Manhattan Beach says:
PSLOPE... the author of the study you (and we who oppose you) cite is quoted in an interview with West Hollywood News (aka WeHo News):

"If you're upwind or have sufficient air flow [past 6 feet] you'll get no exposure to the outdoor smoke."

The paper goes on to say, "[He] acknowledged in an interview that the seriousness of long term health risks associated with brief exposure to outdoor secondhand smoke remained an open question."

You seem to have difficulty discerning between "HARM" and "EXPOSURE." Nowhere does this study conclude "harm," only exposure. And the conclusion of that is in the paragraph above.

Repace works as a "Secondhand Smoke Consultant." Sorry, he's in the same category you'd put tobacco companies when it comes to credibility. His paycheck relies on the nonsense he spews.

Lastly, I suppose those whose job it is to sweep parks or streets would not have to sweep if there were no butts on the ground that they pick up along with all the other trash? As if it's an "extra" sweep?

If you really cared that much about funding to bomb terrorists you'd worry about the money spent to post the No Smoking signs and all addended material and time spent on.... gasp.... smoking. Maybe the guys fighting for the principle of freedom (and those who especially smoke) would like to come home and be free to enjoy a cigarette in a nice park instead of a bunker in the desert.
March 4, 2011, 11:29 pm
Sam from B'hurst says:
I do have to note that the "lady" from PSlope --lady in quotes since she's the only poster here whose language is uncivil-- is still lucky to be alive since her mother or father grew up around her grandfather (and likely his clothes) and survived to produce her, and since I also assume that at least once in her life she was actually within 6, 7, or 21 feet of a smoker. If not, I'd have to assume she never went to a movie, a restaurant, a bar,, a dance club, or even so much as a party before 2003 or flew on an airplane before 1998, or ever traveled to Europe.

I'd also assume she never roasted a marshmellow over a campfire, drowsed by a fireside, pan fried a burger, walked a city street or shared a room with a candle. In which case, she'll definitely to live for 1000 years but what a narrow, constricted and mean little life.

I leave it to the others to argue with her science, but I notice, too, that she hasn't commented on the post from Joanna. The Nazis--and in fact, all the other kinds of racists and bigots-- had a lot of "science" too. And she, very clearly, would have bought every bit.
March 5, 2011, 12:26 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Rather than fill the BP's comments section here as well, I'd suggest that anyone taking LindaIsWrong's comments seriously see my response to them under the opposing editorial at:

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/10/all_opedsmokingpro_2011_3_4_bk.html

I believe you may find that Linda Is Wrong Is Wrong.

- MJM
March 5, 2011, 7:49 am
LINDAISSTILLWRONG from PSLOPE says:
Hi Michael McFadden from the tobacco Lobby!!! Nice to see you are still employed in this rotten economy, even though your job is killing Americans with your poison!!!
March 5, 2011, 8:11 pm
LINDAISSTILLWRONG from PSLOPE says:
Just so you all know, Michael Mcfadden, according to Americans for Non-Smokers Rights, works for a front group that is funded by big tobacco, apparently he is a full time public strategy hitman hired by big tobacco to try and stop anti-smoking laws.
A common tactic used by these types of groups are to build databases of smokers by compiling names at tobacco promotion events in convenience stores, gas stations, restaurants, bars, and clubs.
Free cigarettes and lighters are typically given away at these promotion events in exchange for "proof of age," which entails scanning a driver's license.
The mailing address from the driver's license is cross-referenced with other databases, such as lists of registered voters, to find out information useful to the tobacco companies, including the individual's legislative district. After getting individuals into its database, tobacco companies send emails and newsletters "educating" the recipients about secondhand smoke and then they mobilize them, when the time comes, to oppose smokefree air proposals.
Please also understand that what McFadden is calling as science is really junk science, especially in light of the absolute fact which has been established by numerous scientific studies over many years that in fact there is NO safe level of exposure to second hand smoke. ANY exposure is dangerous.
Look it up your self these are scags of studies that say so, do your own research and don't take this guy's word for it, he has a vested professional financial interest in opposing these kinds of laws.
Oh and by the way McFadden, nice try at trying to duck the other stats and points I posted about the costs of smoking and everything else by trying refocusing everyone's attention on your junk science. Funny that you have ZERO to say about that.
And in the interest of full disclosure, I don't work for anyone or any group connected with any pro or anti smoking group or tobacco company, I am just a person who does not want to be exposed to second hand smoke.
March 5, 2011, 8:43 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Linda, I hope you realize you have just engaged in what is probably criminal, damaging, and malicious libel in a public forum. This will be brought up to the Post, and despite your anonymous handle I will follow through with prosecution.

For any who are interested, I made a quite clear and full disclosure of my financial connections to Big Tobacco in the first two sentences of my book several years ago. I placed it in such a prominent position specifically to avoid libel problems since I've seen for a long time that "throwing mudballs" has been a classic tactic of Antismokers when they find they can no longer defend themselves on their actual claims or science.

Visit www.Antibrains.com for that reference and disclosure, or simply read it here:

====
I am not now, nor have I ever, been a member of the Communist Party.

I am also not now, nor have I ever, been affiliated with Big Tobacco or their stocks, nor do I have any plans to be.
====

I will be submitting your posting and my response to the Post for follow-up action.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 6, 2011, 2:48 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Editors, the word "posting" was in my mind from six words earlier, and obviously I will be submitting my response to you, at The Brooklyn Paper, and not to "the Post." Apologies!

- MJM
March 6, 2011, 2:55 pm
LINDAISSTILL WRONG from PSLOPE says:
Michael, you seem sooo very angry!! I quoted a source that names you and makes it appear that you are connected to the Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network, among other organizations, which is also listed on the same site by the same group as a front group for big tobacco.
Are they incorrect? Is that why you sound so angry in your post?
If the source I cited is wrong or casts you in a false light, then you can MAYBE go after them, but not me.
They imply the connection, I merely posted about that. I have no way to verify the truth of their claims but I also have no reason to doubt their claims either. Are their claims legit? Are you aware of who they are? Are you suing them for libel and slander? If not, why? You seem pretty ready to sue, so why are you not going after them but making such vitriolic threats against me?
Can you comment on why such an organization would list you on their site? What is your side of the story?
Just so you know, the First Amendment protects speech and the standard for libel/slander cases is NY Times v Sullivan.
The Supreme Court of the United States held in this cases that in the instance of a public figure, which you clearly are, since apparently you have a book published, in order for a person to be found guilty of Libel/Slander, you must prove that the person knowingly made comments that are a lie which damaged your personal or profession life.
That is very very difficult to prove, and in light of the fact that there is an organization opposed to your point of view, that has you listed as a person that is connected to big tobacco front groups, which I clearly cite as my source, there is basically no way I could be found guilty of libel or slander, and that IS the law of the land.
By the way, I did not accuse you of being a member of the Communist Party, and I have no idea why you put that in your response as it it completely non-germane.
Again you refused to comment on the stats from the CDC etc about the costs of smoking, which I don't understand since you seem to claim to have all the stats and peer reviewed studies, so where are they showing that the CDC is wrong and lying?
This is the third time I mention that by the way. Do I need to mention it 4 times? 5? How many till you address that? Or do you just want to threaten me with legal action?
But getting back you your so called threat of legal action by claiming I have probably done something illegal and criminal (and in New York please remember it is not legal to practice law without a license) please remember that truth is an absolute defense in such cases. Also please remember that slander/libel is not criminal, its civil.
In any event, by your response I take it you have NOTHING to do with big Tobacco, that you have never, at any time, had anything to do with any Tobacco company, have never received any payment of any kind (including free cigarettes, or other promotional materials or hotel/motel travel expenses) from any Tobacco Company, or one of their subsidiaries, holding companies, advertisers, lobby groups, advocate group, "think tank", public relations or media group connected in any shape or form to any tobacco related company organization of any kind, including research groups, labs, lobby group, "think tank", foreign subsidiary of a tobacco company, or ANY other organization associated with any Tobacco company or ANY organization in any way shape or form attached to any Tobacco company that has received at any time any compensation, enumeration or payment of any kind (including promotional materials or donations or hotel/motel travel expenses), and that that you have never given a speech at a Tobacco conference or company meeting of any kind for which you were compensated in any way, including hotel, travel expenses and promotional materials, that you are not involved nor have never received ANY compensation of any kind (including promotional items hotel or travel expenses) at any time from a off sheet balance, holding, or Special Purpose vehicle, connected to any Tobacco company in any shape or form, nor have you received any compensation from any organization group, corporation, pac, lobby group, 501(c)3, or 527 organization that received money or materiel support in ANY manner form or substance from any tobacco company or any organization that receives funds from any tobacco company or organization, corporation, 527, or 501 c (3), public relations or media group, that are or have ever been connected in any shape or form, at any time to a tobacco company and that you are in fact in NO way connected nor have ever been connected with the Pennsylvania Smokers Action Network, or the Smokers Club, that you have never spoken on their behalf, received any kind of funds, directly or indirectly or through bundling, or some other "feeder mechanism" or compensation from them, or promotional materials, nor have you ever given a speech to or for them, raised funds for them in any fashion or any other kind of donation, grant, or trust fund payment, nor have you handed out promotional materials, advocated for them in any form, including but not limited to phone calls, emails, text or SMS, interviews to ANY media outlet, podcast, or website, using any technology known or unknown at any time, nor have you ever maintained a website or posted on any website which is connected to any of the aforementioned groups, nor have you ever received a donation or payment of any kind including hotel/motel travel expenses and promotional materials from any individual member of any of the aforementioned groups including any executive, board member, director, corporate officer, inside or outside director or board member of corporate official or major stock holder (as defined by the SEC) nor have you been associated with or received any payment or donation of any kind including hotel/motel and travel expenses or promotional materials from any Public Relations company that is in any way shape or form connected to any group organization, lobby group advocacy group, corporation, 501 c (3), or 527, one of their subsidiaries, holding companies, advertisers, lobby groups, research groups, labs, foreign subsidiary of a tobacco company, or ANY other organization associated with any Tobacco company or ANY organization in any way shape or form associated with any Tobacco company, and that you have never been connected at any time to any group that has received ANY money or any form of compensation including hotel/motel, travel expenses, or promotional materials form any organization connected to Tobacco companies of any kind in any territory in the world or pro-smoker organizations, and that that you have never given a speech at a Tobacco conference which you were compensated in any way, including hotel or travel expenses, or promotional materials, and that you are not involved nor have received ANY compensation of any kind from a Off sheet balance, holding, or Special Purpose vehicle connected to any Tobacco company in any shape or form, located in any territory in the entire planet.nor appeared in any photographs with any member of any of the aforementioned groups including any executive, board member, director, corporate officer, inside or outside director or board member of corporate official) or major stock holder (as defined by the SEC) nor have you been associated with any Public Relations company that is in any way shape or form connected to any group organization, lobby group advocacy group, corporation, 501 c (3), or 527, one of their subsidiaries, holding companies, advertisers, lobby groups, research groups, labs, foreign subsidiary of a tobacco company, or ANY other organization associated with any Tobacco company or ANY organization in any way shape or form associated with any Tobacco company, and that you have never been connected at any time to any group that has received ANY money or any form of compensation including hotel/motel, travel expenses, or promotional materials form any organization connected to Tobacco companies of any kind in any territory in the world or pro-smoker organizations, and that that you have never given a speech at a Tobacco conference which you were compensated in any way, including hotel or travel expenses, or promotional materials, and that you are not involved nor have received ANY compensation of any kind from a Off sheet balance, holding, or Special Purpose vehicle connected to any Tobacco company in any shape or form, located in any territory in the entire planet.
In short, not a single penny has ever come into your possession, or passed through your hands, accounts, or anything that you are connected to, or benefited you in a direct or indirect way, (for example giving you a "free" place to conduct research or provide you with talking points,) that you have never admired the art in the Altria building lobby in Manhattan?
If you can answer NO to ALL of the above, then maybe the Americans for Non-Smokers Rights Organization is incorrect about you or is misleading about who you are and what you do.
If you answer YES to any of the above, then sorry you probably don't have much of a chance of winning a libel slander case on these grounds, as truth is a absolute defense.
And oh yeah, you would have to disclose EVERYTHING about all of your connections for pretty much your entire life in such a lawsuit, and all of these companies would be subject to a subpoena forcing them to disclose any connection they had to you, and it would then possibly become a matter of public record which the entire world would be able to comment on.
If you can answer NO to all of the above questions I asked about your connections, and the Americans for Non-Smokers Rights is incorrect or misleading about you, go get the Americans for Non-Smokers Rights, and I apologize and retract everything that I passed on from their website about you to this posting board.
In the meantime, kindly set the record straight and answer the above questions about your connections/positions to Tobacco, or if none of the above applies, then please say so, and please state your answer with specificity. It sounds really interesting and I would very much like to know the truth. You seem to be claiming that there are a lot of lies so please, tell me the truth.
Also, please, will you excuse me for not running out as fast as I can to buy and read your book (which I was not even aware existed or that it makes the disclosures about your connections/positions about who you are and what you do. Who published it?
Also, The U.S. Surgeon General has concluded that breathing even a little secondhand smoke poses a risk to your health. That is a direct quote from the Surgeon General's website.
Please address that with multiple NON-Tobacco company peer reviewed studies that shows why the government is wrong about claiming that as scientific fact that even a little secondhand smoke poses a risk to your health.
After all I assume your main purpose on posting here is to refute that claim by the government, as a basis to stop anti-smoking laws, yes?
You did not come on this board to try and intimidate little old me with your big fancy legal threats now did you ?
Also, while I have your attention, please, I would like you to comment on the case bought by the The Justice Department seeking to force the tobacco companies to admit that they lied to the American people about the serious health risks of smoking AND secondhand smoke, the addictiveness of nicotine, how they manipulate nicotine, and their deceptive marketing of light and low-tar cigarettes and that the government is going to require the tobacco companies to make corrective statements in newspaper and television advertising, at point of sale, on their web sites and on cigarette packaging.
This as a result a 2006 decision by Judge Kessler who issued a 1,683-page opinion finding the major cigarette manufacturers GUILTY of violating civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
Please, I'd really like to hear you talk about that.
March 6, 2011, 8:16 pm
LINDAISSTILLWRONG from PSLOPE says:
Michael McFadden, in case you are having trouble with that case, here are the statements the government wants to have tobacco companies make, its from the ocurt papers.Please comment on why they are wrong.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________________________________________
( LODGED UNDER SEAL
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ( SUBJECT TO DISPUTED
Plaintiff, ( MOTION FOR UNDER SEAL
( FILING
v. (
( Civil Action No. 99-2496 (GK)
PHILIP MORRIS USA INC., et al., (
Defendants. ( Next scheduled court appearance :
__________________________________________( February 24, 2011
UNITED STATES’ SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED
CORRECTIVE STATEMENTS AND EXPERT REPORT
The United States hereby submits its proposed corrective statements, which are set forth
below. These proposed corrective statements are based upon the expert recommendations of the
United States’ expert witness, and are intended to be examined in conjunction with the
corresponding expert report and supporting materials. The United States’ expert report is
attached as Exhibit 1 to this filing.
Topic A: Corrective Statements for Negative Health Effects of Smoking
A Federal court is requiring tobacco companies to tell the truth about cigarette
smoking. Here’s the truth:
 Smoking reduces circulation, triggers asthma, and can cause infertility and
erectile dysfunction.
 Smoking during pregnancy can cause stillbirth, low birth weight, and sudden
infant death syndrome.
 Smoking causes heart disease, emphysema, chronic bronchitis, acute myeloid
leukemia, and cancers of the mouth, esophagus, throat, voice box, lung,
stomach, kidney, bladder, pancreas, cervix and uterus.
 Smoking kills 1,200 Americans. Every day.
2
Topic B: Corrective Statements for Addictiveness of Smoking and Nicotine
We told Congress under oath that we believed nicotine is not addictive. We told you
that smoking is not an addiction and all it takes to quit is willpower. Here’s the truth:
 Smoking is very addictive. And it’s not easy to quit.
 We manipulated cigarettes to make them more addictive.
 When you smoke, the nicotine actually changes the brain—that’s why quitting
is so hard.
Paid for by [Cigarette Manufacturer Name] under order of a Federal District court.
Topic C: Corrective Statements for Lack of Health Benefit from “Low Tar,”
“Light,” “Ultra Light,” “Mild,” and “Natural” Cigarettes
We falsely marketed low tar and light cigarettes as less harmful than regular cigarettes
to keep people smoking and sustain our profits.
We knew that many smokers switch to low tar and light cigarettes rather than quitting
because they believe low tar and lights are less harmful. They are NOT.
Here’s the truth:
 Just because lights and low tar cigarettes feel smoother, that doesn’t mean they
are any better for you. Light cigarettes can deliver the same amounts of tar and
nicotine as regular cigarettes.
 ALL cigarettes cause cancer, lung disease, heart attacks and premature death—
lights, low tar, ultra lights, and naturals.
Paid for by [Cigarette Manufacturer Name] under order of a Federal District court.
3
Topic D: Corrective Statements for Cigarette Design Manipulation
For decades, we denied that we controlled the level of nicotine delivered in cigarettes.
Here’s the truth:
 Cigarettes are a finely-tuned nicotine delivery device designed to addict people.
 We control nicotine delivery to create and sustain smokers’ addiction, because
that’s how we keep customers coming back.
 We also add chemicals, such as ammonia, to enhance the impact of nicotine
and make cigarettes taste less harsh.
 When you smoke, the nicotine actually changes the brain—that’s why quitting
is so hard.
Paid for by [Cigarette Manufacturer Name] under order of a Federal District court.
Topic E: Corrective Statements for Negative Health Effects of Secondhand Smoke
The Surgeon General has concluded:
 Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke has been proven to cause premature
death and disease in children and in adults who do not smoke. Children exposed
to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome
(SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.
Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in
their children. Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse
effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung
cancer. The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of
exposure to secondhand smoke.
This message is furnished by [Cigarette Manufacturer Name] pursuant to a Court Order
and is taken from the 2006 Surgeon General’s Report.
You should rely upon your medical provider and the Surgeon General in making
decisions regarding smoking.
4
Dated: February 4, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
Washington, D.C.
TONY WEST
Assistant Attorney General
___/s/_____________________________
ANN RAVEL
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Civil Division
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Room 3129
Washington, DC 20530
Telephone: 202-514-3045
Facsimile: 202-514-8071
E-mail address: Ann.Ravel@usdoj.gov
EUGENE M. THIROLF, Director
Office of Consumer Litigation
___/s/_____________________________
DANIEL K. CRANE-HIRSCH
JAMES T. NELSON
Trial attorneys
Office of Consumer Litigation, Civil Division
United States Department of Justice
PO Box 386
Washington, DC 20004-0386
Telephone: 202-616-8242 (Crane-Hirsch)
202-616-2376 (Nelson)
Facsimile: 202-514-8742
E-mail address: daniel.crane-hirsch@usdoj.gov
james.nelson2@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Plaintiff
United States of America
March 6, 2011, 10:01 pm
CyZane says:
Good grief, there are people like LindaIsStill wrong on the loose and Bloomberg is protecting people from a few whiffs of second second hand smoke outdoors?
March 7, 2011, 1:05 am
CyZane says:
The reason the CDC does not even estimate smoking related morbidity and mortality for anyone under 35 is because it takes a regular smoker approx. 20 years, if ever, to develop any smoking related diseases. So anyone care to guess how long it takes someone occasionally or even regularly breathing whiffs of thousands of times diluted second hand smoke outdoors? Can we guess 1,000, 2,000, 5,000 years?

I understand that Big Pharma wants people to live sick and long, but let's not get carried away LOL.
March 7, 2011, 1:29 am
1st Amendment says:
For 2 counter-takes on the Soviet Show Trial recantations demanded of the tobacco companies, take a look at these articles, the second by a noted anti-tobacco activist and Public Health professor at Boston University

Jacob Sullum:
http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/28/what-about-corrective-statemen

Michael Siegel: March 7, 2011
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/
March 7, 2011, 3:09 pm
Cyzane says:
Careful what you post 1st Amendment, or you will be painted with the ''tobacco stooge'' extra wide brush for even daring to type the words ''tobacco companies''.

Tobacco might be assisting smokers to concentrate and focus, but it totally blurs the vision and logic of the anti-smokers, or is it the smell, or maybe the 7th hand smoke that occurs when thinking of someone that might be buying a pack of cigarettes in Alaska, or is it the money they get from the nico/patchy/gummy peddlers that does it to them?
March 7, 2011, 3:46 pm
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
My, my, 3,000 words! Somehow I don't think I'm the emotional one here. Here's 300 in response.

LISW/Sloper, it's interesting that in all that verbiage you didn't once cite the specific ANR source for your claims that I'm "working" in a "job" which is "killing Americans", and "work for a front group that is funded by big tobacco", and am a "full time public strategy hitman hired by big tobacco." That's because it does not exist and you know it does not exist. Those claims are totally and unequivocally false. My time and efforts in this area have all been as a volunteer activist: no pay or recompense involved.

For the record, no, I have not received compensation/expenses from such organizations/associations/cabals/cliques/SecretOrdersOfTheIlluminati as you conjure. And your list of possible connections to Big Tobacco is simply silly. Accepting a cigarette pack at a bar? You've got to be kidding. As for the hundred odd various types of multiply removed sort of associations with associates of associations who might in some way have associated with something associated with something, that's beyond silliness. Heh... I didn't even know there WAS "an Altria building in Manhattan"!

I founded the PA group myself specifically to avoid the possibility of associating with Big Tobacco, and have volunteered with groups like the Smokers Club and Forces and such only after verifying to the best of my ability that they also were not what you call "Front Groups" for BT. Your statements were clearly made intentionally and with full malice intending to cause harm to my efforts and my writing.

I would like to politely suggest that you offer both a clear and unequivocal retraction of your claims as false, as well as a full apology on both threads here and anywhere else you might have made such claims. I'd originally asked the BP about removing your initial posting, however in general I am against net censorship and now feel it's important to leave all this for the record and for revisiting readers.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
March 9, 2011, 12:16 am
LINDAISSTILLWRONG from PSLOPE says:
Michael, I will take your suggestion and I retract the statement about you being a full time paid lobbyist funded by big tobacco, since you have said that you have not been paid by Big tobacco. Again, the source I looked at certainly makes it appear that this is what you are. There was nothing knowing about it. Thank you for telling your story.
March 11, 2011, 12:12 am
Michael J. McFadden from Ex-Park Sloper says:
Thank you for the retraction LISW. Please post it as well to

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/34/10/all_opedsmokingpro_2011_3_4_bk.html

and to any other blogs where you may have made similar comments from behind an anonymous handle.

As for your claim that I've been unresponsive to the cost arguments, you seem to have missed my March 4th, 1:51 post citing:

http://pasan.thetruthisalie.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=7

and where I clearly invited any substantive criticisms of it. You have not offered any.

Despite that lack however, I carefully examined and responded, point by point, to your Klepeis study and the unpublished paper by the so-called "Health Physicist" guy. You have offered no response to that either.

As for Kessler, you're welcome to read my comments posted the other day at:

http://reason.com/blog/2011/02/28/what-about-corrective-statemen#comment_2168793

and offer any substantive criticisms you like.

- MJM
March 11, 2011, 5:11 am

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not BrooklynPaper.com or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to BrooklynPaper.com the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.

This week’s featured advertisers