BRITISH COLUMBIA:
ENOUGH WITH LIES AND PERSECUTION

Excerpt from article...

"Still, the antismoking crusaders forge ahead.

"There is no age exemption to our laws. It's still creating a hazard," said Dr. Richard Stanwick, director of clinical information for the CRD and most vehement defender of the bylaw.

Health Canada has declared environmental tobacco a Class A carcinogen like benzene and asbestos. It is known to cause cancer in humans - and hospitality- industry workers face a significantly elevated cancer risk when compared to the general population.

"How can you plead for sympathy when you are a lawbreaker?" Dr. Stanwick asks."

(The Globe and Mail, 22 February 1999)

______________________________________

Dr. Stanwick,

On what specific grounds (other than political) has Health Canada classified environmental tobacco smoke as a Class A carcinogen? It is my understanding that no more than 8 months ago a US Federal Court has ruled that this classification is to be vacated by the US EPA because it is based on biased junk science.

Dr. Stanwick, how far are you, and the health "establishment" willing to prostitute science to satisfy your puritanical crusade? How far are you willing to infringe on decency and tolerance, not to mention human rights, to satisfy your and your likes' thirst for absolute social control?

No causality whatsoever has ever been established between environmental tobacco smoke and any of the many diseases attributed to it.

You cannot create an oppressive law and expect the targets of that law to obey it blindly, just because it is the law. You and your like are not entitled to brand decent tax-paying citizens as lawbreakers because they don't obey laws that are oppressive, and based on lies. Conversely, you and your like should understand that when citizens who normally obey any law decide to break this one, they are sending you a clear message: "We will not take your garbage anymore." Yes, it is true that the state can brutally enforce any law, simply because it has the manpower and the armed forces -- but that does not make the law fair: it just creates fear among the citizens.

Is it fear that you are counting on in order to have the population comply with a law that is wrong, and based on junk science and puritanical contempt, Mr. Stanwick? Even with your "authority" you cannot prove any of your clinical claims, no matter how many titles you have in front of your name, sir.

To reach legal TLV poison levels from sidestream smoke (the most "powerful" secondhand smoke) a passive smoker locked in a 22' x 21' x 8'; 3,696 cubic feet room without any ventilation whatsoever must be exposed to the equivalent of the following amounts of cigarettes for each of the most "abundant" and greatly advertised (but never quantified) poisons in ETS:

For Methylchloride:		1,170 cigarettes
For Acetaldehyde:		1,430 cigarettes
For Nitrogen oxide:		1,780 cigarettes
For Phenol:		7,600 cigarettes
For Benzene:		13,300 cigarettes
For Dimetylamine:		50,000 cigarettes
For Benzo(a)pyrene:		222,000 cigarettes
For Polonium:	750,000 cigarettes
For Toluene:	1,000,000 cigarettes
(Gori and Mantel, 1991)

With just some ventilation, the cigarette-equivalency required to reach TLV levels increases dramatically. Furthermore, a non-smoker exposed to second-hand smoke inhales the following, when compared to an active smoker:

ACTIVE SMOKER

30 cigarettes per day

15 mg RSP inhaled per cigarette

90% lung retention efficiency

DAILY DOSE INHALED: about 400 mg

ETS EXPOSED NON-SMOKER

0.05 mg RSP/cubic meter of air

1.5 hours per day exposure (*)

0.7 cubic meters per hour inhaled

10% lung retention efficiency

DAILY DOSE INHALED: about 0.00525 mg

(*) USOSHA, 1994; Emmonst et al., 1992

If exposed 8 full hours: DAILY DOSE INHALED: 0.0279 mg.

CRUDE DOSE RATIO if exposed 1.5 hours 0.00525 : 400 = about 1 : 75,000

CRUDE DOSE RATIO if exposed 8.0 hours 0.02790 : 400 = about 1 : 14,062

I don't know if you understand what the above means:

A non-smoker exposed to secondhand smoke for 1.5 hrs a day inhales 75,000 times less than the 30-cigs per day smoker, or the equivalent of:

That means that a worker exposed 365 days a year to 8 full hours of second hand smoke is exposed to the equivalent of about 0.7 cigarettes in the full year.

A non-smoker going to a restaurant where smoking is allowed every single day of the year for 1.5 hours a day inhales the equivalent of 0.146 cigarettes (0.0004 x 365). That means that to inhale the equivalent of one full cigarette, that non-smoking patron will have to go to the restaurant every single day of the year for 6.84 years, or about 2,500 days.

Even antismoking EPA (whose "science" is politically motivated to the point that its ETS Class A Carcinogen classification has been vacated by a Federal Court) has declared that 1 cigarette PER DAY is of no consequence to health even if directly smoked.

You are lying, Mr. Stanwick, when you talk about the "dangers" of secondhand smoke -- or perhaps you are utterly incompetent: either way, you and your like cannot be trusted as people, and even less as government.

What you state on ETS makes no sense to the layperson, never mind to honest science. Your government tries to win the battle against public smoking with brutal repression because it knows it cannot possibly win it as long as logic and real science are applied.

And please, DO NOT DARE to judge citizens that are fighting against a fascist law, Mr. Stanwick: you and your government simply do not have the moral stature.

Gian Turci
FORCES INTERNATIONAL

____________________________
cc: