Moose Club Smoking Ban is Doing the Right Thing

The local Moose Club has banned smoking inside its facility – and is the first private club in this city to do so.

As such, it is setting a great example and one, frankly, that was long overdue.

Revere’s private clubs cannot flagrantly go against federal and state laws aimed at prohibiting smoking in public places and in private places as well.

Smoking remains an issue for all those who continue to smoke cigarettes but for the majority of people in our society, smoking is already passé and most people who do not smoke are greatly bothered by those who do.

It is also a health issue, obviously.

Those who do not smoke tend to be healthier than those who do.

We congratulate the Moose Club for banning smoking inside its premises.

The club has done the right thing.

It has set an example that should be followed uniformly by every private club in this city.

11 comments for “Moose Club Smoking Ban is Doing the Right Thing

  1. harleyrider1989
    August 9, 2012 at 11:32 am

    I am a Texan for 22 years, a 36 year physician, specializing inemergency medicine. I am familiar with the public health science onsecond hand smoke. I can say with confidence that second hand smokemay irritate some, but it does not kill. Those claiming thousands ofdeaths from second hand smoke to the public are deceitful for apolitical goal.
    Public Health Studies cited by the Cancer Society and the SurgeonGeneral that claim thousands of deaths from second hand smoke areweak, cherry-picked studies. Their supporters compound their perfidyby ignoring studies by the World Health Organization (Buffetta 1998in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), Stranges, 2006 inArchives of Internal Medicine and Enstrom 2003 in The British MedicalJournal, that show no second hand smoke effect.
    In science, one study that disproves a scientific theory is moreimportant than a pile of studies that are slightly positive. Anti-smoking advocates and fanatics ignore that basic rule and ignore anystudy they don’t like. They are propagandists, not scientists.
    The crusaders are willing to do anything and say anything aboutsecond hand smoke, including making public statements about thousandsof deaths from second hand smoke. Those claims are multifarious andduplicitous—they are lies. Second hand smoking, even for the spouseof a smoker is one cigarette or less per day—which has no effect.The second hand smoke scare is a phantom menace conjured up by theHigh Holy Church of Smoke Haters to support the anti smokingcrusade…
    Smoking Bans violate the Ohio tradition of mind your own business.If the Ohio General Assembly thinks it has a role in telling peoplehow to live, they should get a Divinity Degree and find acongregation. Folks in Ohio can easily avoid second hand smoke, andemployment in a bar or restaurant is voluntary. Smoking is legal.Avoiding smoke is easy.
    John Dale Dunn MD JD
    Policy AdvisorAmerican Council on Scienceand Health,NYC, and the Heartland Institute, Chicago.

  2. genebbb
    August 9, 2012 at 5:35 pm

    Harleyrider is the infamous spammer/tobacco farmer from Kentucky, the one who has been kicked off nearly every msg board in the US due to his boilerplate regurgitation of cherry-picked studies, tobacco-funded organizations’ op-eds and his pals’ blogs–none of which refute the data from reputable, open, peer-reviewed studies on the harms of secondhand smoke by real people with real educations, real expertise. Google “harleyrider” for tens of thousands of messages. See what he says about _primary_ smoking.

    Of course, Dr. Einstein/harley never DARES to show up at any actual hearings to “enlighten” legislators.

    There’s plenty of debate in science–that’s where harley gets some of his cherry-picked items from. That’s how science works, it’s not monolithic. But for Harley, all studies that would reflect ill on smoking are “junk,” and all those that don’t are the Gold Standard. And that’s true for all tobacco issues–cancer, heart disease, addiction, taxes, teen smoking, smoking bans, you name it. Whenever you see such a towering, monolithic agenda, you know it’s a sham.

    No, this is no “debate,” it’s a campaign, a full-on PR assault, and it’s run exactly the same as any fanatical, conspiracy-theory cabal would run theirs: Birthers, 9/11 Plot advocates, JFK assassination nuts, Holocaust Deniers, and yes, Flat Earthers. Can you imagine where normal local message boards would be if these groups descended upon every story that mentioned JFK, or flying “around” the world? Not a pretty sight. And, in the same way, what we have here is as ugly.

    One thing to be said for harley’s bugaboo, the heinous, evil tobacco control–at least they don’t engage in this sort of wholesale, message-board-destroying spam. 

    In 2005, after hearing 6 years of the best cherry-picking tobacco lawyers could muster, Federal Judge Gladys Kessler, found, in a decision recently upheld by the Supreme Court:

    “Evidence of the health risks of passive smoking is derived from many sources. It comes from knowledge of the health risks of active smoking, the carcinogenicity and toxicity of the components in mainstream and sidestream smoke, the evidence that nonsmokers absorb the disease-causing components of tobacco smoke, and epidemiological studies that have assessed the association of passive exposure to tobacco smoke with disease outcomes.”

  3. JackSprattcould
    August 10, 2012 at 6:28 am

    On the back and forth: to genebb: what’s it to you ?
     Do you go to the Moose Club?Is someone blowing smoke in your face all day every day? Why do you find it necessary to try to refute the obvious?Some of my best friends are dead; they did not smoke cigarettes nor were subject to household, so called, “2nd hand smoke”.Everyone avoids Death in their own way: some don’t bungee jump orswim in shark waters.  Others don’t ride motorcycles helmet-less or drive drunk.Is  DYING the issue ?  Or is it a money grubbing attempt by drug companies?To each his own.  

  4. harleyrider1989
    August 10, 2012 at 9:28 am

    Really Gene lets see what real scientists say about direct smoking;

    JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS” 7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18 November 2004.
    “5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke – induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease.”
    In other words … our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can’t even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact … we don’t even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
    The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.

  5. harleyrider1989
    August 10, 2012 at 9:29 am

    In 1991 NIOSH { OSHA’ research group} Looked into ETS although at the time they recommended reducing ETS exposure they found the studies lacking.
    NIOSH recognizes that these recent epidemiological studies have several shortcomings: lack of objective measures for charachterizing and quantifying exposures,failures to adjust for all confounding variables,potential misclassification of ex-smokers as non-smokers,unavailability of comparison groups that have not been exposed to ETS, and low statistical power.
    Research is needed to investigate the following issues:
    1. More acurate quantification of the increased risk of lung cancer associated with ETS exposure,including determination of other contributing factors[e.g.,occupational exposures]that may accentuate the risk.
    2.Determination of the concentration and distributuion of ETS components in the workplace to help quantify the risk for the U.S. working population.
    a.The association of ETS exposure with cancer other than lung cancerb.The relationship between ETS exposure and cardiovascular diseasec.The relationship between ETS exposure and nonmalignant resporatory diseases such asthma,bronchitis and emphysema, andthe effects of ETS on lung function and respiratory systemsc. Possible mechanisms of ETS damage to the cardiovascular system,such as platelet aggravation,increased COHb leading to oxygen depravation,or damage to endotheliumd.Effects of workplace smoking restrictions on the ETS exposure of nonsmokersand ETS-related health effects in nonsmokers
    After ten years of no conclusive research and lack of studies that didn’t eliminate the bias OSHA decided that the studies did not have substance and here is there present policy.
    Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS)
    Because the organic material in tobacco doesn’t burn completely, cigarette smoke contains more than 4,700 chemical compounds. Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.

  6. harleyrider1989
    August 10, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Rendez-vous with . . . Gene Borio
    Webmaster of  tobacco-org
    New York , NY , USA
    By Philippe Boucher
    I funded my own activities out of my computer work and savings for 10 years. It got rough. I would receive small contributions from terrific people with no more to spare than I had. I well remember my first significant donation of $250 from the wonderful folks at Americans for Non-Smokers’ Rights! I had to turn down a couple of major contributions from the industry. When I was on the brink of having to abandon TBBS in 1999, Tac chipped in hugely to support the work. In 2000 the ALF picked up support, and now we are to receive funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

    yep right from genes own mouth he admits getting funding from the robert woods johnson foundation

  7. Kevin Mulvina
    August 10, 2012 at 3:55 pm

    Some people believe we have individual rights and freedom. Others only see what privileges should be allowed.

    It should be pretty easy to recognize, and judge them accordingly.

  8. Kevin Mulvina
    August 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm

     There is no debate because the doomsayers and finger wags haven’t the kahunas to talk on topic without attacking their opponent to sideline the facts. If there is science show us, if there are bodies show us the names. If you are talking horiscopes and hexes have the integrity to admit it.

    There is no sufficient cause for smoking bans, when the Government can prescribe a sign as all the protection a grown person needs. Leaving our autonomous choices and our rights to free speech, exactly where they belong in the more capable hands, our hands where they belong.

    No Government has ever been seen on this planet that can finance the “precautionary principle” protecting us against all and every risk and none will ever be seen. Because the range of topics is too vast and we haven’t enough population on the planet to staff the offices required to deal with it all. Just looking at how many hired hands we have just to handle what little is being tended at the moment, this should give an idea of the scale of such a fanatical agenda. Budget shortfalls could be repaired tomorrow, by eliminating the funding of domestic terrorists, as omnipotent purveyors of risk instead to concentrate on real dangers and  harms that actually exist. Treatments and sheep hearding, is not leading us to cures. It leads instead to insane government activities and fearful oppression, as we saw the last time this medical “protection” racket was popular. Politicians actually pretended to smoke, to defy Hitler.

    Isn’t it time to bring this de-humanist ignorance and hatred to heal?

  9. Kevin Mulvina
    August 10, 2012 at 4:37 pm

    Good old genebbb still trying to hawk his fiction writing and delusions, while roaming around town like a prostitute in heat, begging for a larger share of  money that was stolen from others.

    Stan can say it all, as long as he doesn’t have to take responsibility for anything.


    Here is the problem, his decades long promotions and terrorist acts actually cause a level of confirmed mortality, far in excess of what might be possible and more likely might not, by extreme lifetime exposures to leftover smoke, with so few actually at risk. So who should we convict for that costly mistake? 
    Himself, or the brain dead politicians, who drank his pond-scum swill?

  10. smokefree1988
    August 12, 2012 at 12:19 am

    Did you say Heartland Institute? Enstrom? Why not throw something in from ALEC?

    Please stop. It’s just so laughable. Do you think that readers are that naive?

    A review of  the documents that Industry was forced to divulge will clearly show the connection of Heartland and ALEC with the federal racketeers.

    I’m surprised your other three denial-at-all- cost compadres Johnson, Davidson and McFadden have not appeared here yet. They usually join up with you on clogging up all the local media outlets comments that run a story about progressive measures to restrict smoking in their local venue.  Don’t they? Well, give them time. They will get to this source soon.

  11. harleyrider1989
    August 12, 2012 at 3:46 pm

    First whatever Big tobacco did to be so called racketeers sounds like gangsters from the 1930s the way you paraphrase it! In fact RICO charges are being brought against smokefree coalitions across the nation as we speak! Hope your not to deeply involved in the Grant and non-profit illegalities going on or we will see your name with the other federal indictments likely to come in the year ahead!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.