I've sat on the sidelines of the smoking ban debate so far, and frankly, the issue seems pretty clouded. One one side, you have the folks who say that no one has a right to risk another's health by smoking in their presence. On the other, folks say it's a matter of property rights and that all preferences can be accomodated. Everyone seems to agree, though, that passive exposure to cigarette smoke has been proven harmful. *Harmful,* mind you, not merely annoying. But there's one little problem with this assumption. It has no basis in fact. None. Zero. There are two studies most cited in the drive to ban smoking in public places. The first is the 1993 EPA study, and the second is the 1998 WHO study. In the case of the first, it wasn't a study at all, merely a report. And clearly, it was a case of the authors' drawing their conclusions and then manipulating the data to support them. Don't believe me? A federal court held that, "both the record and the EPA's explanation make it clear that using standard methodology, the EPA could not produce statistically significant results." In other words, they faked it. (Flue-cured Tobacco Coop. Stabilization Corp. vs. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 4 F. Supp. 2d 435, 465-466, (M. D. N. C. 1998) What about the WHO study? From the conclusion: No association between childhood exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer, and weak association between workplace and spousal exposure. _http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf_ (http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf) What does "weak association" mean? According to the NCI's own guidelines, relative risks of less than two can be due to chance, statistical bias or factors not immediately evident. To put it in perspective, the relative risk from workplace and/or spousal exposure is 1.17. The risk for lung cancer from drinking whole milk is 2.4. And everyone pitched a fit when a state website cited the risk of breast cancer to those who have abortions, and that risk was 1.5--much higher than the risk from ETS. _http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf_ (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv21n4/lies.pdf) These are the two reports which are endlessly cited by the American Lung Association as well as every anti-smoking group as the evidence we need to ban smoking in public places. Yet they aren't evidence at all--at least not evidence which supports such bans. Now of course, you can always argue that you want to ban smoking because you just don't like it. But you haven't been doing that. You've been pitching it as some life-saving measure. Problem is, your pitch has missed the strike zone. So, if you're not doing it for the sake of the bartenders, or bouncers, or other patrons, then why? If it's for the waitress who doesn't like the smell of smoke, then you'd better ban meat as well because there's surely a vegetarian waitron who is offended at the sight and/or smell of it. Before we start making laws, let's make sure all the facts line up. M. G. Stinnett Jordan REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
