Heart attacks expected to decline due to Colorado law on smoking

By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 31, 2008 at 2:46 p.m.

Text size

More Local News

Comments

December 31, 2008

3:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

dummas writes:

Put that in your pipe and smoke it!
December 31, 2008

3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

spyder writes:

"The editorial writers cautioned that there were limitations to the Pueblo study, including that it didn't differentiate between smokers and non-smokers when gathering data on hospital admissions for heart attacks."
Could it be that there are not as many JOBS in Pueblo and not as many people, smokers AND non-smokers living there?
That is like saying that the accidents with serious injuries at X street and Y Ave, fell 90% after the state put a SLOW logo on the street, but they neglect to tell you that those streets don't intersect anymore, because there is a building there now.
Government Intelligence at work...and on the taxpayers dime.
December 31, 2008

5:11 p.m.

Suggest removal

44roger writes:

Maybe they better do a study as to the rate of anti depressants being prescribed. The heart attack rate will go back up when those that have quit smoking gain 50 pounds and die from the fat.
Noticed that shootings have gone up? How about spouse & child abuse, better check that too. Folks get a little testy when they can't smoke....
December 31, 2008

5:38 p.m.

Suggest removal

buffsblg writes:

If you look carefully at the article, heart attacks were measured as a percentage of population, which takes into account any decrease in the number of people. I know people on here like spyder believe they are smarter than everyone else, but maybe a bit of critical reading and thinking before you get on here and insult those who are clearly better educated and vastly better informed than you.
December 31, 2008

5:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

fifty writes:

I'm so glad to see that heart attacks and smoking are down in Colorado.

As a child, I had to live without heat because my mother smoked in the room below me and I couldn't stand the smell in my room. At times she'd smoke right by the furnace, which created a horrible stench throughout the entire house. My sister and brother had more throat infections than normal and more trouble getting rid of them. My mother's addiction took priority over the health and welfare of her children and it still takes priority over her own health which is failing due to her smoking.

I felt like I was weird for my intolerance to smoking as all of society embraced it. I'm glad society, especially here in Colorado now feels the same way I do.
December 31, 2008

6:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

colowildcat writes:

I'm tired of paying for all those folks who eat at McDonald's, Burger King, Wendy's, Taco Bell etc.
December 31, 2008

6:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

p_myers661 writes:

I could make a lot of predictions about many things if I could pick and choose my study sample. Let's look at a few more things and spend a few more years looking before we break out the confetti. Sometimes we need to see things as they are not as we wish they would be.

I suspect that some places that still permit smoking will be added to the study with a logical matching sample for balance. That would be apples to apples instead of the different studies that pre-select the data and their conclusions at the same time. I would like to see that study.

I'm part of the data in that my multiple heart attacks two years ago were replaced by a mere two minor ones this year. Of course I never smoked. Now we can see that fifty lived with a terrible situation as a child.

I suffered the same fate. My mother held me, a premature baby, in one arm and smoked with the other. At six months I suffered a severe case of pneumonia and was not supposed to recover. When she brought me home she continued to smoke as did my father. Both my brother and my sister smoked. I was too cheap to spend money on cigarettes.

I still support the right of business owners to make their own decisions on this matter. If a majority prefers a smoke free place, financial choices will be made. That is how it should be. Just the opinion of another non-smoker. Actually I was hounded by Yellow Cab because I enforced my no-smoking signs to an arrogant jerk who insisted on lighting up in the back seat. He lost and the police got him another cab. I made the financial choice. When the airlines forbid smoking on all flights I removed my no-smoking signs because I felt it was completely unfair to continue a non-smoking atmosphere for people who had already suffered through hours already.
December 31, 2008

7:12 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

no conspiracy people...and it passes the smell test

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28450513/
December 31, 2008

7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Mike846 writes:

This is about as biased an article as you can possibly write without labeling it "propaganda". There are more maybe's, perhap's, seem to's, may's and indicate's and on and on until the reader is given the impression that this might actually represent EVIDENCE, which it clearly does not. I'm a non-smoker myself, but I object strenuously to this type of "journalism" with parsed "facts" and slanted writing to achieve a given "end". No wonder this paper is going broke. Mike
December 31, 2008

9:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

squeakywheel writes:

So am I to assume that banning smoking in public places actually leads people to stop smoking?

Not the smokers I know.
January 1, 2009

12:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

psydoc writes:

Buffsbig, don't include yourself in the group labeled "those who are clearly better educated and vastly better informed than you" just yet. You stated, "If you look carefully at the article, heart attacks were measured as a percentage of population..." The term population as referred to in statistical studies refers to the collected data and not the number of persons within certain geographical areas.
January 1, 2009

1:40 a.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

And yet the overall death rate remains constant... People still die one way or another.
January 1, 2009

6:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Pagen writes:

This is a common lie that is always put out by the anti's for propaganda purposes. I don't know if you people will remember but they put this out after the Pueblo ban, which was done before the state wide ban, a year before the ban. It is all lies. They have never proven it. INC is correct, we are all going to die for one reason or another. The truth is there is no proof that SHS kills, there never has been, and as far as actually smoking, well that is a different issue. The issue on the ban has nothing to do with smoking, it is about SHS. It has closed hundreds of businesses, how healthy is that for the now unemployed? The government and the big Pharma's are the ones that benifit from the ban, not businesses or employees or the public for that matter. If you want the truth well just follow the money! We at the Coalition For Equal Rights have been fighting the ban since before it's conseption and have studied the truth. It should be the rights of the business owner to decide what is best for his business and there should be a choice. It can be posted and you can make a uniformed decision as to whether or not you want to patronize that establishment. I am tired of the lies and manipulation, not to mention the discrimination this has created. Look at the truth for once and not whether or not you want to be around cig. smoke. That is not a reason to ban something. Also ask yourself, if SHS is as dangerious as they put out then why is it legal? Also how have we survived all these years especially when smoking was at it's all time high?! This is pure hatred and propaganda. Don't worry though, they will, and are, be coming after everything else that is concidered "bad" for you because you don't know any better so they have to mother you.
January 1, 2009

7:01 a.m.

Suggest removal

Pagen writes:

There are lies, damn lies and statistics...
January 1, 2009

7:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Mike_In_Hartsel writes:

"New evidence suggests" is the first statement. "Suggests"? When an article begins like this grab your shorts.

Must be from the same people who claim "evidence suggests" there is "global warming" as well. Presently the daylight portion of every day is getting greater. "Evidence suggests" than soon there will no longer be any night.
January 1, 2009

8:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

ghoax writes:

bogus unsupported theory. Okay, heart attacks dropped, and yes Colorado enacted the fascist anti smoking laws, but, are the two connected? Of course the anti smoking crowd will say yes. One could also say that it was related to the economy as people didn't go out to eat as much, or butter use went down, or that due to energy costs driving everything up, stayed home, went for walks instead of driving. Once again, and just like the global warming hoax, observing a change does not mean one is causing it...observing the drop in heart attacks after the anti smoking laws kicked in does not necessarily mean the two are connected as the writer and the groups behind them suggest.

Point be made, the "evidence" isn't evidence, it's data they've formatted to attempt to support their flimsy theory. Using their methods, one could just as easily say that the anti smoking law caused the housing crisis, or joblessness, or was responsible for any other change that was observed during that time. more bogus nonsense passed off as news, science, yet nothing but agenda driven propaganda. People would do well to re read 1984 and just see the similarities these days.
January 1, 2009

9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Ginger writes:

Pagen fails to mention that two members of his Coalition for Equal Rights died recently within months of each other from lung cancer.
January 1, 2009

9:46 a.m.

Suggest removal

Pagen writes:

You are wrong Ginger!! Wayne Jakino had Pancreas Cancer and Allen Campbell died from Lou Gerrecks disease. Post the truth!
January 1, 2009

10:49 a.m.

Suggest removal

brogers writes:

Heart attacks are going down in states without smoking bans as well. The second year of Scotlands smoking ban showed that heart attacks went up.

http://tinyurl.com/66c393
January 1, 2009

10:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

Brain writes:

The "Peublo study"?? Why can't the article offer more info to WHO exactly did the study? I have read this at least 3 times and I can't find WHO actually did the study, Peublo?

I'm a non-smoker, I don't need government to ban something for me; I can make my own decisions on where I patronize and/or work.
January 1, 2009

11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

mandzoco writes:

The data may be true, however any study until replicated and achieving the same results is only a theory.

And if the results of this study are so true, why does our government still subsidize the tobacco farmers?

Wait, until someone does the study that proves just the opposite, probably be out next year.
January 1, 2009

11:43 a.m.

Suggest removal

brogers writes:

Results of the pueblo study are premature and based on shoddy science. Read all about it here.

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2...
January 1, 2009

2:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

ProfessorRichards writes:

A huge, glaring problem with this study is that, once again, the area studied is a relatively small one. It is very cherry-picked, which is all too typical of this type of study. When larger populations at the state level are studied there is no significant difference in heart attacks before and after smoking bans. Researchers David W. Kuneman and Michael J. McFadden discovered this in their 2005 study titled "Do Smoking Bans cause a 27 to 40% drop in admissions for myocardial infarction in hospitals?" Kuneman and McFadden looked at myocardial infarction in four states that have blanket, statewide smoking bans, specifically California, Florida, New York, and Oregon. To quote from their work: "California, Florida, New York and Oregon, which have bans, have a combined population of approximately 70,000,000 people… 350 times the population of that studied in Helena, (MT) and Pueblo, (CO). The number of AMIs examined in Helena and Pueblo combine to a total of about 315, the number of AMIs examined in the combined states studied here total over 315,000, i.e. 1,000 times the number examined in the combined jurisdictions of Helena and Pueblo." Based on Kuneman and McFadden's work, I would strongly suspect that CO as a whole will see no decrease in heart attacks.
January 1, 2009

2:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

ProfessorRichards writes:

The CO smoking ban is NOT legitimate to begin with. OSHA, the federal agency that regulates workplace safety, studied Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), secondhand smoke, for seven years and determined that the chemicals in ETS did not rise to dangerous levels in enclosed places under normal conditions. Due to this, the CO smoking ban essentially violates federal guidelines. I am still wondering what study the CO legislature conducted to contradict OSHA. http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadi...
January 1, 2009

3:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

We're heading to a public health model like the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Yes, Virginia, Nazi Germany had universal health care.

I miss smoking my Savinelli with Balkan Sobranie tobacco after a plate of elk and rattler at the Buckhorn. If I smoke on the deck now somone calls the swat team.
January 1, 2009

5:33 p.m.

Suggest removal

MichaelJMcFadden writes:

The link supplied by brogers to:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2...

does an excellent job of showing the sort of poor research and sheer propaganda that underlies most of these studies. For another good example all one has to do is visit the Grandaddy Heart Miracle Study of them all: the Helena study in the BMJ. Check out the Rapid Responses and see how over a dozen significant problems, questions, and defects are posed to the study authors and see how they've simply been ignored. See:

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/elette...

If these studies were legitimate the researchers behind them would be hopping right up to home plate in an instant to defend their work and answer the questions raised. Instead they've spent years wandering around the countryside, grabbing microphones and giving talks for probably very handsome "honorariums" touting their miraculous findings and pretending there's no serious questioning of them.

The fact that there was no separation of smokers and nonsmokers in most of these studies should raise an INSTANT red flag: when was the last time that anyone in this country ever had a heart attack where their smoking status wasn't made part of their medical record? What possible reason could there be for not including such basic data in the study? Simple: if the data had been included then the study's main conclusion (that bans protect nonsmokers from heart attacks) would have been invalidated and the grant money would have disappeared.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
January 1, 2009

6:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

44roger writes:

let's suppose for just a few minutes that this study was true and correct. now, would the next logical step for medics, politicians, non smokers, would be for them to call for a complete ban on tobacco in the state? think about the stories told here about Parents that smoke, siblings etc and how it affected them! there can be no reason whatsoever to not ban the stuff, be legal, same category as asbestos. As for fumes etc in work places, i worked as welder and Workman's comp came in and tested the air, and they said use better respirators. Boss said too high priced. So where is the justice, they can allow the smoke from welding, but no cigarette smoking? I quit the job, not so much because of the smoke, refused to go into the enclosed spaces, but because the rest of the place was unsafe. let's start a petition to ban tobacco, the state government will back us up with their studies right? All you politicians on board?
January 1, 2009

7:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

TruthIn2009 writes:

The Pueblo study was garbage. Just like the Scotland study that a few months ago hit every major news medial world wide, PROOF POSITIVE that smoking bans decline heart attack admissions. Problem is, LIKE THE PUEBLO STUDY, heart attack admission declined BEFORE the ban, as well as after, in Pueblo and Scotland. Funny thing is, the 2nd year after the Scotland study, it appears that heart attack admissions INCREASED. Using the Tobacco Control logic, does that mean that "Smoking Bans Cause Heart Attack Hospital Admissions to Increase"? Unfortunately, no retraction is ever printed nor do the medial who carried the original BIG MEDIA HYPE ever correct the information.
The University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine was given a grant for a study that concluded that the "source of research funding influences studies on health effects of ETS". They were trying to prove any tobacco funded money for research should be discredited. But have any of you done the research on how sinfully lucrative Tobacco Control is? The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded smoking bans. THEY gave $446,398,054 in grants to get smoking bans, create and fund Tobacco-Free Kids, to set up a foundation for Americans for NonSmokers Rights and, 99 million went to the ACS/ALA/AHA specifically for smoking bans (they called it "tobacco control"). When the grantees didn't move from education to "tobacco control", their funding was cut. TFK just got another 1.5 million to get taxes raised on cigarettes. What about the funding source? The RWJF (according to their 2006/2007 annual report) owned 3.7 million and 2.8 million shares of JnJ stock (9.58 Billion to 10.18 Billion in fixed income assets). JnJ profits from the sales of Nicorette, Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, Commit. As a side bar, the RWJF has dumped half a billion dollars into obesity. Guess who owns Splenda? Guess who owns Ethicon Endo bariatric surgery? A small amount invested based their returns.

The scientific community knows what’s going on. But the money is SO sinfully available and unending that they throw it away on “studies” just to have more studies like the one there for which there was a proposal out for to study the correlation? (I believe) between TB, Aids and tobacco. Can you believe it? Even more sinful is that while these meaningless studies are being done 1) the real CURE for diseases goes unfunded and unresearched and 2) the field of science sells out.
January 1, 2009

7:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

TruthIn2009 writes:

There are a few scientists who speak out about what’s really going on. Dr. Michael Siegel is a physician who specialized in preventive medicine and public health. He is a professor in the Social and Behavioral Sciences Department, Boston University, School of Public Health with 20 years’ experience in Tobacco Control. Here are his comments on the Scotland Study which, amazingly, applies to this article:

“First, this story demonstrates the dangers of science by press release. The conclusions from the Scotland smoking ban study have already been disseminated widely to the public and it is far too late to retract them. Even if the researchers were to issue a media advisory in which they noted that their conclusion has been disproved, it is unlikely that it would pick up enough media attention to undo the publicity created by the initial media coverage.

Second, this story demonstrates the significant bias inherent in research by the anti-smoking movement these days. This bias is so strong that researchers can apparently not wait until they have sufficient data to draw a reasonable conclusion. The desired conclusion has to be disseminated widely when it is still preliminary in order to create a media splash that cannot be reversed if the conclusions subsequently prove to be wrong.

Third, this story demonstrates that the anti-smoking movement does not really care about the truth: it cares mostly about producing favorable evidence to support its conclusions. When the original studies came out (both the unpublished study and the published article), anti-smoking groups issued press releases and did everything they could to generate media attention about the study conclusions. Now that these conclusions have proven to be wrong, anti-smoking groups are not publicizing the error of the study. They are not issuing press releases to report these new data and to update the public with the accurate conclusion of the study. Nor are they going to do so.

I will go through the usual motions of disseminating my commentary throughout the movement, to all the key groups which have issued what turns out to be false, preliminary conclusions. But these groups are not going to do anything to correct the damage that has been done through the dissemination of these inaccurate conclusions.

You see - it doesn't really matter anyway. This is the tobacco control movement and since it is all for a good cause, there really isn't damage done by disseminating false scientific conclusions. Thus, it doesn't need to be corrected. After all, this is no longer about scientific accuracy or scientific integrity. This isn't about the truth. It's about producing favorable evidence to support the policy agenda of the anti-smoking movement.”

There's a man with ethics.
January 1, 2009

7:47 p.m.

Suggest removal

TruthIn2009 writes:

"The RWJF (according to their 2006/2007 annual report) owned 3.7 million and 2.8 million shares of JnJ stock (9.58 Billion to 10.18 Billion in fixed income assets)"

Correction** that is the VALUE of the stock. The shares were 55,583,308 and 42,343,491 respectively.
January 1, 2009

7:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

INC writes:

so whats the correlation between unemployment and suicide again?

freeman2night,
aside from the inference of your screen name to ma5turbation. It was your boy G. Dubya Bush that expressed a desire to be the "dictator".

you can soon simply call President Obama, "Sir".
January 1, 2009

8:02 p.m.

Suggest removal

brogers writes:

Well, freeman2night, here is a follow up from out late friend George Carlin.

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/video/6...
January 1, 2009

8:27 p.m.

Suggest removal

HopiMedicineMan writes:

It’s not that we’re living longer, we’re dying longer. You call this living? What’s next, the government-mandated diet? Seriously, it never ends. Banning the Southwestern diet is next.
January 1, 2009

8:48 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

this issue is very easy to put into perspective.

no one has the "right", nor is "free", to give the people around them cancer. furthermore no employer has the right to provide an unsafe work environment...which includes the presence of asbestos, benzine and/or secondhand smoke.
January 1, 2009

9:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

brogers writes:

JAY, have you actually read anything today on this forum?
January 1, 2009

10:10 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

yeah, brogers, other than the usual right wing attempts to discount the science embraced by the US Centers for Disease Control, i see a lot of the same apologistic rhetoric we always see on this issue.
January 1, 2009

11:25 p.m.

Suggest removal

MichaelJMcFadden writes:

Jay, are you saying that no employer has the right to subject their employees to such Class A Carcinogens as sunlight (as in patio dining areas) or ethyl alcohol fumes ( See "Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths" in the BMJ at :

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7...

for a full discussion of THAT issue! )

Remember, awnings and sunscreen provide only partial protection from the deadly rays of the sun. And ventilation may reduce the concentration of alcohol fumes in the air, but it can not eliminate them.

And, most importantly, you must remember that there is NO SAFE LEVEL of exposure to these carcinogens.

Now, do *I* believe that patio dining, alcohol service at restaurants, and indoor smoking should all be banned? Of course not. I'm not crazy.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
January 2, 2009

1:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

RideWinter writes:

MichaelJMcFadden:
The smoking ban is saving many thousands of lives, and the taxpayers of Colorado billions of dollars in health care costs. Comparing smoking to sunlight is ridiculous and shows the desperation of your argument. And all of those asserting that a blog posting on blogspot.com is as credible as a CDC study are desperate as well.
January 2, 2009

3:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

psydoc writes:

The first thing you should realize is that research such as described in this article does not PROVE anything, nor is it intended to. Research conclusions may SUPPORT a theory, but that only applies to the ingredients included in the project to start with. This pathetic "research" fails to mention, or take into consideration apparently, other conditions that may or may not contribute to heart attacks. For instance, participant diet, exercise program, genetics, and even overall air quality for the area (smog). Whether I smoke or I don't smoke, I do have the right to conduct business in my own establishment as I choose, within reason. If my customers don't like it, there are other businesses for them to patronize. That is their choice. Employees that do not like the environment do not have to work for me. There are other bussinesses where they can work. Someone attempting to tell me how to operate my business is no different that the issues of immigrants from other countries coming to the US and complaining things are different than they were in their former home. Give me a break. I laughed until I hurt when the wise sages banned all smoking at the foot ball stadium. Now thousands of people can happily sit for hours in a healthy cloud of automobile exhaust generated by the hundreds of autos creeping along next to them on the interstate. What are they going to do next, ban driving in the vicinity of the stadium during game hours??? When articles such as the one being discussed here, people need to pay attention to what they are reading, and do so with a critical eye. Of course, it is apparent from some of these responses that is not a common practice.
January 2, 2009

8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

toocool writes:

SO ?
January 2, 2009

12:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

jay writes:

is that the best rationalization for your "right" to give other folks cancer, mcfadden?!?

i would have thought that you'd have a better argument than the pathetic sunlight exposure and bourbon fumes talking point.
January 2, 2009

2:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

CarolT writes:

It's all a lie. I'm just putting the finishing touches on my new graph, using data downloaded from the CDC, which depicts how the death rates from acute myocardial infarction actually ROSE during the year after the smoking ban. I suppose you didn't notice that those anti-smoker frauds only claimed that the rates of HOSPITALIZATION for AMI declined, and failed to realize that they could create a false impression of a decline merely by being too free with admissions [and raking in extra money for it] beforehand, and then magically reduce the admission rate by tightening up the policy.

Actually, when this rerun came in, I was just putitng the finishing touches on my new graph, using data downloaded from the Scottish NHS, showing how the admissions from acute coronary syndrome increased a couple of months after their study period ended. So it will be a double treat.
January 2, 2009

6:44 p.m.

Suggest removal

MichaelJMcFadden writes:

My, my... I seem to have stepped on some bunions here. :>

RC, care to define my relationship with Big Tobacco? Care to do it under your own name and back it up? Anonymous libel is always so much more fun though, isn't it? While you're at it, post a few of the links you mention so other folks can see my debunking and humiliation... otherwise they might think you're making it up. :>

Jay, I gather you don't actually HAVE any counterarguments to my "sunlight and bourbon fumes" points then? If you do, please let us hear them.

RideWinter, as Dr. Elizabeth Whelan of the Center for Science in the Public Interest has pointed out in relation to New York's ban, it's questionable whether the bans have saved ANY lives, much less "thousands." That argument is about as valid as the "savings" of "billions" of dollars in health care costs for Colorado taxpayers. Tell you what, I've laid out my arguments on how smokers subsidize NONsmokers' health care costs (rather than the other way around) quite clearly and in detail, backed up by references, in "Taxes, Costs, and the MSA" at cantiloper.tripod.com . Why don't you take a whack at giving some specific, substantive criticisms of points made there while also sharing your own source for the "billions" of dollars the Colorado ban is saving its taxpayers.

I look forward to informative responses from all of you.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
January 2, 2009

8:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

brogers writes:

LOL! I am sitting on pins and needles to read an actual intelligent response to the prior post. I read Michael J. McFaddens book 'Dissecting Antismokers' Brains' a few years ago. It is an incredibly good read and is very telling. One can go through life with their eyes closed or take a challenge that will open them forever. Still waiting for an intelligent response however.
January 2, 2009

11:53 p.m.

Suggest removal

MichaelJMcFadden writes:

Well BRogers, I guess you've seen the extent of RC's "specific, substantive criticism" of my points. :> I"m not quite certain what the BwucieWatson post was supposed to illustrate though.

Of course to be fair, since sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, I guess we'll just have to admit that he's "an unpaid lobbyist" or "shill" for the NicoGummyPatchyProductPeople. On the other hand, given some of the knowledge he DOES display in his posts, we might want to wonder about that "unpaid" status. Of course since he's anonymous no one will ever know.

Let's see if Jay or Windrider do better.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
January 3, 2009

10:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

MichaelJMcFadden writes:

LOL! Reality Check does do wonders for himself, doesn't he? Taking a rather tongue in cheek quote from me, "I guess by virtue of my opinions some could say I am an unpaid lobbyist." and truncating it into "I am an unpaid lobbyist" is a wonderful example of the sort of language trickery used by smoking ban supporters.

Perfect RC.

:>
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
January 3, 2009

3:26 p.m.

Suggest removal

CarolT writes:

Here's the graph, based on CDC data, showing that DEATH rates from acute myocardial infarction actually ROSE in Pueblo County during the year after the smoking ban.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etshear...
January 3, 2009

8 p.m.

Suggest removal

brogers writes:

I am a bit astounded by the nonsense posted by the anti's in response to logic. Thus far the responses I have seen are from rather immature people who basically know nothing.

I do hope that anti's realize that we 'freedom of choice people' will not go away. We will not cave in to social engineering tactics of Big Pharma and anti-tobacco neurotics. Adequate and proper ventilation is not rocket science and is a perfect solution for whatever ails your nose. Do not expect us to diasappear anytime soon. In fact the numbers of sensible people are catching onto your bogus nonsense. We are not whiners by any stretch of the imagination. We just know right from wrong.
January 3, 2009

8:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

brogers writes:

Thank you CarolT for posting that link. I doubt the anti tobacco skinheads read a word of it. I did. Michael McFadden, you are doing an excellent job at trying to explain reality to people who are having extreme difficulty with comprehension. Scratching my head and wondering what is to become of America.
January 3, 2009

8:39 p.m.

Suggest removal

MichaelJMcFadden writes:

So RC melts down, and Jay and RideWinter both rode off into the sunset... at least for the moment.

Ahhh wellll...

:>
MJM
January 7, 2009

5:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

MichaelJMcFadden writes:

I'm sad to see Reality Check's postings gone. If this was done by the News I can sort of see why you might have felt his comments dragged down the level of discourse, but it would have been better to have left them. It is that sort of behavior that shows people what the antismoking movement is all about and how poorly their arguments are based. Namecalling, talking about bathroom functions, even minor samplings of sheer hate are all things of the last resort of those who have no argument and it's good to have them out in public for all to see.

I've had to suffer a good deal of censorship over the years on this issue. The Topix News Chain wiped out over three hundred of my postings (two years' worth) last February with the excuse that I was "spamming" because I identified myself and my potential conflict of interest by posting a link to my biography page. I don't wish censorship on anyone as long as they are not outright promoting violence or being overtly obscene. Even those who post hate against a minority group probably do more in the way of alerting people to the danger than they do to building a base for themselves.

That being said, I recognize that it *is* your site, and you obviously can set the rules as the host. And, as always, I appreciate your offering a forum for dissenting views.

Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Home › News › Local News

Heart attacks expected to decline due to Colorado law on smoking

By Bill Scanlon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published December 31, 2008 at 2:46 p.m.

More Local News

Share

Comments

Featured

Columns & Blogs