Editorial Rebuttal
Published January 23, 2006
I really got burned up reading Leslie Stayner's editorial, "A step closer to a smoke-free America," (Commentary, Jan. 21 - see below).
The title is very telling. What the anti-smoker crowd really wants is to eliminate the enjoyment of tobacco entirely. They want to make smoking so difficult and socially unacceptable that tobacco users will just have to give it up.
Smokers know that smoking is risky. What the anti-smoking nannies won't accept is that that some people are willing risk longevity for pleasure. Since they couldn't get all of us to quit by that simple truth, they've had to change their tactics. Let's look at Ms. Stayner's assertions.
She says, "Exposure to what is commonly referred to as 'passive smoke' has been recognized as a cause of lung cancer and other diseases by the Environmental Protection Agency."
As a statistician, Ms. Stayner should be aware that the EPA ignored two thirds of the data, then doubled their margin of error, then doubled that number, to concoct 3,000 deaths out of a population of 280 million people. They had to lower the confidence level from 95% to 90% in order to move the result from 1 (equal to no effect) to 1.19, a result just above noise level. She should also know that the study was vacated by a federal judge who spent 92 pages outlining the fraud found within that study.
And results like that are typical. Most studies, including one done by the World Health Organization, can't find any statistically significant correlation between environmental tobacco smoke and any disease, including lung cancer or heart disease, let alone a direct cause and effect. And those promoting this agenda, like statistician Leslie Stayner, are perfectly aware of this.
She mentions a total of 50,000 deaths from second-hand smoke per year. Others claim 3,000, some 63,000, and still others 35,000. If these figures had any basis in fact, wouldn't they agree just a little bit better? If Ms. Stayner's claim of 50,000 SHS deaths per year is accurate, then it has killed a million people over the past twenty years! Yet, when nearly a dozen anti-smoker organizations and activists were asked for names, none of them could supply the name of a single victim. Of course - they don't exist!
Yet, Ms. Stayner still isn't satisfied. She wants the smokers thrown out of the taverns now, not two years from now. Naturally, she claims to be concerned with the health of bartenders and waitresses. She cares so much that she's willing to throw them out of work to protect them from a nonexistent health threat! "Sorry, barkeep, it's for your own good", say the nannies.
Simply put, these anti-smoking laws have nothing to do with protecting the health of workers or anyone else.
She also warns bar owners not to bother investing in ventilation equipment. Like most anti-smokers, she is opposed to ventilation options, even though readily available ventilation equipment can make the air inside a bar full of smokers cleaner than the air outside.
This proves that the real agenda isn't elimination of smoke, but the elimination of smokers.
Ms. Stayners wants to reassure tavern owners and employees that their businesses won't suffer after the ban, and claims to have studies that prove it. But every study that makes this assertion has been funded by anti-smoker organizations, and uses dishonest techniques that an honest statistician would immediately recognize as such. In studies not conducted by anti-smoker groups, the numbers have been sobering. Bans have already destroyed many businesses, especially smaller "mom and pop" operations that cater to a blue-collar crowd. A simple web search will bear this out.
A smoking ban was recently enacted in Minneapolis. 225 days later, 55 bars and several restaurants had closed because of the ban, and 1,400 jobs were lost. That works out to one bar/restaurant closing every 4 days. Many of these businesses had been run successfully for decades. But the anti-smoking nannies don't want you to know that, Mr. and Ms. Barowner, because once the ban is a fait accompli, you won't be in a position to complain from the unemployment line.
If Ms. Stayner is so certain that going smoke free is good for business, I'd like to challenge her and her fellow do-gooders to open their own smoke-free bar. If she's correct, they'll be so busy making money that they won't have the time to try to force the rest of us into lifestyles that meet with their approval.
Rick Remaley
Chicago
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0601210233jan21,1,6495909.story?ctrack=1
VOICE OF THE PEOPLE (LETTER)
A step closer to a smoke-free America
Leslie Stayner, Professor and director, Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, University of Illinois at Chicago Published January 21, 2006
As a public health professional and a member of the Lung Cancer Task Force of the American Lung Association, I would like to congratulate our city for passage of the ordinance banning smoking in workplaces that took effect on Monday.
This ordinance is a true victory for the health of workers and all citizens of Chicago.
Exposure to what is commonly referred to as "passive smoke" has been recognized as a cause of lung cancer and other diseases by the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Nationwide the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has estimated that exposure to passive smoke causes 35,000 deaths from heart disease and 15,000 deaths from lung cancer each year in the United States.
Simply put, this ordinance will save lives.
Although this clearly represents a major step forward, unfortunately certain compromises were made that make this ordinance less than a complete victory for the public's health.
The ordinance permits bars and restaurants with bars to wait more than two years to go completely smoke-free. There really was no reason for this delay, and it is unfortunate that workers and patrons of these bars will continue to be exposed to these unnecessary risks.
The ordinance also contemplates regulations in the future that may permit restaurants and bars to allow smoking if they install ventilation equipment that will purify the air of tobacco smoke. There is no technology, however, that currently exists that would totally eliminate exposure from passive smoke.
Furthermore such technology is not feasible because it would require massive amounts of air and even physical isolation of the smokers from workers and other patrons in the bar.
Bar and restaurant owners should be forewarned that their money will be going up in smoke if they invest in ventilation systems that are marketed as meeting these requirements.
Owners of bar and restaurants should also be reassured that dire predictions of economic losses are highly unlikely to prove accurate. Studies of bars and restaurants of other U.S. cities that have banned smoking in public places have demonstrated that those establishments have not had any loss in revenues.
In 1984, C. Everett Koop, the surgeon general at that time, proposed that by the year 2000 the U.S. should be a smoke-free society. With the passage of this ordinance, our great city will join the ranks of the many cities and communities across the country and throughout the world that have taken this important first step on the path toward meeting this noble goal.
