The Senate Business and Jobs Committee, link here, (which I serve on) held hearings on the Statewide Smoking Ban bill. The chief author of the bill is Senator Kathy Sheran (DFL-Mankato). Here is a copy of the bill as it came to our Committee.On Feb. 19th, I voted against the bill, even though it was amended in committee to allow exemptions for bars and restaurants if they install ventilation. This blog entry will explain my position. It will be a long entry, but it’s easier to refer people to this website, than to explain a complicated subject to the many people who have contacted me.
MY BACKGROUND
I grew up in a home with 6 children, and parents who smoked. None of the children in our family smoke today, or have suffered any adverse health impact because our parents smoked. I have tried to discourage my own children and others from smoking. Perhaps in this partisan climate, anyone who opposes more government regulation of smoking, feels the need to make an “up-front” disclaimer. So, I just did. I am no apologist for tobacco. I am also a scientist. My degree is in Chemical Engineering. I worked at 3M Co. as an advanced research engineer for about 5 years before I moved to Northfield to practice law. I approach issues analytically. I try to challenge scientific claims before I make decisions.
GENERAL COMMENTS (MY OPINION)
About 20-25% of adults smoke today. This is a much lower percentage than 30 years ago. That’s a good thing, and no doubt helps to reduce cancer and cardiac problems. We all know of people who died of cancer or emphysema because of smoking. My law partner’s wife was one of them. But, if second hand smoke is such a public health hazard, then we should all know about more people who died or had heart attacks due to second hand smoke (sometimes called ETS or environmental tobacco smoke)? I don’t personally know of one person who died from exposure to second hand smoke, although I am sure there are some. Smoking Ban proposals have become too partisan (meaning “a fervent, sometimes militant supporter or proponent of a party, cause, faction, person, or idea”). The science has been compromised, and it is very difficult to make good policy decisions when the facts are so much in dispute. Smoking is clearly a disturbance or nuisance for many people who don’t smoke. I accept that second hand smoke is also a health risk for many people who have asthma or allergies. (Just like some people are allergic to cats, peanuts, or barbecue smoke). But, does secondhand smoke create a health hazard that endangers people if they go to bars and restaurants? Will the “free market” adequately allocate public places for both smokers and non-smokers without the government’s interference? These are the questions for legislators to decide. If I believed that Secondhand Smoke was a Public Health Risk, and that people could not avoid the danger, I would support a Smoking Ban. (Isn’t it odd that we continue to subsidize tobacco, and avoid bills that would ban smoking altogether. Prohibition hasn’t worked for marijuana, alcohol, or methamphetamine. It won’t work for tobacco either).
WHAT DO THE PROPONENTS SAY ABOUT SECOND HAND SMOKE?
The author of the bill, and other proponents of a Statewide Smoking Ban say, ” the research demonstrates that no one is safe from second hand smoke.” They allege that NO amount of second hand smoke is safe and that threshold levels for chemical compounds in second hand smoke aren’t needed. Even a brief amount of exposure to second hand smoke is dangerous. Proponents rely greatly on: The U.S. Surgeon General’s Report “The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke” . This report was first written in 1986 and updated in 2006. The Report is a “Meta-Analysis”, meaning that the authors of the report did not collect their own epidemiological data, but instead combined the results of previously published studies. The Minnesota Smoke-Free Coalition web site, linked here, also summarizes much of the testimony and arguments submitted to legislators. The Surgeon General’s Report relies upon and cites other studies, including: 1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (Link here) done in 1992. If you want to read the entire EPA Report, you can find it here. Another report called “Setting the Record Straight: Second hand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk”, is (Linked here). 2. International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), (Link here) done in 1998 and 2004 3. California EPA, (Link here) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ( Link here), done in 1997 and 2005. The Surgeon General’s report concludes, among other things: 1. “Exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer”. 2. “The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke”. ( See page 9, Executive Summary of Report, “Major Conclusions”) See also, the National Cancer Society informational website on Second Hand Smoking linked Here.
WHAT DO OPPONENTS OF THE SMOKING BAN HAVE TO SAY
A group called Minnesotans against Smoking Bans ( Linked here) have created their own website. It includes information concerning health studies, the effect on Charitable Gambling receipt, and other arguments. Here is an interesting Article by a former Environmental Consultant named Edmund Contoski, which is critical of the EPA. I have read many other articles which are critical of the EPA, for its failure to follow proper scientific methods. Here is another Website, written by opponents of Smoking Bans, that lists virtually every study ever done concerning the risk of second hand smoke.
WHAT DO OTHER RESEARCHERS SAY ABOUT THE STUDIES?
1. Dr. Michael Siegel is a medical doctor and public health official who teaches at Boston University School of Public Health. He specializes in preventive medicine, and says: “The Surgeon General is publicly claiming that brief exposure to second hand smoke increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer. But, no evidence is presented in the Surgeon General’s report to support this claim.”
2. Dr. Melvin First, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Health at Harvard, and Dr. Alvin Feinstein, who taught at Yale School of Medicine and has been called “the Father of Clinical Epidemiology”, and Dr. Gary Becker (Linked here), a Nobel Prize winner have all reached different views from the surgeon general’s report.
Here is an article by Dr. First, in the Wall Street Journal in May,2003: In regard to your May 16 story “Passive Smoke Doesn’t Kill – Or Does It?”: James Enstroms’s finding that exposure to environmental smoke cannot be associated with increased risk of cancer and heart disease comes as no surprise to me as I authored, with a colleague, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine (292:844-845, 1975) detailing the results of inconspicuous air samplings at restaurants, cocktail lounges, transportation terminals, etc. “to evaluate the health implications for non-smokers” and found that the concentrations of tobacco smoke were equivalent to smoking about .004 cigarettes per hour while in these facilities. It should be recalled that smoking in public places was normal and prevalent a quarter century ago. Nor am I surprised at the scurrilous responses of the concerned voluntary health associations.
Publication of the paper cited above resulted in many angry voices on the phone wanting to learn the funding source, although it was noted that it was funded “by the Massachusetts Lung Association and its local affiliates.” That is another interesting tale – the Lung Association put our report in a drawer and never released it. It is also curious that none of the surgeon general’s reports ever mentioned this study. Nor am I surprised that an attempt is being made to trash Dr. Enstrom’s conclusions because the study was funded in part by money from tobacco interests. Does this mean that all the researchers funded by anti-smoking agencies are biased in the opposite direction? I trust not. Such charges are deeply insulting to academics in good standing. For the record I am a non-smoker and as a responsible health professional I do not advocate smoking.”
Melvin W. First, Sc. D. Professor of Environmental Health and Engineering, Emeritus Harvard School of Public Health Cambridge, Massachusetts
3. Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, of The American Council on Science and Health (Linked here) states: “This ‘no threshold’ proposition cannot withstand scientific scrutiny.” (Referring to reports that there is no safe dose of second hand smoke. Even mainstream smoke, which is 100,000 times more concentrated than second hand smoke, has a threshold. All of the individual carcinogens known - or claimed- to be in second hand smoke all have thresholds.
4. The National Cancer Institute published a 1998 report of the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), linked here, and again here, commissioned by the World Health Organization. The study found that children were less likely to get lung cancer if both parents smoked than if neither smoked.(The RR was 0.78 for exposure to secondhand smoke during childhood). Apparently, during childhood, the body has some capacity to develop resistance to smoke, just like being vaccinated. The study also concluded: “ETS exposure during childhood was not associated with an increased risk of lung cancer. The OR (odds ratio) for exposure to spousal ETS was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.88 to 1.47). The OR for exposure to workplace ETS was 1.17, with possible evidence of increasing risk for increasing duration of exposure. Ever exposure to ETS from other sources was not associated with lung cancer risk. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure.” (underlining added)
5.The Enstrom-Kabat Study Kabat, G.I., et.al., American Journal of Epidemiology, Vo1.142, No.2, 1995, p.141-148; Link to article here. which was published in the British Medical Journal, concluded that: ” no significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality” This study was one of the largest study ever done, covering 100,000 people over 38 years and was reported and published in 2003.
Enstrom and Kabat published another Meta-Analysis and Critique which reviewed the relationship between exposure to second hand smoke and coronary heart mortality. The Link to the 2006 study is here. The study found that there is little relationship between ETS and coronary disease.
6. The Congressional Research Service also published a major review (Linked here) of all research studies. The CRS found no proof that second hand smoke increases cancer rates.
7. The Journal of the American Medical Association has published a 2006 report Linked here), by Dr. Saverio Stranges, which also suggests that exposure to Secondhand smoke is not as important a risk factor for heart attacks as previously thought.
8. This Web Site summarizes some of the most important second hand smoke studies, and provides links to those studies. Most of the studies and Articles conclude that there is NO public health risk associated with second hand smoke.
ANALYSIS OF THE STUDIES
In order to understand the issue of second hand smoke, you have to understand something about Statistics and Epidemiology. Understanding the Statistical analysis is vital to understanding the public health issue. Here is a Link to a Site, written by David Hitt, which helped me understand statistical analysis of health research studies, including the original 1992 EPA second hand smoke study.
Here are several Links to additional Websites which do a good job of explaining statistical analysis used in all health related studies:
1. This article is written by Steven Milloy.
2. This article explains How to Read a Study. Here are two articles describing what Epidemiology is, and the “Limits of Epidemiology”.
1. This article, written by Gary Taubes, is entitled “Epidemiology faces its Limits”.
2. The Forces International Site explains “What is Epidemiology”. From these articles, I learned that most of the second hand smoke studies, put the Relative Risk (RR) of second hand smoke at between 0.78 and 1.3. This means that there could be up to a 30% greater chance of getting cancer if you are exposed to secondhand smoke. ( If normal occurance of cancer is 100 cases, then a 30% increase in risk would yield 130 cancer cases). However, there is also a statistical chance that exposure to second hand smoke lowers the risk of cancer by 22% (in children), since the RR range includes 0.78. ( Again, the risk result in the study commissioned by the World Health Organization, is Linked here).
The Confidence Level (CI) is also important when determining statistical significance. If the CI includes a 1.00, then the Relative Risk (RR) is statistically insignificant regardless of the upper level of RR. This is because the confidence level (usually a 95% standard) puts the actual risk between the upper and lower bounds of the CI. There is just as likely a chance of being NO risk at all, if the Confidence Level range includes 1.0 or less. (See, Egger, et al, Meta-analysis Principles and Procedures).
Dr. Eugenia Calle, director of analytic epidemiology for the American Cancer Society, said in 1995, that Relative Risks below 1.3 cannot be reliably identified. When a study showed an RR of 1.5 (50% increase in probability) between abortion and breast cancer, Dr. Calle stated that an RR of 1.5 is too low to call abortion a risk factor for breast cancer. So how can RR’s below 1.5 be called significant for secondhand smoke, but not for the abortion link to breast cancer? Proponents of smoking bans don’t often discuss the risk ratios, preferring to simply claim that ETS is ” dangerous”, or that the scientific debate is “over”. Generally, the Relative Risk (RR) must be at least 3 to 4 before most researchers accept that there is a causal relationship established in health studies.
Here is a Link, which includes quotes from several prominent scientists: “As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication.” - Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine” “My basic rule is if the relative risk isn’t at least 3 or 4, forget it.” - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.
In contrast, mainstream smoking has an RR of 40. This means that your chance of getting cancer is 40 times greater than average if you smoke. That’s quite a difference from 0.3 times greater if you breathe second hand smoke.
The reliability and credibility of the 1992 EPA study was litigated in a North Carolina Federal District court in 1998. The decision can be reviewed at this link: Flue Cured Tobacco Coop vs. US Environmental Protection Agency . (Note the court’s conclusion beginning on page 87).
In this case, a Federal Judge found:
1. EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; excluded the industry by violating the Act’s procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and established scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion; and aggressively utilized the Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiff’s products and to influence public opinion,”
2. EPA’s findings were based on insufficiently rigorous statistical tests and were therefore invalid. EPA, he noted, “disregarded information and made findings based on selective information . . . ; deviated from its risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important [opposition] findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers.”
Another article about the Court decision can be found here. (Heartland Institute) and here (Frasier Institute in Canada).
The fourth circuit Federal Court of Appeals later overruled the District court’s decision on jurisdictional grounds (Link here for the written decision) , but did not overrule the substantive findings of the Judge.
This case is important because the Surgeon General’s report is largely based upon this 1992 EPA study.
OTHER INTERESTING ARTICLES AND STUDIES
1. An environmental consultant named Ed Contoski has studied the issue of Secondhand Smoke. He has written to me this year, and I assume, other legislators. Attached is an article by columnist Craig Westover which includes the entire letter from Mr. Edmund Contoski to State Representative Doug Meslow in Nov. 2004. I have reviewed the arguments and citations of Mr. Contoski, and they seem persuasive.
2. Here is an article summarizing studies involving OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Agency) . As for second hand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated that: “Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)…It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded.” -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass’t Sec’y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997.
In February 2003 OSHA went one step further beyond merely withdrawing regulations that included a nationwide smoking ban and clearly restated its position regarding Environmental Tobacco Smoke. Current federal OSHA policy, as stated in its February 24, 2003 “Reiteration Of Existing OSHA Policy In Indoor Air Quality,” is:
“Although OSHA has no regulation that addresses tobacco smoke as a whole, 29 CFR 1910.1000 Air contaminants, limits employee exposure to several of the main chemical components found in tobacco smoke. In normal situations, exposures would not exceed these permissible exposure limits (PELs), and, as a matter of prosecutorial discretion, OSHA will not apply the General Duty Clause to ETS.”
3. Here is an interesting study done by the National Cancer Institute which shows: A recent meta-analysis based on 4626 cases concluded that the relative risk of lung cancer in lifelong nonsmokers who lived with a smoker was 1.24 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.13-1.36) Subsequently, we reported in the Journal the results from a large case-control study of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and lung cancer based in 12 European centers. This study provided an odds ratio (OR) for lung cancer of 1.14 (95% CI = 0.88-1.47) for spousal and workplace exposure to ETS; In other words, if a lifetime nonsmoker lived with a smoker, their risk of getting cancer from the second hand smoke is between a “12% decrease and a 14% increase”. Therefore, there is no statistically significant risk. (see the discussion above)
4. Here is an article, by Dr. Michael Siegel, summarizing studies which show that heart attacks actually had smaller declines in States with Smoking Bans than in the rest of the country. A similar article at Townhall.com is linked here.
5. Is there a bias in even getting your study published, if you conclude that second hand smoke is not a health risk. Here is an article , published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., which says that bias does exist.
6. Townhall.com has this Article commenting on the politics of the Surgeon General’s 2006 report on Second hand smoke. (See Link to article here).
7. An article by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, linked here, managed by the Dept. of Energy, summarized:
” The study, which involved 173 people employed at restaurants or taverns of varying sizes in the Knoxville area, concluded that exposures to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP), for example, were considerably below limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the workplace.”
8. A interesting article published in by the Cato Institute is (Linked here) . The Article concludes:
“With its document on passive smoking, the EPA disregarded the suggestions of its own review. Scientific integrity was compromised, if not outright abused, by the manner in which this risk assessment was generated. Abusing scientific integrity and generating faulty “scientific” outcomes through manipulations, assumptions, and extrapolations leads to the development of mistaken programs at enormous cost to our government and to taxpayers. Indeed, the cost to the scientific process itself is even greater. Science should dictate what policies need to be established; predetermined policies should not dictate how science is conducted.”
9. Some people claim that any scientist or researcher who has ever been funded by a tobacco company or affiliate, is automatically not credible. Nobody asks if the foundations, government agencies or corporations which fund the advocacy and reaserch in favor of Smoking Bans, have any bias.
Here is an interesting article by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan, on the question of whether corporate “connections” should disqualify research from consideration.
I wrote to Dr. Whelan to ask how she responds to such charges of bias. She replied to me, by email, as follows:
Dear Senator Neuville,
CONCLUSION
It is hard for legislators to make good decisions when the information we get is conflicting, exaggerated, or manipulated. That has happened with the Smoking Ban proposals. Unfortunately, the misrepresentation of scientific data by proponents has damaged the credibility of the anti-smoking movement. I am also concerned that the Statewide smoking ban can’t be enforced at Indian Casinos. This would create an unfair advantage for casinos, and cause private bars and restaurants within 50 miles of a casino to lose business. Allied Charities and several bar owners also testified that profits from charitable gambling declined significantly (up to 2/3 reduction) in Minneapolis and St. Paul, when those cities established a smoking ban . Finally, private business owners have a property right that government should not take away lightly. I still oppose smoking. But, the statewide Smoking Ban is an over-reaction to a problem which is more of a nuisance, than public health issue. Adults can choose to enter or avoid a bar or restaurant that allows smoking. Citizens also have a right to know the truth about the scientific studies. In my view, those studies show very weak relationships between cancer or heart attacks and second hand smoke.
Thank you for taking a stand on this. Please help us tell government to stay the hell out of our business. Smoking is legal. If you don’t want to smoke in my restaurant or bar then don’t come in. Period.
[…] Minnesota state Senator Tom Neuville (R, SD 25) has posted a very indepth piece on his website carefully explaining the reasons behind his “no” vote on the statewide smoking ban bill. It’s definately worth a read. […]
Thank you for posting this very carefully reasoned and thoughtful explanation of your position.
[…] You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. Leave aReply […]
I am so happy you voted against the Minnesota State Wide Smoking Ban. I feel that we have been discriminated against long enough. Smokers pay a lot of taxes to have the right to smoke in public places.
Why cant we have some smoking places and some non-smoking places. Those bars and restaurants that have specified, enclosed smoking areas are hurting no one.
Personally I am tired of being treated like a second class, non tax paying citizen of Minnesota and many other states. We are being treated like criminals. I wish more of our legislaters would see it the way you do and stop this nazi nonsense
Thanks for your “no” vote. Prohibition did not work for alcohol, it will not work for tobacco.
I am so glad to hear that someone in the legislature is looking at all the facts out there about second hand smoke.
I am so sick of hearing about the “non-smoker’s rights”, I swear if I hear that saying one more time, I am going to scream.
People in this state seem to be forgetting that at one time there were smoking and non-smoking sections in resturaunts and everyone got along just fine. They can put glass up to the ceiling to help with keeping the smoke in the smoking section.
The other thing that people are forgetting is that it used to be a free country and no one forces anyone to go into a smoky enviroment. If you really can’t stand to be around smoke even for the few hours that you are at the bar, you shouldn’t be going to that bar in the first place.
They are so worried about these employee’s health. Anyone who works around smoke in these resturaunts and bars knew they were going to be around the smoke the moment they got the job. No one forced them to take that job in the first place.
I work in one of these places, I rely on my tips, people will not come in as much if they can’t smoke and that will hurt my income, so if you take away the smoke, you make it hard for these employees to pay their monthly bills.
For all the taxes that the smoker’s pay to the state, they should at least have the same rights as the non-smokers.
I want to thank you for taking a stand, albeit an unpopular one, on this issue. I do not smoke, but both of my parents did and my wife does. I have been around second-hand smoke for all of my life and I have had multiple physicals that state I am in “above-average” cardio-vascular health. I might be an anomoly, but I believe what I see and that is second-hand smoke is not the deadly killer some make it out to be.
I worked in the bar/restaurant business through college and before my professional career and was around cigarette smoke all the time. In these concentrated environments, if you believe the detractors, you would think I would have lung-cancer by now.
Plain and simple, the only way this got passed was to make it an OSHA-type bill where we protect the workers in the bars and restaurants. I don’t like to use generalizations, but a moajority of the people that work in the service industry are smokers. I found this argument to be so bogus. I feel this should be up to the businesses to determine if they want to be smoking or non-smoking. We all know how that would turn out. No bar/restautant is going to turn away a customer because of smoking and that bothers the anti-smoking crowd. That is why they went the path they did. They took the choice out of the hands of people who do smoke and that is completely wrong. That is not what government is there to do.
Thanks again.
Thank you Senator for taking the time to research the facts that the special interestsomitted.
Tom, you’re a sham and should be ashamed of yourself posting big tobacco propaganda. The “Dr’s” and “researchers” you’ve posted on your site have links to big tobacco and little credibility. Of course you already know that. How much did big tobacco line your pockets with. Never mind, I’ll look it up.
Shame, Shame, Shame!
I’ve got to agree with Allen Durow’s comments on this subject. The Surgeon General and Centres for Disease Control have been ignored and tobacco company propoganda been put forward as fact by the Senator. Actually the largest tobacco company is also now acknowledging the harm done to non-smokers by Second Hand Smoke.
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/en/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp
Senator Neuville is right.
You just have to look at the facts. For instance, the actual findings in the Surgeon General meta study don’t justify their biased conclusions.
Excellent summary of ETS information Senator! I also have two online resources to offer in this area:
http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=4472
features the “Generic Stiletto” that effectively exposes the lies behind some of the more prominent studies that you’ve seen in the news.
and the “Critique to the Welsh Government” on my primary website http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com shows how weakly based governmental smoking bans are.
Of note: it wasn’t until after the Welsh ban had passed that I discovered the Critique had never been properly distributed to those responsible for the voting.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”
Hi and I thank you for voting no to this issue or debate of smoking/Iam a smoker have been for yrs. age 53, but now my housing authority or Section 8/Hra is trying to ban smoking in our building/I pay my rent both my parents smoked ,; and my MD internal med dr. even said I dont have the sound of the lungs of alot of smokers, and she doesnt smoke.
My point is If I resign my lease I may have to sign off to NOT smoking in my own apartment???
Iam a highly educated woman, worked for the State of Minn. and other large workplaces, and find myself w/my disabilites/non related to smoking a second class citizen? why?
I pay for the cigarettes; I choose to smoke; and I can’t quit by going and working out at a gym; Iam inoperable for eight back injuries; so all I can do is sit.
My sister quit smoking age 30 something; and passed away ten yrs. later from coronary problems related to overeating?? It was taxing on her heart to replace the cigarettes for food.Thanks for listening and please if you have good info on Public housing in Scott co. and the ban on smoking could you inform me. ty greatly appreciated.
Barb
Thank you so much, Senator, for standing up for the truth on this issue. I know that you’ve more than likely endured countless attacks from those wishing for the government to be our “nanny”.
Mostly, I’d like to thank you for standing up for private property rights, one of our most precious and necessary rights as free people.
You are a brave man, and I would encourage you to continue your fight. I know that Minnesota has passed a statewide smoking ban, but I have an inkling that the tides are going to turn on this issue.
I hope you don’t mind if I use your article as a reference against the statewide ban that Governor Doyle has propopsed here in Wisconsin.
Thanks for stopping by my site, and thanks for everything you’re doing.
Joey Monson
www.pheistyblog.com
Senator Neuville was right, and the other MN lawmakers who listened to the Nicoderm funded hype need to take full responsibility for 159+ bar and restaurant closings & 5,000 - 10,000 job losses attributed to the bans.
159+ closed MN bars and restaurants
Smoking bans: good public policy? Or simply a Nicoderm funded marketing scam
Air quality testing by Johns Hopkins University, the American Cancer Society, a Minnesota Environmental Health Department, and various researchers whose testing and report was peer reviewed and published in the esteemed British Medical Journal……prove that secondhand smoke is 2.6 - 25,000 times SAFER than occupational (OSHA) workplace regulations:
British Medical Journal air testing
American Cancer Society tests
Health dept testing
Johns Hopkins testing of secondhand smoke
The Senator’s Real Science post detailing and exposing the Anti-smoking Junk Science about Second Hand Tobacco Smoke - also exposes another fact, that:
Many researchers, scientists, even doctors and politicians, as well as millions of news reading, tax paying voters, do NOT believe the anti-smoking claims about Second Hand Tobacco Smoke,
Which the global News Industry and it’s Journalists are deliberately suppressing this information and refusing to report it.
That they refuse to report this information in the mainstream news is an indisputable violation of the News Industry’s Fiduciary Duty to the Public, violates all the Principles and Ethics of Journalism, and also violates the Democratic Constitutional Rights of Tobacco Smokers’ to Freedom of Speech, as well as being indisputably Hatred Propaganda aimed directly at Tobacco Smokers.
The results of the News Industry’s and Journalists’ refusal to report the Real Science about SHS in the mainstream news, is to have made Tobacco Smokers the ‘Fascist-Demonized Jews’ of the 21st Century, targets of Eradication by whatever means gets the job done.
It is way past time to put a stop to Anti-Smoking and the News Industry’s complicity, before, before more targets become victims too.
Steve Hartwell
tobaccosmokersofcanada.ca
Irresponsible politics has real consequences, which will one day demonstrate the risks of paternalism, will carry with it a huge cost.
Don’t look to those talking heads who will swear their concerns are for the poor little people, you know them as children they once called it protecting the gene pool.
What happens now, that any slime ball Lawyer can claim the evidence is irrefutable?
Next time a soldier tries to convince a court, exposure to agent orange caused his cancer. When the defendant confidently challenges him to provide proof his injuries were not the result of second hand smoke?
Industry wins and the little guy gets slapped down again.