Anti-Smoking Hate Campaign Aided and Abetted by the Hamilton Spectator

To all Canadian smokers: Are you absolutely disgusted by the dishonest anti-smoking propaganda permeating the airwaves these days and which, in all likelihood, YOU ARE PAYING FOR? Check out The Facts About Second Hand Smoke It knocks the crap out of the second-hand smoke bullshit that is behind the serious erosion of personal freedom and property rights in North America. It also contains valuable links to sites of interest including advice on how to avoid being impoverished by the rapacious and thieving cigarette taxes smokers are being assaulted with.

The most powerful weapon in the arsenal of the anti-smoking zealots and their ally, the closet fascist, has been the claim that second hand smoke (SHS), or Environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) is harmful to non-smokers who are exposed to it. I have always been suspicious of this claim based on the simple observation that the dose makes the poison.

Having had the benefit of being both a smoker and a non-smoker at various times it was clear to me that the exposure a non-smoker receives is trivial compared to what a smoker gets. So when all of these "reports" started showing up on the TV and radio "news" and in the "news" papers I was skeptical.

Recent research I have done into the issue has only served to reinforce my suspicions regarding the validity of claims about the toxicity of ETS. For example, consider the following links:

• Toxic Toxicology: Placing Scientific Credibility at Risk.
• 'Political' Science And Secondhand Smoke
• From the summary of the Fraser Institute Publication PASSIVE SMOKE: The EPA’s Betrayal of Science and Policy by Gio B. Gori and John C. Luik

None of the evidence diminishing the claims of anti-smoking zealots matters to those who have already made up their minds about the evils of smoking. I know some of these individuals personally and their most noticeable characteristic whenever the subject of smoking and health arises is their total imperviousness to facts. To some, the anti-smoking propaganda has been so effective as to cause psychosomatic paroxysms easily distinguishable as such by the subject's susceptibility to ETS only while awake. (See Allergies and ETS)

Pointing to the July 17, 1998 Federal Court decision where U.S. Federal Judge William L. Osteen, of the US District Court for the Middle District Division of North Carolina, nullified the EPA's 1992 ETS risk assessment is instructive. There is never a rebuttal. Not a word.... silence.

It is the kind of silence you get whenever you catch someone, red-handed, doing something dishonest. There is nothing they can say! The only conclusion to be drawn is that they believe ETS is harmful for no other reason than they want to believe it. The bottom line is, they just don't like smoking... and will repeat any swill they hear on government subsidized radio ads like parrots, if it stands to justify their antipathy toward the enjoyment of tobacco.

In light of the above it is interesting to browse through the alt.smokers internet newsgroup to see the commentary of those anti-smokers who are sufficiently extreme in their opposition to tobacco to take the time to post their opinions. The hateful nature of some of the remarks may surprise some people - though it does not surprise me given the torrent of anti-smoking propaganda we have been exposed to for the last decade, aided and abetted by the media.

Consider:

A posting by someone who prefers to remain anonymous hiding behind the name GrndPepper addressing smokers:

"You are are such losers. You are those smelly ass people that normal people AVOID because of your foul stench. There is nothing sexy or sophisticated about smoking, it just labels you a loser. Maybe I'm just higher up in the social latter than people in this group."

(yes, "latter") - which is followed by this, from someone calling himself, S.A.M.:

"Welcome Grndpepper !!! One antismoker more to join the giant *ANTISMOKING ARMY* of the XXI century, wich will MARCH over the corpses of smokers and tobacco industry and piss on their graves, liberating Nonsmokers from the centuries long OPRESSION and TYRANNY of SHS"

A great deal of the anti-smoking propaganda encouraging such vitriol is subsidized by the government.

For example, from the Hamilton Spectator - Friday, March 31, 2000 under the heading "Campaign to promote smoke-free homes":

"Hamilton-Wentworth social and public health services is getting part of $815,561 for a campaign aimed at reducing exposure to second hand smoke."

- and -

"The funding is part of $2.3 million being provided by the province to health departments to reduce tobacco use." Where there's smoke there's money, and where there's opportunity to obtain money there's always an incentive to exaggerate or falsify the problem.

That article also contained the following whopper, "Inhaling second hand smoke can be more dangerous than smoking a cigarette because of the absence of a filter[emphasis mine]" attributed to one Brian Kreps of public health services. According to the FAQ on the The Canadian Council for Tobacco Control's website, ETS contains nicotine as well as a host of other toxic substances. If it is indeed true, as Mr. Kreps claims, that second hand smoke can be more dangerous because of the absence of a filter one has to ask then, why have there been no reports of non-smokers being addicted to ETS? Maybe I just missed them, though curiously, I have yet to meet a non-smoker who suffers from this affliction.

It is possible to visualize a situation where a non-smoker is hooked up to some kind of a vacuum device which collects and concentrates the sidestream effluent of perhaps a couple of hundred cigarettes burning simultaneously blowing it into the face of the non-smoker creating a situation which certainly "can be" more dangerous than smoking a cigarette because of the absence of a filter... but how often does this actually happen? And why would the Hamilton Spectator choose to include such garbage in one of it's reports?

For some reason, it appears the media, and especially the Hamilton Spectator, with which I am most familiar, are complicit in the propagation of the ETS myth which has been the primary justification for the wholesale invasion of private property rights throughout North America over the last few years. It is a property rights issue... one which illustrates, in general, the dangers of socialism.... where more "property" is under collective control than under capitalism and thus where collective decision making casts a much wider net with respect to ETS than it otherwise would.... not that it makes a heck of a difference nowadays since the assholes passing all of the newer "No Smoking" laws apply them to public and private space with equal fervor. This is merely an indicator of the degree to which the population have already been psychologically prepped for socialism, since the distinction between public and private property is no longer even an issue. Collective decisions with respect to the disposition of property apply to everyone, everywhere, all of the time.

As Hamilton Alderman Marvin Caplan indicated to me recently, in response to my pointing out to him that his by-law infringes upon private property, "Yes it does interfere with the unfettered freedom of those in the hospitality industry to do as they will in their premises, but so does every piece of legislation dealing with their businesses.."

My local "News" Paper is the Hamilton Spectator. This "news" paper has irritated me ever since I started paying attention to public affairs due to the transparent manner in which it promotes certain political agendas. It is obvious that it promotes certain political agendas, by simply looking at what the Hamilton Spectator chooses to "report" on and how often it chooses to do so.

For example, it is obviously a key part of the strategy of the BIG GOVERNMENT constituency in this country (I.E. labour unions, what Ayn Rand called the "Aristocracy of Pull" - business's that suck up to the government for special favours and subsidies .... the noise-making, placard-waving and downright phony "anti-poverty activists", bureaucrats aiming to expand their budgets and domains, and various charitable organizations aiming to expand their power,influence and budgets) to proclaim that poverty in Canada is persistent and widespread. The number of articles and "reports" published in the last few years reinforcing the myth that one in five Canadian children lives in poverty, is a good example.

The one-in-five-children-in-poverty myth is just one of those superficially suspicious claims inevitably exposed by further research, observation and a closer reading of some of the Hamilton Spectator "reports". For example, one Hamilton Spectator poverty whinefest included, among other signs of child poverty, the inability of some children to afford going on "ski trips". Clearly, what they mean by poverty is not what is normally understood as poverty, as anyone who has been to a third world country (I have been to Cuba) or seen the movie "Angela's Ashes" will understand.

My own personal experience with the Hamilton Spectator confirms for me their propensity for manipulating information they have to create a certain impression. I was a candidate for the Ontario Libertarian Party in the provincial election of 1995. I received a call from Hamilton Spectator reporter Steve Arnold one day. He asked me a few questions about myself and my candidacy. When he asked me what I did for a living I told him that I had been a chemical technician but that I was now a stay-at-home dad. When his "report" showed up in the Hamilton Spectator under the heading, "Yoga, relaxation seen as solution" - a report which provided details of the Natural Law party candidate as well as myself, I was described as a "41-year old unemployed chemical technician". It was obvious to me that the Hamilton Spectator clearly cherry-picks the information it presents to the public.

I had a conversation once with one of the Hamilton Spectator's own reporters who candidly affirmed that the Hamilton Spectator picks and chooses the information it makes available to the public based, more or less, upon what the Hamilton Spectator thinks they should know.

Finally there is all the anti-smoking ink the Hamilton Spectator splashes on it's pages. I went to the Hamilton Spectator's website and did a search on "Second Hand Smoke" in their on-line Archive. You have to pay if you want the complete text but I was interested in the frequency of negative headlines used to report on second hand smoke issues and whether there was any mention anywhere of Judge William Osteen's landmark decision against the EPA. I excluded all headers about restaurant and bar owners protests and others that did not mention or appear to directly implicate second hand smoke. This is what I got:

The Hamilton Spectator -Thursday, September 7, 2000
Second hand smoke at Ivor Wynne still a danger: MOH;

The Hamilton Spectator -Monday, July 3, 2000
Smoke-free home next healthy goal; $1m blitz will target second-hand smoke
Sarah Galashan

The Hamilton Spectator -Thursday, June 1, 2000
Breathing easier; Tobacco bylaw is a major step forward in public health
Elizabeth Richardson

The Hamilton Spectator -Friday, April 14, 2000
Halton pushes Breathing Space Smoking is unquestionably bad for smokers, but it's no better for non-smokers sharing the same ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Friday, March 31, 2000
Campaign to promote smoke-free homes
Nick Lewis

The Hamilton Spectator -Thursday, March 16, 2000
Smoke, breast cancer linked;
Pre-menopausal women at risk from second-hand smoke

The Hamilton Spectator -Wednesday, January 13, 1999
Poor indoor air inflates asthma rates
Dennis Bueckert
Mould, chemical fumes, dust mites, carpet fuzz, pet dander, second-hand smoke and poor ventilation have ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Tuesday, July 28, 1998
No doubt about second-hand smoke
RE: 'Judge who rejected second-hand smoke theory under fire' (July 21).

The Hamilton Spectator -Tuesday, July 21, 1998
Judge who rejected second-hand smoke theory under fire
Hugh Davies
The federal judge who ripped apart as flawed a United States government contention that breathing ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Tuesday, March 10, 1998
WHO backs second-hand smoke study
The World Health Organization has denied reports in the British press that it had suppressed ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Wednesday, February 4, 1998
We're raising unhealthy kids:
Report warns of inactivity, eating too much junk food and second-hand smoke exposure
Suzanne Morrison

The Hamilton Spectator -Thursday, September 11, 1997
Carcinogen linked to passive smoking
Researchers have found a cancer-causing chemical in people exposed to second-hand smoke -- the first ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Wednesday, August 20, 1997
Non-smokers at risk: Second-hand smoke kills 50 in region annually: expert
Suzanne Morrison

The Hamilton Spectator -Tuesday, August 19, 1997
'Smoking or non-smoking?'
It doesn't matter: Area health study says you breathe second-hand smoke wherever you sit in restaurant
Suzanne Morrison

The Hamilton Spectator -Saturday, August 2, 1997
Babies get nicotine from breastfeeding News: Equivalent of 20 cigarettes a day in milk
Ruth Dunley

The Hamilton Spectator -Thursday, July 31, 1997
Time to give kids breathing space Second-hand smoke is no joke. And Halton is taking part in a campaign to reinforce ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Thursday, June 19, 1997
Admitting the impact It took a long time to admit the serious impact of second-hand smoke. This fact ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Saturday, February 8, 1997
Second-hand smoke poses health hazard for workers
Lee Prokaska
Thousands of people in the region spend the bulk of their working day exposed to ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Saturday, February 8, 1997
Where there's smoke: Many workers still breathe tobacco fumes every day on the job
Lee Prokaska
Sam Vrantsis noticed he was having trouble breathing at times. And he was finding he ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Wednesday, November 20, 1996
Ban smoking in the home to protect kids, MDs say:
Parents guilty of 'form of physical abuse' says report
Parents who smoke in homes with young children are practicing a form of child abuse ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Thursday, October 17, 1996
Anti-smoking groups hail Alberta ruling
: Second-hand smoke gains recognition as a health hazard Anti-smoking groups expect an onslaught of workers' compensation claims across Canada after an Alberta ruling ...

The Hamilton Spectator -Friday, August 16, 1996
Smokers should quit for good of spouses A marriage between a smoker and a non-smoker can be a dangerous affair of the ...

On the other hand, a search on William Osteen yields the following:

The Hamilton Spectator -Tuesday, July 21, 1998 Judge who rejected second-hand smoke theory under fire Hugh Davies

The federal judge who ripped apart as flawed a United States government contention that breathing ...

Observe the first heading, which covers Judge Osteen's opinion upon whether the Government can regulate tobacco products. Clearly Judge Osteen is no lackey of the tobacco industry.

Observe also, that Judge Osteen's original decision, which nullified the EPA's 1992 ETS risk assessment was apparently never reported. Hmmmmm.... Why would the Hamilton Spectator not bother to report such an important decision? After searching high and low through the Hamilton Spectator Archive for a report on Judge Osteen's nullification of the EPA risk assessment I sent email to Howard Elliot, Executive Editor of the Editorial page and asked him whether the Hamilton Spectator Archive contained all of the articles that appeared in the Spec since 1995 or just some. He forwarded my email to Jodi Aussem who replied:

"The Hamilton Spectator Archive includes all news articles except those removed for legal reasons."

So apparently it was confirmed, the Hamilton Spectator never reported Osteen's decision. It was apparently not until the anti-smoking side attacked Osteen that the Hamilton Spectator decided to inform it's readers of the issue. You would think at the very least, that if the Hamilton Spectator considers the issue of ETS to be important enough for public consumption it would occasionally publish more than just one side of the story.

Why did the Hamilton Spectator not report the Osteen decision?

The Hamilton Spectator.... purveyor of information to the public? or propaganda arm of various special interests?

last modified:Wednesday,March 19, 2008 at 04:40