Local bars prepare to butt out

Local bars prepare to butt out

There are 13 comments on the Keizertimes story from Dec 19, 2008, titled Local bars prepare to butt out. In it, Keizertimes reports that:

Local bars are preparing to butt out on January 1, 2009. That's the date when smoking is officially illegal inside almost any workplace courtesy of the Smokefree Workpace Law, passed in 2007.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Keizertimes.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#1 Dec 19, 2008
Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger

Written By: Jerome Arnett, Jr., M.D.
Published In: Environment & Climate News
Publication Date: July 1, 2008
Publisher:

The Heartland Institute
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm...

Exposure to secondhand smoke (SHS) is an unpleasant experience for many nonsmokers, and for decades was considered a nuisance. But the idea that it might actually cause disease in nonsmokers has been around only since the 1970s.
Recent surveys show more than 80 percent of Americans now believe secondhand smoke is harmful to nonsmokers.
Federal Government Reports
A 1972 U.S. surgeon general's report first addressed passive smoking as a possible threat to nonsmokers and called for an anti-smoking movement. The issue was addressed again in surgeon generals' reports in 1979, 1982, and 1984.

A 1986 surgeon general's report concluded involuntary smoking caused lung cancer, but it offered only weak epidemiological evidence to support the claim. In 1989 the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was charged with further evaluating the evidence for health effects of SHS.
In 1992 EPA published its report, "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking," claiming SHS is a serious public health problem, that it kills approximately 3,000 nonsmoking Americans each year from lung cancer, and that it is a Group A carcinogen (like benzene, asbestos, and radon).

The report has been used by the tobacco-control movement and government agencies, including public health departments, to justify the imposition of thousands of indoor smoking bans in public places.
Flawed Assumptions
EPA's 1992 conclusions are not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The report has been largely discredited and, in 1998, was legally vacated by a federal judge.

Even so, the EPA report was cited in the surgeon general's 2006 report on SHS, where then-Surgeon General Richard Carmona made the absurd claim that there is no risk-free level of exposure to SHS.
For its 1992 report, EPA arbitrarily chose to equate SHS with mainstream (or firsthand) smoke. One of the agency's stated assumptions was that because there is an association between active smoking and lung cancer, there also must be a similar association between SHS and lung cancer.
But the problem posed by SHS is entirely different from that found with mainstream smoke. A well-recognized toxicological principle states, "The dose makes the poison."

Accordingly, we physicians record direct exposure to cigarette smoke by smokers in the medical record as "pack-years smoked" (packs smoked per day times the number of years smoked). A smoking history of around 10 pack-years alerts the physician to search for cigarette-caused illness. But even those nonsmokers with the greatest exposure to SHS probably inhale the equivalent of only a small fraction (around 0.03) of one cigarette per day, which is equivalent to smoking around 10 cigarettes per year.
Low Statistical Association

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#2 Dec 19, 2008
Another major problem is that the epidemiological studies on which the EPA report is based are statistical studies that can show only correlation and cannot prove causation.
One statistical method used to compare the rates of a disease in two populations is relative risk (RR). It is the rate of disease found in the exposed population divided by the rate found in the unexposed population. An RR of 1.0 represents zero increased risk.

Because confounding and other factors can obscure a weak association, in order even to suggest causation a very strong association must be found, on the order of at least 300 percent to 400 percent, which is an RR of 3.0 to 4.0.
For example, the studies linking direct cigarette smoking with lung cancer found an incidence in smokers of 20 to around 40 times that in nonsmokers, an association of 2000 percent to 4000 percent, or an RR of 20.0 to 40.0.

Scientific Principles Ignored

An even greater problem is the agency's lowering of the confidence interval (CI) used in its report. Epidemiologists calculate confidence intervals to express the likelihood a result could happen just by chance. A CI of 95 percent allows a 5 percent possibility that the results occurred only by chance.
Before its 1992 report, EPA had always used epidemiology's gold standard CI of 95 percent to measure statistical significance. But because the U.S. studies chosen for the report were not statistically significant within a 95 percent CI, for the first time in its history EPA changed the rules and used a 90 percent CI, which doubled the chance of being wrong.

This allowed it to report a statistically significant 19 percent increase of lung cancer cases in the nonsmoking spouses of smokers over those cases found in nonsmoking spouses of nonsmokers. Even though the RR was only 1.19--an amount far short of what is normally required to demonstrate correlation or causality--the agency concluded this was proof SHS increased the risk of U.S. nonsmokers developing lung cancer by 19 percent.
EPA Study Soundly Rejected

In November 1995 after a 20-month study, the Congressional Research Service released a detailed analysis of the EPA report that was highly critical of EPA's methods and conclusions. In 1998, in a devastating 92-page opinion, Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the EPA study, declaring it null and void. He found a culture of arrogance, deception, and cover-up at the agency.
Osteen noted, "First, there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA 'cherry picked' its data....

In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90 percent. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association.... EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between [SHS] and lung cancer."
The judge added, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before the research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate its conclusion; and aggressively utilized its authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme to influence public opinion."

In 2003 a definitive paper on SHS and lung cancer mortality was published in the British Medical Journal. It is the largest and most detailed study ever reported. The authors studied more than 35,000 California never-smokers over a 39-year period and found no statistically significant association between exposure to SHS and lung cancer mortality.

“SECOND HAND SMOKE IS A JOKE ”

Since: Dec 08

tobacco road

#3 Dec 19, 2008
Propaganda Trumps Science

The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.
In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.
The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.

Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.

OSHA ON SECOND HAND SMOKE

Air quality test results 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:

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com

All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.
US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...

A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.

So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.
Sharon Bilyeu

United States

#4 Dec 28, 2008
I think it's wonderful that January 1'09 is almost here. My parents were smokers and I've developed 2 black spots on my lungs from second hand smoke. I've been waiting for this day for a long time. Thank you so very much!
CHRIS

Bronx, NY

#5 Dec 28, 2008
CONFEDERATE_1978 wrote:
Propaganda Trumps Science
The 1992 EPA report is an example of the use of epidemiology to promote belief in an epidemic instead of to investigate one. It has damaged the credibility of EPA and has tainted the fields of epidemiology and public health.
In addition, influential anti-tobacco activists, including prominent academics, have unethically attacked the research of eminent scientists in order to further their ideological and political agendas.
The abuse of scientific integrity and the generation of faulty "scientific" outcomes (through the use of pseudoscience) have led to the deception of the American public on a grand scale and to draconian government overregulation and the squandering of public money.
Millions of dollars have been spent promoting belief in SHS as a killer, and more millions of dollars have been spent by businesses in order to comply with thousands of highly restrictive bans, while personal choice and freedom have been denied to millions of smokers. Finally, and perhaps most tragically, all this has diverted resources away from discovering the true cause(s) of lung cancer in nonsmokers.
OSHA ON SECOND HAND SMOKE
Air quality test results 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:
http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com
All nullify the argument that secondhand smoke is a workplace health hazard.
Especially since federal OSHA regulations trump, or pre-empt, state smoking ban laws which are not based on scientific air quality test results.
Mark Wernimont
Watertown, MN.
US Supreme court decision 1992 NEVER OVERTURNED...
A U.S. Supreme court decision during the early 1970's ((Lloyd Corp v. Tanner, 407 U.S. 551 (1992)) said a place of business does not become public property because the public is invited in.
So, by that same reasoning. A restaurant or bar is not public property. We need to support small business and stop regulating them out of business.
You keep hitting these people with Common sense FACTS. they do NOT want to hear it.

The smoking ban movement has nothing to do with FACTS.

“KISS THIS SMOKERS BUTT”

Since: Jun 08

Location hidden

#6 Dec 28, 2008
Sharon Bilyeu wrote:
I think it's wonderful that January 1'09 is almost here. My parents were smokers and I've developed 2 black spots on my lungs from second hand smoke. I've been waiting for this day for a long time. Thank you so very much!
AND THERE REALLY IS A sANTA cLAUSE AND TOOTH FAIRY

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#7 Dec 28, 2008
Sharon Bilyeu wrote:
I think it's wonderful that January 1'09 is almost here. My parents were smokers and I've developed 2 black spots on my lungs from second hand smoke. I've been waiting for this day for a long time. Thank you so very much!
Liar.
smudge

Ashburn, VA

#8 Dec 31, 2008
So, when/where does it stop?
Next, will it be a ban on fried food consumption?
Maybe no alcohol in the presence of your children?
"Hate Crime," if you offend anyone, for any reason?

It's insane,(and I don't smoke).
I want government, and my boss, OUT of my private life!
Pat Smith

Sublimity, OR

#9 Jan 3, 2009
Happy Contented Soul wrote:
<quoted text>Liar.
Everybody has different thought about the smoking ban
Brandy

Eugene, OR

#10 Jan 21, 2009
I am so glad about the smoking ban and to add to a previous poster fried fast foods should be illegal have you seen people?
just candid

AOL

#11 Jan 22, 2009
Brandy wrote:
I am so glad about the smoking ban and to add to a previous poster fried fast foods should be illegal have you seen people?
Brandy, what a cool name :~}
'Fats' don't really harm others, unless they happen to sit next to you on a long flight, 8880lol.

“Fredneck County Md”

Since: Feb 08

Small Town

#12 Jan 22, 2009
Anti-smokers are like Stinkies.... rude, crude, lewd, socially unacceptable and not really good for anything, but you still can't help but smile when you cut one.
Ken McCraken

San Diego, CA

#13 Jan 24, 2009
Sharon Bilyeu wrote:
I think it's wonderful that January 1'09 is almost here. My parents were smokers and I've developed 2 black spots on my lungs from second hand smoke. I've been waiting for this day for a long time. Thank you so very much!
So your parents were dumb jerks,stay out of my business please I don't smoke but whats next? my weekend glass of beer? tell me what I can and can not eat?

Mind your own business and you can get my hand gun from my cold lifeless hand.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Springfield Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Review: Hosanna Real Estate Svc (Oct '08) Sep 19 Stymied 57
Little League Vendor, Jevin, Stiffs, Pays Late ... Sep 7 JevinScam 3
Transgender Aug '17 Oh my 3
Kenneth Simpson Aug '17 Slurp 3
News DeFazio to hold town hall Monday at Roseburg Hi... Aug '17 We hate coos bay ... 1
News Cool Oregon Mom Arrested for Towing Kids' Plast... Jul '17 Monet 1
Yodhheh (Aug '14) Jun '17 anonymous 42

Springfield Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Springfield Mortgages