Editorial kudos!!

[aerospeed]

A tip of the hat to the Editor for a concise and well presented editorial dated 18 November. It demonstrates why the battle cannot be won based on "rights," constitutional or otherwise. The courts have spoken and we smokers do not have "rights" when it comes down to it. We had better get busy where is *can* matter and that is the junk science debate.

Someone wrote, perhaps it was in this forum, that we need to find a writer who can expose the whole junk science issue and those behind it and their motives. Such a book, if it were to become a best seller, could do much to take the "junk science" and shine the light of truth on it. Or maybe this is something best done by 60 Minutes or one of its ilk.

Best regards,
Jim

[Harlow]

I second Aerospeed's kudos to Forces on the Nov. 18th editorial, reminding us all that it is indeed the science (or lack thereof) upon which smokers are attacked and it is science which is needed as the tool of enlightenment. I am trying to compile as many print-out scientific reports as I possibly can which are credible and esteemed. Help me out, forces members, as I need them by Dec. 11th to take to the Madison City Council meeting. Of course, I have many copies of Dr. Entroms report but need more. Post the link when you find them. Thank you. I, too, am researching constantly.

[gilster]

Harlow - you've checked "And they call this science" section on the start page - right?

Also highly recommend burning issues.
http://burningissues.org/

Use their research on wood smoke vs cigarette smoke.
Will the Council ban fireplaces? Push them on it...If they don't - they can't ban smoking. It would be discriminatory.

Check real estate listings in Madison City - should be able to sort by ammenities - search by fireplaces - will they also enforce telling the home sellers they must rip out their valuable fireplaces?

Check restaurants that have the 'cozy' fireplace in the dining rooms - those also create simular carcinogens and should be eliminated- should they not?

Use their interpretation of the science against them - and use the correct interpretation of the science to give them an out.

I used all the reports, including Enstroms at one of my town meetings against the Health Board - they handled me as a 'layperson' --one of them went as far as saying he knows how to read scientific reports and I don't.

I asked him if he had read them - no response - I was a hostile speaker to them and they passed it anyways - I was the only one challenging the science - everyone else was on liberty and rights.

Get more than yourself to challenge the science - gang up on the subject.
Make them prove they have read the reports and not just the headlines. Split up the reports to different speakers - don't cross studies - prepare statements for each speaker -

One thing I would like to find:
Each reports headline - and a quick blurb of the actual reports correct findings vs that headline.

Highly recommend Dr Siegel's blog and Marcus Aurelius' blog

Have someone review the Belmont CA new ruling - will your town council go that far also? Ask them.

And before the meeting - talk to as many people as possible about the Madison ruling - get fire under these people to take back their rights before it's too late

[Harlow]

Thank you very much Glister. Getting to work on it right away.