http://www.smokersclubinc.com/
An Interview With Dr. Shepard, Co-Fabricator of the Helena Study

Dr. Shepard was one of the co-authors of the infamous Helena Study. The study made an astonishing claim: That in the six months Helena MT had a smoking ban in place heart attacks dropped by 60%.

Tony Masset, a student at Carroll College in Waukesha, WI, attended a presentation by Dr. Shepard.
After the presentation:

After the questions I stayed to argue with him for about 15 minutes. He had an older listener and a younger college student on each side of him giving him a bobble head visual “surround sound” effect, two people that literally shook their head yes to every single thing the man said! A few things said in our Q&A were:

Tony: “People can decide for themselves whether they want to patronize a bar or not, so why do we need a blanket ban that forces owners to decide how to run their establishment?”

Shepard: “The employees can’t decide for themselves. They often have no skills, no education, and they need to put food on the table and so they have to bus tables, their choice is taken away. Does the owner have the right to subject employees to that?”

Tony: “The employees chose to work there, they knew people smoked and yet they took the job anyway. If someone doesn’t like where they work they can find another job.”

College student bobble head: “What experience do you have in the work force?”

Shepard: “(smirking) ][B]You are falsely believing that people can go out and find a job anywhere at anytime, that there are limitless jobs available, and that people have the ability to change jobs./B]
....................

How stupid!!

This fool must believe that there are 11,000,000 illegal immigrants in this country because jobs are scarce and hard to find.

These illegals also manage to send billions of dollars back to home to help support their families.

Gary K.

It seems very obvious to me that if businesses were allowed the choice regarding permitting smoking, that expanding that choice would also expand the market.

This would increase the number of jobs available. Meanwhile, given today's political climate, you would probably find that the majority of business owners would probably go "smoke free" while a smaller percentage would allow smoking. This would roughly reflect the distribution in the non-smoking versus smoking population. Venues would then hold a compeitive place in the market based, in part, on that choice.

In short, allowing choice would create more jobs, and not take any jobs away from anyone.

The only thing that robs people of their livelihoods is banning smoking.

One other thing that isn't often mentioned in this discussion is the amount of capital that is require to even open these businessess. We talk, in the generic sense, about bars and restaurants "losing business" but rarely mention that these establishments often require many hundreds of thousands of dollars (sometimes millions) to own and operate. Does anyone ever take into account the bankruptcies and foreclosures caused by these universal accodomations for hypochondriacs?

What's worse is that the Anti's will lie about the economic impact of such bans. My city (Eau Claire, Wisconsin) is slated to ban smoking in all BARS effective July 1. We all know how devastating this will be to owners, yet I am confident that within a few months, the media will say that they are thriving and even getting more customers than ever before........ .

Look at what liberal divorce laws have done for the housing industry and legal system?

Nice graph, many thanks to Lynda Farley of FORCES .
Gary K.

This is a repeat of an old post; however there may be new readers that have not seen this and it is that time of the year.

A reply to anti BS.
Gary K.

"Peeing in a public pool"

Antis are always making this statement.
Anti-smokers delight in comparing smoking in public places to 'peeing' in a public swimming pool.

"A "no-smoking" section in a restaurant is just about as effective as a non-peeing section in a public pool."

However; the water in most swimming pools is seldom changed, modern ventilation systems are constantly replacing the air in public
buildings with 'fresh' outside air.

For instance, let's assume a pub 50' x 40' x 10', with an occupancy rating of 80 people.

Most building codes would require 2400 cubic feet/minute(cfm) fresh air for the example above. (80 people x 30 cfm / occupant).

And 50 x 40 x 10 = 20,000 cubic feet of air.

Now to determine what 1 air change is for that 20,000 cubic feet is, divide by 60 (minutes
per hour, since fans are rated cfm). So 20,000 / 60 = 333 cfm.

Now 2400 cfm / 333 = 7.2 air changes per hour.

60 (minutes per hour) / 7.2 = 8.3 minutes. Meaning that 2400 cfm in the 50 x 40 x 10 building will exchange the air in the pub with fresh outside air every 8.3 minutes.


An equal comparison would look like this.
Let's consider a public pool that is 40 ft x 100 ft x 5 ft deep.

This is the same cubic volume as the pub above.

This pool would have to have 2400 cubic feet of water coming in every minute and the same
amount going out.

A cubic foot of water is 7.5 gallons, this means there would have to be 18,000 gallons of water per minute coming into the pool and going
out of the pool.
WARNING: DO NOT STAND NEAR THE PIPE AT EITHER END OF THE POOL!!!

The SHS just does not stay very long and there is a constant 'river' of fresh air going thru the pub.

Smoking in public places is like 'peeing' in a very polluted river!

This 'River of Air' is polluted!!!
For instance, most of us live in urban areas and the CDC states:

"However, urban areas generally have mean arsenic levels in air ranging from 20 to 30 ng/m3."
http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/phs2.html#bookmark03

That is 20 to 30 nanograms(ng)of arsenic per each and EVERY cubic meter(cubic yard) of air, inside or outside, in an urban area.

The total smoke output from a cigarette contains 32 ng of arsenic.
(The 1999 Mass. Benchmark Study. Final Report 07/24/00)

Arsenic is a poison and can cause Lung Cancer.

The Surgeon General says the relative risk(RR) for getting lung cancer from SHS is about 1.25(RR=1.25).

The RR for getting Lung Cancer from Arsenic can be 15.69(RR=15.69).

(RISK FACTORS FOR LUNG CANCER INDEPENDENT OF CIGARETTE SMOKING

Arsenic ingestion.. Tsuda (1995)….RR= 15.69 )

This is 12.55 times higher than for SHS.

Each and every cubic meter of that `FRESH,SMOKE FREE AIR' contains about as much Arsenic as is in the total smoke output from a cigarette.

The pub mentioned above would have to over 700 smokers smoking a cigarette every 8 minutes to equal the amount of Cancer causing
Arsenic being brought in by the new `SMOKE FREE FRESH AIR'.

The occupancy rating for that pub is only 80 people;so, all 80 would have to continually smoke a cigarette per minute to equal the amount of Arsenic continually being brought in by the new 'SMOKE FREE FRESH
AIR'!!