Main Menu
Home

Links
Antibrains

Lies Get In Your Eyes...

The Truth Is A Lie!



Back in the old days, Antismokers were content to simply flat out lie and rest easy knowing that there would be no one to challenge them except Big Tobacco -- and if Big Tobacco said they were lying, what better testament to the truth could they possibly HAVE ?

Today they've become sneakier. They know they're being watched not just by Big Tobacco but by smokers who've been angered by their lies and by nonsmokers who have awakened to the general threat to freedom that their Crusade represents. They still lie, but their lies usually take the form of clever exaggerations, various language tricks, or simply selective presentation and juxtaposition of information.

In Dissecting Antismokers' Brains one of the final Appendices is titled "Truth, Lies, and Ice Cream" and examines 24 of the more common twistings of the truth that Antismokers have presented to the public. This Appendix is reproduced in full below, and while a number of the "lie exposures" simply refer back to earlier material, please be assured that they were just as carefully dealt with as those that are examined here in full. If you have any specific questions or criticisms, please feel free to contact me through my email on aol's system: Cantiloper


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



Announcement

Truth, Lies, and Ice Cream




Let us suppose that I earn $500,000 a year as a fast-talking lawyer. I then go on to run for public office, and to boost my image I proclaim that I believe in the importance of giving to those less fortunate.

I adopt an earnest and heartfelt look and state that I give regularly to both organized charity and to the poor and homeless I encounter on the streets. I go on to emphasize that I maintain my giving year in and year out, no matter what my financial situation or pressures may be, and that I will carry similar dedication and selflessness to my career as an elected official.

In truth, my "regular contributions" consist of my dropping a shiny new penny into a Salvation Army bucket each Christmas, and then tossing a somewhat grubbier one at a homeless guy who's sleeping under a blanket (while being careful not to get too close).

Did I tell a lie with my above proclamation? Technically, no. I do contribute regularly, and I said nothing about the amount. However anyone in their right mind and with a sense of fairness would certainly argue that I had not been truthful.

A great number, perhaps even the vast majority, of the statements made by Crusaders in pursuit of smoking bans are of roughly the same quality when it comes to truthfulness as our lawyer's statement above. David Kessler, past head of the Food and Drug Administration, in commenting on claims about drug effectiveness, drew the distinction between a statement being "Accurate" and being "True." This distinction applies perfectly to our pseudo-philanthropic barrister, as well as to much of the material present in the ads and public statements of Crusaders: his statement would indeed be accurate, but in the wider sense of the real meaning of truth, it would not be true. (Gina Kolata, "Stung by Courts?" New York Times 10/15/02).

I consider myself an honest person. I feel that the information I?ve presented in this book is not only accurate, but also true in the sense of not being misleading. I would call the lawyer's claim a lie, pure and simple. Personally, I feel comfortable taking Kessler?s distinction a step further: the self-promoting shyster noted above is a liar, despite the fact that he technically told the truth.

In much the same vein, I feel quite comfortable in calling many Antismoking Crusaders liars even though they could squirm and scramble and say that by the strict letter of the law they have not actually perjured themselves any more than the Big Tobacco executives with their carefully worded statements on Capitol Hill. This Appendix will examine 24 different "lies" used by Antismoking Lobbyists to frighten and intimidate people: one for each hour of the day in honor of a deceased and sorely missed Free-Choice activist on the Internet's alt.smokers newsgroup, Cliff Roberson. Cliff liked to end his carefully crafted essays with the statement "ALL Antis lie, all the time." Technically, that may not be an accurate statement, but nonetheless it's pretty true.

The first few lies will be explored in some detail, but to avoid needless repetition many of the later ones will simply refer readers back to parts of Dissecting Antismokers' Brains where the lies have already been examined. The very first lie to be examined is the one that provided the inspiration for the title of this Appendix. It comes from one of the multitude of misleading statements made by the misnamed Crusader group, "Truth. com," in their many expensive television spots.




=> Lie #1


Antismokers claim that tobacco companies were plotting to distribute cigarettes to children from "cigarette ice cream trucks."

The TV ads show an ice cream truck marketing cigarettes to kids in playgrounds. The voice over of the ad claims that the secret papers of the tobacco industry revealed they had been considering such a thing as a marketing strategy to children.

It took me a while to track down the basis for this claim and when I did find it I was not really surprised to see its context. This plan to "reach the children" was one of hundreds of items in an 18-page list clearly aimed at marketing to 18 - 24 year-olds. There was a heavy emphasis on advertising in bars and to the college generation and a random mess of wacky/silly ideas like creating a cigarette brand national monument like Mt. Rushmore, setting up public photo booth services to make fake college ID cards, having female pissing contests in taverns, associating a brand with rattlesnake pizza-toppings, and indeed, having ice-cream style musical trucks. There was no plan, hint of a plan, or ghost of a hint of a plan to market to children in playgrounds by using ice cream trucks.

Antismokers presented this claim as "The Truth."

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #2


Antismokers claim that MTV is "Filled with smoking."

Lie #2 comes from a public statement by an activist with the Ohio Antismoking youth group known as STAND. As 52 members of this group "stormed" MTV headquarters in New York the activist spokesperson to the press claimed they were there because "Most of the shows on MTV are filled with smoking and tobacco use". (PRNewswire. "Ohio Kids Storm MTV" 06/19/03).

For any reader who might still harbor a suspicion that I am somehow being secretly paid by Big Tobacco to write this book, what I am about to say should remove any doubts. On July 10th of 2003 I watched twenty-four straight hours of MTV simply to put the above claim to the test. Fortunately the technology of TiVo helped speed things up, but there is no amount of money that Big Tobacco could ever have paid me to be worth that task!


Twenty-four hours translates to 1440 minutes.

If we assume that:

1) the average number of reasonably sized human beings portrayed on the TV screen at any given time was two (it's probably greater, but I'm giving the Antismokers the benefit of the doubt here),

2) the normal American smoking rate is about 25% (quite reasonable, particularly since most of the people on MTV are aged between teens and forty years or so), and

3) the average smoker would smoke for about 10 minutes an hour

then the amount of smoking needed to correctly portray reality would be roughly 120 minutes of that 1440. To claim that MTV is "filled" with smoking, or that it grossly over represents smoking in the real world, we would expect to see at least double that amount - 240 minutes out of 1440.

What did I actually find however?

1) Three minutes and thirty-six seconds of actual human smoking with a full two minutes of that occurring in a single video featuring a takeoff on a smoking, singing Frank Sinatra. Another 40 seconds came from four plays of a Mya video that opens with a ten second shot of her taking a puff from a cigar. There was less than one minute of actual smoking in all the other shows combined!

2) One third of a minute total of a cartoon bear with a pipe in its mouth in a multi played commercial for Pay Per View.

3) One quarter of a minute of puppet squirrels with pipes in a Tolkeinesque tree house.

4) About one minute of characters holding cigarettes or a cigarette pack but not actually smoking.

5) About five minutes of two videos where pimpy looking "gangsta" types were holding unlit marijuana blunts.

6) Ten full minutes of Antismoking commercials from Truth.com that collectively showed over 10,000 teenagers dropping dead in the streets from smoking.

Note: the important figure here is the first one: the amount of actual smoking being shown. Three and a half minutes is a far cry from the 120 "expected" minutes or the 240 "claimed" minutes. Even just using 120 as our base, the Antismokers' claims are off by almost a factor of 40, or, to use the percentages Crusaders often like to use to magnify reality, we could say they exaggerated by almost four thousand percent!

Antismokers claim that MTV is "filled" with smoking.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #3


Antismokers claim that any who oppose them are "Tobacco Company Fronts."

Lie #3 lie is a generic lie, variations of which have been repeated hundreds of times by Crusaders in statements and articles around the United States. In its simplest form Antismokers simply claim that any groups or individuals opposing the Crusade or its ideas are on the payroll of Big Tobacco. The claim used to be made by labeling groups like FORCES.org or Smokers Fighting Discrimination as "Big Tobacco Front Groups." More recently, perhaps out of fear that they might actually get sued for defamation, Antismoking spokespeople now commonly refer to such groups as "Big Tobacco Front Groups or Allies."

Since anyone supporting any goal of Big Tobacco could be considered their "ally" in some sense, the Antismokers are on reasonably safe legal ground. However, as noted earlier in the chapters on Language and Fallacious Argumentation, lumping the word ally into the same phrase as "front group" ties the two together in the listeners' minds so as to give a very deliberate false appearance.

When I first started researching the subject of secondary smoke on the Internet, I was careful to avoid joining any activist groups. I assumed, just as most people do, that these groups were fronts for Big Tobacco and that any information from them would simply be parroting the Big Tobacco Line. I believed my own arguments about the relative harmlessness of secondary smoke to be true and demonstrable, and I did not want to take a chance on them being discounted with Ad Hominem arguments.

As time went on though, I engaged in emails and chat rooms with a number of activists in these groups and came to know them as people. I saw and participated in discussions about funding and it quickly became clear that there was no funding coming from Big Tobacco to any of these present day groups with the exception of openly admitted funding to the British based group known as FOREST. Suggestions that any funding beyond such basic things as accepting web-page ads to support Internet costs might be of help were usually quickly quashed by those of us who pointed out that the total independence of activist groups was one of the most powerful weapons we had in fighting the hundreds of millions of dollars spent by the other side. Anything less than an equivalent level of funding from Big Tobacco would do far more harm than good.

This insistence on "purity" has hurt in many ways. Free-Choice activists rarely get together for conferences because all expenses have to be paid by the individuals involved. Free-Choice activists virtually never take out newspaper ads or put out paid press releases: at $1,000+ a pop such releases are penny-ante to Crusaders, but out of reach for true grassroots activist groups. Free-Choice groups can't afford to fly in "experts" to testify at City Council hearings, nor can they give away thousands of T-shirts at rallies, distribute slick brochures, or pay researchers to do honest research. While many Antismoking Crusaders are paid or comped for their work, such luxuries just aren't available to those who seek to fight them. And as far as trying to pay for ten one-minute spots a day on MTV the option is so laughable that it's not even funny.

This is a price worth paying though: it keeps Free-Choice groups clear of obligations to corporate policies and positions with which they often disagree and it gives them a solid pedestal to stand upon when presenting information to the public. Over the past three or four years, as I've gotten to know and even occasionally meet activists from various Free-Choice groups my fears of being "contaminated" by insubstantial or outright imaginary contact with Big Tobacco have lessened to the point where I have now joined and become an active member of a number of several such groups. Most of the people I've met who are active in this cause are plain working class people or loving grandparents giving their time and effort out of concern for disappearing American freedoms.

Antismokers claim that Free-Choice groups are "fronts" for Big Tobacco.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #4


Antismokers claim that smokers cost society money and that nonsmokers pay extra taxes to support sick smokers.

This claim is fully refuted in Appendix C.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #5


Antismokers claim that nonsmokers are being "poisoned" by tobacco smoke.

This claim is fully refuted in Appendix B.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #6


Antismokers claim that ventilation and air cleaning technology cannot produce air that is safe to breathe in environments where smoking is allowed.

This claim is easily proved false, unless we want to lower our standard of "air that is safe to breathe" to the point where virtually no air exists that is safe to breathe.

A restaurant or bar, even one that allows unlimited smoking, can always produce a mixture of ventilation and air cleaning technology that will produce air that is actually cleaner than the air outside and cleaner than the air inside would be without smoking and without such ventilation and technology.

The air might not meet the Crusading standards of "100% smoke-free," but it can certainly be cleaned to a point where it is cleaner of poisons and particulates than average un-cleaned, un-conditioned, and smoke-free air in a restaurant or bar would be. In particular, the treated, cleaned, and changed air in a Free-Choice establishment might actually be far more free of disease-causing airborne fungus and bacteria: remember the increase in fungal colony forming units in the air of airplanes that banned smoking that was discussed in the chapter on Smoking Bans.

Antismokers argue that such air treatment is too expensive, but if this were true then they could simply mandate that bars and restaurants meet reasonable minimum air quality standards and drop their push for smoking bans. If those standards were too expensive to meet then bars and restaurants would have to ban smoking. Crusaders never support such standards because they know they can be easily met and because, in truth, clean air and workers' health has never actually been their real goal.

Antismokers claim that the air in a smoking venue cannot be made safe to breathe.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #7


Antismokers claim that tobacco smoke is more addictive than heroin.

This claim is fully refuted in the chapters on Language and on The Ex-Smokers.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #8


Antismokers claim that nonsmoking service people in bars and restaurants inhale up to 80 cigarettes per shift.

This claim is fully refuted in Appendix B.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #9


Antismokers claim that Big Tobacco is still an all-powerful big money lobby.

Actually, Crusading groups today are far more powerful than Big Tobacco. In addition to the emotive power supplied by images of threats to our children, the power of hundreds of thousands of kids working for them in school programs powered by scholarships and prizes, and the power of TV ads, they also have the pure raw power of money beyond a drug-lord's wildest dreams.

As noted in Appendix F, Crusaders placed ads in Florida newspapers condemning Big Tobacco for spending 1.5 million dollars over the past 10 years to influence Florida's politicians on issues like smoking bans, taxes, and Antismoking funding. This is again a prime example of what Dr. Kessler referred to in speaking of something being "accurate, but not true."

Big Tobacco may well have spent $150,000 a year on political lobbying in Florida but the lack of truth comes in when one realizes that the Antismoking Crusade spent over thirty times that amount in just a single year in their efforts to pass a statewide constitutional amendment to ban smoking in most public places. (www.no-smoker.org/ANRF_13_(florida_ad).pdf; www.ballot.org).


Antismokers claim Big Tobacco is a Goliath of a Lobby while they are a David.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #10


Antismokers claim that having a non-smoking section in a restaurant is like having a non-pissing section in a swimming pool.

As pointed out in the chapter on Secondary Smoke, this claim is off by a factor of at least 15,000 air/water changes. In percentage terms the Antismokers are exaggerating by one million, five hundred thousand percent.

I call this claim a lie.



=> Lie #11


Antismokers claim that secondary smoke is a Class A Carcinogen.

This claim would seem to be almost irrefutable. The designation of ?Class A Carcinogen? is established by a respected international body, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), and any element designated as Class A by them is, by a matter of definition, Class A.

However, I feel that this claim is another example of what Dr. Kessler would say is "an accurate, but not true" statement. A review of IARC's 9th Report on Carcinogens reveals that the basis for that definition was drawn largely from the equivocal studies reviewed in Appendix A, a far weaker, indeed, uniquely weaker standard than IARC has applied to any other element it has identified as a Class A carcinogen.

Almost 95% of the substance of secondary smoke consists of such elements as oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide, water, carbon monoxide, and other elements that bear no relationship at all to cancer. The total weight of the six Class A carcinogens in ETS is less than one half of 1/1000th of a gram per cigarette; less than 1/1000th that given off by a standard alcoholic drink in an hour. These are the elements that, in sufficient quantities, could cause cancer, not the entirety of secondary smoke itself.

If one were to examine the smoke from candles, the reflected wavelengths of light from a full moon, the dust in the air at a horse show, or the impurities in an ordinary glass of tap water, and apply the same sort of reasoning and examination to these, one would be forced to classify all of them as Class A Carcinogens. In these other cases though, it is correctly recognized that it is the individual components, and the concentrations of those components, which determine carcinogenicity. Only in the case of tobacco smoke does the IARC abandon such scientific determination in order to classify an overall compound of elements as carcinogenic with the specific goal of mass behavior modification.

Antismokers claim that secondary smoke as a whole is a Class A Carcinogen, without any regard or concern for concentrations of exposure.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #12


Antismokers claim that California's extreme Antismoking efforts have brought about a 14% drop in the state's lung cancer rate.

This claim is refuted in the chapters on Secondary Smoke and Fallacious Argumentation. The "kicker" in this argument is that the study the Antismokers are referring to was completed two years before they banned smoking in bars: it could not possibly reflect the results of such a ban! (op.cit. 2001 Master Plan for a Smoke-Free California)

I call this claim a lie.


=> Lie #13


Antismokers claim 85% of smokers "want to quit." While there seems to be no single source for this statistic it is still one that is repeated often and loudly to buttress the claim that smokers want higher taxes and more smoking bans. Even if one accepts the statistic as technically valid and not biased by smokers' desires to simply agree with their interviewer in order to avoid prolonged questioning, one has to accept that much of the motivation for the response lies not within smoking itself, but within the environmental conditions brought about by the Antismoking Crusade.

Many people want to quit because they feel they spend too much money on cigarettes. Why are they spending so much? Because Antismokers have tacked taxes of several hundred percent on to the base price of cigarettes. If those taxes were allocated fairly to reflect the medical and economic cost of smoking, a pack of cigarettes would cost less than a dollar and many smokers who desire to quit for this reason would no longer "want to quit."

Many others want to quit because they have absorbed exaggerated fears about the effects of smoking on their own health or upon the health of those around them. If the Antismoking Crusade had actually spent the last 30 years spreading truth instead of lies, many in this segment of smokers would no longer say they "want to quit."

Some want to quit because of the social stigma and restrictions surrounding smoking that have resulted from the Crusade. Again, without the Antismokers, many of these folks would no longer "want to quit."

Some want to quit because they've been led to believe, both by Antismokers and by Big Tobacco, that smoking many unpleasant, smelly, and unsatisfying low-tar-and-nicotine cigarettes is safer than smoking fewer regular cigarettes. The choice of safer higher nicotine brands has been denied to them by Crusaders. Yet again, without this situation, many smokers would enjoy their smoking more and would no longer "want to quit."

Finally, some will always say they "want to quit" simply because they have been overwhelmed by the massive media message that anyone who does not want to quit must be stupid, not to mention terminally evil for killing all those around them.

Something Antismokers never want to admit, and something that even some smokers have pushed to the back of their consciousness, is that many smokers often actually enjoy the act of smoking. It doesn't matter whether they enjoy it as a fulfillment of an addiction, or as a means of relaxation, or as something to do when they are bored or in the depths of thought; what matters is that there are many times when many smokers do enjoy smoking and have no desire at all to quit outside of such external pressures as are put upon them.

Antismokers claim eighty-five percent of smokers want to quit smoking.

I call this claim a lie.


=> Lie #14



Antismokers claim that the studies indicting secondary smoke as a cause of lung cancer are "unanimous and unequivocal." A quick look at Appendix A quickly shows the falsehood of this claim.

I call this claim a lie.




=> Lie #15



Antismokers claim that there is "a strong societal consensus" in favor of universal smoking bans. However, when actual polls are taken that offer such alternatives to total bans as separate and well ventilated smoking sections, most folks vote in favor of such accommodation rather than outright bans. Most people who have not been falsely led to believe that even the smallest, most invisible, wisp of smoke is deadly are primarily concerned about smells, comfort, and the avoidance of outright smoky surroundings. They have no wish to see smokers and their friends thoughtlessly consigned out onto the streets.

I call this claim a lie.








=> Lie #16


Antismokers claim that smoking causes over 400,000 premature deaths a year.

As noted earlier in the chapter on The Spectre of Death, roughly 200,000 of those "premature" deaths occur after the age of 70 and over 50,000 of them occur after age 85. And the overall number itself is likely to be greatly exaggerated by the use of double counting, confounding of causes, lowering of scientific standards, and bias in the assignation of formulas from data that may be biased upward to begin with.

There could well be many tens of thousands of deaths caused each year by smoking, and those deaths are sad and terrible. But there is good reason to believe that the actual number is far less than claimed; although any death, from any cause or at any age, is sad and terrible. To appreciate this lie in its proper context it's worth remembering the 900,000 "Deaths Due To Eating" examined earlier. Smoking is something that many people choose freely to do and to continue doing and the individual should always have the freedom to choose and weigh the risks of life's enjoyments.

Antismokers claim that 400,000 premature deaths are caused each year by smoking.

I call this claim a lie.







=> Lie #17



Antismokers claim that for every 10% increase in the price of cigarettes there will be 7% fewer teen smokers.

This is a very important claim because it allows Crusaders to push for tax increases far beyond anything that would ever be tolerated without the "Save the Children" flag waving from the front of the charge. In New York City, smokers actually swallowed a tax increase of 1,700% that followed quickly upon the heels of several other large increases. The Boston Tea Party occurred with far less provocation.

In 1991 the average price of a pack of cigarettes was 92 cents and the average youth smoking rate was 12.7%. In 2001 the average price of a pack of cigarettes was $3.73. That's a 305% increase in the per pack price which should have brought the youth smoking rate down to well below 5%. (http://www. geocities.com/madmaxmcgarrity/PRICEVSYOUTHSMOKING.htm).

So was the 10%/7% claim shown to be true? Did the youth smoking rate drop from 12.7% to 5%? No. The smoking rate among youth actually increased to 13.8%. And this increase occurred not only in the face of the 305% price hike, but also in the face of the most incredibly massive enforcement and media-intensive program of behavior modification attempted in human history.

Antismokers claim reasonable tax hikes substantially reduce the number of children smoking.

I call this claim is a lie.





=> Lie #18


Antismokers claim that secondary smoke is worse than the smoke the smoker inhales.

This could be argued to be true in a very limited sense: if one positioned a straw right over the burning end of a cigarette and then snorted that smoke directly into one's lungs it would indeed be "worse" than the smoke the smoker inhales from the other end of a cigarette.

In reality of course, as noted in Appendix B, no one does that, and the actual exposure of a nonsmoker is likely to be on the order of 1/1000th that of the smoker: the secondary smoke a nonsmoker is actually exposed to is not ?worse than firsthand smoke, as the Antismokers claim.

I call this claim a lie.



=> Lie #19


Antismokers claim that if you smoke around pregnant women you are killing their babies.

There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence to back this claim up. While there is a reasonable basis for claiming that heavy maternal smoking itself can significantly increase the frequency of medical conditions that might harm a fetus, there is no sound basis for concern about casual exposure to secondary smoke. As far as I have been able to determine, there is not even any reasonable basis for concluding that working or living on a regular daily basis in a smoking environment causes any measurable increase in conditions that could kill a developing baby. To claim that an individual who lights a cigarette in an area with a pregnant woman without first asking is guilty of anything beyond lack of consideration is clearly false.

Antismokers claim that smokers are killing the babies of pregnant women with their smoking.

I call this claim a lie.



=> Lie #20


Antismokers claim that "tornado like winds" would be needed to adequately keep smoke out of nonsmoking sections in bars and restaurants.

The theoretical basis for this claim seems to rest upon the observation that molecules of gas and submicroscopic particles leaving the burning end of a cigarette may have a short-term velocity of several hundred miles per hour. However, as almost anyone who has taken freshman college classes in physics and chemistry knows, such molecules and particles are slowed down within nanoseconds by collisions with other molecules and particles in the air.

Experimental studies as well as casual observation both clearly indicate that a regular air movement of just several miles an hour is more than enough to move any measurable quantities of smoke quite effectively toward exhaust vents.

Antismokers claim such directed ventilation cannot work without winds that would instantly kill smokers and nonsmokers alike.

I call this claim a lie.


=> Lie #21


Antismokers claim that smoking needs to be banned from public parks and beaches because infants are being poisoned by cigarette butts.

While such a claim obviously has power because of both the "Save the Children" factor and the outright disgust factor, it is fully refuted in the chapter on "Saving The Children."

Antismokers say smokers are killing others? babies with butts.

I call this claim a lie.



=> Lie #22


Antismokers say smoking bans will actually be good, rather than bad, for the bar business.

They base these claims on studies that often include such confounders as areas where bans are not actually in place or have been rescinded, areas where ban enforcement is lax, profit figures that ignore wider economic conditions, and mix-ups of bar business with such things as restaurants and fast food franchises.

The lie of this claim is shown clearly by the Crusaders' constant cry for "a level playing field." If smoking bans were good for bars and restaurants there would be no need for a level playing field since businesses would rush to increase their profits with smoking bans of their own. Instead we see such bizarre occurrences as bars that comply with smoking bans suing other bars that don't on the basis of "unfair business practices" (M. Hall. "Owners can be sued?" Union Tribune 02/24/01).

According to a spokesperson for the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority, a single noncompliant restaurant in one area met with such outrageous success that smoke-free restaurants nearby were actually forced out of business and had to close! Research conducted by Otto J. Mueksch, the President of Californians For Smokers Rights, indicates that during a time period when the economy was generally booming, over 1,000 California restaurants and bars went out of business without being replaced. In Waterloo the government is considering sending bar owners to jail, claiming that the 1% of noncompliant bars are stealing too much business away from the other 99%! (CBC News British Columbia 01/14/03; Otto J. Mueksch. "Smoking Ban Impact" FORCES.org 03/01/01; Jeff Outhit. "Bar Owners May Get Jail" Waterloo Record 06/18/02)

Antismokers claim that smoking bans will be good for both the bar and the restaurant business.

I call this claim a lie.



=> Lie #23


Antismokers claim that they are pushing for smoking bans out of concern for the health of workers exposed to secondary smoke.

For anyone who has read this far into Dissecting Antismokers' Brains there is no need to refute this claim further. The motivations for bans and for engendering unreasonable fears of secondary smoke have been fully discussed, and concern for the "health of workers" ranks far down the list for most Antismokers pushing their ban agendas.

I call this claim a lie.



=> Lie #24


Antismokers claim that their motives and research are pure, that there is no reason for anyone to have any doubt as to the truth of all they say or the purity of their motivations.

Examination of the first 23 lies should sufficiently expose the falsehood of that.

I call this claim a lie.






Created on 02/04/2003 10:24 AM by install
Updated on 11/16/2009 11:33 PM by Canti
 Printable Version

Copyright © Appalachian State University 2002 - 2003
This Site is powered by phpWebSite © The Web Technology Group, Appalachian State University
Theme by R. Scott Baer
phpWebSite is licensed under the GNU LGPL