First of all, what me and my consenting adult cat do in the privacy of our own home is none of your damn bidness! :-)
Secondly, Philip Morris and their attorneys have so many side motives that it is impossible to explain it to you in less than 9 hours. Let's put it this way:
Third, if you don't read all of this, at least wait 45 minutes before replying to me and make it look like you did.
Get on the bus Junior, you are going to school.
1993 ASSIST Study (American Stop Smoking Intervention Study) : Let's start from the beginning. If you need proof that high tobacco excise taxes, smoking bans, and systematic state sponsored discrimination are designed to COERCE smokers into quitting and nothing else, just read the anti-tobacco playbook.
"Over a decade of research by the National Cancer Institute has shown that the most effective way to reduce smoking rates is to decrease public tolerance of tobacco use through changes in policy, accompanied by media and educational programs."
"Changing the public acceptance of tobacco use will require policy change, a critical ingredient of societal change."
"The recent release of the EPA report on ETS provides the necessary justification to potential opposition, i.e. restaurant owners, small business owners, and smokers for requiring workplaces to eliminate the health hazard of ETS in the workplace."
Let's take a closer look at the bogus EPA report. Frankly, every American should be outraged and scared that our Government (who work for us) would let one of their agencies issue deliberate lies....
The United States Federal Court Decision by Judge Osteen: Read the whole thing for yourself here.
If you'd rather watch a Discovery Channel special on the African Dung Beetle before reading a legal opinion, than the Readers' Digest Cliff Note version will do.
Excerpts from Judge Osteen’s July 18, 1998, 90 page-plus Memorandum Opinion appear below:
a.) On page 73 Judge Osteen specifically referenced EPA’s use of a 90 percent confidence level in place of the customary 95 percent:
“The first contention is EPA switched, without explanation, from using standard 95% confidence intervals to 90% confidence intervals to enhance the likelihood that its meta-analysis would appear statistically significant. This shift assisted EPA in obtaining statistically significant results. Studies that are not statistically significant are "null studies"; they cannot support a Group A classification. See Brock v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 874 F.2d 307, 312 (5th Cir. 1989) ("If the confidence interval is so great that it includes the number 1.0, then the study will be said to show no statistically significant 'association between the factor and the disease."). EPA used a 95% confidence interval in the 1990 Draft ETS Risk Assessment, but later switched to a 90% confidence interval. Most prominently, this drew criticism from IAQC's epidemiologist, who was also a contributor to the ETS Risk Assessment: The use of 90% confidence intervals, instead of the conventionally used 95% confidence intervals, is to be discouraged. It looks like a[n] attempt to achieve statistical significance for a result which otherwise would not achieve significance.” (Underline added.)
b.) On page 72 Judge Osteen’s conclusions included a statement that EPA cherry-picked data:
“EPA's study selection is disturbing. First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines. See ETS Risk Assessment at 4-29 ("These data should also be examined in the interest of weighing all the available evidence, as recommended by EPA's carcinogen risk assessment guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1986a) (emphasis added)). Third, EPA's selective use of data conflicts with the Radon Research Act. The Act states EPA's program shall "gather data and information on all aspects of indoor air quality.”
c.) On page 60 Judge Osteen concluded that it was possible EPA adopted different methodologies for each chapter based on the outcome desired:
“The court is faced with the ugly possibility that EPA adopted a methodology for each chapter, without explanation, based on the outcome sought in that chapter. This possibility is most potent where EPA rejected MS-ETS similarities to avoid a "cigarette-equivalents" analysis in determining carcinogenicity of ETS exposure. Use of cigarette-equivalents analysis may have lead to a conclusion that ETS is not a Group A carcinogen." It is striking that MS and ETS were similar only where such a conclusion promoted finding ETS a carcinogen.” (Underline added.)
Color coded summary of results of every study ever conducted on Second Hand Smoke, proving there is no risk : Golly gee willikers, how could these studies and the biggest one ever done (see next link) NOT make it into the Surgeon General report? See "Idiots Guide to Socialism Above"
Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98 by James E Enstrom and Geoffrey C Kabat: This was the longest and most thorough study ever done on ETS. It was originally funded by the precursor to the American Cancer Society in the 60's. When they realized a few years ago that the results were not what they wanted to hear, they abruptly cut off funding for the study. Enstrom and Kabat had to go to the tobacco companies to finish their research. A fact that the Smoke Nazi's are quick to pounce on in order to discredit their research. Of course, the fact that much of the "research" that claims ETS is harmful is funded by pharmaceutical companies is irrelevant.
The Report WHO didn't want you to see: Apparently this study that was commissioned by the World Health Organization proving there is no link between ETS and cancer, accidentally fell behind a secretary's desk or ended up in the wastepaper basket next to the overturned coffee grinds.
Mayor Bloomberg Exaggerates Secondhand Smoke Risk Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.; Amercian Council on Science and Health
"Who exactly are these 1,000 New Yorkers whose deaths Mayor Bloomberg claims will be prevented by his legislation? If, as we suspect, he is referring to deaths caused by exposure to secondhand smoke in restaurants and bars, the estimate of 1,000 deaths prevented is patently absurd. Our best estimate of the number of deaths prevented is somewhere between zero and a hypothetical ten to fifteen. There is no evidence that any New Yorker — patron or employee — has ever died as a result of exposure to smoke in a bar or restaurant."
The Surgeon General's Report Blows Smoke Dr. Elizabeth M. Whelan, Sc.D., M.P.H.; Amercian Council on Science and Health
The Bogus 'Science' of Secondhand Smoke:It has been fashionable to ignore the weakness of "the science" on secondhand smoke, perhaps in the belief that claiming "the science is settled" will lead to policies and public attitudes that will reduce the prevalence of smoking. But such a Faustian bargain is an ominous precedent in public health and political ethics. Consider how minimally such policies as smoking bans in bars and restaurants really reduce the prevalence of smoking, and yet how odious and socially unfair such prohibitions are.