Tobacco.org

SMOKE-FREE LAWS DO NOT HARM BUSINESS AT RESTAURANTS AND BARS (PDF) 

Accompanying the growth in smoke-free laws nationwide has been a parallel increase in false allegations that smoke-free laws will hurt local economies and businesses.5 In fact, numerous careful scientific and economic analyses show that smoke-free laws do not hurt restaurant and bar patronage, employment, sales, or profits.6 At worst, the laws have no effect at all, and they sometimes even produce slightly positive trends. For example:

A 2010 analysis of economic outcomes of smoke-free laws stated, ―there is clear evidence that smokefree legislation does not hurt restaurant or bar businesses, and in some cases business may improve.‖7

In 2009, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) examined the extensive literature on the economic impact of smoke-free policies on the hospitality sector.

Jump to full article »

Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control  

Objective

Over 20 experts on economics, epidemiology, public policy and tobacco control were asked by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to evaluate the strength of the available evidence on the effects of tax and price policies to prevent and reduce tobacco use.

Methods

Draft papers presenting and assessing the evidence on the following topics were developed by the experts in an 8-month period prior to the meeting: tobacco industry pricing strategies and tax related lobbying; tax, price and aggregate demand for tobacco; tax, price and adult tobacco use, use among young people and use among the poor; tax avoidance and tax evasion; and the economic and health impact of tobacco taxation. Subsequently, papers were peer reviewed, revised and resubmitted for final discussion at a 6-day meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, where a consensus evaluation of 18 concluding statements using the pre-established criteria of the IARC Cancer Prevention Handbooks took place. . . .

Results

In support of 12 of the 18 conclusions, the experts agreed that there was sufficient evidence of effectiveness of increased tobacco excise taxes and prices in reducing overall tobacco consumption and prevalence of tobacco use and improvement of public health, including by preventing initiation and uptake among young people, promoting cessation among current users and lowering consumption among those who continue to use. For the remaining six concluding statements the evidence was strong (four statements) or limited (two statements).

Conclusions

The evidence presented and assessed in IARC Handbook volume 14 documents the effectiveness of tax and price policies in the control of tobacco use and improvement of public health.

Jump to full article »

Lung cancer risk rises in the presence of HPV antibodies 

Researchers with the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have found that people with lung cancer were significantly more likely to have several high-risk forms of human papillomavirus (HPV) antibodies compared to those who did not have lung cancer. These results, which were presented at the AACR 102nd Annual Meeting 2011, held April 2-6, indicate that HPV antibodies are substantially increased in people with lung cancer.

Jump to full article »

HITCHENS: In Defence of Prohibition - and other matters  

'In 1998 and 2003 came the results of by far the biggest studies of passive smoking ever carried out. One was conducted by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, part of the World Health Organisation. The other, run by Prof James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat for the American Cancer Society, was a mammoth 40-year-long study of 35,000 non-smokers living with smokers.

In each case, when the sponsors saw the results they were horrified. The evidence inescapably showed that passive smoking posed no significant risk.

This confirmed Sir Richard Doll's own comment in 2001: "The effects of other people's smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me'.

'In each case, the sponsors tried to suppress the results, which were only with difficulty made public (the fact that Enstrom and Kabat, both non-smokers, could only get their results published with help from the tobacco industry was inevitably used to discredit them, even though all their research had been financed by the anti-tobacco cancer charity).'

If this is incorrect, or has been superseded by later research, then I would be most interested to know.

Jump to full article »

Harm from smoking is even greater than previously thought 

Smoking is even more dangerous than previously believed, according to a major review of epidemiological data by the World Health Organization's cancer agency. The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) also published the first evidence to link conclusively second hand smoke with increased risk of cancer.

The agency convened 29 scientists from 12 countries to review all significant published research on both active and passive smoking. They state unequivocally that even an average degree of passive exposure to tobacco products can cause lung cancer in people who have never smoked.

“It's been suspected for a long time,” said Professor Richard Doll, one of the report's authors, “but this is the first time we've had a clear scientific consensus saying it's definitely a cause.”

Fifty years ago, Professor Doll was joint author of the first published paper to suggest a link between tobacco and lung cancer.

The agency's report also implicates tobacco in five cancer sites not previously shown to be associated with smoking—the stomach, liver, uterine cervix, kidney (renal cell carcinoma), and myeloid leukaemia. “The additional risk to these sites from smoking varies from about 30% to double,” said Professor Doll. “Some were previously suspected, but this is the first time there is solid evidence.”

Jump to full article »

BAST: Where's the Consensus on Secondhand Smoke?  

More than a year has passed since U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, "The debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard." . . .

Understanding Carmona's report requires familiarity with a different report--the Federal Judicial Center's 2000 "Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, Second Edition," the official guide for judges to understand and rule on science introduced in courtrooms.

According to the manual, nearly all the studies cited in Carmona's report wouldn't pass muster in a court of law because they are observational studies, the sample sizes are too small, or the effects they show are too negligible to be reliable.

For example, the Reference Manual states, "the threshold for concluding that an agent was more likely than not the cause of an individual's disease is a relative risk greater than 2.0." Few of the studies Carmona cites found relative risks this large, and most found risks in a range that included 1.0, which means exposure to secondhand smoke had no effect on the incidence of disease. In the world of real science, that's a knockout blow.

Most of the research Carmona cites was rejected by a federal judge in 1993, when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the most important findings, and failed to honor scientific standards. Carmona's report relies on the same studies and makes the same claims EPA did a decade ago. . . .

A 1998 World Health Organization (WHO) study covering seven countries over seven years actually showed a statistically significant reduced risk for children of smokers and no increase for spouses and coworkers of smokers. . . .

The idea that smokers and nonsmokers might solve this problem voluntarily is dismissed out of hand by those who claim secondhand-smoke exposure is a public health crisis. The "solutions" they want all require bigger government: higher taxes on cigarettes, bans on smoking in public, restrictions on advertising and health claims, etc.

Oddly, these solutions all work to advance the self-interest and agendas of the five groups that repeat Carmona's claim of "consensus." What are the odds this correlation is coincidental?

Effectiveness of tax and price policies in tobacco control  

Objective

Over 20 experts on economics, epidemiology, public policy and tobacco control were asked by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) to evaluate the strength of the available evidence on the effects of tax and price policies to prevent and reduce tobacco use. . . .

papers were peer reviewed, revised and resubmitted for final discussion at a 6-day meeting at IARC in Lyon, France, where a consensus evaluation of 18 concluding statements using the pre-established criteria of the IARC Cancer Prevention Handbooks took place. Studies published (or accepted for publication) in the openly available scientific literature were the main source of evidence for the review and evaluation; other types of publications were included when appropriate.

Results

In support of 12 of the 18 conclusions, the experts agreed that there was sufficient evidence of effectiveness of increased tobacco excise taxes and prices in reducing overall tobacco consumption and prevalence of tobacco use and improvement of public health, including by preventing initiation and uptake among young people, promoting cessation among current users and lowering consumption among those who continue to use. For the remaining six concluding statements the evidence was strong (four statements) or limited (two statements).

Conclusions

The evidence presented and assessed in IARC Handbook volume 14 documents the effectiveness of tax and price policies in the control of tobacco use and improvement of public health.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Compromising worker health  

So the bar owner complains that the smoking ban is not the will of the people, then put another proposal on the ballot. All her customers will leave her bar, to go where?

All the bars are smoke-free. Will they congregate in parks and street corners and drink out of paper sacks? No, smoke-free bars all over the country are doing very well and customers adapt.

What about her three full time and two part-time employees? They may smoke or not — it is immaterial. They need jobs and they are willing to put their health at risk to work in her smoke-laden bar.

They shouldn’t have to. Most who work in bars are young mothers who need the job so they put up with it. No person should have to compromise his health to get a job, but the bar owner doesn’t care as long as she can sell drinks.

Councilwoman Charlotte Farmer and the rest of the City Council should listen to the people who voted. They vote people out of office, too.

Jump to full article »

LIMBAUGH: In Flip, World Health Organization Claims Secondhand Smoke Kills 

Okay, now, we have in our archives, in our Essential Stack of Stuff at RushLimbaugh.com we have a World Health Organization study that was suppressed when it came out, but we have it, and I want Koko Jr. to link it on the home page today. World Health Organization did a massive worldwide study of secondhand smoke, and they found it has no impact at all, zilch, zero, nada, and it was suppressed. You can't find it. We have it, we kept it, we copied it ourselves, not relying on their websites. I mean this is pure bunk. . . .

That report that I talked about, we first revealed it March 22nd of 2001, secondhand smoke is harmless. "Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer -- Official." That's the headline, and we'll link to it. It's in our Essential Stack of Stuff, but we'll make it prominent on our Web page this afternoon so that you can look it up tonight when you get around to it.

Jump to full article »

LETTER: Passive smoking's truth remains in the grave  

One of the least known facts in the war against passive smoking is a seven-nation, 12 medical center study of passive smoking in Europe in 1998, done by the World Health Origination (WHO). Its findings were in direct dispute with the WHO's public war on smoking and passive smoke, so it was never released to the public.

To my knowledge, only two major newspapers ever covered the WHO cover-up. The study looked at non-smokers who lived with, worked with and grew up with smokers. The conclusions were there were no statistical evidence the passive smoking causes lung cancer, and a possible protective effect in some cases were observed.

This disregarded study flies in the face of the current global deaths study promoted by the WHO. If the WHO has known for more than a decade that the reported harms of passive smoking might not be real, why have they continued to promote them? It asks the important question, is the WHO interested in truth or political empowerment?

Those who have used junk science in the past to further the anti-smoking agenda will no doubt use these numbers, but the inconvenient truth is political correctness and the real world have nothing to do with each other. The recent midterm elections pointed out that political correctness and many of the politicians who enforce it have been kicked to the curb by the American voters.

The WHO has no credibility to make pronouncements on information it knows is false, and should be treated accordingly. They should be ignored and the cover-up explained.

Jump to full article »

• « On a créé une peur qui ne repose sur rien » ["It has created a fear that is not based on anything"] 

World renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us to be convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. An interview with shock. . . .

Many scholars argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?

They are not based on any solid scientific evidence. . . .

The aim of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?

Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the AIRC, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without a demonstration. Where are the data? . . .

Why not have talked about earlier?

As an official, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was given the duty of confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.

Jump to full article »

ARCHIVE: Report of the Committee of Experts on Tobacco Industry Documents (PDF) 

Conclusion Page 244

While this inquiry was not exhaustive, it has demonstrated beyond doubt the magnitude of tobacco companies’ continuing opposition to WHO tobacco programs. The tobacco companies’ long-secret documents offer a window of insight not only into many of their surreptitious activities, but also into the strategies and attitudes that guide their conduct. To some, these revelations may come only as confirmation of long-held suspicions. To many, however, they will be eye opening.

But the significance of this inquiry may lie less in what it reveals about the past, than in what it suggests for the present and future. As WHO embarks on a global discussion of tobacco and health, and of the proposed Framework Convention on Tobacco Control, this inquiry invites a reassessment of the way WHO and its member states view the global epidemic of tobacco use.

At the most fundamental level, this inquiry confirms that tobacco use is unlike other threats to global health. Infectious diseases do not employ multinational public relations firms. There are no front groups to promote the spread of cholera. Mosquitoes have no lobbyists. The evidence presented here suggests that tobacco is a case unto itself, and that reversing its burden on global health will be not only about understanding addiction and curing disease, but, just as importantly, about overcoming a determined and powerful industry. If this inquiry contributes to that understanding, the committee of experts will have succeeded in its work.

Jump to full article »

• Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review with meta-analysis  

In conclusion, in studies carried out in the United States and Sweden we detected an association between use of smokeless tobacco products and risk of fatal myocardial infarction and fatal stroke, which is not readily explained by chance. Confounding and other sources of bias, however, cannot be completely excluded on the basis of available data, although we found no strong evidence for their effect. If the association is real, its public health and clinical implications might be substantial, despite the fact that the magnitude of the excess risk is small. Future research should aim to clarify the mechanisms of effect of smokeless tobacco products on deaths from cardiovascular disease and to elucidate whether a similar effect is present for non-fatal myocardial infarction and non-fatal stroke.

What is already known on this topic Smokeless tobacco products are widely used in many populations An association with risk of cardiovascular disease is plausible

What this study adds This systematic review and meta-analysis provided evidence for an association between use of smokeless products and risk of fatal myocardial infarction and stroke . . .

CV Risk Seen With Smokeless Tobacco  

Action Points

* Explain to interested patients that smokeless products such as snuff and chewing tobacco may carry risks for fatal heart attacks and strokes.

* Explain that a study showed that the risks were small but the public health implications may be significant.

The use of smokeless tobacco products was associated with an increased risk for fatal myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke, a meta-analysis found.

For fatal MI, the relative risk associated with ever having used these products was 1.13 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.21), according to Paolo Boffetta, MD, and Kurt Straif, MD, PhD, of the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France. . . .

Primary source: BMJ Source reference: Boffetta P, Straif K "Use of smokeless tobacco and risk of myocardial infarction and stroke: systematic review with meta-analysis"

Jump to full article »

ARCHIVE: ZION: A SMOKING BAN IN HAMPTONS? GOTTA BE HOT AIR 

UNLESS THE courts halt the relentless march of the Nicotine Nazis, the Hamptons fall on the first Monday in August. No more cigs with martinis at Bobby Van's, no brandy and cigars after steak at The Palm.

The bars at your favorite restaurants will be as smoke-free as the dining areas leaving nothing but the house and the beach, and don't bet the house on the beach.

The Suffolk County Legislature banned smoking in bar areas of restaurants as of July 1. . . .

The World Health Organization, the SS of the Nicotine Nazi movement, spent millions on a seven-year study in 12 European countries to prove that passive smoking causes cancer.

It came up empty. No connection between secondhand smoke and cancer. This puts the lie to all the so-called studies on passive smoke and ought to take down all the "No Smoking" signs in restaurants and newsrooms.

But the news media censor this report. And thus Ken Novikoff, on behalf of the restaurant owners, "stipulates" that secondhand smoke causes harm. And argues only the equal protection clause.

Jump to full article »