alt.smokers FAQ

alt.smokers described

What is the scope of alt.smokers?

To discuss smoking and support smokers, who are being subjected to increased criticism, ostracism, and taxes. Major topics include social relations with non-smokers, anti-smoking regulation and taxation, and medical effects of environmental tobacco smoke. Other topics include personal experiences, opinions on brands, celebrity smoker lists and general discussion about the enjoyment of smoking.

Number of US Smokers

How many smokers are there?

In the US: 50 million.

Year	All	Regular	Occas	18-24 Yrs	25-44 Yrs	Over 65	Male	Female
1965	42.4	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
1991	25.6	N/A	N/A	22.9	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A
1992	26.5	22.1	4.4	26.4	30.8	14	28.6	24.6

Those below poverty level: 37

American Indian, etc.: 39.4
Black 27.8
White 27.2
Hispanic 20.7
Asian 15.2

*Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

*Source: Winkleby et al., Preventive Medicine:19:1 (1990)

EPA report declaring ETS a carcinogen

The US EPA has declared environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) a human carcinogen. It estimates that passive smoking kills 3,000 Americans per year due to lung cancer. Is this believable? Is second-hand smoke really dangerous?

The EPA report was a meta-analysis which combined the findings of 11 US studies:

Study	Year	Original RR	Original CI (95%)	Adjusted RR	Adjusted CI (90%)
Brownson	1987	1.68	0.39,2.97	1.50	0.48,4.72
Butler	1988	2.00	N/A	2.01	0.61,6.73
Correa	1983	2.07	0.81,5.26	1.89	0.85,4.14
Fontham	1991	1.28	0.93,1.75	1.28	1.03,1.60
Humble	1987	1.78	0.60,5.40 (90%)	2.00	0.83,4.97
Wu	1985	1.20	0.50,3.30	1.32	0.59,2.93
Buffler	1984	1.00	0.80,1.20	0.68	0.34,1.81
Garfinkel	1985	1.12	0.94,1.60	1.27	0.91,1.79
Garfinkel	1981	1.17	0.85,1.89	1.16	0.89,1.52
Janerich	1990	0.93	0.55,1.57	0.79	0.52,1.17
Kabat	1984	0.90	0.46,1.76	0.73	0.27,1.89
Meta-analysis	N/A	1.19	1.04,1.35	N/A	N/A

In order be to Statistically Significant, Relative Risk (RR) must be above an arbitrary threshold -- 1.2 is most common -- and the Confidence Interval (CI) must not straddle 1.0. RR is a mean or 'midpoint' figure. CI is the range of possible 'correct' RRs, given the standard error (SE) in the data and desired confidence level. The near-universal standard for confidence is 95%.

Note that none of the 11 studies found a statistically significant risk because the low end of their CI was less than 1. A possible reason for 'false negative' findings is too small a number of subjects causing a wide CI range. Statisticians call this 'low power'. In order to increase power the EPA combined the studies. The result was still not statistically significant because the low end of the CI range was less than 1.0. The EPA then lowered the confidence level to 90% in violation of their own published standard: "Guidelines for Carcinogenic Risk Assessment (51 FR 3392)."

The EPA has NO written standards for, and little experience with, meta-analysis. The FDA has well developed standards and much experience. Had this meta-analysis been held to FDA standards, it would not have been published or used. Source: "Meta-analysis from one FDA reviewer's perspective", Proc Biopharmaceutical Section of the American Statistical Assoc:18 (1988). For an in-depth analysis of the EPA study see: Fleiss & Gross, "Meta-Analysis in epidemiology ...", J Clin Epidemiol:44:2:127 (1991).

Even if RR = 1.19 were correct, the estimate of 3,000 deaths makes no sense. We conservatively estimate that 25% of the non-smoking population, 47M people, might be exposed to significant ETS as a result Yof spousal or parental smoking. There are about 20k new cases of lung cancer in non-smokers per year. If there were no increased risk from exposure, the 75% not exposed would count for 15k and the 25% exposed for 5k. Applying 1.19 gives 5k * .19 = 950 additional cases, not 3,000.

[Deleted critique of EPA by Congressional Research Service in 94-214e due to poor substantiation.]

With one exception (Fontham), no major scientific study has found a danger in casual exposure to smoke in workplace or social settings. They found it in non-smoking spouses exposed for over 40 years. The danger, if any, from casual exposure is too small to measure.

*Source: US EPA Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders", US Printing Office (1992).

Relative Risks

From: Toonces164 (toonces164@aol.com)

From an August, 1994 Good Housekeeping article entitled "Risks":

• If you are a nonsmoker married to a smoker, you will die of lung cancer from your spouse's smoking - Risk Factor: 1 in 60,000
  
• You will have a heart attack 1 in 77
  
• You will be attacked with a deadly weapon 1 in 260
  
• You will die of heart disease 1 in 340
  
• You will die in an auto accident 1 in 5,000
  
• You will have AIDS 1 in 5,700
  
• You will be murdered 1 in 11,000
  
• You will die in a fire 1 in 50,000
  
• You will die in an airplane crash 1 in 250,000
  
• You will die in your bathtub 1 in 1 million
  
• You will die from falling out of bed 1 in 2 million
  
• You will freeze to death 1 in 3 million

On Airplanes

From: jdawson@netcom.com (Joe Dawson)

From the US Dept. of Transportation's Dec. 1989 report entitled "Airliner Cabin Environment: Contaminant Measurements, Health Risks and Mitigation Options":

Parameter	Smoking Section	No-Smoking Boundary Row	No-Smoking Middle Row	No-Smoking Remote Row	Non-Smoking Rear Row	Non-Smoking Middle Row
Average RSP(2)	175.8	53.6	30.7	35.0	34.8	40.0
Average Nicotine(3)	13.43	0.26	0.04	0.05	0.00	0.08
Average CO(4)	1.4	0.6	0.7	0.8	0.6	0.5

(1) An average of 13.7% of the passengers were assigned to the coach smoking section on monitored smoking flights.
(2) Respirable Suspended Particulates, average of gravimetric and optical measurement results; micrograms/cubic meter.
(3) Optical method measurements; micrograms/cubic meter
(4) Parts per million.
---------------------------------------------------------

We see that for RSP, Nicotine and CO, the levels on nonsmoking flights are the same or HIGHER than in the nonsmoking section of smoking flights.

And from Exhibits 3 and 4 (pp xxvii and xxix, respectively):

For business passengers, flying 480 hours per year for 30 years starting at age 35, the lifetime risk of premature cancer death expressed as number of expected premature deaths per 100,000 flying cabin occupants -

Ascribable to ETS : .27
Ascribable to in-flight Cosmic Radiation: 504 (1)

(1) East-West flights, > 3 hours (average of range 494-513)

Here we see that the risk from in-flight cosmic radiation is some 1867 times higher than the risk from ETS. Yet the risk from cosmic radiation is routinely ignored, while that of ETS causes apoplexy, hysteria and scatological comparisons.

Chemicals in Smoke

What chemicals in smoke cause cancer?

Nobody knows. For 30 years scientists spent hundreds of millions of dollars looking for them. They examined ~5,000 compounds comprising 95% of smoke by weight. Individually some are carcinogens, some are actually anti-carcinogenic, but none accounts for the effect of active smoking. Total number of compounds is estimated to be 100,000 (some are unstable and exist for microseconds).

The EPA report mentions five carcinogens found in smoke -- in a chart, without explanation. Why? So the unsophisticated could draw the false conclusion that this somehow answers the question which science cannot. Since the EPA brought them up, let's look at the alleged danger they pose in ETS:

Formaldehyde, is designated as a potential carcinogen. A cigarette delivers 20-90 micrograms in mainstream smoke and up to 700 micrograms in sidestream smoke. By comparison, space heaters and gas ranges release 20,000 - 40,000 micrograms per hour. Formaldehyde is also used extensively in wood finish, glue, fabric coating, insulation, etc. In mobile homes, concentrations have been measured in excess of 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter. In 'non-sick' buildings, the typical level is 50 micrograms per cubic meter. Concentration in ETS is THE SAME -- 40-50 ug/m^3. The official "safe" level is 1,500 ug/m^3.

Benzene and toluene are mentioned as potential ETS carcinogens. In humans they are associated with leukemia. Yet leukemia has not been linked to *active* smoking, much less to the highly diluted concentrations found in ETS. Gasoline is the primary source of benzene, toluene and related aromatics in the air. Also copy machines, glue, paint and the like. Typical concentrations in indoor air is 2-20 ug/m^3. Again, the concentration in ETS is in THE SAME RANGE. When filling your gas tank, you're exposed to concentrations 50-100 times that high. The "safe" level for benzene is 30,000 and for toluene 375,000 ug/m^3 -- over a thousand times that found in ETS.

Benzo[a]pyrene (BaP) is another carcinogenic aromatic mentioned in connection with ETS. Indoor air typically has .1-1 ng/m^3 with no smoking, .3-1.5 ng/m^3 with ETS. Outdoor air in heavy traffic has 1-3 ng/m^3. But our primary exposure comes not from air but from food and water. Dietary intake is on the order of 1,000-5,000 ng/day; tap water contains 1-10 ng/L. One piece of charcoal-broiled meat delivers about 2,500 ng. Surprisingly, the richest source is green leafy vegetables, which pick it up from the air. There is no recommended "safe" level.

Nicotine, which is unique to tobacco, is not carcinogenic. Some nitrosamines are. Estimated nitrosamine intake from ETS is .1 ug/day. By contrast, intake from food is 10-100 ug/day.

One of the cardinal rules of environmental toxicology is to identify the specific chemical(s) of concern, because biological responses are highly specific. The simple exposure to a given chemical, even if it is an established carcinogen, is by itself usually not associated with development of cancer. Everyone is exposed to potentially toxic or carcinogenic chemicals every day. Risk is not established by exposure alone; it is established thru a dose-response relationship.

*Source: Huber et al., "Smoke and Mirrors", Regulation:16:3:44 (1993)

*Original source: Guerin, Jenkins & Tomkins (of Oak Ridge National Labs), "The Chemistry of ETS: Composition and Measurement", Chelsea, Michigan; Lewis Publishers (1992)

Heart Disease

Why is lung cancer the only disease discussed? I heard that ETS causes 50,000 deaths from heart disease.

Anti-smoking forces have investigated many disorders, especially heart disease. If they could present a convincing argument, you can be sure they would have. The 50,000 figure derived from an analysis done by a mechanical engineer. See Joe Dawson's "The Big Lie" for more detail on Dr. Stanton Glantz.

Carbon Monoxide

What about Carbon Monoxide (CO)? I heard it was bad for your heart.

From: jdawson@netcom.com (Joe Dawson)

Like oxygen, Carbon Monoxide (CO) combines chemically with the haemoglobin in red blood cells. Unlike oxygen, it is not released. It stays there until the cell dies and is replaced by a new one. Each molecule of CO takes up a "slot" where oxygen might otherwise be carried to where it is needed. One molecule of CO does not destroy the oxygen carrying capacity of the entire cell, as haemoglobin is a large molecule whose purpose is to carry many oxygen molecules. However, massive amounts of CO will displace enough oxygen that suffocation can result.

There is no danger that this will occur even from mainstream smoke; there simply isn't sufficient CO. However, the total oxygen carrying capacity of the blood of smokers is lowered enough that their power output is reduced. There is little or no effect on their strength or speed over short distances, but performance in activities requiring sustained aerobic capacity, such as long distance running, is compromised. For this reason, endurance athletes should not smoke unless winning isn't important to them.

ETS is hundreds or thousands of times as dilute as mainstream smoke. Casual exposure to ETS (say a couple of hours per week in a bar) exposes the non-smoker to perhaps one ten-thousandth of what a smoker gets. Although the amount that gets into the bloodstream might be measurable in a laboratory, the effect on the exposee's athletic performance would be difficult or impossible to detect: theoretically a fraction of a second in a 2-3 hour marathon. Other factors such as the drinks our putative marathoner consumed while in the bar will have effects orders of magnitude larger.

CO from automobiles comes in much larger quantities. Although it, too, is dilute, and any consequent degradation of athletic performance is very small, what degradation there is far exceeds that of ETS. Runners worried about CO-compromised performance would be advised to do their jogging in parks rather than on roads. They will reduce their CO intake much more that way than by avoiding casual exposure to ETS.

Although most people don't realize it, the biggest CO danger comes from home appliances.

"Carbon monoxide is the leading cause of poisoning deaths in the United States, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. As many as 5,000 people die of it each year, and another 10,000 are stricken ill enough to miss at least one day of work.

The gas takes its victims silently and insidiously, seeping into their lungs from furnaces, chimneys, heaters, large appliances, automobiles on a nearby roadway or even a neighboring apartment."

*Source: San Jose Mercury News, Feb 11, 1994

From: cantilope@aol.com (Cantilope)

Using the Surgeon General's Report on Involuntary Smoking (1986) I came up with the figure of an average smoker (1 pack/day) producing about 1/6 of a pound of CO per year.

From an article on automotive emissions in the Philadelphia Inquirer (10/4/92) which took its figures from Federal Highway Administration numbers, I got the figure of 600 pounds of CO per vehicle per year.

Thus, the average vehicle puts out 6x600 = 3,600 times as much CO per year as the average smoker.

Thus, in one day the average vehicle puts out the same amount of CO as the average smoker does in 3,600 days or about 10 years.

When looking at some of the other pollutants (nitrous oxides etc.) the results will vary, but even given ALL the improvements in automotive emissions etc, I'd say it's still quite safe to estimate that the average driver puts out the same air pollution in one day as the average smoker does in 2 or 3 years.

Taxes, Cost to Society

The White House and Congress propose increasing taxes on cigarettes by about $1 per pack. How much does smoking actually cost society?

Smokers don't cost anything. They actually contribute because they collect less retirement pension -- on average, 3 years less. If cigarettes were to be taxed on the purely capitalistic basis of "monetary cost to society", the government would actually be PAYING people to smoke or levying extra taxes on NON-smokers! A 5% discount rate expresses future cash flows in today's dollars.

In any event, a purely monetary "social cost" justification of a massive tax increase is untenable. The only REAL justification for such a tax increase is the government's need for the $20 to $30 billion dollars in extra tax revenue and the ease of singling out smokers as a vulnerable tax group.

The same study found drinkers are the ones who impose a burden. Taxes on alcohol cover only half the cost of excessive drinking.

* Source: Manning et al., "The Taxes of Sin", JAMA:261:11:1604 (1989)

Congressional Research Service Report 94-214e is an economic study based heavily on Manning et al. It recalculated Manning's 1986 dollars into 1995 dollars by using the GNP deflator for some costs and a medical services index for others, recognized increased cigarette taxes -- was .37, now .50 -- and added ETS effects. Bottom line: 15 cents per pack (minus 37 cents tax, net savings 22 cents) in 1986 became 33 cents per pack (minus 50 cents tax, net savings 17 cents). All estimates are based on a 5% discount rate.

The CRS report is not available electronically. Hardcopy from your Congressperson's office.

From: igeldard@capital.demon.co.uk (Ian Geldard)

SMOKERS ARE SUBSIDIZING NON-SMOKERS, NOT VICE VERSA

The claim that smokers' health costs are a burden to non-smokers is a lie. This figure is fabricated by misappropriating smokers' lost personal income and self-paid medical expenses as costs paid for health care out of non-smokers' own pockets. This is virtual embezzlement.

"Personal income losses are the main emphasis in most of the literature on the `economic consequences' (cost) of smoking. For example, personal income loss represents 86 per cent of the `economic consequences' in the study by Shillington (1977); 77 per cent in Collishaw and Myers (1984); and 55 per cent in USDHHS (1990). It seems that all these were inspired more or less directly by DP Rice (1966)." (A Raynauld, J-P Vidal. Smokers' burden on society: Myth and reality in Canada. Can Public Policy 1992 Sep;18(3):300-317.)

The rest of the supposed excess smokers' costs are created by ignoring or "discounting" non-smokers' additional years of medical and pension costs, to conceal the truth that non-smokers are actually a greater social burden. Discounting unrealistically assumes that the effect of and on the generations before and after the present one can simply be forgotten. But we are presently paying less than we would have been had there been no smokers in the past, because of reduced old-age costs.

"Actually, for 1986 in Canada, non-smokers enjoyed a standard of living $4.3 billion higher than it would have been had there been no smokers at all ...smokers are never a burden to non-smokers: at worst, non-smokers receive approximately $3 billion from smokers, and at best $7 billion. Without doubt, the net global transfer flow is always to the advantage of non-smokers and to the detriment of smokers." This is an underestimate, because they also discounted.

They showed in addition that theirs was a worst-case estimate. They used the 1986 US Surgeon General attributions of disease to smoking. Regardless of whether smoking risks were higher or lower than assumed, the net costs could only decrease. This is because if smoking did not affect lifespan, there would be no reduction in old-age costs. On the other hand, if mortality was higher, the savings would be greater.

Non-smokers in Canada benefitted to the extent of $4.1 billion in tobacco taxes paid by smokers, which nearly equals the entire amount of the $4.3 billion net transfer from smokers to non-smokers. In the United States, a Stanford University study (JB Shoven, JO Sundberg, JP Bunker. The Social Security cost of smoking. Natl Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper No. 2234) warned that the 1990 US DHHS study ignored hundreds of billions of dollars in non-smokers' Social Security and Medicare costs.

And the Rand study (WG Manning, EB Keeler, JP Newhouse, EM Sloss, J Wasserman. The taxes of sin. Do smokers and drinkers pay their way? JAMA 1989 Mar 17;261(11):1604-1609) found that smoking created net savings of 91 cents per pack (which they inflated to a "cost" of 26 cents per pack via the "discounting" subterfuge). This would have saved about $29.1 billion in 1986.

This is without even considering the unacknowledged health costs due to non-smokers' higher risks of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease, and ulcerative colitis, which amount to at least $20 billion in excess (not total) costs.

This means that EVEN IF THERE WERE NO TAXES ON TOBACCO AT ALL, THE ECONOMIC BURDEN WOULD STILL NOT BE FAIR TO SMOKERS! The anti-smokers have perpetrated a fraud on society, and their demands for higher cigarette taxes are blatant exploitation.

Pro-Smokers: Why do they Smoke? Addiction

Why do people smoke? Are they addicted?

The most common answer is "Because I like it." Such preferences are not really amenable to rational discourse. One could as well ask why non-smokers find the odor offensive .. and receive an equally subjective answer. One smoker described it in these words:

From: jdawson@netcom.com (Joe Dawson)

What the smoker enjoys is the whole experience: the routine of handling the pack and the cigarette, lighting up, gazing into the flame, the oral satisfaction of drawing, the taste and the smell. Eating and drinking are synergistic with smoking: they each enhance the taste of the smoke, and smoking enhances the contemplation of the food and drink. Likewise with sex. Nicotine plays a part, but a small one. That's why nicotine patches and chewing gum aren't very effective when it comes to quitting. Smoking is a way of life. Of COURSE it's hard to give up. So are many other things which are not physiologically addicting. Your right arm, for example. Or your spouse. If either is taken away you will experience a severe psychological withdrawal.

From: dambik@fnalo.fnal.gov (Ed Dambik)

I'd always thought the definition of addiction was supposed to rely on three separate criteria:

(1) The substance is a reinforcer, i.e., a subject will work for it.
(2) More and more of the substance is needed for the same effect.
(3) Removal of the substance will cause physical (not mental) symptoms.

While tobacco satisfies the first criteria, the second is more problematic in that not all smokers increase their usage. The third does not apply to tobacco since fever, vomiting, etc. do not accompany withdrawal. By calling smoking an addiction, the definition has been changed to exclude the third criterion and weaken the second. Using this modified criteria to call smoking addictive does indeed create a new definition which *is* primarily social since Gameboy, dancing, watching TV, religion, and various other activities now fulfill the definition of being addictive.

The term addiction is commonly used as a pejorative label for unapproved habits. This is not new. Substituting a social definition for the scientific one, however, is.

From: david.maclean@freddy.supernet.ab.ca (David Maclean)

Cocaine only became `addictive' after we changed the definition of addiction from extreme physical effects upon cessation of the substance, to include intense psychological cravings upon cessation. Although there is some physical discomfort, most of the discussion on cocaine `addiction' has centered on the `addicts' intense drive to recapture his experience from the drug. Physical withdrawal from cocaine is nowhere near as intense as that of the opiates.

But once you include psychological effects, then just about anything you care to name becomes an addiction - the heavy gambler becomes the gambling addict, obese people become food addicts, heavy drinkers become alcohol addicts, and people who smoke become nicotine addicts.

And once you label someone as an `addict', it justifies intervention, for their own good of course. It's an addiction, it must be stamped out. Politically, the reasoning on nicotine addiction is as follows: addiction --> person doesn't understand what s/he is doing --> person is a victim --> intercede on the victims behalf This line of reasoning includes nothing in it as to whether or not the person wants to be `helped'.

Therefore, it is my contention that attempts at describing smoking as `nicotine addiction' are nothing more than political attempts at exerting control over those people who are doing something the critic doesn't want them to do, cannot understand why they do, and didn't give permission to do.

From: bwatson@nyx.cs.du.edu (Bruce Watson)

A smoker begins to suffer withdrawal when the accustomed level of nicotine drops below half. For example, if a smoker is used to getting 40 mg of nicotine day, he or she will begin to experience withdrawal when the level reaches 20 mg or less.

From: C551531@mizzou1.missouri.edu (Buster Royko) on smoking as Freedom of Speech

Gesture is as much a part of communication as is the illocutionary act. Consider the following: A convenience store clerk smiles and says "Have a nice day." Now consider this: A convenience store clerk flips the bird and says "Have a nice day." The clerk means something different in each case, and given that the delivery is otherwise the same, the gesture shows that.

Now consider the following customs: smoking a peace pipe; two people in close proximity arguing, one of whom defiantly blows smoke in the other's face, a lover lighting two smokes and giving one to a partner; offering a cigarette to someone; lighting another's smoke; 50 million smokers lighting up on the Capitol Mall. People can and do express themselves through the act of smoking, just as they do through other gestures: burning flags; so-called power ties; silly haircuts; ... and acting annoyed while in a smoking area because people are smoking instead of leaving as a reasonable person might do.

From: ennead@ucsvax.ucs.umass.edu (Charles M Seaton (Elkins)

For most of us, smoking *is* a part of an overall dining experience. The purpose of a restaurant, as I see it, is not just to serve food. It is to provide a comfortable forum for the entire dining experience, which includes eating and drinking, but also socializing and - for those of us who smoke - smoking.

You have probably had the unfortunate experience, at some point in your life, of being hustled out of a restaurant before you were truly ready to leave, perhaps while you were still embroiled in a stimulating after-dinner conversation with your friends. That isn't a very pleasant experience, is it? You feel dissatisfied when this happens, don't you? You probably think to yourself that the restaurant itself could not be very "high class," or that its employees have a lot to learn about customer service. If you are anything like me, you might seriously think twice about patronizing such an establishment again.

But why should this be so? If the purpose of a restaurant was solely to serve food, then there should be no reason to WANT to stay at your table once you had finished eating.

But of course, we both know that this is not the case. Were a restaurant solely for eating, then those restaurants with pleasant decor, well-mannered wait-staff, and comfortable seating would not be at such a premium. What people want in a restaurant is not just good food, but a total dining experience. In our culture, this includes a period for after-dinner socializing. When we are robbed of this aspect of dining - for example, when we are rushed out of a restaurant too quickly - we feel, quite justifiably, dissatisfied. We feel robbed.

For smokers, Tom, smoking is very important to the dining experience. Leaving the restaurant to have a smoke is disruptive to that experience, just as being hustled out of a restaurant before one is ready to leave is disruptive, and just as being served by surly or nasty wait-staff is disruptive. Like after-dinner socializing, smoking is a fundamental part of the dining experience for us.

We don't want to ruin your meal, but we also don't want to allow you to ruin ours. We just want there to be some restaurants out there in the world in which we can fully enjoy a meal. By approving the passing of legislature which forces all restaurants to ban smoking, you are denying us the pleasure of eating out just as completely as smoke-filled restaurants deny you pleasure in eating out.

What I don't understand here is why it seems to be so hard for you to compromise on this issue. I support the existence of non-smoking restaurants. I support the existence of well-segregated smoking and non-smoking sections in restaurants. I support your right to travel on a plane or bus without having to suffer from others' cigarette smoke. I support smoke-free post offices, waiting rooms, offices, and classrooms. I am willing to keep my smoke away from you in every situation in which our proximity might be forced. Were you to invite me to your home, I would not dream of smoking in it. If we were in the same public park, and you told me that my smoke was bothering you, I would either put out my cigarette or find a place to sit downwind of you. I am trying to accommodate your needs and your preferences, even at some inconvenience to myself, because I believe that consideration for others is a vital need in a heartless world.

I really don't understand why you support legislation to enforce non-smoking rules on all restaurants. Please try to explain - and remember, I UNDERSTAND that cigarette smoke annoys you, makes you sick, and offends you. That point does not need elucidation. I just want to know why you cannot allow ANY restaurants to allow smoking. Are you afraid that, in spite of the non-smoking majority, the smokers will get all the GOOD restaurants? It's the only explanation I can think of that might explain your position.

From: laszlo@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Tyson F Nuss)

I am more an aficionado than an addict, though I don't deny that I am somewhat of the latter. American Spirit natural tobaccos have a slogan, "Smoke less and enjoy it more," which I wholeheartedly agree with. I exercise self-control, trying to smoke only when I can truly *savor* the experience, preferably seated, with a good cup of coffee.

Smoking is a whole experience that's impossible to describe to an incognocenti. The complex and diverse flavours, the actions, the sensual feel of drawing in and expelling those silky, steely tendrils, watching the crackle of the ember, the craggy ash, the drift and curl of the smoke...

Smoking, for me, is a purely reflective and relaxing act of luxurious indulgence, and often a sort of meditation. I can take a break, sit down and relax, and do something which demands my attention and gives me pause to think and reflect and just revel in *being*. I can take a fifteen-minute break from this hectic world without feeling idle, or spacing-out, or getting bored, and when I'm done, I'm refreshed and feel like I've done something constructive for my well-being. [Can your beer do this? %^}]

"The decline of smoking represents the lost art of reflection and contemplation in America." --Garrison Keillor

I fully realize the dangers of addiction, and that if I gave in to it, my appreciation of the tobacco would diminish, replaced by a joyless, expanding lust for nicotine; finally, the day would come when I would have to quit for my own good, and I would *never* be able to indulge myself in the pleasure of tobacco appreciation *ever* again.

Like the Native American philosophy espoused by American Spirit, respect the leaf, and it will respect you back; abuse it and it will abuse you back. For three years, I've been maintaining a respectful relationship with it, and I can't imagine *ever* wanting to smoke more than I do presently.

Tobacco has value for me personally, so long as I'm *careful* about how I use it. Today, I woke up at 8:00am; it is now about 4:00pm, and I think I'll go have dinner now, followed by my *first* cigarette of the day.

Anti-Smokers: Goals and Tactics

From: rlm@intercom.com (Public Health Advocate)

|The cards are on the table. Debating the issue is merely stalling for time. Smoking kills. If you |smoke you are either a moron or a murderer or more than likely both. And soon you will either be |dead or be caged. And maybe in some states you will be executed. Hopefully it will be televised |although furiously sucking on that last cigarette may fuzz up the video somewhat.

|Hurry up and do it. Stop talking about it. There is nothing more to say that hasn't been said. It's like |kicking a dead smoker.

|cordially, as always,

|-- end of quotation --

What we see in evidence is typical anti-smoker rhetoric. Anti-smokers are a small percentage of non-smokers. They try to make up in volume what they lack in number (not to mention reason) to give the illusion they have enough support to warrant a social contract banning public smoking.

We know that most non-smokers and smokers are willing to make reasonable compromises to coexist with each other. The problem is that the voice of the extremists is loud and the only one being heard. As a result of endless repetition and use of emotional and fallacious arguments, people are coming to believe their statements, a few of which are outright lies and many of which are such distortions that they amount to little more than lies. These extremists plan to IMPOSE their unreasonable demands on society in spite of the fact that most people do not support them.

Their motivation is not necessarily an "evil" one: they believe that smoking impairs the health of active smokers, and that distortion of the truth is justified if it results in fewer people smoking. Their goal is to ban on smoking everyplace other than one's home, car and outdoors, except 'public' outdoor settings such as parks, beaches and sports arenas. When this is extended to "protecting" children, spouses and next door neighbors, it results in nothing less than an outright Prohibition. Believing they will compromise on anything less is naive.

This anti-smoking agenda is from one of their 'scientific' reports. One has to admire their candor if nothing else.

Essential Components of a Campaign to Prevent Tobacco Use

Increased federal excise taxes

-> Comprehensive restrictions on smoking in the workplace and in public
Bans on advertising and sponsorship by tobacco companies
Comprehensive and enforced restrictions on sales to minors
Limitation of tobacco-crop subsidies
Government support for conversion of tobacco crops to other crops
Financial support for tobacco counteradvertising [you just banned it]
Enhanced community-education programs
Divestment of tobacco-company stocks by universities & public institutions
-> Support for personal-injury litigation against the tobacco industry
Physician-supervised counseling on smoking cessation

McKenzie et al.,"The Human Costs of Tobacco Use", NE Jour Med:330:14 (3/31/94)

From: mbl@garnet.msen.com (Matthew B Landry)

The whole argument IS about control much less than it's about smoking. All such arguments, about any number of topics, are really about control, and the stated issues are usually secondary at best. The point is that these people are trying to take away a privilege we have had for centuries for no good reason. They were once satisfied to restrict it, so that those who chose not to partake would not be adversely affected by those who do, but that didn't satisfy them. Now they want to take it away completely.

Yes, this is about control. If the antis ever win the battle over smoking, they'll surely start another battle over something else. Hell, maybe it will be something that many of us smokers don't like anyway. The point is that the subject matter of the battle is relatively unimportant in comparison to the importance of a victory for liberty.

I don't drink. But does that mean I think we should ban alcohol or close all the bars or excommunicate drinkers from society? Hell no. The MAJORITY of non-smokers feel the same way about smoking.

It wouldn't matter to me one iota if I smoked my last cigarette tonight and never lit up again. I'd still be against the antis agenda because it is at heart an agenda of domination. THEY want to control US. I for one say we should stop them.

From: mazz+@andrew.cmu.edu

On a recent KLM flight from Amsterdam to Dulles my wife and I sat in the first row of the smoking section as a compromise between her desire to smoke and the fact that I don't.

Knowing there were non-smokers nearby the people in our row were quite reasonable and only smoked an occasional cigarette. My wife, normally almost a chain smoker, only smoked three the whole 8 hour trip. The man to my left only smoked two. But at the first faint whiff of cigarette smoke a woman in the row ahead of us became enraged at being exposed to cigarette smoke and launched into a tirade that took several flight attendants and nearly an hour to quell. It was quite a scene and was obviously embarrassing to her husband and daughter. The flight crew was helpless because they could not move her due to the full plane. I can understand her anger at not getting the completely smoke-free seat she expected. And perhaps the airline should have told her that the only non-smoking seat was near the smoking section (if they have the ability to track that info) so she'd know what to expect.

But what struck me about all of this was the depth of her anger and outrage. There were tears, threats, pleas for the health of her (teenage) daughter... you'd have thought she was being asked to breathe Plutonium, for Chrissake!

Such clearly overreactive tirades tend to undermine the credibility of my fellow non-smokers.

From: fatz@tezcat.com (Jen Kraljevich)

Personally, I don't eat any meat at all - I don't wave that around on a flag as if I am better than the rest of the world, it is simply my choice in life. Most people who know me well have never even noticed, because if one is not propagating one's lifestyle in an effort to create an empire of colonial lives - most people will not know of the choices one makes. I don't have a fit when people offer me meat - I don't make fainting motions or gag motions when it is around me.

Quite frankly, all of the furor in this newsgroup is because there are opposing views on the issue of tobacco consumption - as there are opposing views on meat, oil, cars, tampons, abortion, blah, blah.

They are all the same arguments on some level. My argument is for personal responsibility, and an attitude towards one's fellow beings that takes into account the autonomous nature and the freedom of life of those beings. Which, before this post gets pigeon-holed as something it isn't, does not lead to absolute decisions on any of the aforementioned.

From: dambik@fnalv.fnal.gov (Ed Dambik)

Let's see. We have a movement based on the *belief* in authorities rather than in the scientific method. We have a movement which handles criticism by impugning the motivations of its critics rather than debating the data. We have a movement which encourages hostility towards smokers and arbitrarily harsh rules against smoking. We have a movement which depends on generating fear through making greater and greater exaggerated claims. We have a movement whose stated purpose is to change behaviours and attitudes they don't like by using any and all means necessary. We have a movement which claim to be based on medical science yet which appears to be acting more like a religion. We have a movement demanding in the shrillest of tones that unless something is immediately done, millions will die as if they're being shipped off in cattle cars today (while encouraging laws to send these same potential victims out into the cold and wet). Oh yes, and we have a movement claims that tobacco companies are the Great Satan. Most Americans can recognize religion when they see it.

And you probably won't understand this but those cold and wet smokers aren't making other people feel very secure about THEIR position in the vast scheme of things. These other people see arbitrarily harsh rules being applied to an entire group of people and they know they could well be next. People understand precautions but they DON'T understand why smokers should be punished. Even with all the fear and misinformation being spread about the potential hazards of ETS, people STILL don't feel comfortable punishing their neighbors.

Enjoy it while you can because the truth is coming out...

From: rwagner@netcom.com (Robert Wagner)

What we have here is a classic conflict between Organicism/Catholicism and Calvinism/Protestantism/Capitalism. It was best described by Max Weber in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" (1905), wherein he argued (correctly IMO) that personal character and morals control economic development, not the other way around as his contemporary Karl Marx would have us believe. Weber described the ideal citizen as a New Age Calvinist, and credits First World capitalist development to that philosophy. Let's look at the differences between the two:

From: rwagner@netcom.com (Robert Wagner)

John Stuart Mill says happiness should be the goal of all conduct and political decisions -- mental happiness, not physical. He says liberty requires people to exercise judgment and accept the consequences, that self-reliance is better than despotism no matter how benevolent. He argues that political decisions should benefit more people than they injure.

The fundamental source of liberty is a culture's spiritual attitude to tolerate (or not) unconformity. This, in turn, is a function of the balance of power between the people as a whole vs. the privileged few who lead. Throughout most of history the government was assumed to be supreme. The Puritan Revolution of the 1640's, which drew its strength from the religious concept of freedom of conscience, established the principle of congregationalism. It stated for the first time that political authority rested with the people, who were the true sovereign, and that government was its servant not its master. This change in thinking is the direct source of the US Bill of Rights, particularly the first amendment. It had enormous impact on political thinking.

It seems ironic that a wave of puritans would now take away the tolerance and liberty 'invented' by their ancestors. Indeed, it seems counterintuitive that Puritans, the most repressive of religious movements, would be the one to 'invent' liberty. Not so. They invented it as self-protection from their own intolerance, which they recognized would cause their destruction if allowed to run unchecked. Whereas other generational styles could muddle through with less rigorous control of power relationships, puritans cannot. Not all puritans understand this. Oliver Cromwell was a dictator, despot, executioner, pillar of moral rectitude and religious fanatic, yet he fought for tolerance and magnanimity. Thanks to his leadership the Puritan Revolution did not precipitate a destructive crisis as it matured. Every other puritan generation since then has -- American Revolution (1780), US Civil War (1860), Great Depression (1930), ??? (2010).

What we need now is a leader like Cromwell, who will talk purity while practicing plurality. If small minds prevail -- and smoking is their first major test -- we're headed down a road we've been down three times before. In 1921 Cigarettes are illegal in fourteen states, and ninety-two anti-cigarette bills are pending in twenty-eight states.

From: riskin@nauvax.ucc.nau.edu (Adrian Riskin)

|Being a materialist, I think that the primary motivation for social movements comes from the |material grounding of the society in question. Since anti-smoking is clearly an important social |movement of our time I find it necessary to come to grips with the phenomenon and explain it in |material terms.

|Any basic text on materialism, for instance Marvin Harris's __Cannibals and Kings__, will explain |how social phenomena can be explained as a response to the material circumstances in which the |society exists. Our society is now undergoing an apparent economic contraction: The number of |hours that must be worked in order to support a family of four has almost doubled since 1948. |Homes are out of reach of more members of our society than ever before. Those who can afford |homes have to pay a higher percentage of their income monthly in order to retain those homes. |Food itself is becoming much more expensive.

|Harris explains how food taboos function in order to allow the members of a society to survive |during tough times or in tough environments. For instance, the Hindu taboo against eating cows can |be explained by the need to resist the temptation to eat the family ox when food is scarce, because |once eaten, the family will have no means with which to plow and farm during the next year. |Similarily the ancient Hebrew taboo against eating pork can be explained by noting that in a |semi-arid climate, hogs are a very inefficient means of protein conversion---they cannot graze nor |give milk like sheep and goats.

|Thus the cult of health fetishism has this material underpinning: Times are tough and getting tougher, |and in order for people to survive, they must eat more cheaply, which means eating a lot of starchy |foods.

|This explains to some extent the anti-smoking crusade---it violates a tenet of the health fetish |religion that people be allowed to smoke. However, I think that this is only one tiny bit of the |complete explanation.

|During an economic contraction such as the world has experiences since the end of WWII, class |boundaries shift, so that families which were once solidly middle class move closer to being working |class, and families which were once lower middle class become working class. The working class in |turn becomes even more degraded financially.

|When people are in danger of losing their class status, they fight terribly, since so much of people's |identity comes from their class label. Part of this fight involves demarcating clear differences |between their own class and the class directly beneath them, which they feel in danger of falling into. |Antismoking crusades are clearly a part of this process. Smoking, whatever the reality, is seen as a |lower class activity, and so the middle classes use antismoking rhetoric as a club with which to beat |down those whom they fear joining.

|Thus we should pity the poor antis, who are merely pawns in a social current which they cannot |even identify as they are swept along.

From: betsywoo@leland.Stanford.EDU (Elizabeth Lee Woudenberg)

A non-smoker is an individual who does not smoke him-or herself, but who sees no reason to cause others to stop. True non-smokers may have feelings against smoking, but the critical element here is that they don't try to alter anyone else's behavior.

An anti-smoker is someone who is against smoking as an institution, and who does not regard smokers as individuals... merely as the wrongful masses. Anti-smokers are crusaders, who can't seem to allow others to commit "mistakes" that are so obvious to them.

What's interesting is that on this newsgroup we hear a lot from anti-smokers who are either regulars here, or who come across the newsgroup on some list and feel compelled to drop in to dump some rhetoric as their good deed for the day. We DON'T hear from a lot of non-smokers who lump alt.smokers in with rec.pets.chinchillas and other specific groups as just uninteresting to them. They don't smoke, they don't read alt.smokers.

From: cantilope@aol.com, in reply to the above

Betsy, anti-smokers have long tried to swell the perception of their numbers and importance by insistently referring to themselves a simply "non" smokers and claiming that they accurately represent the feelings of the vast majority of non-smokers throughout the world.

By manipulating the meanings of words it becomes possible to manipulate social perceptions and feelings. In the 70's it was clear that the antis were a small group of nuts trying to foist their particular social agenda upon the rest of us. Tell a lie often enough though and people begin thinking it MUST have some truth to it. Keep it up, and MANY people will begin to believe it. Anti-smokers have successfully done this in America both in regard to this particular question and in regard to the "threat" represented by second-hand smoke.

The facts that "anti-smokers" are really only a fairly small group (though enlarged by the fear campaign built around second-hand smoke) and that second-hand smoke itself doesn't represent a risk much different than catching deadly diseases from doorknobs are being replaced by consciously promoted popular conceptions to the contrary.

From: cantilope@aol.com

pha11@cus.cam.ac.uk (Patrick Amory) writes:
If someone says often enough (as Bruce does) that something is inevitable, a number of people will come to believe it is inevitable.

This tactic is used by the Antis as well when they speak of the "400,000" deaths a year and of the "child abuse" of smoking in front of children. When first introduced these ideas were ridiculed. By constant repetition by highly visible anti- supporters we've seen the public attitude change to one of acceptance.

Thus, Sen. Lautenberg can speak about "tobacco killing our children". Thus columnists can write their columns and throw out number like "a half-million deaths a year" without chastisement from her editors. Thus the acceptance of the idea that a $2/pack tax would simply be "smokers paying their cost to society" despite figures showing that taxes might need to be REDUCED to bring about such equity. Repetition of extreme ideas, in visible enough forums, by supposedly respectable and responsible people, lend them an aura of validity that is not always justified. Why do you think the Jewish community jumps on Holocaust revisionists so quickly? It's because they know the dangers of letting lies and misrepresentations go unchallenged.

From: dambik@warner.fnal.gov (Ed Dambik)

Did you ever wonder why the smoking issue gets so wrapped up with attacks against Tobacco companies? Why, when the issues always boil down to someone smoking in the office, the mall, a restaurant, etc.? I think because it's not considered polite to attack regular PEOPLE -let alone paint them all with a single dark stroke - who might be readers/viewers. But attack a large, impersonal corporation (among others) and everyone's resentments immediately come bobbing to the surface, even smokers'. By verbally attacking the corporation, they can justify draconian measures against INDIVIDUALS because such laws are reported and come to be seen as if they didn't hurt people but instead only cause financial problems for those large, rich, impersonal corporations.

Quitting Statistics

From: W.J. Duke Dufresne, M.D., FAAFP, St. Clare's Hospital, Schenectady, NY

Quitting:

* 80-90% of smokers want to quit and have tried at least once
* 95% who try to quit on their own do so "cold turkey"; 70% who try relapse, usually in first three months
* 45% of those who ever smoked has quit; >90% of these quit without any therapy
* Adults quit for health reasons
* Adolescents quit because of lack of employment, health reasons, cost.

From: gk00@quads.uchicago.edu (Greg Kuperberg)

RESULTS: The active nicotine patch resulted in significantly higher biochemically confirmed abstinence rates when compared with placebo at three months (48% v. 21%) and at six months (33% v. 14%). Six-months' continuous abstinence rates were also significantly higher among the active nicotine group (25%) compared with placebo (12%).

From: jdawson@netcom.com (Joe Dawson) in rebuttal to the above

Using the long term measurements, 88% of controls resumed smoking vs 75% of the patch group. Controls were thus 17% more likely than patch wearers to go back ((88/75 - 1) * 100). The recidivism curves are markedly different: the patch group shows a steady rise; that of the controls is rather flat. While patch wearers showed a higher success rate in the beginning, they were more likely to smoke again. The behavior of controls was somewhat more consistent. Given the trends, it would appear that had a continuous 12-month sample been taken, the difference between patch wearers and controls would be even smaller.

Observations:

A: Patch wearers are twice as likely to succeed.
B: Controls are only 17% more likely to fail.
C: Measured over six months, patch wearers are four times as likely to fail as controls. (8 vs 2.)

All statements are true. This is an excellent illustration of how statistics can be used to bolster different points of view, depending on how they are expressed.

It should be noted that (A) is true for the continuous 6 month count. A 12 or 24 month count might be considerably different."

Propaganda and Emotional Argument

Identifying Propaganda and Emotional Argument

From: dambik@fnalo.fnal.gov (Ed Dambik) and rwagner@netcom.com

The purpose of propaganda is to inculcate opinion by appeal to emotion rather than rational thought.

Classical coercion and brainwashing consists of words (propaganda) plus fear inspired by threat of force. When words are coupled with the operation of emotions such as hate, love and fear the combination is much more potent because they open the mind, preparing it to receive new ideas. Why? Because both the giver and receiver need to believe that the faith transferred is the only true one. Otherwise the converter is likely to feel like a criminal, the converted to feel like a coward who prostituted his soul out of fear. Thus true propaganda serves more to justify terrorism to its practitioners and victims than to change minds. The more heinous the brutality, the more fervent the propaganda.

We tend to overestimate the effectiveness of words on changing emotional opinion. Words alone cannot inculcate wholely new ideas, nor can they keep people convinced once they cease to believe. Words can only penetrate minds already open and justify opinions already there. Without terrorism people can be made to believe only what they already feel. The skillful propagandist merely brings emotional opinion to the surface and validates it.

Emotional thought works by *classifying* everything into one or more stereotypes, some of which are Good and some Bad. It then accepts objects predominately Good, rejects those with more Bad than Good. It is important to note that *change* is considered Bad, thus propositions which agree with existing opinion receive higher marks while those which would replace existing opinion are rated lower. The propagandist has two tasks: to style his argument in a way which agrees with existing opinion, and to bias its Good/Bad rating in the desired direction by associating his object with others, usually symbols or abstractions, universally judged Good or Bad.

Emotional argument works because that's how people solve problems in everyday life. Lacking complete information, often thru their own laziness, they invest problems into personalities, then use emotion to evaluate them on the basis of Goodness and Badness. One can see it most clearly in tabloids & soap operas, where every issue is reduced to good guys vs. bad guys. In that case the authors did the classification so the audience doesn't have to think at all. To those for whom emotional 'thought' is the normal mode, there is no difference in kind between propaganda and everyday decision making. Now let us look at specific techniques:

"NAME CALLING" is used to invest an opponent with Bad symbols by calling him names such as heretic, witch, Communist, liar, etc. This device works best when the negative stereotype so broad as to preclude a defense. This is the most common of propaganda devices. Name calling is often confused with the logical fallacy of ad hominem. It should not be. Ad hominem is false not because it is discourteous but because the opponent did not present his expert judgment as a premise to the argument, thus questioning his judgment is an error of irrelevance.

"DRAGGING OUT THE KIDS" characterizes your opponent's proposition as one that it would hurt children. Variations allege that it would hurt the country ("flag waving") or hurt public morality ("Bible thumping").

Next we have four positive associations which are variations of the same theme, only the associated Good changes -- words, institutions, authorities, friends.

"GLITTERING GENERALITIES" is used to associate your object with Good abstractions, buzzwords, or euphemisms representing higher goals and ideals. Emotionally charged "virtue words" are used to describe a cause in a positive light (e.g., "a kinder, gentler nation"). These words are sometimes called 'sound bites' by the media.

"TRANSFER" involves creating a association between your object and a popular, revered, and respected one. This association enables a cause to pick up some of the the positive connotations from the respected thing e.g. George Bush visits a flag factory. Symbols are often used with this device in order to make the association i.e. flags, crosses, etc. This is sometimes called as "wrapping oneself in the flag".

"TESTIMONIALS" are endorsements for or against something by well-known personalities or by 'pitch men' projecting an image of expertise or authority.

"PLAIN FOLKS" presents a grass-roots or folksy image in order to project oneself as a plain and humble person just like everyone else in order to win people's confidence e.g. President Clinton at McDonalds.

"THE BAND WAGON" appeals to people's desires to conform, to be on the most popular side of an issue, to follow the crowd. This device employs drama, symbols, music, etc. to engender a feeling of camaraderie. In its lowest form it appeals to those unhappy with their present condition for a number of reasons -- the poor, misfits, minorities, the selfish who have lost faith in themselves, the bored, sinners seeking refuge from a guilty conscience -- to leave their squalid state behind and join a mass movement. The joiners are called True Believers.

"THE TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY" is related to the Band Wagon. It asserts that the more people who believe a proposition, the more likely it is true.

"CARD STACKING" is the art of presenting arguments which appear to be based on reason but are actually appeals to emotion. Findings are biased through selecting only favorable facts, or by fabricating them. This device may employ under-emphasis, over-emphasis, lies, censorship, distortion, omission of facts and false testimony. Embarrassing facts brought up by one's opponent may be diverted by bringing up contrary ones invented for the occasion, red herrings, straw men, etc. A slightly more sophisticated version biases findings by funding only studies on one side of an issue. Imagine trying to get a NIH research grant to refute the EPA analysis.

"ANGEL OF DEATH" describes the opponent's suffering or death in gory detail, giving the impression that Right Thinkers never die.

"INEVITABILITY" relies on repetition and assertions that an outcome is inevitable whether right or wrong, that it's futile to argue against it, that one should start preparing for it. Also known as ad nauseum.

"SWEEPING GENERALIZATION" asserts that general rules about a group apply to each and every member. For example: "Smokers are generally dumber than average. You're a smoker so you must be dumb." The principle is also known as reification and accident.

"HASTY GENERALIZATION" is the opposite of Sweeping. It applies observations about one member to all members of a group. For example: "I didn't enjoy smoking therefore no smoker enjoys it." Also known as anecdotal evidence.

"FALSE CAUSE" occurs when one claims something is the cause of something else when a causal connection has not been shown. Example: "Shortly after I smoked a cigarette my dog died. So cigarettes are dog killers." It usually associates close proximity in time, or simultaneity, with causality.

"CIRCULAR ARGUMENT" uses its conclusion as one of its premises. Example: "Smokers are outcasts therefore Lockheed is justified in not hiring smokers." Programmers will recognize this as infinite recursion.

"COMPLEX QUESTION" makes one of the unproven premises its conclusion. The classic example is "Have you stopped beating your wife?" An anti- smoker might ask "How much longer do we have to breathe deadly smoke?"

"IRRELEVANT CONCLUSION" claims that an argument supports a conclusion when, in truth, it has nothing to do with the conclusion. For example: "The EPA examined 32 studies, most of which found a weak connection between passive smoking and lung cancer. Therefore the EPA's conclusion is correct." The fact they examined 32 studies, or 32,000 studies, is irrelevant because they didn't use them to arrive at the conclusion.

Example: "ETS contains formaldehyde, a known carcinogen, therefore ETS is carcinogenic." The fallacy is that formaldehyde causes leukemia, of which there is no increase among active smokers much less passive. Its presence is irrelevant to cancer associated with smoking.

Example: "Society is justified in imposing its preferences on individuals because it was justified in locking up Typhoid Mary to prevent the spread of Typhoid." The argument uses an example of medical control to conclude that social controls are justified. You can usually spot such arguments because they state the conclusion first, followed by 'because' and the argument. This is not invalid but should arouse suspicion.

"AFTER THE FACT" is related to the above example. It confuses an argument with an explanation. If B is a fact and A is a postulate then 'A because B' is a valid argument. If A is a fact and B is a postulate then 'A because B' is an explanation. One cannot conclude general truths from isolated examples which might not apply in other situations or had improbable outcomes.

"PLAYING WITH WORDS" assigns two meanings to the same word, or confuses the understanding with careless phrasing. For example, confusing active with passive smoking is a common ploy.

"COMPOSITION" assumes that a property of individuals is shared by a collection of those individuals. Example: "A cigarette has less tar than a cigar, therefore cigarettes are better for you than cigars."

"DIVISION" is the opposite. It assumes a property of a group is shared by all individuals in the group. Example: "Eight smokers can stink up the air in my office in an hour, therefore one smoker can stink it up just as much in eight hours."

"SLIPPERY SLOPE" states that should one bad event occur others will follow, even though there is no proof they are caused by the first event. Example: "If we legalize marijuana then we'll have to legalize all the other drugs, causing millions of drug addicts. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana."

"BLACK AND WHITE" presents a situation as having only two alternatives, when in fact others exist. Example: "Either we ban indoor smoking or put up with choking smoke in every room."

"IT'S TRUE BECAUSE I SAY IT IS" This one needs little comment except the observation that it is surprisingly common. Also known as ipse dixit.

From: dambik@dambik.fnal.gov (Ed Dambik)

Like all fundamentalist religions and ideological extremists, anti-smokers seek to invalidate and diminish their opponents to bolster their own good opinion of themselves and their views. Anti-smokers seek to block dissent, not by showing the errors in their opponents reasoning but by invalidating their *opponents*. Because, like fundamentalists, their stance is not based on rational grounds but on emotional ones, their only choice is to attack the person and not the argument. And of course this idea of personal invalidation can be expanded as needed to cover all apponents and arguments formulated by the opposition.

But can personal invalidation be used against all opponents? Certainly. It does become rather problematic, for example, when NON-smokers side with smokers on issues. In these cases, the magic lexicon can be consulted and a new invalidating construction brought forth - that of Agent of the Tobacco Companies. Thus, a seamless bubble blocking out all dissent can be constructed. A side benefit to this invalidation is that opponents in positions of weakness can be treated as children or even something not quite human. This justifies strong actions against weak opponents which might otherwise be considered extreme or even inhumane.

Litter, Butt Disposal

Why do smokers litter so much?

This is a cultural phenomenon. It was once acceptable to throw butts on the ground under the theory they would degenerate quickly. While debatable in the old days, that notion should have gone out as quickly as filters came in. Unfortunately it didn't. Considerate smokers don't litter. Those who do deserve criticism as much as any other litterer.

How to dispose of a cigarette butt when there is no ashtray

Tear off the burning tip, as close to the end as you can. Drop it on the ground. Do not step on it. Let it continue burning, resulting in ash only. If near a trash can, dispose of the butt after double checking to make sure it's out. Otherwise put the butt between cellophane and cigarette package for later disposal.

Cigarette Prices by State and Country

Are US cigarettes high-priced or low-priced, compared to other countries.

From: macdon@hercules.cs.uregina.ca (Charlie MacDonald)

From: rwagner@netcom.com (Robert Wagner)

Those living in high-tax states may wish to consider buying by mail. I haven't tried this source but it looks like a good one:

West Pine Indian Trading Post & Smoke Shop
Rt 1 Box 353A, Bartlesville, OK 74003
1-800-254-0811
Monday - Friday 8 to 4 Central, Saturday & Sunday Closed
All Major Brands $13.99. Generics as low as $7.99

Ratings of Luxury/Exotic Smokes

Clove Cigarettes

From: laszlo@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu

Let me start by saying that I *am* a proud, albeit very moderate, smoker, and I *do* treat myself to the occasional pack of kreteks. However, the clove ingredient presents certain grisly risks, which make kreteks advisable only as an occasional treat.

Clove oil contains eugenol, a natural anaesthetic. This is what dentists often put on a Q-tip to pre-numb the part of your mouth they're going to stick with the novocaine needle. Kreteks (clove cigarets) are a mixture of tobacco and cloves, so burning them introduces eugenol-rich clove oils into the smoke you inhale. Besides making for a *deee-lish* smoking experience, it also numbs and relaxes your bronchial passages, so you inhale much deeper than usual, and the smoke tends to linger inside after exhaling. This lets you absorb more of the nicotine from the smoke, resulting in the infamous "rompin' clove buzz". This also explains why you seem to breathe "freer" after a clove, and why it alleviates the symptoms of asthma.

Now, here's the risky part. This super-deep inhaling (perhaps combined with some added caustic action from the clove oils?) can make the little air-sacs in your lungs pop and, over time, can carve up your lung tissues pretty badly; hence, the other kretek infamy of "they punch holes in your lungs". I know a guy who smoked cloves all summer long as his "regular" cigaret; by the time fall semester started, he was hacking up blood from his Osterized lungs. Also, this is *NOT* the thing to be smoking during or after any respiratory illness, especially pneumonia. One chap, and this is medically documented, smoked a clove while recuperating from a bout of pneumonia, and the new lacerations allowed the waning infection to re-establish itself, and he *died*. I've read mention of a few similar cases -- rare, but noteworthy.

All that horror aside, kreteks are a lovely experience. They got me interested in cigaret varieties in the first place, and look where that got me. %^} Cloves are a very social smoke, ideal for meeting people at clubs. *Everyone* knows that *someone* has cloves, and wants to know *who* it is. And, if you bum a clove to a curious clubgoer, you've granted a precious gift, and you've got an instant friend and something to talk about. If you've got a touch of the asthma from vigorous dancing, as I still sometimes do, the cloves will loosen up your chest and keep you chipper.

I also remember that after sharing intimate pleasures, my former GF would ask me to roll us a clove to share. We'd sit together nude in the dark, watching the crackle of the ember, holding the cigaret to each other's lips for a drag, sometimes "shotgunning" the smoke, and when her buzz was strong enough, she'd sit up and say, "okay, I'm ready" and I'd bop her lightly on the forehead to send her crashing back onto the bed, reeling and giggling. *Sigh*. I miss that... Now I'm all misty-eyed...

From: jpagano@Emerald.tufts.edu (J. Pagano)

I'd like to suggest to anyone interested in trying cloves, or to any clove smokers who haven't encountered them yet, that you pick up a pack of Bidi's from your local tobacco store. They are a little obscure, so they might not be available everywhere. If you have trouble locating them, your best bet is to actually drive to the town nearest you which houses a significant Indian population, and try to purchase them at an Indian grocery store. Typically, they have them, and they, as opposed to the tobacco stores, sell em damn cheap. I bought my last pack of twenty for a dollar. The pros of Bidis are multifold: the price, the taste -- they come in a few flavors, clove as well as mint and *strawberry* -- the fact that they are wrapped in tobacco leaves rather than rice paper (very cool looking little cigs, therefore -- very cafe' mysterioso :-> ), the package is even very cool looking, kind of a little incense cone shaped, orange paper bag with Indian writing all over it. These are definitely "social" cigarettes, as was mentioned before. If cloves are social cigarettes, Bidi's are cool enough to get you arrested.

From: laszlo@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Tyson F Nuss)

Ah, bidis. Certainly a very... *odd*... experience. Not that they're *bad*, mind you, they're just plain *weird*, as my smoke list attests.

The brand you mention would be the "Kailas" brand bidis, and I'd recommend them over the more common Sher Bidi brand, which tastes like smoking a pine tree. I don't believe bidis are rolled in a *tobacco* leaf, just a leaf of some sort, which gives them that weird, herbal incense taste. For something with so little actual tobacco in them, they sure give you a body-transcending buzz! They look so antiquated, with that little bit of twine holding the whole thing together, and the little cotton wad in the end serving as a rudimentary filter. They leave this really bittersweet residue on your lips, which is sometimes pleasant, other times revolting. Bidis are a real love-hate smoke, often going from one extreme opinion to the other in the course of a single bidi.

From: khedkar@merak.crd.ge.com (Pratap Khedkar)

Aahh. nostalgia. Bidis are the poor person's cigarette in India, where a packet of 25 used to retail for around a dime (the really good ones). Of course, most of the middle class smokers would prefer cigarettes, but one ended up bumming bidis off rickshaw drivers at 3 a.m. as a poor student hunting for smokes. It is faintly amusing to note that the same has become indescribably "cool", once the price is multiplied and it is sold through a tobacconist's. But they are extremely interesting smokes. It is claimed that the use of a leaf to wrap the tobacco instead of paper reduces carcinogens, but then they are mostly unfiltered. They are completely handmade, with low-salary labour employed in rolling, tying, and packing them. I recall having thought highly of the "Telephone" brand bidi, but I am not sure that would be easily available here in the US.

Smoke Rings

From: RVIRANI@SCIENCE.watstar.uwaterloo.ca (R Virani)

..first, and obviously, take a drag of your smoke, then leaving your tongue in it's rested position, simple shape an o with your mouth and snap your jaw. (not literally of course, just a snapping kina motion.)

From: jdawson@netcom.com (Joe Dawson)

First, take a drag and INHALE (unlike the above method). Then you exhale just enough to get the right amount of smoke in your mouth (getting the "right" amount takes some experimentation and practice). Shape your mouth as above into a perfect O that doesn't show any teeth. The diameter of my circled lips when I do it is about 3/4 of an inch, but YMMV. Now comes the part that really takes practice. Shape your tongue into a downwards "L" so that the back part of it it is horizontal and the front half bends downwards at a right angle. Now SNAP it forwards while maintaining the inverted "L" shape. At the end of it's path, your tongue should be touching your lower lip and the inside of both cheeks but not your upper lip or front teeth. The back (horizontal) part of your tongue will be touching your back teeth. (This may not be true for all mouths, which come in all sizes and shapes.)

You exhale while you are forming the required shapes with your lips and tongue; you stop exhaling just before snapping your tongue forward.

This takes considerable practice, but the result, should you persevere, will be far superior rings. They persist longer, are shaped better and travel much further - four or five feet in still air. In unusually still air, I've had some persist for minutes and end up ten feet across the room, by which time they were a foot in diameter. Plus you have positive directional control, and with still more practice, you can put them exactly where you want them - a sort of air quoits. With a little imagination, it can make for some unusual and interesting foreplay! [Ed note: think horseshoe pitching.]

Erotica

From: laszlo@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu (Tyson F Nuss)
[on shotgunning]

I hold my cigaret to her lips, and she takes a full drag and inhales. We then press our lips together in a sensual, moist, insistent French kiss. While kissing, I inhale while she exhales, so that I draw my breath from my lover's lungs. Then I return the same breath, and we continue sharing the same air until one of us is gets too dizzy to continue.

Another variation: She takes a drag, inhales, and we bring our lips very close together, but without touching. She exhales a plume of smoke as if blowing a kiss, and I inhale, receiving her air-kiss. This is very subtly, insidiously sensual.

Resources

Organizations

• 800-341-5211 Brown and Williamson
  
• 800-366-8441 R.J. Reynolds. They can send you some smoker's rights info.
  
• 800-333-8683 A Smokers' Rights Hotline organized by R.J. Reynolds. They can put you in touch with a smokers' rights group in your area.
  
• 202-457-4800 Tobacco Institute, 1875 I St NW Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006, Fax 202-457-9350
  
• 800-WE-SMOKE The United Smokers Association, POB 1234, Rocky Mount, NC
  
• 800-224-3322 National Smoker's Alliance, 901 N. Washington St., Suite 400, Alexandria, VA 22314
  
• phone unknown American Smoker's Alliance, PO Box 189, Bellvue, Co 80512
  
• 608-222 8998 Smokers' Rights Action Group (SRAG), PO Box 9575, Madison, WI 53715
  
• 071-823-6550 FOREST, 2 Grosvenor Gardens, London SW1W 0DH; Calling from US: 011-44-71-823-6550
  
• phone unknown ZIPPO Manufacturing Company, 36 Barbour Street, Bradford, PA 16701. Free lifetime repair of its lighters.

Alternative newsgroups