Smoking Bans????
Posted: April 16, 2006 11:14 pm
Are they good? Or are they Crap? Take a look at this little piece of info I have found....
Tobacco smoking bans:
Smoking bans are all the rage. California, Chicago, Cook County, Lexington KY, Minneappolis MN, New York City, and more, have all issued bans on smoking in public places, particularly restaurants and taverns. And there's more to come. They claim success. Why? Because second-hand smoke is a killer. Or...maybe it isn't.
We've all heard the reports, read it in the paper, saw ads on TV, about how many people have gotten sick or died from second-hand smoke. People are terrified and as a result support banning smoking. The trouble is, almost all of the information the general public has heard about the issue is false.
In a television ad by Smoke-Free Chicago is another example of the lies, half-truths, and “scare tactics” used by lobby groups to get what they want. In this ad they state that 8 hours of second-hand smoke equals smoking 16 cigarettes. They apparently pulled this number out of that smoke-filled air, since there is no evidence to support the claim. There isn't even false evidence that supports it. They just made it up.
In 1993 the EPA claimed that second hand smoke caused 3000 deaths per year. The report has been the heart of the anti-smoking fervor and has been adopted by every anti-smoking private and health organization in America and much of the rest of the world. However, there are significant issues with the EPA research that indicates it was manipulated to reach the results.
Epidemiology is the science that studies causes and distribution of disease in the population. In Epidemiology there are certain methods of statistical analysis and criteria that are followed to determine a study is accurate and how much so. There are values extracted to determine the results of the study such as Relative Risk. A Relative Risk around 1.0 is generally considered a "no" or not particularly of concern, 2.0 would be a "maybe", 3.0 or greater is a "yes" meaning it is a serious concern. Careful mathematical analysis is vital. If a study reported there was an epidemic of a infectious disease there would be panic. If we then found the study was false there would be anger. Guess what, I'm angry. The EPA ignored these guidelines and manufactured their results.
Here are some of the problems with the EPA report:
* The EPA actually announced the results of the study before it was finished.
The study was a Meta Analysis meaning existing studies were used. (Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest method to falsify and manipulate.) The EPA did not perform its own fact gathering.
* The EPA selected 33 studies on the subject from various sources, they then rejected 3 of them for not having information they wanted.
The larger the pool of data used means a more narrow confidence level and more reliable accurate study.
* The EPA could not reach 3000 deaths per year using the 30 studies and a narrow confidence level.
* The EPA then reduced the number of studies to 11, in effort to widen the confidence level, and still could not achieve 3000 deaths per year.
* The EPA then doubled their margin of error so that 3000 deaths could be found at the edge of the margin.
* They then accepted a relative risk value of 1.19 indicating nicotine is a class-A carcinogen, even though 1.19 would otherwise be insignificant.
Yet when testing other substances for toxicity they look for the target relative risk value of 3 or greater.
* The EPA estimated that second-hand smoke, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, equaled .2 cigarettes per day. However, the largest study ever on the subject, in the U.K. by Covance Laboratories indicates that actual amount is only equivalent to six cigarettes per year. Personal air monitor research found that passive smoke was one thousandth that of the active smoker. Yet Smoke-Free Chicago claims 16 cigarettes in 8 hours.
The end result is the EPA rejected two thirds of their hand picked data and invented a result that fell within their margin of error.
In 1995 the Congressional Research Service criticized the EPA's methods and conclusions. They found that 24 of the 30 studies used by the EPA found no significant affect of second hand smoke.
In 1998 Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void and used the term "cherry picking" in his decision. Osteen said "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies." Judge Osteen often sides with the government on tobacco cases.
The Cato Institute, The Heartland Institute, a Federal judge, the scientific community, and numerous other research and "think-tank" organizations have all discarded the EPA study as false. Some other EPA studies have also been determined to be false. But still the fervor continues. Health organizations and lobby groups continue to spread and act upon mis-information.
The majority of restaurant and tavern owners are of course against smoking bans. They claim they are bad for business. Where bans have already gone into effect the claim is made the business hasn't changed at all or has even gone up. It turns out this research is also flawed. In some instances smoking bans have caused significant drops in business. Some business owners are doing everything possible to accomodate their customers such as building large outdoor smoking areas.
Groups such as Smoke-Free Chicago, stand behind the falsehoods of the issue. A woman in another ad says she had gotten cancer and that her doctor said that likely her exposure to second hand smoke gave her the cancer. Many doctors of course respect the EPA results. She didn't say with any certainty that it happened, only that her doctor said so. An invisible doctor we don't know. She might have well said it was a friend of a friend of a friend and her statement would carry the same weight.
Don't people have the right to breathe smoke free air? Absolutely everyone already has the right to breathe smoke free air. They simply avoid any area where there is smoking. Or they might try asking politely for a smoker to stop or smoke elsewhere. If a restaurant, or any business, chooses to be smoke free, that is also their right. Many restaurants already are smoke free. If enough potential customers make their position known these businesses will address the issue on their own, no law required. And how dare owners of smoke free establishments stand behind legislation that would force other businesses to be like them? Don't smokers deserve the right to breathe smoke filled air?
Granted, a smoke filled restaurant may be uncomfortable to some people. They have the right to leave, and the right to complain. People should spend their money wisely. If smoking bothers you you should patronize non-smoking establishments. Let the free market decide. The idea there should be a law, because it protects the innocent is complete non-sense, particularly when there are no facts supporting said law. The smoke haters know that if the issue came down people's comfort they would be a laugh. So they've invented this health risk issue. Hundreds of studies from around the world concur, there is no particular danger from second hand smoke. Is there anything about that you do not understand? If a major ingredient of tobacco smoke is nicotine, and it is addictive, wouldn't there then be people addicted to second hand smoke? There isn't. Not one. And that's because the concentration simply is not significant enough.
A report in the late 1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that on commercial airlines a person is 10 times more likely to contract cancer from exposure to cosmic radiation than from second-hand smoke. That report subsequently went out of print.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said, “ Everybody's for a smoking ban…”. Everybody? Not the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. The Mayor is just plain wrong
Tobacco smoking bans:
Smoking bans are all the rage. California, Chicago, Cook County, Lexington KY, Minneappolis MN, New York City, and more, have all issued bans on smoking in public places, particularly restaurants and taverns. And there's more to come. They claim success. Why? Because second-hand smoke is a killer. Or...maybe it isn't.
We've all heard the reports, read it in the paper, saw ads on TV, about how many people have gotten sick or died from second-hand smoke. People are terrified and as a result support banning smoking. The trouble is, almost all of the information the general public has heard about the issue is false.
In a television ad by Smoke-Free Chicago is another example of the lies, half-truths, and “scare tactics” used by lobby groups to get what they want. In this ad they state that 8 hours of second-hand smoke equals smoking 16 cigarettes. They apparently pulled this number out of that smoke-filled air, since there is no evidence to support the claim. There isn't even false evidence that supports it. They just made it up.
In 1993 the EPA claimed that second hand smoke caused 3000 deaths per year. The report has been the heart of the anti-smoking fervor and has been adopted by every anti-smoking private and health organization in America and much of the rest of the world. However, there are significant issues with the EPA research that indicates it was manipulated to reach the results.
Epidemiology is the science that studies causes and distribution of disease in the population. In Epidemiology there are certain methods of statistical analysis and criteria that are followed to determine a study is accurate and how much so. There are values extracted to determine the results of the study such as Relative Risk. A Relative Risk around 1.0 is generally considered a "no" or not particularly of concern, 2.0 would be a "maybe", 3.0 or greater is a "yes" meaning it is a serious concern. Careful mathematical analysis is vital. If a study reported there was an epidemic of a infectious disease there would be panic. If we then found the study was false there would be anger. Guess what, I'm angry. The EPA ignored these guidelines and manufactured their results.
Here are some of the problems with the EPA report:
* The EPA actually announced the results of the study before it was finished.
The study was a Meta Analysis meaning existing studies were used. (Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest method to falsify and manipulate.) The EPA did not perform its own fact gathering.
* The EPA selected 33 studies on the subject from various sources, they then rejected 3 of them for not having information they wanted.
The larger the pool of data used means a more narrow confidence level and more reliable accurate study.
* The EPA could not reach 3000 deaths per year using the 30 studies and a narrow confidence level.
* The EPA then reduced the number of studies to 11, in effort to widen the confidence level, and still could not achieve 3000 deaths per year.
* The EPA then doubled their margin of error so that 3000 deaths could be found at the edge of the margin.
* They then accepted a relative risk value of 1.19 indicating nicotine is a class-A carcinogen, even though 1.19 would otherwise be insignificant.
Yet when testing other substances for toxicity they look for the target relative risk value of 3 or greater.
* The EPA estimated that second-hand smoke, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, equaled .2 cigarettes per day. However, the largest study ever on the subject, in the U.K. by Covance Laboratories indicates that actual amount is only equivalent to six cigarettes per year. Personal air monitor research found that passive smoke was one thousandth that of the active smoker. Yet Smoke-Free Chicago claims 16 cigarettes in 8 hours.
The end result is the EPA rejected two thirds of their hand picked data and invented a result that fell within their margin of error.
In 1995 the Congressional Research Service criticized the EPA's methods and conclusions. They found that 24 of the 30 studies used by the EPA found no significant affect of second hand smoke.
In 1998 Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void and used the term "cherry picking" in his decision. Osteen said "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies." Judge Osteen often sides with the government on tobacco cases.
The Cato Institute, The Heartland Institute, a Federal judge, the scientific community, and numerous other research and "think-tank" organizations have all discarded the EPA study as false. Some other EPA studies have also been determined to be false. But still the fervor continues. Health organizations and lobby groups continue to spread and act upon mis-information.
The majority of restaurant and tavern owners are of course against smoking bans. They claim they are bad for business. Where bans have already gone into effect the claim is made the business hasn't changed at all or has even gone up. It turns out this research is also flawed. In some instances smoking bans have caused significant drops in business. Some business owners are doing everything possible to accomodate their customers such as building large outdoor smoking areas.
Groups such as Smoke-Free Chicago, stand behind the falsehoods of the issue. A woman in another ad says she had gotten cancer and that her doctor said that likely her exposure to second hand smoke gave her the cancer. Many doctors of course respect the EPA results. She didn't say with any certainty that it happened, only that her doctor said so. An invisible doctor we don't know. She might have well said it was a friend of a friend of a friend and her statement would carry the same weight.
Don't people have the right to breathe smoke free air? Absolutely everyone already has the right to breathe smoke free air. They simply avoid any area where there is smoking. Or they might try asking politely for a smoker to stop or smoke elsewhere. If a restaurant, or any business, chooses to be smoke free, that is also their right. Many restaurants already are smoke free. If enough potential customers make their position known these businesses will address the issue on their own, no law required. And how dare owners of smoke free establishments stand behind legislation that would force other businesses to be like them? Don't smokers deserve the right to breathe smoke filled air?
Granted, a smoke filled restaurant may be uncomfortable to some people. They have the right to leave, and the right to complain. People should spend their money wisely. If smoking bothers you you should patronize non-smoking establishments. Let the free market decide. The idea there should be a law, because it protects the innocent is complete non-sense, particularly when there are no facts supporting said law. The smoke haters know that if the issue came down people's comfort they would be a laugh. So they've invented this health risk issue. Hundreds of studies from around the world concur, there is no particular danger from second hand smoke. Is there anything about that you do not understand? If a major ingredient of tobacco smoke is nicotine, and it is addictive, wouldn't there then be people addicted to second hand smoke? There isn't. Not one. And that's because the concentration simply is not significant enough.
A report in the late 1970s by the U.S. Department of Transportation found that on commercial airlines a person is 10 times more likely to contract cancer from exposure to cosmic radiation than from second-hand smoke. That report subsequently went out of print.
Chicago Mayor Richard Daley said, “ Everybody's for a smoking ban…”. Everybody? Not the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. The Mayor is just plain wrong
I respectfully disagree w/ everyone that thinks that's a good analogy.
Like many others, I'd have to say bravo!