Fighting the smoking bans.
I'm turning this post over to a local logical lady - Sue Jeffers.
"The debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults." — Surgeon General Richard Carmona
June, 2006.
Sorry, ex-Surgeon General Carmona, the debate is not over.
This report is not a "new study," nor is there any new science in this report. It is a review of a lot of studies done in the past, many of which have been shown to be deeply or even fatally flawed.
In more than 700 pages, there is nothing that indicates any harm will come from low levels of exposure similar to what you would find in any well-ventilated bar/restaurant.
The report states "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke." That doesn't make it true.
The American Cancer Society and the California Environmental Protection Agency conducted air-quality tests at several smoking venues that prove the Surgeon General flat-out wrong.
There is a big difference between smell and health hazard. By telling consumers there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco, the anti-smoking advocates have lost the argument.
The basic rule of toxicology is the dose makes the poison. A message stating that anything that is harmful at a high dose can be lethal at a low dose is simply not true.
Updates needed
We must objectively define a public health risk that requires government intervention before we ban use of a legal product. We must honestly talk about facts and science.
Not one study of secondhand smoke has shown statistical scientific significance of any threat from the low levels of smoke one would normally find today in any ventilated bar or restaurant and the epidemiological standard test of minimum relative risk.
Faulty science, exaggerated claims and even outright lies are used in an ultimate goal to prohibit legal use of tobacco on public and private property.
Bad science leads to bad public policy. Unethical statistics, such as those cited in the report, often are used to politically motivate enacting bad legislation. Many smoke-haters no longer believe they need to be constrained by obstacles such as science, integrity, ethics or respect for individual choice in their quest to eliminate tobacco in public and private.
ClearWay Minnesota recently stopped trying to claim just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke damaged the lining of the arteries and would lead to heart disease.
In fact, any changes are transient and reversible and cannot lead to heart disease in healthy adults. Caught in the lie, to their credit, they removed the billboards and the TV and radio ads.
Unfortunately, they'll never put the same resources into undoing the damage they caused as they put into spreading the fears and divisions in the first place.
It's a choice
Anti-smoking advocates often cite the "rights" of nonsmoking customers and employees vs. the fundamental issue of the rights of private property owners' ability to regulate legal activities on their property.
While public safety is an important role of government, we cannot allow an arbitrary definition of public health to create policy.
Inspectors and food-safety experts protect us from unseen, unknown risks we cannot reasonably protect ourselves from, such as contagious diseases or bad spinach.
A person can choose not to enter an establishment that offers smoking and nonsmoking choices.
Political decisions affecting the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Minnesotans need to be based on truth, not on exaggerations or lies.
With truth and science, there will be no need to be "fair" to all and ban smoking statewide. With more than 80 percent of Minnesota's workplaces smoke free, no one is forced to work in or patronize a smoking establishment.
We must determine whether the end justifies the means. Are exaggerated scare tactics OK in the name of public health? How far should government go in the name of "public health?"
If smoking bans are justified on private property, what will be next?
"The debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults." — Surgeon General Richard Carmona
June, 2006.
Sorry, ex-Surgeon General Carmona, the debate is not over.
This report is not a "new study," nor is there any new science in this report. It is a review of a lot of studies done in the past, many of which have been shown to be deeply or even fatally flawed.
In more than 700 pages, there is nothing that indicates any harm will come from low levels of exposure similar to what you would find in any well-ventilated bar/restaurant.
The report states "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke." That doesn't make it true.
The American Cancer Society and the California Environmental Protection Agency conducted air-quality tests at several smoking venues that prove the Surgeon General flat-out wrong.
There is a big difference between smell and health hazard. By telling consumers there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco, the anti-smoking advocates have lost the argument.
The basic rule of toxicology is the dose makes the poison. A message stating that anything that is harmful at a high dose can be lethal at a low dose is simply not true.
Updates needed
We must objectively define a public health risk that requires government intervention before we ban use of a legal product. We must honestly talk about facts and science.
Not one study of secondhand smoke has shown statistical scientific significance of any threat from the low levels of smoke one would normally find today in any ventilated bar or restaurant and the epidemiological standard test of minimum relative risk.
Faulty science, exaggerated claims and even outright lies are used in an ultimate goal to prohibit legal use of tobacco on public and private property.
Bad science leads to bad public policy. Unethical statistics, such as those cited in the report, often are used to politically motivate enacting bad legislation. Many smoke-haters no longer believe they need to be constrained by obstacles such as science, integrity, ethics or respect for individual choice in their quest to eliminate tobacco in public and private.
ClearWay Minnesota recently stopped trying to claim just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke damaged the lining of the arteries and would lead to heart disease.
In fact, any changes are transient and reversible and cannot lead to heart disease in healthy adults. Caught in the lie, to their credit, they removed the billboards and the TV and radio ads.
Unfortunately, they'll never put the same resources into undoing the damage they caused as they put into spreading the fears and divisions in the first place.
It's a choice
Anti-smoking advocates often cite the "rights" of nonsmoking customers and employees vs. the fundamental issue of the rights of private property owners' ability to regulate legal activities on their property.
While public safety is an important role of government, we cannot allow an arbitrary definition of public health to create policy.
Inspectors and food-safety experts protect us from unseen, unknown risks we cannot reasonably protect ourselves from, such as contagious diseases or bad spinach.
A person can choose not to enter an establishment that offers smoking and nonsmoking choices.
Political decisions affecting the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Minnesotans need to be based on truth, not on exaggerations or lies.
With truth and science, there will be no need to be "fair" to all and ban smoking statewide. With more than 80 percent of Minnesota's workplaces smoke free, no one is forced to work in or patronize a smoking establishment.
We must determine whether the end justifies the means. Are exaggerated scare tactics OK in the name of public health? How far should government go in the name of "public health?"
If smoking bans are justified on private property, what will be next?
Labels: Nanny Government
posted by The Lady Logician at
6:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home