Anti-smoking milestone reached in U.S.

KPIC 4 - Oregon ^ | 1/20/07 | The Associated Press.

[SheLion]

"The secondhand smoke claims were demolished by a 1998 World Health Organization study," said Sheldon Richman, senior fellow at the Future of Freedom Foundation. "A ten-year meta-study, in which the World Health Organization analyzed all the research and studies to date, failed to find a clear link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The activists tried to hush it up, and their media allies were all too happy to not report it. The truth was bottled up when the activists and the media alarmists did not get the results they wanted."

Second-Hand Smokescreens
Monday, June 04, 2001
By Steven Milloy

World No-Tobacco Day 2001 was yesterday. Sponsored by the World Health Organization, the theme was secondhand smoke. The event’s poster featured “Secondhand Smoke Kills” emblazoned over a photo of the Marlboro Man riding into the sunset.

WHO proclaimed, “Second-hand smoke is a real and significant threat to public health. Supported by two decades of evidence, the scientific community now agrees that there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke… The evidence is in, let is act on it.”

That’s quite an ironic statement, though. It appears the WHO doesn’t even put much faith in its own research on secondhand smoke.

The WHO’s World No-Tobacco day web site lists, “Comprehensive Reports on Passive Smoking by Authoritative Scientific Bodies.” The listed reports include the 1986 reports from the Surgeon General and National Research Council, the 1993 report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and two late-1990s reports from the California EPA.

For those unfamiliar with the reports, the list appears formidable. Otherwise, it’s just disingenuous.

The 1986 reports by the NRC and Surgeon General concluded secondhand smoke was a risk factor for lung cancer. But of the 13 studies reviewed, 7 reported no link between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Given the statistical nature of these studies, this split in results is precisely what one would expect if no true link existed.

Neither report produced much progress for anti-smoking activists. So they convinced the EPA to pick up the gauntlet.

Thirty-three studies on secondhand smoke had been completed by 1993. More than 80 percent of the studies reported no association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer, including the largest of the studies. The EPA reviewed 31 studies - inexplicably omitting two studies reporting no association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer - and estimated secondhand smoke caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths annually.

Under the stewardship of the anti-tobacco Clinton administration, secondhand smoke hysteria caught fire.

Observing the “success” of the EPA report, the California EPA adopted by reference the EPA’s conclusions into the state agency’s own report. Little original or independent analysis went into the Cal-EPA report.

Just when it seemed anti-smoking activists finally succeeded in producing scientific reports establishing secondhand smoke as a health risk, a federal judge overturned the EPA report in 1998. He ruled the EPA cheated on the science.

Later in 1998, the WHO published the largest study ever done on secondhand smoke and lung cancer. The study reported no statistically significant association between secondhand smoke and lung cancer. Oops.

Now let’s go back to the WHO’s list of reports on its web page.

The 1986 reports don’t carry any weight. That’s why the EPA did a new report. But the EPA report was in all important respects trashed by a federal judge - by implication, a fate also deserved of the California report that relied on the EPA report.

And the WHO omitted its own report from the list of “comprehensive reports” by “authoritative scientific bodies” no doubt because the “wrong” answer was reported.

If secondhand smoke really increases lung cancer risk, why all the smoke-and-mirrors?

Of course, lung cancer is not the only health alarm sounded about secondhand smoke. The science on these issues is also not as it’s hyped.

The WHO claims secondhand smoke causes between 35,000 to 62,000 deaths from heart disease annually in the U.S. But the WHO omits mention of an important New England Journal of Medicine editorial on the controversy.

University of Chicago Hospital health studies chairman John Bailar - hardly sympathetic to the tobacco industry - dismissed the link between secondhand smoke and heart disease, citing the poor quality of study data and evident researcher bias.

WHO claims, “Second-hand smoke also causes and aggravates asthma and other breathing problems, particularly in children. It is also an important cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).”

But researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examining data from the Third National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveyreported in January’s Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine there was no association between secondhand smoke and asthma among 5,400 children aged 4 to 16 years of age.

No one knows what causes SIDS. Just this week, Wake Forest University researchers reported SIDS may be related to a genetic deficiency. Reportedly, the absence of a particular muscle enzyme allows fatty acid products to accumulate, producing a toxic effect causing heart arrhythmias and respiratory arrest.

Anti-smoking activists have yet to explain where were all the childhood asthma and SIDS cases in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s when smoking indoors was commonplace and adult smoking rates were much higher than they are now.

Secondhand smoke is annoying to many nonsmokers. That is the essence of the controversy and where the debate should lie - the rights of smokers to smoke in public places versus the rights of nonsmokers to be free of tobacco smoke.

In debates over individual liberties, fabricated and propagandized science should play no role.

Steven Milloy is the publisher of JunkScience.com, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and the author of the upcoming book Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares and Scams (Cato Institute, 2001). Mr. Milloy may be reached at milloy@cais.com.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals, including 69 that cause cancer.
   Truth: Everything contains chemicals, there are around 10,000 of them in our daily diet. Not all chemicals are dangerous so why bother saying making such a claim except to create hysteria among morons who will believe anything in an effort to get them to sign their petition. Same thing with the 69 carcinogens. Only a few of them are Group A, and in very large doses over a long period of time, can cause cancer in humans (not just in lab rats) The real question is whether or not ETS in large doses can be harmful to nonsmokers over a long period of time and there are numerous studies that say no and are available to you upon request.
 
Secondhand smoke is proven to aggravate asthma and increase the risk of cardiovascular diseases in children and adults.
   Truth: Wrong again and there is plenty of documentation to prove otherwise. (Also available to you upon request) How many children do you know who have cardiovascular disease? SFBN is playing the "kids card" which in my opinion is an especially despicable stunt to support their tyrannical agenda. Read the following:
 
 Germany and the chief architects of their smoking ban was Chancellor Adolph Hitler and Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels. In Hitler’s Mein Kampf he wrote, "The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people."In writing about the holocaust, Rabbi Daniel Lapin noted that Hitler believed “that as long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation…. In the name of the children, incursions into the private lives of American citizens have been made that (the) Nazis would have gazed at with open mouthed admiration.” Does “we have to do it for the children”, sound familiar? In promoting the smoking ban of the Third Reich, Dr. Goebbels made good use of his own idea that, “If you tell a lie long enough, it becomes the new truth.” It was these two concepts that allowed the German government to forward their smoking ban and later, their far more infamous deeds of social engineering.
 

[trumandogz]

First, I have stated that I am opposed to government instituted smoking bans. Second, I have stated that smoking bans are based on the 'perceived' threat to public health. The key word is 'perceived.' As a nation, we want protections from real and perceived threats.

Finally, the bottom line of the smoking ban movement is that the vast majority of people do not smoke and do not wish to be in an environment with smokers. Thus, the Smoking ban movement will be in almost every jurisdiction in the nation in five years.

In ten years the only public places you will be able to smoke will be located in nations such as, China, Russia, Mexico, Cuba or Iran.

[SheLion]

By the way, your detached / extremely condescending / pseudo-intellectual tone is really charming. I'm sure you had a lot of friends growing up.

I wouldn't know about that, but Madame has a LOT OF FRIENDS IN HERE BUB!

[SheLion]

I hit the abuse button on you!  I don't like the way you are treating Madame Dufarge!  Where did you come from anyway!

You have a lot to learn about the people in here.  Get along or leave!

[SheLion]

I'm not going to continue this dialogue if you don't acknowledge that secondhand smoke is harmful.

You want some of what I just gave to trumandogz or can you scroll back and read it for yourself?  I'm tired of you self pompous know-it-alls!

[SheLion]

Please define public places.

I WILL I WILL LET ME DO IT PLEASE!!!!!!

Public property: That which is purchased and maintained by tax dollars for the benefit of all people.

Private property: That which is not purchased or maintained by tax dollars and is for the benefit of the property owner.

Pri•vate
adjective
3. (of a service or industry) provided or owned by an individual or an independent, commercial company rather than by the government.

[justiceseeker93]

I don't acknowledge that secondhand smoke is harmful.

Actually, in terms of serious health problems that may be caused in non-smokers by exposure to secondhand smoke, it's all a matter of duration of exposure over long periods of time. People generally have difficulty in quantifying how much secondhand smoke they've been exposed to in their lifetimes. And so do researchers with regard to their subjects. That's why statistical studies on secondhand smoke are so difficult to design and why the science on the subject leaves so much room for honest debate.

It would be logical to think that those nonsmokers most at risk from secondhand smoke are those who have lived in close quarters with a smoker for decades. In fact, many of these studies were specifically on nonsmoking spouses of smokers, which found a slightly higher risk of smoking-related diseases in the study group when compared to a control group of nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers.

Exposure to secondhand smoke consistently in a work environment over many years would also cause a slighly increased risk of smoking related diseases.

The question is whether this scientific background information, limited as it is, justifies the degree of government intervention in that has been occurring.

If you have a libertarian inclination, you would say that the answer is NO, and that some of these smoking issues are best decided by private sector regulation rather than by the heavy hand of government.

[SheLion]

In ten years the only public places you will be able to smoke will be located in nations such as, China, Russia, Mexico, Cuba or Iran.

You know this as a dyed in the wool fact, eh?  And you have the nerve to accuse "us" of working for Big Tobacco!

Who are "you" working for?

[Raycpa]

Last chance for smokers to reform before being completely banned. Smokers, you need to adopt a new attitude of politeness about where and when you smoke.

[metesky]

The argument of a five year old.

Please return the crayons to the box when you're through.

[Just another Joe]

Businesses have found that banning smoking is a good thing for business, not a bad thing, and all the smokers' whining isn't going to change that.

As long as it's the businesses that are going smoke free as a result of the owner/manager's decision, I have no problem with it.
When the government get's involved determining what legal commodity can, or cannot, be banned from a pribate establishment, I have a problem with that.

[Just another Joe]

That's all well and good, but it doesn't change the fact that the use of a Nazi analogy is inappropriate here.

It may be inappropriate as far as the government goes. As far as anti-smokers go, the shoe fits quite well on most of them.

[Just another Joe]

Your head is buried deep in the sand. I'm not saying that secondhand smoke is harmful. The entire scientific community is saying that.

I'm sorry, BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ, wrong answer.
The scientific studies run about 80% to 20% against there being any statistical signifigance with ETS and ANY type of illness.

[Ditter]

Now it's my turn. Please define "a place of public accommodation" and tell me what has to be done to open one.

[flintsilver7]

Oh no! The abuse button! Whatever shall I do? I didn't ping! The horror!

Let me state emphatically that I neither know nor care who you or anybody else here is. If I find a particular individual condescending and obnoxious I'm going to say so. Nobody is above the law, and nobody gets my respect without earning it.

If you don't like it, that's fine. I'm not going to take somebody's crap on the off chance they're "respected" here. If I'm going to be reprimanded because I called a spade a spade, that's fine.

[flintsilver7]

Go ahead and pipe it into your home or business if you're so convinced it's safe. You cite OSHA regulations (which I believe reflects not one but two advanced air purification systems installed) and a Stephen Milloy article then light up a carton in celebration. (A curious fact here is that your entire article is based on taking OSHA's standards as gospel because it suits your purposes.) I'll cite the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Cancer Society, and so on. I'm not taking your statistics without researching myself and I would encourage you to read the multitude of information available that suggests secondhand smoke is in fact harmful.

Look, smokers fight like cornered animals when they feel threatened. Deep physical and psychological addiction will do that to you. It is a weakness and perhaps you see how aggressively people fight to protect their right to die 25 years prematurely from lung cancer and emphysema.

[Just another Joe]

I'll cite the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society, the Environmental Protection Agency, the American Cancer Society, and so on. I'm not taking your statistics without researching myself and I would encourage you to read the multitude of information available that suggests secondhand smoke is in fact harmful.

I am intimately familiar with most of the studies that have been done on ETS by whatever entity. The largest, and most comprehensive, done by the WHO found no statistical significance with ETS and ANY illness.
The EPA study was thrown out by a federal judge for cherry picking their data. The Surgeon General came back and said, in essence, "Oh, they don't have to be scientific, they work for the government."
Another of the largest studies, funded by the American Cancer Society for 38 of 49 years, found no statastical significance between ETS and ANY illness. After 38 years, when they found out it wasn't going to come out the way they wanted, they defunded the study. Mighty scientific of them, huh?

Alter Kaker keeps posting lists of studies and I keep shooting them down.

We've done our homework. If you do the same, you'll find the same thing.

[flintsilver7]

The American Cancer Society's website indicates they do, in fact, find ETS harmful:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_10_2X_Secondhand_Smoke-Clean_Indoor_Air.asp

I've heard the argument that the WHO studies (both in 1998 and 2002) find no link and I find that unsubstantiated as the basic conclusions are that nonsmokers exposed to ETS have a significantly increased risk of cancer (20-30%).

I've heard the arguments about the EPA study of 1992. I remind you that's fifteen years old and there is a significant body of work that supercedes it.

Maybe you're Dave Hitt and maybe you get your data from him, but I know the site. I know how to manipulate data to prove or disprove a point. I can use statistics to reach (convincingly) a conclusion I know to be false.

[mysterio]

Overweight people, you didn't stand up for smokers. You're next. And gun owners are right behind you.