February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27




February 10, 2006



Legally I don't think you can.And they must be going on the balcony for a reoasn( baby,toddler.elder).Only thing you can do is close your door.Or get a single family home.What fun that should be when your neighbor's dog drops one in your yard.I'm just saying,you may have to learn to live with it.


you should want to stop skmniog for more than just to lose weight, (what about the health benefits?) If you are serious about quitting, you will be fine if you do not replace your cravings for a smoke with food cravings, try and have a big glass of water when you would normally smoke or a cup pf green tea, that should help shed weight!


A friend of mine found it dicfifult to give up cigarette smoking; he was found to have a brain tumor a few weeks ago; the doctors say he has only a few months to live. He's 51. Smoking can cause brain damage see link below. That's just one of the ways smoking can drastically shorten your life cancer of the lungs, throat or mouth are other ways. That just might make your brother think.


L.G., North Caldwell, NJMay 10, 2011 I tried to stop smoking on many ocsicaons for many, many years. Noting I tried would work and I always found myself back smoking. I was very motivated to stop. My genetic package included a father who died from a heart attack at a very early age and grandparents who died of lung cancer. I had just been told by my cardiologist that I needed an angiogram to determine if I had a blocked artery. I had to do something. I was referred to Gale and saw her twice…thankfully!!! She thoroughly explained everything about the process, what she did, what I could expect, and told me of the follow up care she would provide. I have not smoked since the first visit and feel confident that I will not smoke again. I know I can call on Gale if I find I am having any urges that I can’t control and I trust her to be able to help me. We have spoken a few times since our last meeting – Gale calls me to follow up – and I feel like Gale of one of my closest friends. [Note: This client emailed on the 4th year anniversary of being a non-smoker and expressed thanks again.]

Bill Hannegan

I believe that anti-smoking authorities have been lying to us about the dangers of secondhand smoke. I have formed a group to fight smoking bans called KEEP ST. LOUIS FREE! We defeated a smoking ban in St. Louis by challenging the notion that secondhand smoke kills people. Check out the real science of secondhand smoke and see how NYC hates its ban: www.nycclash.com If you want help fighting a smoking ban in your city, contact me at [email protected]

Read this estimate of ETS danger by researcher David Kuneman taken from a STLtoday.com blog "No Smoking in Illinois?" and decide for yourself if anyone's liberty needs to be taken away.

Ok, lets go to all the so-called studies which “prove” ETS is a hazard. There are two kinds of ETS studies… sloppy ones and well executed ones. The sloppy ones are those which are case-controlled. This means, the researcher asks a nonsmoking lung cancer patient what airborne carcinogens he/she was exposed to. If 30% more patients respond to being exposed to lots of smoke, the researcher concludes ETS increases Lung Cancer risk 30%. These studies usually involve a few hundred patients. This is where you get your data from. Trouble is, patients are not experts and do not know if they were exposed to asbestos, lived in a home with a radon problem, etc. The patients have all heard ETS causes LC, so they blame that. Please go to http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/ for a more complete explanation.

The well executed studies are called cohort studies. These rarely conclude ETS causes Lung cancer and Heart Disease. In cohort studies, thousands of persons are enrolled and all are healthy. They are divided among those exposed to smoke..or not. After about 30 years, the researcher contacts as many as he can locate, and determines the health of the study subjects. These are more expensive to run. The most well known of the cohort studies is the UCLA study which found no risk. These kinds of studies are less subject to bias.

The EPA report combined the results of 13 studies, and all but one were case controlled. They could Have used all 58 studies completed at the time, but did not simply becasue if they had, they would have been forced to conclude ETS is safe. According to the EPA report, even using those 13 studies, without the Frontham study, they would have concluded ETS is not dangerous. Trouble with the Frontham study is she refuses to let anyone see her raw data. I have a copy of the complete EPA report—that’s what it says.

In summary, we have the EPA claiming ETS is dangerous, and the Dept of Health and Human Services which only cites studies conducted by antismoking groups, and has never actually done a study of thier own claims ETS is dangerous. We have OSHA, the Congressional research service of the Library of Congress, and OakRidge Nat Labs claiming ETS is not dangerous.

Now, lets move on to population studies. All good epidemiology text books teach than when a weak risk such as a 30% excess risk is determined from epidemiology studies, then the researcher has to conduct population studies to either confirm, or reject the 30% result. If the researcher checks the prevalence of the disease indentified, as being more common in populations, more exposed, then the risk is confirmed. The trouble is, Europeans only get about half as much Lung Cancer as we do, and they are exposed to more ETS and always were. This according to WHO. And euros smoke about 1/3 more than us, and always did and euros live about 2 years longer than we do. Another population study is that in the US, age-adjusted rates of heart disease, nonsmoker’s lung cancer, asthma, COPD, and days missed from work are higher now than than in the 1970s when we were exposed to about 9 times more smoke. There is also a higher rate of childhood cancer, birth defects, middle ear infections, asthma, and most other diseases blamed on smoke today, than in the 1970s. early cases of smoking related cancer among young adults are increasing.. Again see http://kuneman.smokersclub.com/ for more detailed info. Population studies fail to confirm the 30% increased risk these case-controlled studies claim exist. And it’s more than just a litle odd no matter which disease you’re referring to, the elevated risk caused by ETS is always claimed to be the same- 30%- not double, as Dean claims.

I think the fact that we have removed 90% of all ETS, and nothing good happened, speaks volumes as to what we can expect if we remove the last 10% of ETS exposure. Dave Kuneman

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo