(cont'd)
Some background on Klepeis:
Klepeis is part of a small antismoking clique conducting antismoking “research”, e.g., Repace, Glantz, Winickoff. Stanton Glantz has been in antismoking since the beginning in the 1960s. He trained as a mechanical engineer. Given his antismoking zealotry and although he is not a cardiologist, he was given a Professorship in Cardiology at the University of California, San Francisco, to add “legitimacy” to his [delusional] antismoking claims. He has also conducted economic research claiming that there is no detrimental economic impact from smoking bans even though he has no economics qualifications. He also started what is now known as the “heart miracle scam” (see http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/2011/08/heart-miracle-scam-revisited.html ). Repace refers to himself as a “health physicist”, whatever that means, and a “secondhand smoke expert”. He is best known for the claim that it would take tornado-force ventilation to clear indoor tobacco smoke. Klepeis trained in civil engineering. He refers to himself as a “human exposure scientist” heading up the “emerging science” of human exposure which is “at the nexus of traditional physical and social science fields -- including physics, chemistry, sociology, psychology, and geography.” So we have a civil engineer that believes he has become an “expert” in many fields, including psychology and sociology. [You couldn’t make this stuff up!]
http://stanford.edu/~nklepeis/

The fact of the matter is that these people are fifth-rate – if that - academicians that would have otherwise had very short careers. But Tobacco Control and the lucrative funding available if one is willing to prostitute their academic position for an ideological cause has afforded them a comfortable career. If they keep coming up with the “right” study conclusions, they’ll keep attracting funding.

Here are a few more of Klepeis’ studies:
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/20/3/212.abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3007589/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WDS-52G1S1Y-1&_user=10&_coverDate=05%2F31%2F2011&_rdoc=2&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_zone=rslt_list_item&_srch=doc-info(%23toc%236774%232011%23998889995%233148735%23FLA%23display%23Volume)&_cdi=6774&_sort=d&_docanchor=&_ct=22&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a07b7b398e8d77e4bd56ab06ac1036b2&searchtype=a

There is a particular pattern to all this “research”. Firstly, the studies only indicate that there is measurable evidence of smoking (e.g., particulates) when smoking occurs. Great expense is incurred to demonstrate the obvious. Secondly, this clique of “researchers” refer to each others’ questionable research as the basis for wild speculations of smoke “hazard”. Thirdly, they invariably invoke the fraudulent claim of “no safe level” of tobacco smoke, which violates the fundamental toxicological maxim of “the dose makes the toxicity”. If there is no safe level of tobacco smoke, then there is no safe level of any smoke (e.g., cooking, heating, candle). Since many chemicals in smoke are already in “smokefree” air, then there is no safe level of air generally. There are potential carcinogens in drinking water. So there’s no safe level of drinking water. And the same can be said of many foods. There is much research funding being squandered on the basis of this fraudulent, inflammatory claim. Fourthly, these researchers never refer to the OSHA ruling on indoor tobacco smoke, which indicates that typical indoor encounters with tobacco smoke are not problematic. Particular constituents of smoke are well within permissible exposure limits (PELs). OSHA is the only organization to be taken seriously concerning indoor air quality – it is the Federal regulatory authority. Fifthly, even though there is no evidence of hazard, the research invariably concludes that smoking bans should be instituted. The only purpose of this research is to contrive findings to support smoking bans, giving the appearance of a “scientific basis” for such bans.

It could be asked how such a sham of research could attract funding. There’s an easy answer. The Master Settlement Agreement in America and tobacco taxes in California, which smokers both pay for, has created three major research reserves involving many hundreds of millions of dollars - FAMRI, TRDRP, and Legacy. These reserves are administered by antismokers to fund antismoking “research”. These are not interested in science; they are interested in the “right” results to push the agenda. You’ll typically see FAMRI funding for studies conducted by Klepeis, Repace, and Winickoff.

Gadphli: “I am yet to read any quality studies that support this.”

http://www.news.com.au/psychiatric-patients-risking-lives-for-a-cigarette/story-e6frg12c-1226028565071?from=public_rss
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10741162
http://www.tobacco.org/news/308445.html?show_intro=0&records_per_page=100

Let’s say for argument’s sake that smokers weren’t flipping right out (although they are). What if an involuntary patient simply asked, “I’d like a cigarette”? Who do you think you are to stand there and declare, “No, because I don’t approve of your [legal] habit”?

“Staff and other patients are not exposed to any smoke on hospital grounds.”

Why? It’s now been indicated that there is NO evidence of harm from exposure to smoke outdoors. It’s even been indicated to you that the regulatory authority in the USA – OSHA – does not view typical exposure to SHS indoors as problematic.

“Health professionals are not responsible for the supply and/or control of cigarettes.”

Why? Is it beneath you handling those “terrible” objects? I thought that you were supposed to be of service to patients, not patients having to accommodate ideological whims and inflated egos. You were quite happy to invoke “where there’s a will, there’s a way” when your goal was instituting antismoking policy. Why would you not invoke the same maxim in reasonably accommodating patients who smoke? See also Rhys Jones.

“Government funding is not used that could be better spent on other more important health priorities.”

Why? Government spends a copious amount on antismoking propaganda that promotes mental dysfunction, particularly amongst nonsmokers. This could be better used in not tormenting mental patients who smoke. Smokers also pay an obscene amount on tobacco tax. See also Rhys Jones.

“Smoking is inextricably linked to poverty.”

For the 70 years preceding the current antismoking crusade, it wasn’t. What is demonstrated is how cowardly the current affluent are when a “crusade” starts up, and it is usually the affluent and “educated” that lap-up the propaganda and are the major driving force behind these destructive, “society-fixing” crusades. What do you make of compounded extortionate taxes on tobacco as a [punitive] “incentive” to quit? If smokers of lower income don’t quit, they’re made even poorer. How bright is that as a “health promoting” measure?

Hi James08,
You are right in stating that there is no evidence of actual harm from outdoor tobacco smoke. The ban is ideologically driven and simply using OSH as a mask. I merely quoted the study to show that it is quite possible to have outdoor smoking areas that do not expose bystanders to significant amounts of smoke.
Your point about poverty and smoking is also very valid.
Very few wealthy people smoke now-a-days. Those with serious mental illness are almost universally poor. Having to pay $100+ per week for smokes renders them much poorer still. Often they go without decent food, clothes and other things that the rest of us would class as essentials in order to afford their habit.
The excessive taxes on smokes are also ideologically based. Smokers do not cost the country more money than non-smokers. Given that they die on average ten years earlier, and these ten years tend to be the least productive years and most costly in health care, aged care etc, smokers are in fact saving the taxpayer a lot of money as well as contributing a lot of extra tax. (there is research to back this up)
All of us are going to die of something. Smoking related illnesses are no more expensive to treat than illnesses related to age, obesity or anything else.

Now, what about when your partner comes to visit during approved visiting hours and wants to provide a loving "full service."

I'll have you know that the bi-releases of orgasm dissipate excess dopamine and this can be a great complementary therapy for those suffering schizophrenia.

..

Hey! But, even when you can get a smoke, there may still be a "No Cigar" policy. LOL!

;-)

..

What's the current practice in this regard?

Gadphli: “Smoking is the leading cause of preventable deaths in the world.”

Yep. That’s been an often-made claim over the last few decades. I suppose you think that one is accurate too? Well, it isn’t. It’s just another in the long list of fraudulent claims made in the “antismoking cause”.

The actual leading cause of preventable death and disability, and associated costs, is the medical establishment. It’s referred to as iatrogenesis or iatrogenic effect. It usually refers to adverse drug reactions from *properly* administered drugs, medical errors (e.g., misdiagnosis, surgical errors), and the consequences of poor care (e.g., resulting infections in bed sores from poor care of the bedridden).

In the USA, the smoking “death toll” is estimated at 440,000 per annum. This estimate is based on lifelong risk of tobacco-use that also involves hundreds of other correlated risk factors. For all intents and purposes, it is a statistical death toll where underlying causation in many instances is highly questionable. The causation in iatrogenesis is far, far clearer. For example, a person can go into catastrophic failure leading to death/disability within minutes of being properly administered a drug. The estimated iatrogenic death toll in the USA is between 780,000 and 1,000,000. This is well over a third of all deaths per annum and dwarfs the tobacco “toll”.

“We estimated that in 1994 overall 2216000 (1721000-2711000) hospitalized patients had serious ADRs [adverse drug reactions] and 106000 (76000-137000) had fatal ADRs, making these reactions between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death”.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9555760?dopt=Abstract

Including more sources of iatrogenesis:
Doctors Are the Third Leading Cause of Death in the U.S.
Cause 250,000 Deaths Every Year
From Starfield, B. (2000) Is US Health Really The Best In The World? Journal of the American Medical Association, 284 (4), 483-485.
http://www.naturodoc.com/library/public_health/doctors_cause_death.htm

Including even more sources of iatrogenesis:
Null et al. (2003)
DOCTORS ARE THE LEADING CAUSE OF DEATH IN THE USA.
Cause 780,000-1,000,000 Deaths Every Year
http://www.webdc.com/pdfs/deathbymedicine.pdf

‘Global Trigger Tool’ Shows That Adverse Events In Hospitals May Be Ten Times Greater Than Previously Measured
http://content.healthaffairs.org/content/30/4/581.abstract