[Mpls] What if it weren't true?

[mplsgordon2 at aol.com]

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