Jul 08
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.
My .Mac Web Gallery
Loading ...
July 9th, 2008 at 12:36 am
From the article:
“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.”
Interesting, because it seems that said federal judge, Judge Osteen perhaps had some issues…
From http://www.ocat.org/opposition/industry_campaigns.html:
“Judge Osteen
The presiding judge was William Osteen, of the North Carolina Middle District Court. In 1974 Judge Osteen worked as an industry lobbyist for tobacco growers while a private attorney. He was hired by a tobacco grower organization in Guilford, Alamance and Rockingham counties, within the state of North Carolina, to lobby former U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz, not to go ahead with a plan to eliminate the federal tobacco production quota program (AP press report, August 20, 1995; Repace Associates). Many judicial ethicists criticized Judge Osteen for not recusing himself from the EPA case.
The ruling
On July 17, 1998, Judge Osteen ruled in favour of the tobacco industry, striking down the findings of the EPA report. The ruling was challenged by critics, who alleged Judge Osteen went beyond the purview of the federal courts by reviewing the epidemiology and other scientific information in the EPA report. This strayed far from normal administrative law principals, and essentially asked for his review of scientific evidence to be given more credence than the EPA itself. Furthermore, the EPA report took four years to complete, was an extensive review of the current medical evidence on the health effects of second-hand smoke that included the evaluation of hundreds of individual studies, the public was consulted throughout the development of the report. Since its publication in 1993, several other meta-analysis have all come to the same conclusion that second-hand smoke causes cancer.
EPA wins appeal and ruling overturned
The EPA appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In a unanimous decision on December 11, 2002, the court ruled that the EPA report was not a reviewable agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The court held that there were “no legal and direct consequences of the report which constitute final agency action.” In other words, because the EPA report had no legal or regulatory function and was rather advisory, Judge Osteen’s judgment was dismissed.”
Odd, the Heartland Institute and Dr. Arnett don’t mention that. Here’s the link to the Apellate Court Decision: http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/982407.P.pdf
Here’s a link to a summary of the EPA study itself, with links for the full report: http://www.epa.gov/smokefree/pubs/etsfs.html
Odd, Dr. Arnett doesn’t provide that info. Nor, does he provide any links to peer-reviewed research disputing the EPA study save one, which doesn’t actually rule out SHS, but rather says that the effect of SHS may be smaller than generally believed. That is rather different than Dr. Arnett’s title: “Scientific Evidence Shows Secondhand Smoke Is No Danger”
Not, “SHS danger may be smaller than generally believed” but “Scientific Evidence shows SHS is *no* danger” (emphasis added). Yet the one study he links to as support doesn’t say that. The conclusions in the paper say:
“The results do not support a causal
relation between environmental tobacco smoke and
tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule
out a small effect. The association between exposure
to environmental tobacco smoke and coronar y heart
disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker
than generally believed.”
That’s not the same as “no danger”.
I’m thinking, based on the rest of the site, that I can tell you Heartland’s entire theme in one sentence:
“Private business is always good, government intervention is always bad”.
The ridiculousness of that philosophy is just as obvious as the ridiculousness of its opposite.
If you really think that it is that important that smokers be allowed to affect everyone in a ten meter sphere around them great. You’re a smoker, it makes perfect sense that you hate being told where you can and cannot light up. But really? The Heartland institute?
July 9th, 2008 at 6:15 pm
From the keyboard of John Welch, quoting the EPA:
I think that it’s important that adults should be able to choose for themselves whether they wish to inhabit an environment where smoking is allowed and their presence is completely optional. I think that adults who want to participate in smoking or allow smoking at their private business should be allowed to do so and the state should not be involved. I think that anti-smoking crusaders have sold the public on the idea that second-hand smoke is deadly, when clearly the EPA disagrees. I think that the mob mentality and process which brought anti-smoking laws to the Ohio ballot and passed them at the expense of the liberty of their fellow citizens is a dangerous precedent. Considering that science does not “support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality”, the only rationale left to justify any smoking ban is, “I don’t like smoking”, and using the force of law to curtail habits they don’t like is contrary to the principles of a free society and indicative of a growing nanny state where the mob sets the rules based on personal taste, and the distasteful become the criminal. And I’m sorry for the run-on sentence.
July 9th, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Hey Aaron, It’s Julie. Thought I should let you know that first since this isn’t as sophisticated as your’s and Greg’s posts’. Anyway I just wanted to add my two cents on this subject. I agree totally that the government shouldn’t be invovled in our personal choices that do not harm others. It was a very disturbing day when voters fell for that pitch. Moreover, I believe that, yes, some people are affected by second hand smoke but that each individual person is predispositioned for these things. My grandparents smoked cigarettes since they were children, died at an early age (60’s) from diseases probably caused from smoking (not cancer). On the other hand my great grandmother also smoked since childhood, lived well into her 80’s and died of old age. Until we can determine each individual persons tolerance to any substance, I think the government and the “do-gooders” need to focus their efforts on something that will help build this state. Maybe they can think more about the children. LOL