51° F Hi: Lo:52



Why don't you ban tobacco industry spammers?

The Greenbelt Patch that has carried several stories on the Schuman v. GHI & Popovic trial. The site has a Message Board, which has been attacked by semi-pro Tobacco Industry Spammers with the obvious intent of drowning out support for Schuman. These spammers, who go by the names of Michael J. McFadden, a FORCES.org columnist, as well as Kevin Mulvina, and Magnetic, among several others, invariably pollute the message boards relating to on-line tobacco-related stories with the clear intent of drowning out alternative opinion with their fanatical flat-earth pseudo-science. Some webmasters have become wise to this, and some moderated sites have banned these industry moles. Unfortunately this has not happened with the Patch blog.:

Fields marked with * are required

  • A.

    Free speech allows for dissenting opinions, no matter what any individual thinks about each one, or collectively all of them.

    When we start talking "bans," we really are saying "censorship."

    That's the thing about free speech, we can't have it both ways.

    Was this answer helpful?
  • A.

    Not happy to have muzzled the tobacco industry from all debate, some anti-smokers are now attempting to stop ordinary citizens from expressing themselves and exposing the shenanigans that are going on in tobacco control.

    The identical defamatory comment was taken down from the smokefree DC website where it was posted previously, obviously because it was unsubstantiated. Mr. Repace is unable to provide any evidence that any of the Patch commenters on the Schuman V. Popovic trial had anything to do with the tobacco industry. I for one am one of the commenters and I have no direct or indirect relation to the tobacco industry. Mr. Repace not only needs to take his defamatory comment down from anywhere he has posted it but he needs to apologize to all involved and especially those whom he has specifically identified by name.

    Kudos to the Patch for their policies on free speech.

    Was this answer helpful?
  • A.

    Repace I am staggered you can raise your voice without swearing. Do you remember this exchange from 2006 when you used these choice phrases for people having the temerity to disagree with you? "Read the attached, a**h**e... and **** you, Dave."


    Was this answer helpful?
  • A.

    Repace your full authoritarianism is exposed to all the world. Does it not just confirm that intelligent dissent to your junk science is just too near the truth.

    I want to ask you a question Repace. I am not remunerated, expensed, or receive grace and favor from tobacco companies. This includes affiliates, nominees and subsidiaries.

    Will you admit this or not. My lawyers await your response.

    Was this answer helpful?
  • A.

    Dr. Michael Siegel weighs in...


    "I believe that Public Health is just that Public." It involves regulating the behavior of the public and we should therefore be willing to listen........."

    Purely from a mechanical positioning, the multitude of groups who identify themselves as "public health" are not qualified and never were qualified for the position they lay claim too. It was always backward technology, to sell smoking rooms as a solution to a problem that clearly required non smoking rooms ["smoke free environments"???] because clearly cigarette smoke is not the only toxin in the room and if cigarette smoke is a cause for significant concern, those many other, much more onerous "toxins" [such as diesel exhaust in a court house?] also have to be dealt with in kind.

    To implement smoking bans in place of a sign on the door followed the same back to front fools logic and now we have people being attacked in their own homes, in order to prevent them from doing what is normal in their own homes. Third hand smoke is the proof of a self defined moralist lobby standing in opposition to legitimate solutions. Problems no one wants solved, in place of mechanically sound solutions that actually work. Controversy by paid promotional edict, that signifies, no measure of sense is involved here, in dealing with a problem that affects people and their right to protection of their own well being. It affects them only because they were never properly informed by Public Health lobby groups, who haven't any intent of dealing with the problem, but rather are taking advantage of the problem to sell their divisive and self serving wares.

    If a building is contaminated by tobacco smoke, no one who believes they could be harmed by exposure to that smoke, should be allowed to move in, without prior notice that; any ill effects will fall to their own responsibility. Just as you take your chances when you drive on an un-assumed road. You either agree that government has no place in dictating moral values, rather they have a duty to defend ours, and you feel responsibility for our own actions is justified, or you disagree, and believe mommy knows best, even if mommy is a sociopath, in charge of a bloated bureaucracy with no capacity, to administer their rules, with anything close to the same level of compassion or respect that we ourselves would apply, when balancing our decisions, with justice and respect for everyone at the table.

    If a building can be contaminated by cigarette smoke and as Repace and others contend; represent a hazard that will endure many years down the road. Who's fault is it when someone becomes exposed against their will? Is it the smoker who is only doing what he has done all his life, common practice for generations before him? Is it the Building owner, who failed to tell a prospective tenant that smoking has occurred in this building and allow the tenant to define his own acceptable levels of risk. Decisions to which only they could be held responsible? Or is it the medical profession and Public Health lobby groups, who should have been telling people years ago that such a danger is real [if they believe it is real] and it should be avoided? Or do we finally pass the buck right back where it belongs in the hands of the individual, who has every right to decide to move in or look elsewhere with full knowledge provided and all the cards on the table. Leaving people to gravitate toward a life and self defined lifestyle they feel comfortable with. With no need for the courts, the government or the lobbies, to ever get involved. No supply and demand manipulations dangling, and no opportunities for profiteers to jump on a bandwagon, as "experts" or drug company representatives, feasting off the deliberate incompetence, of what is identified as Public Health. The consensus science people.

    I personally don't find it surprising that James Repace and his anti-smoker lobby brethren, would want me silenced, his reasoning should be obvious. I don't get paid for my position or my opinions. Can he say the same?

    So which of us has more credibility and is acting out of genuine concern for others, or in credible opposition to what we know is clearly wrong?

    The tobacco Industry is his chosen straw man, while Adolph Hitler is mine. You decide.

    Kevin Mulvina

    Was this answer helpful?
  • A.

    When we hear the term "significant risk of second hand smoke". By an international decree, set out at the World Health Organization, central to intent, as laid down in its anti- tobacco agreement, with signatory "states" under it's dominion, we see an example of "invincible ignorance".

    What we see by the cries to silence opposition, to hatred and bigotry at a personal level. Defined as a priority in the "denormalization strategy" of the public health lobby groups, consistently laid down in planning and "strategy sessions". Coined directly by Godber at the World Health Organization in 1973 " it will be necessary for the non smoking public to believe that smokers are doing them harm" is an excellent example of vincible ignorance. A reprehensible act without recourse.


    "Invincible ignorance removes one's culpability for a materially sinful act, whether one of omission or commission (CCC 1793). Vincible ignorance may affect one's culpability for a sinful act, depending on the kind of vincibility. If some insufficient diligence was shown toward finding the answer, then the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or studied.

    If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.

    Affected or studied ignorance can increase culpability for a sin, especially if it displays hardness of heart, whereby one would commit the sin irrespective of any law that might exist concerning it. Such an attitude shows contempt for moral law and so increases culpability (cf. CCC 1859). "

    With that clear definition, we solidify a logical and ethical judgement, ending this argument. We rightly have to applaud the moderator for a righteous stand, one that favors us all, regardless of opinion.

    Was this answer helpful?
  • A.

    A similar arguably libelous statement from Mr. Repace was expunged from the Smoke Free Washington website at:


    after my complaint to them, but Smoke Free Washington declined to publish my remediatory statement to make up for their original publication of the defamation. See the original here along with my never published response:


    Thanks to the iCyte web service such things can now be preserved despite attempts to erase or ignore them. You'll also note that the "Nov. 2nd" posting supposedly from Park Place Apartments was not actually present on Nov. 2nd or even on Nov. 13th: it appears to have just suddenly "appeared" after Mr. Repace's posting was removed.

    For the record, I have never been employed in any way by the tobacco industry, I have been quite openly critical of the industry on many occasions, and I do not engage in "spamming" in any normal sense of the word.

    Also for the record, I'm actually glad that Patch has allowed this page to remain: it shows beyond question the attempts of people like Mr. Repace to silence their opposition because they have no answers to give in their own defense when challenged on open forums.

    Michael J. McFadden
    Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

Patch Picks