NJTV
NJTV News
Watch

GASP Wants 100 Percent Smoke-Free Environment

5-29-14

More towns are banning smoking at the beach in New Jersey. Global Advisors on Smokefree Policy (GASP) Executive Director Karen Blumenfeld told NJTV News Managing Editor Mike Schneider that GASP really wants a 100 percent smoke-free environment in public places.

Blumenfeld said that the rate that beaches and parks are starting to ban smoking is very quick. She said that over the course of several years, there has been an explosion in policies that are taking off, not only in New Jersey, but across the country. She said smoke can affect people indoors or outside and banning smoking makes for a more family-friendly environment.

People have said that banning smoking from college campuses is going too far. Blumenfeld’s response to that was, “The proof is in the pudding. There are communities with county colleges, as well as state universities and private higher educational institutions that have all gone 100 percent smoke free across the country. It is really based on consumer and student demand that people want to have their environments be smoke free on college campuses. It is not something that has been happening by state laws, it has been happening by individual county colleges or universities making their own decisions.”

Blumenfeld said that in 2006, the Smoke-Free Air Act passed, making all K through 12 school properties 100 percent smoke free.

Electronic cigarettes, which have become popular recently, are included in the Smokefree Parks Law, according to Blumenfeld. She said that some county and state colleges and universities include electronic cigarettes in their bans and some don’t. She said that electronic cigarettes are trending with youth and there has been a great increase in use of electronic cigarettes.

Blumenfeld said that it is not clear that electronic cigarettes are less dangerous than regular cigarettes. She said that e-cigarettes have some chemicals similar to regular cigarettes, as well as some different ones and there really aren’t long-term studies to show the health consequences. She said there are plenty of short-term studies that have been done to show short-term, negative health effects not only on the people who use electronic cigarettes but also on the people who are exposed to the vapors.

Blumenfeld said it would be up to the committee discussing the latest bill to decide if they would want to allow up to 20 percent smoking in public outdoor areas. She said that she is not sure whether that is going to remain in the bill or not. She said that she really wants smoking to be 100 percent banned because that is where the trend is. She said that it has been a long time since there has been a trend of partial bans and there is a reason for that.

“One hundred percent smoke-free environments help kids not start smoking. All people start to smoke basically before they turn age 21. If you can create a 100 percent smoke-free environment for children and youth, that normalizes smoke-free environments,” said Blumenfeld. “When you say to a child or a teen that you can smoke in one area but not in another, that starts condoning the behavior and it is a very negative health behavior.”

Blumenfeld said that the other problem with having a partial ban is that it’s very difficult for people who are there to know where they can and can’t smoke. She said from an environmental perspective, there is a huge environmental impact from tobacco waste and that would still be in existence. She said that it is unclear why the bill contains the 20 percent figure, but GASP would like to see 100 percent smoking ban and that is what many towns in New Jersey are doing.


  • John Davidson Jr

    This pretty well destroys the Myth of second hand smoke:

    http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/01/28/16741714-lungs-from-pack-a-day-smokers-safe-for-transplant-study-finds?lite

    Lungs from pack-a-day smokers safe for transplant, study finds.

    By JoNel Aleccia, Staff Writer, NBC News.

    Using lung transplants from heavy smokers may sound like a cruel joke, but a new study finds that organs taken from people who puffed a pack a day for more than 20 years are likely safe.

    What’s more, the analysis of lung transplant data from the U.S. between 2005 and 2011 confirms what transplant experts say they already know: For some patients on a crowded organ waiting list, lungs from smokers are better than none.

    “I think people are grateful just to have a shot at getting lungs,” said Dr. Sharven Taghavi, a cardiovascular surgical resident at Temple University Hospital in Philadelphia, who led the new study………………………

    Ive done the math here and this is how it works out with second ahnd smoke and people inhaling it!

    The 16 cities study conducted by the U.S. DEPT OF ENERGY and later by Oakridge National laboratories discovered:

    Cigarette smoke, bartenders annual exposure to smoke rises, at most, to the equivalent of 6 cigarettes/year.

    146,000 CIGARETTES SMOKED IN 20 YEARS AT 1 PACK A DAY.

    A bartender would have to work in second hand smoke for 2433 years to get an equivalent dose.

    Then the average non-smoker in a ventilated restaurant for an hour would have to go back and forth each day for 119,000 years to get an equivalent 20 years of smoking a pack a day! Pretty well impossible ehh!

  • John Davidson Jr

    Judge doesnt accept statistical studies as proof of LC causation!

    It was McTear V Imperial Tobacco. Here is the URL for both my summary and the Judge’s ‘opinion’ (aka ‘decision’):

    http://junican.wordpress.com/

    (2.14) Prof Sir Richard Doll, Mr Gareth Davies (CEO of ITL). Prof James Friend and
    Prof Gerad Hastings gave oral evidence at a meeting of the Health Committee in
    2000. This event was brought up during the present action as putative evidence that
    ITL had admitted that smoking caused various diseases. Although this section is quite
    long and detailed, I think that we can miss it out. Essentially, for various reasons, Doll
    said that ITL admitted it, but Davies said that ITL had only agreed that smoking might
    cause diseases, but ITL did not know. ITL did not contest the public health messages.
    (2.62) ITL then had the chance to tell the Judge about what it did when the suspicion
    arose of a connection between lung cancer and smoking. Researchers had attempted
    to cause lung cancer in animals from tobacco smoke, without success. It was right,
    therefore, for ITL to ‘withhold judgement’ as to whether or not tobacco smoke caused
    lung cancer.

    [9.10] In any event, the pursuer has failed to prove individual causation.
    Epidemiology cannot be used to establish causation in any individual case, and the
    use of statistics applicable to the general population to determine the likelihood of
    causation in an individual is fallacious. Given that there are possible causes of lung
    cancer other than cigarette smoking, and given that lung cancer can occur in a nonsmoker,
    it is not possible to determine in any individual case whether but for an
    individual’s cigarette smoking he probably would not have contracted lung cancer
    (paras.[6.172] to [6.185]).
    [9.11] In any event there was no lack of reasonable care on the part of ITL at any
    point at which Mr McTear consumed their products, and the pursuer’s negligence
    case fails. There is no breach of a duty of care on the part of a manufacturer, if a
    consumer of the manufacturer’s product is harmed by the product, but the consumer
    knew of the product’s potential for causing harm prior to consumption of it. The
    individual is well enough served if he is given such information as a normally
    intelligent person would include in his assessment of how he wishes to conduct his
    life, thus putting him in the position of making an informed choice (paras.[7.167] to
    [7.181]).

  • John Davidson Jr

    Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

    Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
    Published In: Environment & Climate News
    Publication Date: July 1, 2008
    Publisher:

    http://www.heartland
    .org/policybot/resul
    ts/23399/Scientific_
    Evidence_Sho…

    myth-of-second-hand-
    smoke

    http://yourdoctorsor
    ders.com/2009/01/the
    -myth-of-second-hand
    -smoke

    BS Alert: The ‘third-hand smoke’ hoax

    http://www.examiner.com/public-policy-in-louisville/bs-alert-the-third-hand-smoke-hoax

    The thirdhand smoke scam

    http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2010/02/thirdhand-smoke-scam.html

    Heart attacks Frauds and Myths..

    http://www.spiked-on
    line.com/index.php/s
    ite/article/7451/

    TobaccoControl Tactics

    TCTactics aims to provide up-to-date information on the Tobacco Control Industry, its allies and those promoting the extremist anti-tobacco agenda that no longer targets just tobacco but ordinary adult consumers who use it.
    The website explores how this industry – with support from the pharmaceutical nicotine producers and government tax funds – influences and often distorts public health debates, using a whole raft of lobbying, public relations tactics and junk science.

    http://tctactics.org/index.php/Main_Page
    ……………….

    “Robert Nilsson,
    Professor of Molecular Toxicology, Stockholm University, Department of Genetics, Microbiology and Toxicology.

    “The one-sided preoccupation with enviromental tobacco smoke (ETS) as a causative factor of lung cancer in nonsmokers may seriously hinder the elucidation of the multifactorial etiology of these tumors.”

    In the book ‘What Risk?’ Professor Nilsson puts children’s risk of passive smoking in this perspective:
    “Looked at another way, a child’s intake of benzo[a]pyrene during 10 hours from ETS is estimated to be about 250 times less than the amount ingested from eating one grilled sausage”"”

  • John Davidson Jr

    Junican says:

    May 31, 2014 at 2:37 am

    And yet the new Australian Government is closing down the pseudo-science, according to an article in the Lancet. You can read my brief analysis here:
    http://boltonsmokersclub.wordpress.com/2014/05/31/australia/
    Or you can read the whole article here:
    http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)60901-6/fulltext?elsca1=ETOC-LANCET&elsca2=email&elsca3=E24A35F

    It may be better to read my ‘take’ on the article first because the language and phraseology of the article itself is very much biased. For example, it conflates ‘science’ and ‘public health’, and conflates REAL science and PSEUDO-science.

    As I read the intentions of the Oz government, REAL science will be funded, while PSEUDO science will not.

    Also, it seems that they have seen through the Climate Control crap.

  • Kay Nixon

    Here is a link to New Jersey GASP’s tax return and one thing that I noticed is half of the money GASP gets in grants goes to Karen Blumenfeld’s salary. She doesn’t want people to quit smoking, because she would lose her annual income of around $127,000 per year.

    http://dynamodata.fdncenter.org/990_pdf_archive/222/222290273/222290273_201303_990.pdf