"Hypertension prevalence rate among smokers was 3.94 percent; among non-smokers the rate was 4.90 percent."

0146. Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases. Chen, H.Z.; Pan, X.W.; Guo, G. et al. "Relation Between Cigarette Smoking and Epidemiology of Hypertension.

"Hypertension and postpartum hemorrhage were lower in smokers."

0045. University of Tasmania (Australia). Correy, J.; Newman, N. Curran, J. "An Assessment of Smoking in Pregnancy."

"RBCs [red blood cells] from cigarette smokers contain more glutathione and catalase and protect lung endothelial cells against O2 [dioxide] metabolites better than RBCs from non-smokers."

0759. University of Colorado. Refine, J.E.; Berger, E.M.; Beehler, C.J. et al. "Role of RBC Antioxidants in Cigarette Smoke Related Diseases." Jan. 1980 - continuing.

"These results indicate that in sufficient doses chronic treatment with nicotine may be considered in the pharmacological treatment of Parkinson's disease. It remains to be demonstrated whether these protective actions can be extended to include also other injured neurons..."

1190. Janson, A.M.; Fuxe, K.; Agnati, L.F. Jansson, A. et al. "Protective effects of chronic nicotine treatment on lesioned nigrostriatal dopamine neurons in the male rat." Pub. in Progress in Brain Research 79:257-65, 1989.

"Several studies have reported an apparent protective effect of cigarette smoking for the risk of idiopathic Parkinson's disease (IPD). These observations are supported by neurochemical studies..." These findings suggest that the inverse association between smoking and IPD may apply to NIP [neuroleptic-indiced parkinsonism]."

4014. Decina, P.; Caracci, G.; Sandik, R.; Berman, W. et al. "Cigarette smoking and neuroleptic-induced parkinsonism." In Biological Psychiatry 28(6):502-8, Sept. 15, 1990

"There is a low prevalence of smoking in ulcerative colitis. The disease often starts or relapses after stopping smoking."

4101. Prytz, H.; Benoni, C.; Tagesson, C. "Does smoking tighten the gut?" In Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 24(9):1084-8, Nov. 1989.

"These results indicate that non-smokers and especially ex-smokers of cigarettes have greater risk of UC [ulcerative colitis] and thus confirm the results of other studies."

4134. Lorusso, D.; Leo, S.; Miscianga, G.; Guerra, V. "Cigarette smoking and ulcerative colitis. A case control Study." Hepato-Gastroenterology 36(4): 202-4, Aug. 1989.

"Smoking has a protective effect on immunological abnormalities in asbestos workers."

0429. Institute of Immunology and Experimental Therapy (Poland). Lange, A. "Effect of Smoking on Immunological Abnormalities in Asbestos Workers.

Relative risk of lung cancer for asbestos workers was "highest for those who had never smoked, lowest for current smokers, and intermediate for ex-smokers. The trend was statistically significant. There was no significant association between smoking and deaths from mesothelioma"

0565. University of London, School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. "Cancer of the Lung Among Asbestos Factory Workers."

"The demonization of smokers is one of the most remarkable ethical changes in American society in the 20th century. It has transformed what was once a bad habit into an outright sin."

Arthur Caplan, Director, Center for Bioethics, University of Pennsylvania

Why do people smoke?

According to the anti-tobacco zealots it is due to seduction by the tobacco companies and the resultant addiction to nicotine.

This is the simplistic answer that fits their simplistic view that sees the whole picture in black and white, right and wrong, good and evil.

There is a strong moralistic tinge to their attitude and in their quasi-religious approach honest research and rationality give way to preaching and salvation. Even the former smokers in their ranks adopt the party line with the fervor of the newly converted, basking in their holier-than-thou sheen. After all, if you're against something the best policy is to concede no value whatsoever to it.

According to their philosophy there is no good reason for anyone to light up. But, as a few million smokers can tell you, it is not simply a matter of nicotine addiction; the act of smoking actually has some positive aspects. Research even bears out their claims.

Tobacco smoke is a mild stimulant which promotes the production of neurotransmitters. It has been found for instance that smoking releases dopamine in the nervous system activating nerve cells associated with sensations of pleasure. No wonder smokers report that they enjoy smoking.

It also increases cerebral glucose metabolism, heightening brain activity, thus improving alertness, concentration, cognitive performance and short term memory.

In addition, it reduces anxiety, relieves both fatigue and , boredom, aids digestion, raises the metabolic rate and suppresses appetite. Furthermore, it improves motor response speed and visual processing.

So, rather than being nothing more than pathetic addiction, the failure or refusal to quit smoking can be the result of weighing the benefits against the risks and making a conscious decision to smoke. What is at stake, as always, is the freedom to make choices and decisions in one's personal life.

The crusaders are fond of saying that most smoker want to quit. While that may be true of individual smokers at times, it is not an overriding and universal conviction. Among complaints associated with withdrawal smokers say that they feel more lethargic, can't concentrate and are getting fat!

"But," the antis yell, "don't they know how dangerous it is!" Yes, they do. As a matter of fact, polls show that as a group they tend to over estimate the dangers associated with smoking. Their decision to continue is a result of weighing the hazards against the benefits and choosing the latter.

So when a smoker says he/she feels better when smoking it is not simply a matter of imagination or wishful thinking; there really are some rewards for lighting up. Just because this is a claim that can't be heard across the chasm that separates them from the anti-smokers doesn't mean it isn't true.

In the first Food and Drugs Act of 1906 there was no mention of tobacco products. Only drugs and medicines listed in the U.S. Pharmacoepia or National Formulary were subject to control.

In 1914 it was decided to include tobacco -- only when used to cure, mitigate or prevent disease.

It was not until the sixties that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) decided to step up the offense against tobacco by proposing strict regulation on the imagery and copy of cigarette ads to prohibit explicit or implicit health claims. But even then (1960) it was stipulated that the term "hazardous substance" not be applied to tobacco and tobacco products.

Three years later, in 1963, the FDA was still of the opinion that tobacco did not fit the "hazardous" criteria.

Then in 1965 the Federal Cigarette Labeling and Advertising Act required a warning label to read "Caution: Cigarette Smoking May be Hazardous to Your Health." This applied to cigarette packages only, not in cigarette advertising.

In 1969 this became the Surgeon General's label -- "Warning: The Surgeon General Has Determined that Cigarette Smoking is Dangerous to you Health." This was the only health warning permitted. About that same time the Department of Justice prohibited cigarette advertising on television and radio.

Meanwhile, the FCC ruled in 1967 that the Fairness Doctrine applied to cigarette advertising and stations broadcasting cigarette commercials were required to donate air time to anti-smoking messages.

The net was tightening.

Still, in the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 aimed at preventing the abuse of drugs, narcotics and other addictive substances, tobacco was specifically excluded. This was still true in the 1976 Toxic Substance Control Act.

In 1973 the Civil Aeronautics Board required no-smoking sections on all commercial airline flights.

Cigarettes were discontinued in K-rations and C-rations for soldiers and sailors in 1975.

1984: Four rotating Surgeon General's health warning labels were permitted/required listing specific health risks associated with cigarettes. And in 1985 a new "nicotine-delivery-device," Favor brand Smokeless Cigarettes was ruled a "new drug" and removed from the market.

Smoking was banned on domestic airline flights of two hours or less in 1987. In 1989 this was changed to domestic flights of six hours or less. This is also when the Department of Health and Human Services established a smokefree environment in its facilities.

Nicotine patches introduced in 1991.

The notorious EPA report declaring ETS a "Group A" (known human carcinogen) was released in 1993. The Tobacco War was now in full swing.

In 1994 OSHA proposed regulations to prohibit smoking in the workplace except in separately ventilated smoking rooms. This would be about the last concession offered smokers.

In that same year the Department of Defense banned smoking in all its workplaces.

It was in 1995 that President Clinton announced the publication of the FDA proposal to restrict the sale, distribution, and marketing of cigarettes and smokeless tobacco products to "protect children and adolescents" and in 1996 he announced the first comprehensive program to prevent children and adolescents from smoking or using smokeless tobacco to be administered by the FDA which would also propose a requirement of major tobacco companies to educate young people about the real health dangers associated with tobacco use by means of a multimedia campaign.

In 1997 and 1998 the Big Guns were brought out and a series of multi billion dollar suits were brought against major tobacco companies by various state Attorneys General.

During May, 1998 an Alabama Circuit Court judge, acting as a private citizen, was trying to use an obscure law to revoke the corporate charters of five major tobacco companies, in effect putting them out of business in the state, for violating state law by contributing to the use of tobacco by minors and other alleged wrongdoings.

As of this writing only the 1998 Osteen ruling against the 1993 FDA study holds out any hope of halting and possibly reversing the rampant anti-smoking fanaticism which engulfs the country. Should this fail to happen we can brace ourselves for further onslaughts against civil liberties and freedom of choice in other arenas of public life employing all the seedy techniques polished in the war against tobacco such as faulty science, bogus reports, outright lying and politically correct screaming.

It is a prospect no one in possession of their faculties should relish.

One of the cries of distress raised by anti-tobacconists is how much the smoking habit costs the government each year in health care treatment of smoking-related diseases.

For a change one might complain about the governmental costs of the anti-tobacco war due to the budgets of the various branches of government involved, such as Congress, EPA, OSHA, FTC, HIH, FDA, the Treasury Department, etc., not to mention funding of private anti-tobacco coalitions. Then add in the court costs for the mounting litigation suits and the total would probably far outstrip the direct health costs smokers are responsible for.

And how about those tremendous health costs? What do they really amount to?

Smokers already pay $60 billion a year in cigarette taxes. The Senate (McCain) Bill claimed $50 billion annual health costs for smokers. That amounts to a $10 billion profit.

Back in 1994 President Clinton's proposed universal health care program and the means of paying for it were being hotly debated. At that time the Congressional Research Service did a study on the issue and submitted a detailed report -- over 60 pages in length. Since that report is a model of even-handedness it is worth reproducing a few excerpts from it here to give an idea of how it reached its conclusion that smokers actually pay their own way without the imposition of additional taxes:

Executive Summary

A cigarette excise tax increase of 75 cents per pack has been proposed to finance part of the President's universal health care program. The tax enjoys considerable public support, would raise about $11 billion per year, and would be relatively simple to administer because it would increase an existing manufacturer's excise tax. The President's fiscal year 1995 budget stressed that the tax would help pay for the additional health care costs of smoking, and would discourage individuals, particularly young people, from smoking.

One reason economic theory suggests selective excise taxes generally are not desirable is that they distort individual choices among goods and services in the market and impede efficient resource allocation. Circumstances may exist, however, in which the efficiency case against selective excise taxes is stood on its head: should market failure be present, such taxes may actually be the preferred policy instrument to achieve economic efficiency. Such market failures may exist for cigarettes for two reasons: spillover effects and imperfect information. A cigarette tax is efficient if it forces smokers to pay for costs they impose on non-smokers (external costs or spillover effects) or if it raises smokers' costs to compensate for the effect that incomplete information has on their judgment about the cost to themselves (internal costs).

An initial question is whether the spillover effects alone are sufficient to justify the proposed increase in the excise taxes (Federal and State), which currently average 50 cents per pack. Estimates of perpack spillover effects require information on smoking-related health care costs, sick leave costs, life insurance costs, costs of fires, foregone tax revenue, costs of pensions, and costs of nursing homes. Many of these components are subject to considerable uncertainty due to often conflicting scientific evidence, the less than perfect data used for measurement, and the presence of some non quantifiable factors.

These uncertainties produce a wide range of estimates of per pack spillover effects. Midrange estimates based upon likely assumptions suggest net external costs from smoking in the range of 33 cents per pack in 1995 prices, an amount that by itself is too small to justify either current cigarette taxes or the proposed tax increase. An upperbound estimate of net external costs would justify current cigarette taxes and some or all of the proposed 75 cent tax increase. A lowerbound estimate suggests smoking does not impose external costs on non-smokers, but rather provides net external savings to the non-smoking population (primarily because smokers' early death leaves their Social Security and pension contributions unused and available to reduce future financing demands on non-smokers).

These estimates of spillover effects are confined to effects that can be quantified--they do not account for factors such as the general distaste many individuals feel for smoking. Regulation rather than taxation might be best suited to deal with these spillover effects. No value of "distaste" exists to provide guidance on the correct magnitude of the tax, the tax must be paid for smoking even when no repelled observers are present, and it is relatively easy to separate smokers and non-smokers in many business and social settings. In fact, it is arguable that a more efficient outcome may occur if private business regulates smoking without formal government regulation.

Some argue these estimates of net external costs are inaccurate because they do not account for the intangible costs of premature death (e.g. the grief of family and friends). On the efficiency grounds being discussed here, the relevance of this issue depends upon whether the individual accurately values the effect of this risk on his family and friends. There is no compelling reason to believe individuals, on average, undervalue this risk. In any case, a policy that assigned an arbitrary value for the underassessment of intangible cost of premature death would have far reaching implications. It would imply imposition of the rights and preferences of groups relative to those of individuals, a policy that could be viewed as inconsistent with certain basic political and economic values of society. Pleasure driving, many recreational activities, some dietary practices, and some occupations, to name just a few activities, involve the same actuarially validated risks of premature death and grief. In fact, we do not impose taxes on these activities. Taxing such activities involves value judgments that are beyond the scope of economic analysis.

A tax also may be justified on grounds of market failure if smokers have imperfect information about the health hazards of smoking or about the difficulty of quitting in the future. Although surveys suggest that some smokers are not aware of or do not accept the health hazards of smoking, available data indicate the average smoker is aware of, or overestimates, the health risks of smoking. Thus, there is considerable evidence that smokers seem to make their smoking decision with knowledge about the health risks of smoking.

The President's budget proposal stressed the adoption of a cigarette tax to decrease youth participation as one of its rationales. Recent research suggests increased regulation and increased enforcement of existing regulations against sale of cigarettes to minors might be effective, and would avoid the adverse economic consequences that cigarette taxation imposes on the mature smoking population.

So the upshot of the whole thing is that increased taxes are not needed to cover extra health costs due to smoking. Proposals for such increases are merely attempts to fatten the government treasury at smokers' expense. In other words, it would be levied as a "sin" tax... moralism vs economics. But "moralism" of a very unethical nature.

Project ASSIST

Using tax dollars for political lobbying is against the law. Nevertheless, for years a project know as "American Stop Smoking Intervention Study" (ASSIST) has been doing just that. Although it calls itself a "Study," ASSIST (the largest federally-funded program designed to reduce smoking) is really a subversive way to funnel money into state anti-tobacco coalitions to fund lobbying for anti-tobacco/anti-smoker legislation in their home states.

The honchos at ASSIST deny such use of federal funds for political lobbying but documents acquired through freedom of information acts at both state and federal levels demonstrate that the practice has in fact been going on over the years.

For instance, The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) based in Atlanta, a federal agency, awarded a $30,000 grant to the American Lung Association (ALA). The California Department of Health contributed another $68,958 from state cigarette tax revenues. The monies were used to fund a 1993 conference for training anti-smoking activists how to lobby for higher tobacco taxes.

Tips on how to "tap an emotional issue," "use aggressive negative campaigning," and use children as an "emotional symbol and message of the campaign" were offered. A representative of the Massachusetts division of the American Cancer Society; advice based on that state's successful effort to raise tobacco taxes.

Many other informational seminars were presented offering guidance in all aspects of anti-tobacco strategy -- polling, fundraising, petition drives, and PR in addition to lobbying.

Doug Barr, CEO of the Canadian Cancer Society spoke at the conference, suggesting that U.S. health charities quit using their millions of volunteers for providing direct services to disease victims and use them instead in political campaigning!

Tactics used in the 1988 California Proposition 99 campaigning were used as an example of useful subterfuge to influence more tolerant segments of the population to fall in line with the party line by temporarily setting aside their more militant anti-smoking rhetoric and present themselves as NOT an anti-smoking campaign but simply interested in requiring smokers to "pay their fair share of the costs associated with smoking" although the CRC had determined that tobacco taxes in the state already more than covered smoking related health care costs. The same conclusion was reached by an independent study by the Rand Corporation.

The New York Department of Health is also an ASSIST center. From there department workers are carefully coached, not in legitimate Health Department procedures, but in political lobbying and anti-smoking activism. For example, they were told that costs "associated with communicating with Executive branch regarding regulations, (in other words, lobbying) are reimbursable."

In Minnesota ASSIST funds were used to lobby state and local officials to adopt anti-tobacco legislation.

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is one of the prime offenders in the use of federal funds for political action through ASSIST. They have spent about $135 million on the project. So far 17 states have contracted with NCI to receive ASSIST funds.

Funds are also shunted to the American Lung Association (ALA), the American Heart Association (AHA), the American Cancer Society (ACS) and its lobbying arm, Tobacco-Free America Coalition (TFAC).

All this despite the fact that the use of tax money for political lobbying is against the law. It all adds up to a tax-funded assault on freedom.

Closing the floodgates?

After an eight year trial period scheduled to end in the fall of 1999, ASSIST may come to an end. At least the National Cancer Institute has no current plans to keep it going. Many tobacco control advocates believe this is because NCI Director Rick Klausner is not enthusiastic about continuing it because "it does not fit in with NCI's traditional biomedical lab research." (Duh!)

Loose cannon Stanton Glantz fired a shot: "It has been trench warfare between the health community and Klausner. There has been continued foot-dragging at NCI."

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has plans for a spin-off of ASSIST.

Lie, lie, lie and never say die.

Because in doing so they defend their own rights. Failure to see the connection between smoking and civil freedom could be costly.

There are actually two issues at stake here: Smokers' Rights and Everyone's Rights. Put another way -- if one segment of society can have their rights stripped away with a stroke of the pen the same thing can happen to other groups. And don't think it won't.

The anti-smoking campaign has become so overblown that in some places it infringes on businesses by disallowing smoking in public places, restaurants and bars in particular, despite the owners desires.

On the other hand it has made anti-smoking hysteria so acceptable that in one case a business tried to ban employees from smoking in their own vehicles and even in their own homes! Fortunately a court decision forced them to back off and reinstate an employ fired for smoking in his own car.

Banning smoking in condominiums and apartment buildings has led to equally extreme measures. In at least one case an apartment resident tried to prevent another resident from smoking in his own apartment. The principle of being "invaded by tobacco smoke from nearby dwellings" is utterly ridiculous and indicative only of a presumptuous attempt to restrict another person's freedom. This is second hand smoke hysteria twice removed! But that's the way it goes once the trend starts.

If the anti-smoking bandwagon cruises to its ultimate destination -- the outlawing of tobacco and criminalization of smokers, what's next?

Certainly the food and drink we consume. Alcohol of course is already under heavy attack. Food? On the "Today" show February 10, 1997 an FDA spokesman offered the following definition of a drug: "...anything that effects the function or structure of the body..." On guard, people! Here they come again.

This opens the door for an attack of the food we eat employing all the malicious elements of the war on smoking -- government regulation, advertising restrictions, government subsidies, higher taxes and a mandated education program. Not to mention the moral outrage and judgmental snotiness previously aimed at smokers but now turned on the over-weight, high-cholesterol sinners who eat what they want to. Don't count out the animal rights activists either. Vegetarianism is apt to enter the fray as well. Moral outrage is the order of the day.

Incidentally, when it comes to the matter of defining tobacco as a drug the following from a letter to the editor of the San Francisco Chronicle is of interest:

"As a physician, I can say that tobacco and alcohol take years to kill -- predictably, 10 to 30 years. Drugs can and do kill, in 10 to 30 seconds.

It is ludicrous to hope for the media, educators, drug gurus and public authorities to make this distinction of difference, while they've bee teaching a whole generation that men and women are not distinct and different."

Carolyn M. Carr, M.D.

The recent changes in recommendations for ideal body weight for adults (reducing it by about 10 pounds) and blood pressure (adjusted from 140/90 to 140/80) may be just the first "official" volley in this battle.

Smoking, eating, drinking, owning a gun, in short, engaging in any life style should remain a matter of individual choice, not something dictated from outside. Especially not by a Big Brother Government. Given free rein the Lifestyle Police are unlikely to curtail their erosion of individual rights until few if any are left. And the last right will be an obligation -- to be politically correct!

Intolerance is on the march with a vengeance. The right to bear arms, to wear furs, to read or look at any material once chooses, to use proscribed, politically incorrect language, to smoke cigarettes and God knows what else are all under fire by the self-lobotomized do-gooders who are so positive they know what's best for us.

In their fervor to ban any action or language they consider offensive or improper they never stop to consider how offensive their own actions are in trying to impose their own standards on society as a whole. In their drive to muzzle, proscribe and outlaw they have no perspective. It is always others, never themselves who need to be criticized and controlled. In psychology this is called "projection" and is symptomatic of a sick mind.

It usually starts out for "the good of the children." In reality protecting individual rights would be better and safer for them. Liberty, not control and legislation should be the goal.

So, while you may not approve of the life style of smokers, all you anti-smokers out there should re-examine your priorities and start protecting my Rights in the interest of saving your own. After all, in the final analysis we will all stand or fall together.