GOD bless Judge Northrop.

There's always an anti-smoking agent/lawyer about when they think there's a buck to be made. Repace, Glantz et al are parasites of the highest order. I find it deplorable that the courts/politicans are allowing these sub-human anti-smoking zealots to dictate policy, I'd have had more respect for the decison if the judge had slammed Repace & co., for encouraging landlords to sling their tenants out on the streets, especially the elderly, slamming them for demanding smokers quit or they'll be made homeless. What none of these bast***ds can/or want to answer is what happens when smokers are denied all employment, housing & medical treatment, as is slowly but surely happening, where are they to go, what are they to do, how will they live because I'm certain the Repaces of the anti-smoking lobby will soon be on the case of denying welfare to smokers unless they quit.

Is the WHO/repace & Glantz, negotiating with germany for the cattle trucks to be taken out of mothballs? It certainly seems like it.

How can we call what we now live in a democracy, it's becoming more fascist every day.

Take the taxpayer funding & big pharma grants away and these parasites will wither on the vine. Money, control & power & hate, the anti-smoking itinerary.

I also get so sick of ex-smokers (born again smokers) turning into paragons of virtue because they've quit, good luck to them, but many join the bandwagon of the zealots and become just as hateful, if not more so than the zealots.

So the alchemist Repace destroyed his own case as we all figured he did! Its been the same junk claims since the second hand smoke mythology was recreated by TC!

Keep fighting the smoke-free insanity and this case surely shows it is INSANITY!

Northrop found in favor of the defendant on eight of the nine counts, but he granted a permanent injunction against inside smoking by Mr. and Mrs. Popovic.

Does this mean a judge can also order married people that they cant have sex inside there own homes!

How can a judge order somebody not to do a legal activity inside there own home!

This seems like a blatant abuse of judicial power!

Wonder if Mr. Schuman will make a condition of the sale of his home to non-smokers only? If Mr. Popovik is now prohibited from smoking in his own home what would happen if the Schuman house is sold to smokers? Will Schuman be obligated to disclose the smoking issue to potential buyers? Will GHI also be obligated? Could lessen the chances of selling even at a reduced (more reasonable) price? So many questions.

Once Schuman is gone the order becomes unenforcible upon defendant!

Its all a moot point except the abuse of power over denying the right to privacy within ones own home to conduct a legal activity.

Anyone new to this story might want to check out the previous comments after the GreenbeltPatch story at:

http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/witness-testimony-ends-in-secondhand-smoke-trial

where you'll see a detailed back & forth discussion with Mr. Repace where he was asked to defend his opening statement to the story board and defend his general position. A long read, but worth it.

I find it interesting, but not surprising, that these are the two statements the story notes from Mr. Repace:

"Repace said after the trial that Fisher’s argument was bogus and showed a lack of understanding." (I have the feeling that the second half of that statement may have been adjusted a bit for "niceness," but it's how it was reported.)

and

"James Repace said he had signed up two new clients to test for secondhand smoke in their home since the trial began."

Which is really what the trial was probably all about for Mr. Repace. The big question facing him however is whether future clients will be willing to pay $500/hr or whatever he asks to put in 50 hours or so of time as an "expert witness." Perhaps he'll redeem himself here though by finally revealing what secret studies he relies on in claiming that levels of smoke such as he measured in Mr. Schuman's apartment cause such things as endothelial dysfunction - particularly at levels that anyone could honestly claim were medically harmful.

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

I guess that when a courthouse is built with tobacco money, justice for parties with legitimate health and safety concerns comes second to tobacco interests and smoker convenience. No wonder people think smokers deserve cancer. I wish Schuman had the means to appeal. This is a gross miscarriage of justice.

On the plus side, this will likely result in more people insisting on smoke-free housing, so that they may avoid what Schuman has had to endure.

In the meantime, Schuman is going to have trouble selling his suite. No one is going to want it, knowing what the living conditions are like. I hope that when he does manage to sell it, it's to a medical (legal) marijuana smoker who smokes around the clock. I can wish nothing less on his heartless neighbours.

@JohnE. If I had the money for down payment & closing costs right now I'd buy it and sit in my house and continue to smoke to my hearts content. And extend the hand of kindness to the Popovik's which didn't need this nightmare hoisted upon them for doing something that is most certainly legal. My heart goes out to them.

@Lisa Thill. Are you serious? "what Schuman has had to endure"? Have you even followed this case? It was his remodel that undid the sealing of his unit and caused his perceived problems to return after many successful years. He refused to allow that to be repaired or have repaired. Not to mention the fact that he failed to produce one single medical report documenting his imaginary physical problems. He not only does not grasp the concept of cooperative housing but surely must have made living around him hellish for his neighbors. GHI would be much better off without the likes of such a self-centered, selfish, egomaniacal, lunatic such as he. It was his way or the highway. He needs to live on deserted island, not in a community filled with all kinds of people or perhaps with you, since you sound like a kindred spirit.

Sounds as if the proprietary lease/house rules may prohibit blasting loud music before or after certain hours but I can understand Lisa Thill's comments. I am amazed at the inconsiderate smokers who think they are a protected class of people. You are not! The only place that smoking should be permitted is in an unattached private residence.

I am grateful that someone took this issue to court. Even though this case was lost (in retrospect, perhaps a jury trial rather than one decider would have resulted in a favorable decision for Mr. Schuman) it will ease the path for others to seek justice in the courts.

I have been working to convince my fellow board of directors that we should make our residential co-operative housing complex smokefree, however, I don't have enough votes at this point who agree with me. They are OK with prohibiting excessive noise or other actions that have a direct negative effect on neighbors, but think that tobacco smoke entering the same apartments that have the above protection is something that can be promulgated. As soon as smoking becomes de-normalized in society we will see more smokefree environments.

Correction on my post of a few minutes ago -They are OK with prohibiting excessive noise or other actions that have a direct negative effect on neighbors, but think that tobacco smoke entering the same apartments that have the above protection is something that canNOT be promulgated. As soon as smoking becomes de-normalized in society we will see more smokefree environments.

Lisa Thill,

You’re in a troubled state. Here’s the thing. It’s not coming from the “smoke” or “perceived smoke”. It’s coming from the way you think. And the more “dangerous” seems the smoke or remnants of smoke or the mere prospect of smoke, the more troubled is your mind. Smoke/smokers have become a convenient projection point for your conflicted mind.

Lisa, you seem to understand the idea of Karma since you intend all sorts of nasty things for smokers. You may want to consider how the concept might apply to you. With someone spouting so much fear and hatred, it is you who might attract to yourself the ugliness that you wish for others.

Indeed there could be smokefree apartments. But it should be pointed out that they are smokefree (technically they’re not because there can still be cooking, candle, and incense smoke) in catering for neurotic bigots. And it can be guaranteed that, now being “free” of [tobacco] smoke, the neurotic bigots will quickly find something else that “disturbs” them. Agitated minds that will not address their contorted thinking need a projection point for their agitation. They’ll find something to be agitated about.

(cont'd)

Lisa, there are tests that can pick very quickly if a person is responding physically (symptoms) to the physical properties of [highly diluted] smoke or whether the physical symptoms are psychologically mediated, i.e., anxiety/somatization disorders. The trial defense should have located a psychiatrist/psychologist familiar with these disorders and requested that Schuman undergo such a test. And this should be a standard requirement for anyone bringing similar lawsuits.

Come on in Jimbo Repace ... show your face, own up to the scam you have been fronting for all these years.

I think a wee dram of a rare whisky as a way of celebration, then a message of condolence to Jimbo Repace is in order. I even got to the stage of making a personal request to him to respond to Michael McFaddenand this was his response "Why would you think that I'm engaged in a debate with these tobacco industry moles? I testified in court and so did the opposition's expert. We both were cross-examined by the lawyers and the judge. End of story. The only thing flat-earther McFadden is an expert in is blog pollution."

He has had his day, now RWJF must dump him and do us all a favor.

PS Lisa Till I am a lifelong non-smoker, only interested in smoking ou the truth.

When the nannies are finished "denormalizing" sugar, salt, steaks, beer, whiskey, suvs, breathing (carbon print ya know), McDonalds and everything else on their rather long list of evils, how will all of you feel then? Just asking.
For the record, tobacco is a leaf, only chemical different in the 4000 some odd chemicals all burning organic matter give off is nicotine. Nicotine is non lethal. Even at the cellular level. Big pharm loves selling the patches to replace those evil cigarettes. Big pharm and the health industry, working to keep us all safe.LOL

::sniffsniff: Did Mr. Repace really say such mean things about me Bill? Odd that I'm not surprised. 'twould be nice if I *was* a tobacco industry mole: I might have enough money to fight Repace and his ilk more effectively. Heh, funny that he talks about his cross-examination given that it seems that his courtroom performance as a highly paid "expert witness" may have been what lost the case for Mr. Schuman. If Schuman had ignored Repace's fishy attempts at science he might actually have had a shot at winning if he could have convinced the judge just on the annoyance issue.

- MJM

Lisa, two things:

1) Why would his neighbors care if someone smoked legal marijuana in the apartment next to them? Aside from possibly catching an occasional scent of it they'd probably never even think about it. And this fact ties into my point #2:

2) Lisa, you and Mr. Schuman, and obviously Mr. Repace and a good number of other antismoking types are probably simply victims of something called "ASDS": AntiSmokers' Dysfunction Syndrome. When I first saw the page devoted to it I thought the author meant it primarily as being humorous. Over the years though I've realized it actually is quite a real, and serious, problem that's been growing rapidly with the amount and intensity of propaganda on the issue. See:

http://wispofsmoke.net/recovery.html

- MJM

To MJM - I just read the link you provided - it is one of the laughable pieces I've read recently - you were correct in your first initial assumption.

Phil,
There are posters on this and other threads concerning the Schuman case that have left considerable information with links. These posters have spent many hard years researching the claims of public health, particularly concerning smoking and SHS. Your comments here indicate that you are a raw novice; you’re at “square 1”. You are someone that has read information on particular antismoking websites, has taken it as “gospel”, and are able to parrot it at will; you’ve become an antismoking disciple/activist. By all means comment, but at least do us the courtesy of familiarizing yourself with the relevant issues that go beyond a mindless acceptance/parroting of propaganda. You can start with the comments sections here:
http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/secondhand-smoke-trial-moves-to-september
http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/witness-testimony-ends-in-secondhand-smoke-trial

1.
Phil, just on the comments you have made, you think nicotine is “extremely addictive”. Do you know when nicotine was declared addictive and who declared it so? Do you know that tobacco was being used long before the large tobacco companies entered the scene? Are you aware that nicotine is not peculiar to tobacco? Phil, do you believe there are any benefits in smoking that offset risks? Are you aware that antismoking also has a long history, and a very sordid one at that?

So you say, Phil, that “if cigarettes were introduced now there is no way in hell they would be allowed as a legal product for sale by the FDA because of the proven destruction it causes to human life”. Phil, you obviously do not recognize the doublespeak of propaganda. If cigarettes came on to the market today for the first time, they would pass FDA regulations very easily. The risks associated with smoking concern frequent, long-term use, e.g., 30, 40, 50, 60 years. FDA approval relies on testing for 3-5 years. Once introduced, it would take monitoring over 30-60 years to establish particular risks.

2.
Phil, you say that “what is lethal are the chemicals that are inhaled in each puff the smoker takes and those that surround them whether voluntary or involuntary”. Consider a pack-a-day smoker that is age 70 and has smoked for 50 years. That’s 50 x 365 x 20 x 9 (av. 8-11 puffs per cig) = 3,285,000 puffs. How “lethal” are the chemicals in each puff when a person can take 3,285,000 “doses” and still be functioning reasonably well? I know of chemicals that can kill with one dose at any age. How about a 30 year-old that has been smoking for 10 years; that’s 657,000 puffs. You’d be hard-pressed to find critical average differences in 30 year-old smokers/nonsmokers.

When you say “voluntary” or “involuntary”, are you alluding to “secondhand smoking” or “passive smoking”? These are myths contrived by people who have obviously never smoked a cigarette. Smoking refers to the act of dragging on a cigarette and inhaling a concentrated “packet” of smoke. Simply being exposed to highly-dilute, ambient tobacco-smoke does not remotely resemble smoking, either secondhand or passive. These are inflammatory propaganda intended to evoke revulsion in nonsmokers, attempting to convince them that they are being “forced” to smoke against their will. The only concept that has some obscure sense is “involuntary smoking”. This would refer to someone being forced, e.g., at gunpoint, to drag on a cigarette and inhale a concentrated packet of smoke.

3.
Phil, do you know if there are any differences in smoke from cooking, from an open-log fire, from candles, from tobacco, from incense? Are the bulk of chemicals in smoke already in the air generally?

Phil, how much do you know about psychogenic effects such as anxiety/somatization disorders, particularly “en masse” disorders such as the environmental somatization syndrome, and what allows them to proliferate? How much do you know about bandwagon effects such as a bigotry bandwagon effect? Do you know what bigotry refers to, particularly institutionalized bigotry? What do you know of the psychology of fanaticism? How much do you know about propaganda, its intent, and how it operates? How much do you know of cultic supremacist groups and how a cult or groupthink operates?

Phil, how much do you really think you understand about the contemporary medical establishment (particularly the pharmaceutical cartel) and Public Health? Are you aware that physicians (medicos) and related disciplines were the leaders in the “world fixing” eugenics catastrophes in America and Nazi Germany in the first-half of the last century? Phil, you speak of “denormalization” in cavalier terms just like the contemporary “world fixer” fanatics. How much do you really know about denormalization, how it has been used in the past, and how it is being used currently?

Nord Med. 1994;109(4):121-5.
[Environmental somatization syndrome. How to deal with the external milieu syndrome?].
[Article in Swedish]
Nilsson CG, Göthe CJ, Molin C.
SourceMed Rehabiliteringskliniken, Huddinge Sjukhus.

Abstract
Somatization is a tendency to experience and communicate psychogenic distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for them. Patients suffering from environmental somatization syndrome (ESS) consider their symptoms to be caused by exposure to chemical or physical components of the external environment or by ergonomic stress at work. ESS is distinguished by mental contagiousness and a tendency to cluster. Sometimes it explodes in wide-spread epidemics that may be escalated by mass-media campaigns. Extensive ESS epidemics have been connected to, i.a., arsenic, carbon monoxide ("generator gas poisoning"), mercury ("oral galvanism"), carbon-free copy papers, electromagnetic fields ("electric allergy") and repetitive movements ("repetition strain injury", RSI). The typical patient directs the interest on the external environment, refuses alternative explanations of his symptoms and abhors any suggestion of a psychogenic etiology.

The community is often placed in difficult positions by lobby groups calling for drastic measures to eliminate alleged disease-inducing exposures. When hygienic evils occur simultaneously with an ESS epidemic, it is essential to strictly differ the hygienic problems from the ESS problems. If mismanaged, measures aimed at reducing hygienic inconveniences may aggravate the complex of ESS problems.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8170802

I was hoping that the Artiste®, Jimbo Rapacious, would have made an appearance on this board. He could have been informed that his latest “nouveaux trash” research-art (based on his performance in the Schuman trial) is being considered for an exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Modern Art. Hope it gets a showing. Then the general public can witness for themselves the bold sophistry executed with a sheer audacity attempting to assail sensibility – the manufacture of danger, catastrophe even, from nothing - that only the neo-shyster, Jimbo, the Artiste® extraordinaire, can spout in a court of law with disturbing conviction while keeping a straight face.

The Artiste®, Jimbo Rapacious – The “Triumph of Stupidity Over Sensibility” series. Keep an eye out for it.

Phil, I'm glad you found the link interesting, although I'm not sure what my "initial assumption" was that you referred to. I'd disagree however on your final point in an above post about the uniqueness of cigarettes. Meat and fatty foods are roughly twice as likely to kill you "if used as directed." I devoted a whole Appendix to it in Brains, "Deaths Due To Eating," where I used SAMMEC type reasoning (SAMMEC is the computer model where they yank that 400,000 deaths per year figure from) to show that eating causes roughly 900,000 deaths per year, primarily from heart disease (of which half the deaths are considered diet related) and cancer (with a third of its deaths called diet-related).

Phil, to be a purist, you might want to consider switching to a healthy diet of wheat germ and soya cubes, garnished by a few sprigs of parsley with a strawberry on top. Creative and tasteful variations of the above ingredients, perhaps occasionally supplemented by a lemon or some sunflower seeds, could make a delightful, albeit somewhat repetitive, three-meals-a-day menu.

Magnetic, I don't think we'll see Mr. Repace here. I'm sure that the very LAST thing in the world he would want would be for potential future clients to be attracted to these boards and see his failures to back up his contentions with actual research.
- MJM

Perhaps Phil should work at a floriduh prison!

Do you think feeding Florida inmates food blended with soy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment?

Yes (10%)
No (90%)

http://www.cfnews13.com/ipolls

As for those with asthma, once they all give up wheat and dairy to treat their condition then and only then will I consider giving up smoking. It's not my fault you have a reaction to smoke - it's the fact you eat wheat and dairy that you have a reaction. Google it, and try it for yourself - but you must be STRICT and try wheat/dairy free for at least a month and see what a difference it makes. You'll be able to toss out the meds, and smokers won't bother you any more. Simply really, and much easier to give up wheat and dairy that it is to give up the nicotine.

As expected, nothing from Mr. James Repace, Secondhand Smoke Consultant. He wasn't able to defend his positions during the trial and he's not able to defend them after the trial.

Obviously. Since if he *could* defend them ... he most assuredly *would* defend them.

There are simply NO scientific studies indicating any levels of real harm to people from the levels of smoke that would ordinarily transfer from one apartment to another in any decently designed building. If you're living in a building where it *IS* a problem to you in terms of smell, it's a pretty good indicator that otherwise hazardous conditions exist that would quickly fill your apartment with smoke in the case of an actual fire.

People are probably far safer living in buildings with smokers where they get an advance warning of such dangerous conditions than they would be if they were living in buildings without smokers -- where their first warning might very be their last.

- MJM

Comment by poor Jimbo Repace on the antismoking site SmokefreeDC:
http://www.smokefreedc.org/2011/08/nonsmokerssecondhand-smok/

“MOLE WARNING: There’s a Greenbelt Community On-line newsletter operated by the Greenbelt Patch that has carried several stories on the Schuman v. GHI & Popovic trial. The site has a Message Board, which has been attacked by semi-pro Tobacco Industry Spammers with the obvious intent of drowning out support for Schuman. According to Gene Borio, who operates an extremely informative daily tobacco newsletter, these spammers, who go by the names of Michael J. McFadden, a FORCES.org columnist, as well as Kevin Mulvina, and Magnetic, among several others, invariably pollute the message boards relating to on-line tobacco-related stories with the clear intent of drowning out alternative opinion with their fanatical flat-earth pseudo-science. Some webmasters have become wise to this, and some moderated sites have banned these industry moles. Unfortunately this has not happened with the Patch blog”.:
http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/witness-testimony-ends-in-secondhand-smoke-trial

Jimbo, the neurotic bigot, should be very, very careful of the accusations he makes. He is using the very tired “ad hominem” tactic of relegating all questioning of his deranged claims to the work of “tobacco industry moles”. Pathetic!

Regarding Magnetic's comment directly above, what James Repace wrote is in fact the truth. If you go to the following link:

http://nyack.patch.com/articles/smoking-ban-as-of-sunday-on-mta-station-platforms

you will find McFadden attempting to take over the discussion in the Comments section of an article in the Nyack-Piermont (NY) Patch on the Metro-North commuter railroad's implementation of smokefree outdoor platforms, ticket and boarding areas.

Although I don't wish to take away anyone's right to speak in this or any other column, the editor should consider banning those who have the sole intent to infiltrate a comment/message board with a set agenda rather than comment on a local issue of concern.

Noone can take over a discussion if the other party can be thoroughly convinced and convincing in their beliefs. If you mean McFadden's arguments are so compelling that noone can refute them so his opponents avoid questions or just run away leaving him the whole platform (no pun intended) then I agree with you. If the media won't do their job of reporting every side of the story, then common citizens such as McFadden and many others will happily do it anywhere and everywhere they can. Unless of course you just like being fed propaganda based on nothing other than corporate/political/personal vested interests.

As for world wide web users being banned from discussing local issues, I hope you hold the same standard for anti-tobacco activists who take their cue from the WHO the CDC and anti-tobacco organizations throughout the world giving their recruits tricks on how to enact smoking bans in their towns/states/provinces/countries. Look up the pharma funded international Globalink organization http://www.globalink.org/ and tell me again how anti-smoking is a local matter! Read the following article and tell me how anti-tobacco are even remotely ethical and honest : http://cagecanada.blogspot.com/2011/02/inside-tobacco-control-industry-and.html

Actually Phil, I have contributed 7 real comments there, out of a total of about 50. And I believe that every one of those seven was in direct and polite response to other posters and the points they made. And every one of those seven was in direct response to the topic of the board: the banning of smoking outdoors on the MTA platform on the basis of health concerns.

And finally, there was no attempt at "infiltration": I always make quite clear in my first substantial posting to any new board or news-thread, what my concerns and interests in the area are. Unlike anonymous posters who go by various first names or cute handles or sequences of initials, I am quite clear about who I am and where I'm from (Well, actually people have to actually go to my main book site at antibrains.com to "uncover" the fact that I live in Philadelphia, but I seriously doubt many patch readers would read my statement of authorship and simply suppose that I'm posting on the topic simply because I live in their hometown.)

- MJM

Maybe this will help the Ant Tobacco Advocates understand the truth

http://www.reason.tv/video/show/joe-jackson-interview

and as JJ points out, he has no association with the Tobacco Industry

The world's foremost Tobacco smoke expert [and he is not shy in admitting it] has provided all the arguments anyone will ever need to dispatch a smoking ban or in defense of anyone who is challenged in a lawsuit by someone claiming to be harmed by tobacco smoke. The evidence is found here http://greenbelt.patch.com/articles/witness-testimony-ends-in-secondhand-smoke-trial

Sour grapes aside [wink]

The defendant prevailed, primarily because Mr. Repace could not define why the measured toxins found in a smoke free courthouse, could not be distinguished from the levels found in his clients apartment. Although it was established that second hand smoke in the extremes would exhibit a theoretic mortality lifetime risk of .16 in 100,000 or 16 in a million it was bemoaned that it would be terrible to be one of the 16. As Mr. Repace contends and as he demonstrated in his Burswood casino study. Even after a smoking ban the same toxins can be measured in a smoke free facility beyond his own defined dangerous and toxic levels.

The answer of course lays with his citation describing the dangers of third hand smoke which by the assessment, are more dangerous than second hand smoke, because the effect will linger for years and the duration of exposures would seem to be more consistent. If there is no safe level of tobacco smoke as he has always contended, backed by the EPA directive that exposures of all class one carcinogens have to be lowered by the maximum possible reductions. The options left are limited to reducing the risks of anyone who demands those protections, in the only possible way available. The victim would have to be barred from ever entering such a premises again, for their own good.

A Judge who is conflicted and can not decide the appropriate way for the courts to intervene in such matters, now has a precedent, on which they can confidently rely. In matters where people can not find ways of getting along and an impasse is not available, the court has a clear responsibility to administer justice in the interests of all parties involved and have no other choice but to bar anyone with such fears, which they believe will harm them from being exposed, to the very toxins they fear. The court has to order an immediate eviction to protect them from what they most fear in the only logical way that protection can be assured.

If anyone feels a health risk exists, with no demonstrable damages, other than the stress brought on by illogical fear, largely by reliance on bad medical advice. If they choose to knowingly enter a minefield, the responsibility for subsequent damages is all their own. If the medical community advises them to walk backward through that same field, or in this case, avoid cigarette smoking to mitigate the risk, or to demand smoke free environments, when the third hand smoke danger remains as an underlying factor that will sustain the same levels of risk, or possibly even more risk long-term, the medical community should be held responsible for the effects they caused and the financial losses suffered by all affected businesses, by promoting any effects seen in a community driven to fear. While subjected to depraved indifference by slight of hand and consensus ignorance, confined in what they chose not to reveal about third hand smoke and the larger picture. If you want to take it to the extremes why stop midway? Third hand smoke is every bit as large a problem as second hand smoke and just as toxic by expert accounts.

The danger of second hand smoke measured in pico and nano grams per cubic meter of air needs to be revealed in it's entirety, so that everyone can fully understand the situation and what they really need or want when dealing with the extremists nannies of this world.

Give them all a taste of their own medicine for a change. Second hand smoke carcinogens compared to identical cooked meat carcinogens are .16 and 2.0 respectively, so when do we start banning steak from those same public spaces? Don't the same employees deserve to be protected from a toxin a full order of magnitude higher?

Ban non smokers from smoking allowed environments, at least until they learn to respect social justice, as it was meant to be practiced with inclusive attitudes, tolerance and mutual respect, in place of the largest mob mentality currently being promoted once again, by the medical mafia.

The entire medical mafia has been telling me for decades that I can smoke for 30-40 years and if I quit my health risks will return to the same levels found among lifetime non smokers. Do they now refute that advice, and am I now being told that it does not matter if I quit or not?

If not, how do they now agree that anyone can be permanently harmed by exposures to tobacco smoke?

The facts they offer don't add up logically and they never will, because science by consensus was never scientific. It is simply mob mentality and self sanctimonious hypocrisy, designed to control without mandate, in place of advice to augment the only legitimate right to choice, held by an individual in self dominion, despite their fierce and deep seated desires, to dictate otherwise.

Before the invention of second hand smoke as a health risk there was this;

"It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to [smoke in the air]."

-- former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber at a World Health Organization conference in 1975 (This date is NOT a typo)

It was always a lie and when you consider who was being lied to was not the smokers for a change the ethics of smoking bans and cigarette taxes fall completely away.

Intolerance has it's own rewards and inevitable costs.

Before the invention of second hand smoke as a health risk there was this;

"It would be essential to foster an atmosphere where it was perceived that active smokers would injure those around them, especially their family and any infants or young children who would be exposed involuntarily to [smoke in the air]."

-- former British Chief Medical Officer Sir George Godber at a World Health Organization conference in 1975 (This date is NOT a typo)

It was always a lie and when you consider who was being lied to was not the smokers for a change the ethics of smoking bans and cigarette taxes fall completely away.

Intolerance has it's own rewards and inevitable costs.

Ha a movie has been made about this already!

http://s1009.photobucket.com/albums/af214/mntvernon/MoTobaccoControlFreaks/?action=view&current=TCCentral_0.mp4

Notice that Jimbo's deranged comment on the smokefreedc website has been removed [only to be replaced by another deranged comment].

Interested readers, take note of new LA Study confirming our results:

http://www.atvn.org/news/2011/11/secondhand-smoke-threat-those-living-multi-unit-homes

Equally interesting is that having gone global with their Press Release, the British Medical Association now retract their statement but have not made any announcement to this effect.

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/11/bma-retracts-claim-about-smoking-in.html

Note the lies made by Vivian Nathenson regarding her original statement having been peer reviewed.

a) get their statement so very wrong

b) be taken seriously ever again ....

also on the same subject

http://normallydistributed.wordpress.com/2011/11/17/behind-the-smokescreen/

I meant to add ... "How can they"

More on the BMA Scam

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100118383/the-bma-admits-it-was-wrong-about-smoking-in-cars-yet-it-is-still-making-dubious-claims/

Everyone should take time to read this link which proves jus how deranged Tobacco Control Advocates are and the lies that they present. They will even stoop so low as to threaten keynote speakers for daring to present the truth to the assembled.

http://www.antiprohibition.org/ticap_pages.php?q=1

We will not be silenced ......

I wonder if Mr. Repace would take an article published in a ''School for Communications & Journalism'' website and bring to a court of law as proof that one suffered significant harms from the smoke from his neighbor. How scientific!

These journalist students were obviously conveniently taught to leave out important facts when they report. This is worse than anti-tobacco's usual dubious methods of ''science by press release'' when studies not even peer reviewed yet, are sent in to the lazy media. Well this study is even worse. It is a PRELIMINARY finding far from having been peer reviewed (for what peer reviewing by like-minded buddies is worth) and Mr. Repace is throwing it at us as science. How low can we go? A judge would be very impressed!

Here's how more professional journalists reported this ''science by press release'' preliminary finding:

''The Los Angeles County Department of Public Health today unveiled the preliminary results of research showing residents of multi-unit housing may be exposed to dangerous levels of secondhand smoke in their homes, even if they are non-smokers.''

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/la-county-reveals-secondhand-smoke-dangers-for-non-smokers-in-multi-unit-housing-2011-11-16

Another deceitful tactic to add to the anti-smokers' already dubious record.

We will wait until it has been peer reviewed and published, if it ever is, and we will review it and report back Mr. Repace!

Heh.... "may be exposed to" eh?

Y'know, I could do a preliminary study and announce that people "may be exposed" to dangerous levels of chlorine gas when they take a shower. Note I didn't say they WOULD be exposed, so I'd be in the free and clear if I was challenged.

This study was done by Neil Klepeis. Now Klepeis may do the "scientific measurement" end of his research well (I actually don't know one way or the other) but the key lies in how those results are "interpreted" (or twisted) in their presentation. Take a look at a take-off I did on the research that led up to this, a study on the deadly threat of OTS: Outdoor Tobacco Smoke:

http://wispofsmoke.net/satire.txt

It's a satire, but the experimental conditions are true to the real study (except the pyrotechnics) and the study itself is referenced there if you want to check.

Whenever your read stories about "preliminary studies" and suchlike in this area, remember where they're coming from: they're usually bought and paid for by groups looking for researchers and research that will promote smoking bans. They're political studies more than they're scientific ones. They're the sort of studies an "expert" might use to promote, and lose, a case in a court trial.

- MJM

Not only is the "study" Mr. Repace refers to not yet published, and worse, "preliminary", we should keep in mind that the researcher, Klepeis, is the same researcher whose one study on outdoor smoke is cited by those wanting to ban smoking outdoors but where, in his own words (both in the study and a newspaper interview) says that exposure is zero if you're upwind of a smoker or 6 feet away. So who knows WHAT Klepeis' conclusion really is (or should I say, will be). Anti-smokers like Repace are notorious for their half truths/stories. Cherry-picking is like breathing to them.

Founder, Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment (C.L.A.S.H.)

Jim….. Jimmy, you’re doing it again. As others have noted, your reference is to a “news” article that only makes passing reference to the “study” in question and that is replete with antismoking slogans. You’re a naughty boy, Jimbo!

You will have noticed, James, that your baseless, defamatory claim regarding “tobacco industry moles polluting the Patch comments board” has been removed from the smokefreedc website. Jimbo, will you apologize here for similar baseless, defamatory claims about particular posters that you have made in the last few threads concerning the Schuman case?

http://neil.klepeis.net/ongoing-projects


-- Tobacco smoke particles travel from unit to unit through cracks in
fixtures, electrical outlets, pipes, vents and baseboards; as well as
through shared ventilation systems and windows.
-- As much as 30-50 percent of air comes from other units.
-- Both old and new buildings are affected.
-- Tobacco smoke particles in units of non-smokers can reach significant
levels equal to and exceeding those of a smoky bar or casino.

http://www.atvn.org/news/2011/11/secondhand-smoke-threat-those-living-multi-unit-homes#comment-768

This Klepsis must be a magician too! or using the same computer programs as the global warming scammers!

Now that global warming has been exposed for the fraud that it is, the exact same thing should happen with the second hand smoke scam. Pharma stands to gain tens of billions demonizing an entire population and forcing them to use their own brand of high priced nicotine, a drop in a piece of chiclet gum for $50 a box. They pay for fake "studies" and convince our dumb legislators that bans are needed to "protect" others. Now that they've strapped smokers into quitting, pharma is making a LOT of new drugs from constituents of none other than nicotine! They can't patent nature, they can only force people from using natural products. Tobacco is just one plant they've succeeded in banning the use of, and on private property which was once a Constitutionally protected right! That's an even bigger scam than global warming because it's actually worked!

Wait for the GLOBAL LINK emails to appear!