MN State Senator Ranum Gets All Her Facts Wrong
This letter is in response to one sent by Barbara Gottstein. Her letter is below this one
MINNESOTANS AGAINST SMOKING BANS
227 OAK ST. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554146
PHONE: 612-384-4374 FAX: 651-458-5649
January 10, 2005
Dear Senator Ranum,
An e-mail you sent to Barbara Gottstein has lately come to my attention. I am responding to it because I am seriously concerned about the information you used to formulate your opinion about voting for a smoking ban. Virtually every comment you made is false, misleading, based on junk science or predicated on computer generated statistics deliberately skewed to produce predetermined results. Knowing the extremes to which the “smoke hater” proponents will go to further their own agenda, I am providing you with an opposing viewpoint to counter their well know tactics. You absolutely need to know both sides of the issue in order truly formulate a position. To begin, you stated, “I believe a statewide smoking ban is important for Minnesota because this is a workers’ rights issue.” I’m sorry Senator Ranum but neither workers nor the general pubic have any kind of a constitutional right to a smoke free environment if that environment is located on private property. Private property rights stand above all other rights as enumerated in the Constitution.
Your second piece of misinformation states, “Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease in Minnesota. Among the groups at highest risk are hospitality industry workers. One study showed that waiters and waitresses with long-term exposure to secondhand smoke at work have lung cancer rates nearly twice the national average.” The World Health Organization, in the second largest study ever done on the topic Indicated the ill effects of SHS proved to be statistically insignificant. It is therefore obvious that it could not be one of the leading causes of deaths in Minnesota. As to the study concerning death rates of hospitality workers you should know was proven to be an out and out fraud. The study was computer generated and rigged to produce the desired outcome. These same kinds of studies were also used to generate information that caused you to state, “Children exposed to secondhand smoke have higher rates of respiratory illness and sudden infant death syndrome.” These childhood conditions are related more genetics than SHS. The W.H.O. study by the way, shows that adult children from families where both parents smoked had a 22% better chance of NOT getting cancer than did adult children who came from non-smoking families.
Your statement that, “All major causes of death among the elderly, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and respiratory illness, are associated with secondhand smoke,” Is just plain ridiculous. The exact same thing can be said about their exposure to carbon monoxide from auto emissions, exposure to the rays of the sun (a class A carcinogen), or arsenic found in our water supply. This list could go on and on, but the point has been made.
You made a further “statement of fact” that, “In Minnesota, tobacco use significantly contributes to chronic disease. Studies have shown that four out of five chronic disease killers; diseases of the heart, cancer, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are strongly associated with smoking.” True studies, not junk science, by reputable organizations have proven these concepts to be totally fallacious. Also association is not causation. Smoking and SHS have NEVER, I repeat NEVER, been found as a leading cause of any disease.
You stated, “Tobacco use in Minnesota costs $2.6 billion annually ($1.61 billion in smoking caused health care costs and $1.02 billion in smoking caused productivity losses).” BC/BS of Minnesota put forth this garbage initially. They are blatantly attempting to get themselves positioned, through the tobacco ban, as Minnesota’s primary insurance carrier. They are hoping to get tobacco taxes raised as well with the expectation of financially benefiting from said taxes.
Your final statement, “Other cities and counties in Minnesota and other states across the United States have successfully implemented smoking bans and I believe Minnesota can too,” is simply not true. Many of the bans already implemented, are now being modified extensively and in some cases are being completely overturned. I have refuted almost everything you have stated but I do not expect you to take my word for what I have said. The documented evidence of my allegations can be easily found at Forces.org. and/or the catoinstitute.com. I would urge you to study both these sites carefully. They have a wealth of information.
Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Vice President Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans
Your Letter to Barbara Gottstein:
Dear Barbara,
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on a statewide smoking ban. I appreciate hearing from you.
Reasonable people will differ on important issues. I believe a statewide smoking ban is important for Minnesota because this is a worker’s rights issue. Thousands of employees are subjected to secondhand smoke at their workplace everyday. Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease in Minnesota. Among the groups at highest risk are hospitality industry workers. One study showed that waiters and waitresses with long-term exposure to secondhand smoke at work have lung cancer rates nearly twice the national average. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have higher rates of respiratory illness and sudden infant death syndrome. All major causes of death among the elderly, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and respiratory illness, are associated with secondhand smoke.
In Minnesota, tobacco use significantly contributes to chronic disease. Studies have shown that four out of five chronic disease killers; diseases of the heart, cancer, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are strongly associated with smoking. Tobacco use in Minnesota costs $2.6 billion annually ($1.61 billion in smoking caused health care costs and $1.02 billion in smoking caused productivity losses).
Other cities and counties in Minnesota and other states across the United States have successfully implemented smoking bans and I believe Minnesota can too.
In addition, there are an increasing number of state legislators, both DFL and Republican who are open to a ban. The most important thing however, is that Minnesota does not interfere with other local units of government who already have bans in place.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Jane Ranum
State Senator
****Important message!*******
Do not hit "reply" to respond to this message. Instead,
click this address: "janer@senate.leg.state.mn.us"
This way, your message will come directly to me.
MINNESOTANS AGAINST SMOKING BANS
227 OAK ST. S.E. MINNEAPOLIS, MN 554146
PHONE: 612-384-4374 FAX: 651-458-5649
January 10, 2005
Dear Senator Ranum,
An e-mail you sent to Barbara Gottstein has lately come to my attention. I am responding to it because I am seriously concerned about the information you used to formulate your opinion about voting for a smoking ban. Virtually every comment you made is false, misleading, based on junk science or predicated on computer generated statistics deliberately skewed to produce predetermined results. Knowing the extremes to which the “smoke hater” proponents will go to further their own agenda, I am providing you with an opposing viewpoint to counter their well know tactics. You absolutely need to know both sides of the issue in order truly formulate a position. To begin, you stated, “I believe a statewide smoking ban is important for Minnesota because this is a workers’ rights issue.” I’m sorry Senator Ranum but neither workers nor the general pubic have any kind of a constitutional right to a smoke free environment if that environment is located on private property. Private property rights stand above all other rights as enumerated in the Constitution.
Your second piece of misinformation states, “Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease in Minnesota. Among the groups at highest risk are hospitality industry workers. One study showed that waiters and waitresses with long-term exposure to secondhand smoke at work have lung cancer rates nearly twice the national average.” The World Health Organization, in the second largest study ever done on the topic Indicated the ill effects of SHS proved to be statistically insignificant. It is therefore obvious that it could not be one of the leading causes of deaths in Minnesota. As to the study concerning death rates of hospitality workers you should know was proven to be an out and out fraud. The study was computer generated and rigged to produce the desired outcome. These same kinds of studies were also used to generate information that caused you to state, “Children exposed to secondhand smoke have higher rates of respiratory illness and sudden infant death syndrome.” These childhood conditions are related more genetics than SHS. The W.H.O. study by the way, shows that adult children from families where both parents smoked had a 22% better chance of NOT getting cancer than did adult children who came from non-smoking families.
Your statement that, “All major causes of death among the elderly, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and respiratory illness, are associated with secondhand smoke,” Is just plain ridiculous. The exact same thing can be said about their exposure to carbon monoxide from auto emissions, exposure to the rays of the sun (a class A carcinogen), or arsenic found in our water supply. This list could go on and on, but the point has been made.
You made a further “statement of fact” that, “In Minnesota, tobacco use significantly contributes to chronic disease. Studies have shown that four out of five chronic disease killers; diseases of the heart, cancer, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are strongly associated with smoking.” True studies, not junk science, by reputable organizations have proven these concepts to be totally fallacious. Also association is not causation. Smoking and SHS have NEVER, I repeat NEVER, been found as a leading cause of any disease.
You stated, “Tobacco use in Minnesota costs $2.6 billion annually ($1.61 billion in smoking caused health care costs and $1.02 billion in smoking caused productivity losses).” BC/BS of Minnesota put forth this garbage initially. They are blatantly attempting to get themselves positioned, through the tobacco ban, as Minnesota’s primary insurance carrier. They are hoping to get tobacco taxes raised as well with the expectation of financially benefiting from said taxes.
Your final statement, “Other cities and counties in Minnesota and other states across the United States have successfully implemented smoking bans and I believe Minnesota can too,” is simply not true. Many of the bans already implemented, are now being modified extensively and in some cases are being completely overturned. I have refuted almost everything you have stated but I do not expect you to take my word for what I have said. The documented evidence of my allegations can be easily found at Forces.org. and/or the catoinstitute.com. I would urge you to study both these sites carefully. They have a wealth of information.
Robert Hayes Halfpenny
Vice President Minnesotans Against Smoking Bans
Your Letter to Barbara Gottstein:
Dear Barbara,
Thank you for contacting me with your thoughts on a statewide smoking ban. I appreciate hearing from you.
Reasonable people will differ on important issues. I believe a statewide smoking ban is important for Minnesota because this is a worker’s rights issue. Thousands of employees are subjected to secondhand smoke at their workplace everyday. Secondhand smoke is one of the leading causes of preventable death and disease in Minnesota. Among the groups at highest risk are hospitality industry workers. One study showed that waiters and waitresses with long-term exposure to secondhand smoke at work have lung cancer rates nearly twice the national average. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have higher rates of respiratory illness and sudden infant death syndrome. All major causes of death among the elderly, such as cancer, heart disease, stroke, and respiratory illness, are associated with secondhand smoke.
In Minnesota, tobacco use significantly contributes to chronic disease. Studies have shown that four out of five chronic disease killers; diseases of the heart, cancer, stroke, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), are strongly associated with smoking. Tobacco use in Minnesota costs $2.6 billion annually ($1.61 billion in smoking caused health care costs and $1.02 billion in smoking caused productivity losses).
Other cities and counties in Minnesota and other states across the United States have successfully implemented smoking bans and I believe Minnesota can too.
In addition, there are an increasing number of state legislators, both DFL and Republican who are open to a ban. The most important thing however, is that Minnesota does not interfere with other local units of government who already have bans in place.
Thank you again for contacting me.
Sincerely,
Jane Ranum
State Senator
****Important message!*******
Do not hit "reply" to respond to this message. Instead,
click this address: "janer@senate.leg.state.mn.us"
This way, your message will come directly to me.
posted by bob3443 | 1/10/2005 04:45:00 PM
1 Comments:
Low Level Cadmium Exposure Linked To Lung Disease...Science Daily reported on August 20 that new research suggests that cadmium is one of the critical ingredients causing emphysema, and even low-level exposure attained through second-hand smoke and other means may also increase the chance of developing lung disease. http://www.chantixhome.com/
Post a Comment
<< Home