## The Hidden Antismokers

Yesterday I was thinking how pathological antismoker Ken Austin had written how much non-smokers loathed and despised smokers, and how this wasn’t true. Because it’s not non-smokers who loathe smokers: it’s antismokers who do. There’s a difference.

Antismokers always pretend that they speak for the entire non-smoking majority. And they make out that non-smokers share their irrational fear and hatred of smoke and smoking and smokers. And this isn’t the case. Most non-smokers don’t give a damn about smoking.

I often wonder what fraction of the population are antismokers, and what fraction are tolerant non-smokers, as well as what fraction are smokers. I wondered if it might be possible to get some insight into this question. And it was this that set me off on a mathematical quest yesterday.

It was one that I didn’t complete, and so I ended up last night posting up what I’d found out so far. Today I returned to the question, and found an answer. Or at least a way of finding out the answer.

I’ll try and be brief, and set up the problem as a mathematical puzzle:

A pub-going population is divided into 3 groups of people. There are the smokers who make up a fraction Fs of the the population, and the tolerant non-smokers who make up another fraction Fns, and the remainder is composed of antismokers who comprise a fraction Fas.

When they are in pubs, these groups all consume alcohol at the same rate, Cs. Prior to a pub smoking ban being introduced, all the smokers and non-smokers go and drink in smoky pubs, but none of the antismokers do, because they’re terrified of smoke.

When a pub smoking ban is introduced, a lot of the smokers stop going to pubs. All the non-smokers carry on going to pubs, and they drink at the same rate as before. But now all the antismokers join them in the pubs (after the third hand smoke has been scrubbed off everything), and also drink the same amount.

Given that smokers make up 20% of the population, and that 30% of them stop going to pubs after smoking bans are introduced, and that pub alcohol consumption falls to 95% of its pre-ban level, what is Fas, the fraction of antismokers in the population?

Well, we can write 3 equations. First says that the sum of the fractions adds up to 1.

Fs + Fns + Fas = 1

We know Fs is 0.2, so we know that Fas = 0.8 – Fns.          —————-( 1 )

The second equation we can write is for alcohol consumption before the ban:

Fs . Cs + Fns . Cs + Fas . Cs = 1

We know that Fs = 0.2,  and we also know that Fas . Cs = 0. So this equation becomes

0.2 . Cs + Fns . Cs = 1                                                               —————–( 2 )

And we also know that after the ban, and only 70% of smokers still go to pubs, and all the antismokers go to the ‘smoke-free’ pubs, yet alcohol consumption falls to 0.95 of its previous level. So we can say

0.7 . 0.2 . Cs + Fns . Cs + Fas . Cs = 0.95                               —————–( 3 )

Do we have enough information to find out the values of Cs, Fns, and Fas? Most likely we do, because we have three simultaneous equations with three unknowns. And if we use equation (1)’s value of Fas in equation (3), we get

0.7 . 0.2 . Cs + Fns . Cs + (0.8 – Fns) . Cs = 0.95

simplifying, 0.7 . 0.2 . Cs + 0.8 . Cs = 0.95, and Cs = 0.95 / 0.94 = 1.01064

If we use this value of Cs in equation (2) we get

0.2 . 1.01064 + Fn . 1.01064 = 1

and so Fns = 0.79, or 79%.

and Fas = 0.01 or 1%.

So, in answer to the question, the fraction of the population who are antismokers is 1%. Which wouldn’t have been immediately obvious, particularly if they had been kicking up a terrific fuss.

This has just been a mathematical exercise, and its results don’t mean very much, but I hope it shows one way in which the size of the hidden antismoking population might be assessed and highlighted. It might also be suggested that instead of just asking people in surveys whether they are smokers or non-smokers, they ought to be asked if they are antismokers as well. And at the moment they aren’t.

It might also help if a few of the tolerant non-smokers started complaining that, just because they don’t smoke, that doesn’t mean they are smokophobic antismokers.

Aside from all that, for the last few days I’ve had an old gospel song that I first heard 40 or 50 years ago playing vividly in the back of my mind. It’s very well known, and is called Precious Memories. But I couldn’t remember on what album I heard it back then. It could have been Johnny Cash, or Johnny Horton, or maybe even Gene Pitney or Marty Robbins.

So I went looking for it on YouTube, and found quite a few versions of it, including Waylon Jennings’ version, which I first heard 25 years ago, and isn’t the one I was looking for.

And then I stumbled across Christina Sherard’s version of it, backed by the Black History Choir. As far as I could see, Christina Sherard is the latest incarnation of Tina Turner (who also had gospel roots), but with added raw vocal power. She also happens to be Miss Macon, Georgia, in the Miss America contest.

In the video, she starts out as the one standing on the left in the little black dress and stiletto heels, and she doesn’t fire up for the first half minute or so, And then her first microphone fails on her. But once she finds a better one, it’s lift-off with all 27 Saturn V engines at full thrust. It’s just a shame that the amateur video only lasts 2 minutes and 10 seconds. It’s 2 minutes and 10 seconds too short.

I must’ve listened to it about 30 times today, and even found a YouTube repeat player carrying it. And the amazing thing is that there’s absolutely nothing else anywhere by her on the web (that I can find):

Anyway, here she is. I think she should be a star.

smoker
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

### 38 Responses to The Hidden Antismokers

1. When I started seriously posting online about smoking almost thirty years ago (on Q-Link, Compuserve, Prodigy, and some local BBS boards) the Antis were just starting to make a big deal about ID’g themselves as simply being “nonsmokers” in an attempt to identify their own views with being those held by 75% of the population. As soon as I realized what they were doing I began to make a very serious effort to *ALWAYS* refer to them as Antismokers, AND to capitalize Antismokers to show that they were indeed a very special and distinct group, so separate from the general run of humanity as to deserve a capitalized and specialized title all of their own. “antismoking” on the other hand is just an adjective, so it’s not capitalized.

At that time, a lot of smokers were falling for the Antis’ ruse and in their postings they’d lash out at “nonsmokers” — and I’d always take time for a special post explaining the difference between the two whenever I saw that happening.

Other folks picked up on it, and I think we’ve been successful: Antismokers is pretty well recognized nowadays, and very few folks mix up Antis and Nons anymore. Their efforts to claim to be just the ordinary nonsmoking majority aren’t taken seriously by anyone out there at this point except themselves.

– MJM

• Reinhold says:

Other folks picked up on it, and I think we’ve been successful: Antismokers is pretty well recognized nowadays, and very few folks mix up Antis and Nons anymore.

I think so too.
In other languages it developed equally.

2. Junican says:

I very much agree with MJM. Initially, I did not know that there was an organised ‘anti-smoking’ industry. I knew of only two groups – smokers and non-smokers. It might even have been MJM who woke me up to the existence of ‘anti-smokers’. That was quite a shock, because I did not realise that there was a malevolent entity out there, which we now know of as the ‘Tobacco Control Industry’. This Industry is a real thing and took over 30 years for the anti-smokers to set up.
I suspect that only a very few people control the Industry – most of the people involved are just employees in NGOs and such. But what confuses the situation is the people who comment on newspaper sites and such. I suspect that those people are sadly deficient in the way they live and jealous of anyone who has a good time. These are the people who complete survey questionnaires. Demanding new persecutions gives them a sense of POWER!

• Reinhold says:

Demanding new persecutions gives them a sense of POWER!

Yes, and using them you can rule a whole nation or even an entire empire for a thousand years.
Or maybe about 994 years less, but a whole lot of unpleasant time.

• harleyrider1978 says:

Ahh but its the 4th Reich they are claiming now!

• beobrigitte says:

I did not know that there was an organised ‘anti-smoking’ industry.
I didn’t know this, either. I knew about some obsessed people trying to ban tobacco and smoking, but since non-smokers never objected to sitting with me in the pubs, I just had these anti-smokers down as a bunch of “weirdos”.
Whilst I thought of them like that, trusting in common sense of politicians (gosh, how naive can one be?) they wormed their way into susceptible political parties desperate to promote a new image.
Demanding new persecutions gives them a sense of POWER!
Good point.
Yes, and using them you can rule a whole nation or even an entire empire for a thousand years.
Somebody, co-incidentally also promoting the destruction of society and hating anything tobacco, tried this before and failed.
I think the anti-smoking industry knows their 40-odd years of lobbying did not fail on account of susceptible governments, it failed on account of people. The ones that VOTE for governments.

The next election in England is going to be interesting.

3. smokervoter says:

By my voodoo math, which predicted the voter turnout to California Proposition 29 within 1.36% of deadnuts accuracy, our winning tally consisted of 60% non-smokers. Thanks y’all, you’re the worlds greatest people, you make life worth living.

Also by my voodoo math, I think that 200,000 California smokers voted Yes to tax themselves because they’re so guilt-ridden and Skinnerian behavior modified. It’s useful to note that the whole month long drama of the vote count and the encouragement that it gave to Glantz and Armstrong and company would never have occurred if these smokers had not voted to punish themselves.

I base that on a pre-vote poll, which I’ll admit is hardly bulletproof, that I luckily took note of and stored on the hard-drive. It’s long gone now. But absent this factor, I think my calcs would have overlooked the fact that it is likely that a certain percent of smokers voted Yes to tax themselves. This is what I mean by voodoo math, I look for weird little quirks when I crunch numbers.

Like including the 14.375″ fire-blocks between the wall studs when calculating how much lumber to order for a house.

4. smokervoter says:

As per usual I hope this formats out correctly.

Since we’re riffing on math here, I must admit that a lot of the epidemiological smoking math goes right over my head. It might be that I sort of don’t really care. No ambulance ever showed up to cart any pub-goers away to the hospital in my 25-years of pre-ban bar hopping – that’s my smoking study.

That being said, I’m no slouch at math either. One crazy night in the early 90s at the prodding of a friend of mine who thought I was “awesome” with math, I sat at his super-duper 486 computer and, using the Microsoft Works 2.0 spreadsheet module, transposed the Black-Scholes Equation from a Financial Management course text book into a what-if worksheet. I even had the gall to tweak it with some of my own voodoo intuition.

For the next couple of months we “paper traded” in some stock options using it. We finally took the plunge and made some pretty good money on some Goodyear Tire Put Options. Of course, a little later we lost money on MacDonalds Inc. Call options.

That equation from what I recall worked 98% of the time, but when it failed it caused the Long Term Capital Management market meltdown, which almost sank the world economy in the process.

I eventually lost interest in the stock market but my friend saved the file on a floppy for me. He gave it one day years later and I put it into my computer and took a gander.

I couldn’t make hide nor hair out of it. I couldn’t believe that I was ever even capable of understanding the concept. I’m that way with math, how about you Frank?

• Frank Davis says:

I usually only understand the last piece of mathematics I was doing.

It’s the same with computer programmes. When I’m writing a computer programme, I have a mental model of how it all fits together. And so does anyone else who works on it. But once the job is done, the mental model slowly fades away, and if I came back to the programme a year later, because the customer wants something added, I have a hard time understanding the programme, and a hard time rebuilding the mental model.

It’s the same also when I do any physics.

I’m constantly having to re-learn everything. I think it’s only when people are always working on the same kind of problems, using the same toolset, that they always remember or quickly remember stuff.

5. Rose says:

Sorry to intrude on this mathematical discussion, but I can’t quite get over something I saw last night.

My mental image of Vivienne Nathanson was always as a thin, sour looking person, but look!
http://nannyingtyrants.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/evil-BMA.html

In these days when appearance seems to be everything, I don’t think I’d have the gall to stand up and lecture others on their lifestyle.

“Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the British Medical Association, said: “We have to start de-normalising alcohol – it is not like other types of food and drink.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12599471

• She’s a picture of health and fitness, isn’t she? Out of the same stable as Diane Abbot, the former US Surgeon General and the Irish Health Minister, all I can think when I see these people is ‘motes and beams, people, motes and beams’.

Where’s Harley, btw? He’s been awol for a few days now. I’m mildly worried!

• Frank Davis says:

No he hasn’t. He posted something yesterday.

• harleyrider1978 says:

Im around just been fighting the war on all fronts as usual.

• Jonathan Bagley says:

The problem is biscuits, and these days, sometimes pastries and donuts. In many organistaions they are used as bribes to get people to attend meetings and presentations. The more pointless and stupifyingly boring the event, the bigger the bribe. In extreme situations, boxes of Krispy Kreme donuts are wheeled out, the crack cocaine of foods – don’t say you’re not tempted. There is consequently a lot of obesity in the middle and low level managerial and administrative sector.

• Rose says:

I haven’t quite over my first sight of Martin Dockrell, I think he was praising the new advert with a tumour growing on a cigarette.
I’m not really sure because at the time I was transfixed by the fact that his face seemed to be covered in huge warts.
Which was somewhat ironic under the circumstances.

• expatdreamer says:

Yes, I remember that from offices I’ve worked in – lots of biscuits, chocolates and pastries, whatever the occasion. I remember a lot of ex-smokers (mainly tolerant) joking that they’re now eating so much sugar to stop themselves from smoking!

• Margo says:

Goodness me, Rose, I also had a very different mental picture of her. Interesting blog, that was, mirrors my own experience of e-cigs.

• beobrigitte says:

Yes, alcohol is the next on the ban agenda. It is time the various alcohol producing companies start to wade in.

I hear the BBC laid off the attacks on obese people; this is a video I was sent the link to and still have to watch.

Apparently we all have a “natural” body weight and deal with “excess calories” differently. Also, some people can continue eating easily even when they feel “full”, other can not.
I am one of the latter.

Nevertheless, WHAT brought on the BBC showing this? Food companies?

6. prog says:

‘All the non-smokers carry on going to pubs’.

A lot haven’t though. I suspect many don’t realise that it’s the relative absence of smokers (who were a large part of the pre ban customer base) that has made pubs less congenial. And the smoke itself, which I believe was part of the attraction due to the relaxing effect of ‘passive nicotine’. Interesting, though, that non smokers can inhale nicotine without becoming addicted – whereas antis reckon it’s the most addictive substance on earth.

• Rose says:

With a 98.4 failure rate for NRT, I think it’s safe to say that nicotine has finally been proven not to be addictive.
Which is probably just as well.

ENVIRONMENTAL TOBACCO SMOKE –
ESTIMATION OF ITS CONTRIBUTION TO RESPIRABLE SUSPENDED PARTICLES –
METHOD BASED ON SOLANESOL DETERMINATION

“Many plants of the Solanaceae family, which includes the genus Nicotiana, of which the tobacco
plant is a member, contain solanesol; particularly those that contain trace amounts of nicotine.
These include the tomato, eggplant, potato, and pepper.

The potential interference due to these sources is negligible, cooking being the only likely potential source of interference. An interference of this type would bias results high, overestimating the contribution of ETS to RSP.
http://www.coresta.org/Recommended_Methods/CRM_52.pdf

So non-smokers are daily consuming nicotine of their own.

7. harleyrider1978 says:

Psychiatrist: Leftists are mentally ill

Rossiter explains with great clarity why the kind of liberalism displayed by Barack Obama during his presidency can only be understood as a psychological disorder.

“Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded,” says Rossiter. “Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.”

“A social scientist who understands human nature will not dismiss the vital roles of free choice, voluntary cooperation and moral integrity – as liberals do,” he says. “A political leader who understands human nature will not ignore individual differences in talent, drive, personal appeal and work ethic, and then try to impose economic and social equality on the population – as liberals do. And a legislator who understands human nature will not create an environment of rules which over-regulates and overtaxes the nation’s citizens, corrupts their character and reduces them to wards of the state – as liberals do.”

Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of inferiority in the population by:

creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization;
satisfying infantile claims to entitlement, indulgence and compensation;
augmenting primitive feelings of envy;
rejecting the sovereignty of the individual, subordinating him to the will of the government.

“The roots of liberalism – and its associated madness – can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind,” he says. “When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.”

http://email.wnd.com/HM?a=ENX7CqrwRZtX8SA9MKJT93nnGHxKLsm9BPcStGb5lw8W0bBhOG5mpqVsje_Hhe-ud1Pr

• Margo says:

People in high positions of power are psychopaths. The system is such that you can’t get there unless you’re psychopathic – without a moral conscience and totally lacking in empathy.

8. harleyrider1978 says:

Smokers Against Discrimination
Who is “we”?
A 0,00001% who must be urgently institutionalized.

“Dr Vivienne Nathanson, head of science and ethics for the British Medical Association, said: “We have to start de-normalising alcohol – it is not like other types of food and drink.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12599471

• harleyrider1978 says:

The Vetting – Holder 1995: We Must ‘Brainwash’ People on Guns like we did on cigarettes

Breitbart.com has uncovered video from 1995 of then-U.S. Attorney Eric Holder announcing a public campaign to “really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way.”

• Margo says:

So they freely admit it was ‘brainwashing’, then.

Pardon me if I use you all as play-things, but I want to apply the extrapolatory logic of those like the Antis:

You are men; you are smokers; you are also drinkers, and borderline alcoholics; you eat meat in vast quantities, and revel in the thought of the animal being tortured to death prior to your consuming it raw; you have large cars, most likely 4×4, or even more, and love to burn off other cars on the road (when you are not intimidating them); your palatial homes are heated such that shorts and t-shirt are necessary to prevent heat exhaustion (in summer, of course, thermals and polar wear would be the rig of the day when the air con kicks in); your politics is extreme right-wing; you are racist; you are sexist; your present wife is the last of several, all subdued into submission; your children live in fear of regular thrashings, and sexual abuse; you deny that global warming or climate change are happening; you believe that the moon landings were faked, JFK was shot by the CIA, and the twin towers were an in-house job. If you deny any of these assertions that is because you are a liar, and your denial proves that you are lying.

All the above is obvious to me because the few times I have seen your comments, they are in direct contradiction with what I believe know. As I can only be right, it must mean that you are wrong, for all the above reasons. None of the above can apply to women, of course, so if you claim to be a woman, you are obviously lying, which really proves my point, doesn’t it?

• Frank Davis says:

Good one! :-)

Yes, I’m a man, and I’m a smoker, and maybe a borderline alcoholic now that one glass of wine a day constitutes alcoholism, and I also eat lots of meat, and I suppose my politics has been drifting rightward over the past 5 years or so. And I don’t believe global warming is happening.

But I’m not too bothered about animals being tortured to death, because they aren’t. They’re killed very quickly, for the most part. It’s the vegetables that get tortured to death, when they’re chopped up and put in hot water and slowly boiled to death. When is Veg Lib going to start up?

Nor is my little flat palatial. And I hardly heat it at all. And I have a small car with an engine less than a litre in capacity. Nor am I married, nor have any children. Although if I did have children, I’d be quite prepared to smack them if they got too far out of line.

And I don’t think the moon landings were faked, or that JFK was shot by the CIA, or that the twin towers were an in-house job. Oddly enough, the only person I know who believes the moon landings were faked happens to be an antismoker. So was the only person I know who thinks the twin towers were an in-house job.

Nor is my little flat palatial. And I hardly heat it at all. And I have a small car with an engine less than a litre in capacity. Nor am I married, nor have any children. Although if I did have children, I’d be quite prepared to smack them if they got too far out of line.

So, you are denying some of the things I have claimed for you. This proves you to be a liar. Any argument? Thought not. I rest my case. End of. Just saying…

Such is the doublethink of the Warmista Antis that they would probably agree with everything I have said, so far. That is a very frightening thought.

• im female and i have a house and wood stove and have a 18 yr old (and because of liberal brainwashing any discipline was abuse my boy got in big trouble had to go to juvie just like all the others ,tho cause i was singe i was bad mom) otherwise much like you no sarcasm intended just a rant

10. magnetic01 says:

http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/american-lung-association-protests.html

11. garyk30 says:

“Interesting, though, that non smokers can inhale nicotine without becoming addicted – whereas antis reckon it’s the most addictive substance on earth.”

Dear Prog,
Perhaps the Antis are addicted and just never get frequent enough exposure to fight off the symptoms of withdrawl!!!

That would explain their being such miserable scum.

• garyk30 says:

More SHS magic.

Current info is that ever-smokers account for about 80% of COPD incidence and almost all ever-smokers will get COPD.

Ever-smokers account for 82% of the lung cancer deaths.

Ever-smokers’ deaths from lung cancer = 128,000/year.

Ever-smokers’ deaths from COPD = 101.000/year.

SHS exposure to never-smokers is said to cause 3,400 lung cancer deaths per year.

SHS exposure to never-smokers is not said to cause COPD deaths.

SHS is magical, it causes lung cancer; but, SHS does not cause COPD.

• prog says:

The SHS bullshit is the reason why Frank started this blog.

Or was….things have moved on a pace these last few years and there is so much more bull to contend with. But, essentially, the passive smoking lie is driving the anti smoker denormalisation agenda.

Pubs needed smokers. Smokers don’t need pubs, but they did provide a neutral space why people could socialise and relax. The smoky drinkies are the next best thing but pubs can’t provide the same environment for these. They have become dull places mostly frequented by dull people. No atmosphere – the main reason many non smokers have abandoned them as well. They are no longer fit for purpose.

12. nisakiman says:

On the subject of non-smokers v anti- smokers, I came across a rather heartwarming comment on a forum I sometimes frequent:

As a non smoker I really do not understand why some other non smokers want to take the hilier than thou attitude towards smokers. Hey it is thier life let them live it as they please. Would you like someone hanging over your shoulder 24/7 saying that is not right because I personally do not like it. Leave them be as you have your life to live and I am sure with more issues than worrying about someone else you do not know or care for. You are trumpet blowing and sayinf I am better than you he he he

Makes a pleasant change, since most comments on the subject of smoking tend to be from either rabid antis or from smokers defending their corner. It’s rare to see a comment from someone who is in neither camp.

13. jaxthefirst says:

“It might also be suggested that instead of just asking people in surveys whether they are smokers or non-smokers, they ought to be asked if they are antismokers as well.”

The trouble is, because Antismokers are now recognised as a separate group of people from non-smokers, and because by and large they comprise a bunch of people exhibiting personal qualities that most people would prefer not to be associated with, there are many Antismokers around now who won’t admit to being as such.

My boss is a classic example of this. An ex-smoker, he enthusiastically embraced the smoking ban and took the opportunity to ban smoking completely on all company premises, outside as well as inside (but, in showing the hallmark Antismoker cowardice, only did this once the Big Boys in Government had given him permission to do so). And yet, when there is any suggestion that he is “anti-smoking” he vehemently denies it, saying things like “It isn’t really a case of being anti-smoking, it’s just a case of being sensible [OR “caring for staff health” OR “accepting that smoking isn’t an acceptable activity any more”].” Anything, in fact, apart from the true reason that he personally no longer enjoys smoking and – again, like virtually all ESTAs (Ex-Smokers Turned Anti) therefore can’t bear the fact that anyone else still does.

On the one hand, it’s good to see that the image of the Antismoker – as exhibited by those people who for so long have openly and publicly proclaimed themselves to be as such – is recognised as so distinctly unappealing to both non-smokers and smokers alike, that even their fellow born-again Antis actively try to distance themselves from Anti-smokism; on the other hand, that in and of itself does make it difficult to ascertain upon first meeting any non-smoker whether they are of the tolerant, reasonable variety or whether they have quietly and, often without even admitting it to themselves, gone over to the Dark Side. Perhaps we on here should formulate a short list of seemingly-unrelated-to-smoking questions which we can casually ask any newly-met non-smoker to ascertain where they are on the Smoke-phobic spectrum!

• Interesting idea Jax! Hmm…. I guess first you would usually try to ascertain if the person IS a nonsmoker. And usually then, I would think, you’d be able to read a lot in terms of facial body language (or verbal comments!) if they say they don’t smoke. Then, if the feedback seems to be neutral, you can take it a step further and say, “I’m going to head outside for a smoke. Want to keep me company?” and see how they react to that. If they happily join you, particularly in inclement weather, then you’ll know you have truly found a simple, sincere, nonsmoker of good will. :)

The above works best in a smoke-banned environment like a bar where indicating that you’re going out to smoke is an easy option. But your question makes things a bit trickier… how to figure out where they are on the spectrum withOUT that key question as to whether they smoke and are willing to stand with you if you suffer because of a ban.

Hmmm…. ok….. You could mention that you love going to the casino nearby (Assuming there’s one nearby AND that it allows smoking!) to see if you get a smoke-phobic comment about it. And then, if there isn’t one, you could take it a step further by saying how you hate sitting at a slot machine next to a little old lady or man who’s doused her/himself in perfume or aftershave. An Antismoker will almost always jump at the opportunity then to talk about “the stink” of cigarette smoke at the casino, while a simple nonsmoker will largely just agree with you, or perhaps say “Not as bad as a cheap cigar!” (Even a lot of regular smokers — even cigar smokers! — don’t like the smell of a cheap cigar next to them! LOL!)

Hmmm…. You could strike up a conversation about how romantic it would be to hang out in the bar in Casablanca with Humphrey Bogart (or Lauren Bacall, depending on your preferences…)

Hmmm….. You could say you saw the cutest chimp at the zoo the other day: he was sitting there happily smoking a cigar and looking old and wise: that’d be SURE to get a rise out of an Anti!

Hmmm…. you could mention that there seem to be a lot of hookah bars opening up downtown in the last couple of years. (although I realize both this and the last one *do* reference smoking)

Hmmm…. you could ask if they prefer the “new” James Bond or the “old” James Bond.

OK… that’s about it for ideas for me for the day. Time to crawl back into my hole…

:>
MJM

14. melinoerealm says:

Antismoker activists attacking scientists with ad hominem:

Dr Siegel responded with the following.

Dr. Glantz is correct about one thing. I am guided by ideology. My ideology is that science is about the pursuit of the truth, and that we have to seek the truth wherever it takes us, even if it sometimes turns out that the truth is not favorable to our advocacy positions. I believe, also, in honesty and transparency and believe that public health practitioners should not deceive the public or distort the science, even if doing so might garner more support for our policies.