Subject: THE TRUTH FROM A PHYSICIAN JOHN DALE DUNN..HEARTLAND
INSTITUTE
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:04:54 -0500

I am a Texan for 22 years, a 36 year physician, specializing in
emergency medicine. I am familiar with the public health science on
second hand smoke. I can say with confidence that second hand smoke
may irritate some, but it does not kill. Those claiming thousands of
deaths from second hand smoke to the public are deceitful for a
political goal.

Public Health Studies cited by the Cancer Society and the Surgeon
General that claim thousands of deaths from second hand smoke are
weak, cherry-picked studies. Their supporters compound their perfidy
by ignoring studies by the World Health Organization (Buffetta 1998
in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), Stranges, 2006 in
Archives of Internal Medicine and Enstrom 2003 in The British Medical
Journal, that show no second hand smoke effect.

In science, one study that disproves a scientific theory is more
important than a pile of studies that are slightly positive. Anti-
smoking advocates and fanatics ignore that basic rule and ignore any
study they don't like. They are propagandists, not scientists.

The crusaders are willing to do anything and say anything about
second hand smoke, including making public statements about thousands
of deaths from second hand smoke. Those claims are multifarious and
duplicitous—they are lies. Second hand smoking, even for the spouse
of a smoker is one cigarette or less per day—which has no effect.
The second hand smoke scare is a phantom menace conjured up by the
High Holy Church of Smoke Haters to support the anti smoking
crusade...

Smoking Bans violate the Ohio tradition of mind your own business.
If the Ohio General Assembly thinks it has a role in telling people
how to live, they should get a Divinity Degree and find a
congregation. Folks in Ohio can easily avoid second hand smoke, and
employment in a bar or restaurant is voluntary. Smoking is legal.
Avoiding smoke is easy.

John Dale Dunn MD JD

Policy Advisor
American Council on Science
and Health,
NYC, and the Heartland Institute, Chicago.

“Heres a letter from a former cancer researcher and ACS president of new york state!

Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker­. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher­. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders­. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semit­ism or racism.”

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmen­tal smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantia­l evidence to the contrary. It is frustratin­g, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Associatio­n used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smoker­s are neutral. Anti-smoke­rs hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurant­s, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfacto­ry and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishm­ents whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.

Respectful­ly,
Robert E. Madden, M.D”

I happen to be a victim of people who smoked in my workplace. do a google search
for 'SAFE Stories' to learn more about how dangerous smoking in the workplace can be
to people who do not smoke. Thanks to a ban on smoking in the workplace first put
in place by Los Angeles, CA, then later by the State of California, I was able to work
until I retired. My SAFE story tells part of the story, which later gravitated to Myasthena
Gravis. after the smoking ceased, it going into remission after 10 years. Make no
mistake, second hand smoke is very dangerous.
Albert J. Benson

Most health organizations agree that tobacco smoke can cause illness. It is especially dangerous when it drifts on a regular basis from one apt. or condo unit to another. The secondhand smoke will become trapped in the unit and the chemicals in the smoke will attach to walls, floors, rugs, etc. Then it will outgas back into the room. This is called third-hand smoke and studies are showing it is also dangerous.
We are a small organization, not as well known as for example, the American Heart Association, but we are overwhelmed with calls from residents of multi-unit housing who are breathing a neighbor's tobacco smoke and feeling ill. It starts with headaches, eyes that burn, coughing, difficulty breathing, etc.
If you are a landlord or a property manager, even if you don't believe that tobacco smoke is a health hazard and a potential liability, it is financially worthwhile to adopt no smoking policies for some or all of your units. According to an article soon to be published by the American Journal of Public Health, the cost of preparing a unit that has been smoked in for the next tenant is almost $5,000. We have an article on our website which explains how to properly clean a unit that has been smoked in and that estimate is more than $5,000.
In addition, some insurance companies are now offering discounts for non-smoking buildings. Making your premises non smoking is good business.
E. Schiller, Director
Smokefree Apartment House Registry
www.smokefreeapartments,org

the bottom line of this case is the smokers are violating the nuisance policy of the condo. they have been smoking for 15 years, and if a radio too loud is considered a nuisance, and the police can be called, then unwanted cigarette smoke IN YOUR HOME is definitely a nuisance. no one is claiming they don't have the right to smoke. but if it is invading a neighbors' home, that is infringing on their individual right to enjoy their home.

The antismoking astro-turfers have made an appearance.

E. Schiller, your claims are baseless and inflammatory, as antismoking claims usually are. Using terms such as “dangerous” for secondhand smoke and now the newly concocted thirdhand “piffle”, particularly in this apartment context, is repugnant. It is such claims that promote neurosis in a growing number of nonsmokers: it is promoting mental dysfunction, bigotry, and social division.

“It starts with headaches, eyes that burn, coughing, difficulty breathing, etc.”

Esther, you may want to go and find out about the environmental somatization syndrome (also idiopathic environmental intolerance). What you are describing are classical anxiety/somatization symptoms. You’ll also find out that the toxic thinking your organization is propagating is how the syndrome is allowed to commence and proliferate.

“… but we are overwhelmed with calls from residents of multi-unit housing who are breathing a neighbor’s tobacco smoke and feeling ill”

The greater the number of calls, the greater it is to your shame. Your organization promotes mental dysfunction and bigotry.

Ah! And notwithstanding “danger”, your organization has other “reasons” why smoking should be banned. You’re an antismoking activist, pure and simple. It is you who is a spreader of poisonous thinking.

Albert, thanks for the trip down fantasy lane. There are experiments/tests that can be conducted that can distinguish whether a person is reacting to smoke physically or whether reactions are psychologically mediated. You have obviously had no such test. There are more and more that are becoming aware of the antismoking insanity that has been inflicted on society, and with full government support. Such tests will become commonplace for people claiming SHS “harm”.

“…. their individual freedom to breathe clean air”

Noah, you probably don’t realize that the bulk of what’s in tobacco smoke is already in “clean air”. As fanatics usually do, you resort to incoherent analogies to advance your delusional “cause”. Some have tried to “equate” SHS with urination and defecation. One has tried to equate SHS to a tire burning. You attempt to equate it with rotting animals. This says nothing about SHS but the derangement that is the antismoking mentality. How do you appease someone who has a dysfunctional, disproportionate, inordinate view of a phenomenon? What if there was a resident that did not want to see people, the sight of them making him agitated and producing symptoms of agitation? What if he demanded that policies be instituted to ban people from particular areas to appease his dysfunctional demands? What if he didn’t want to see people of a particular race? What if a person considered low levels of noise a nuisance?

Oddly enough, what nonsmokers exhale looks eerily similar to what smokers exhale. Carcinogens and all!
Guess what is in the air that nonsmokers expire.
Normal Composite Compositional Profile of Human Expired Air
Acetone
Isoprene
Acetonitrile
pTolualdehyde
Toluene
P,SDimethylhexane
Ethyl Alcohol
Acetaldehyde
Dichloronitromethane
2,2,4-Trimethyl-l-pentanol
n-Propyl acetate
2,2-Dimethyl-l-pentanol
Cyclohexane
Hexane
Thiolacetic acid
I-Heptanol
Cyclohexyl alcohol
Benzene
2-Ethyl-l-hexanone
2,3,5 Trimethylhexane
Ethyl Imercaptopropionate
Cycloheptatriene
p-Xylene
n-Butyl alcohol
3,4 Dimethylhexane
Limonene
Isooctyl alcohol
Methyl-n-propyl sulfide.
2 – Ethyl-4-methyl-1-pentanol
Neopentyl acetate
Trans4nonenal
n-Heptane
Ethylbenzene
5-Methyl4heptanone
Dimethylsulfide
P-Methyl-l-pentanol
pl)ichlorobenzene
Trans-3-hexen-l-ol
Capryl alcohol
Mesitylene
n-Hexylmercaptan
3,4-Dimethylheptane
2,3,3,4-Tetramethylpentane
1Chlorohexane
Dichloroacetylene
2,P-Dimethyl-l-octanol
2,2,3,3 – Tetramethylhexane
o-X

Now do you think Ol Repace is gonna admit the above is what he actually measured with his 12 thousand dollar sniffer! I bet he wont.....