Secondhand Smoke and Smoking Bans


Is The Debate Really Over?

“Law-abiding business owners have a right to operate their establishments free from the tyranny of government officials who overstep their authority and trample personal property rights, all while in pursuit of the extraction of fees.” - 1851 Center for Constitutional Law Director, Maurice Thompson "The Surgeon General's office takes the award for disseminating widely throughout the media the blatant lie that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and that inhaling even the smallest amount of tobacco smoke causes cancer." - Dr. Michael Siegel

"They have created a fear that is based on nothing.’’ - Dr. Philippe Even

Table of Contents, Why we Fight the Bans A Non-Smoking Doctor Opposed To Smoking Bans Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed Still Pooping In My Salad Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Are Just Smoke The Economic Losers From Smoking Bans The Air According to OSHA Huffing And Puffing Debunking Carmona's 2006 Surgeon General's Report Additional Reading Clearing the Air

1 2 3 4 6 8 13 15 16 17 18


Why we fight the bans
Well-meaning caretakers often use scare tactics and propaganda to discourage certain behavior by children. It's kind of understandable. "You'll shoot your eye out!" "That will stunt your growth!" "Keep doing that and you’ll go blind!" To some degree these warnings are based on exaggerations or downright lies propelled by wishes for what some see as appropriate social behavior. This is not, however, a good tactic to use on adults. Most of us know that a whiff of smoke does not cause anyone to fall over dead and that smoking does not automatically lead to lung cancer. We do know that throwing your smoking customers out the door darn sure does cause business losses and closures. Perhaps the nannies have talked down to children so long that they don’t know how to talk eye-to-eye with adults. Perhaps they think lying to adults is the same as lying to kids, an appropriate way to accomplish what they see as a greater good, an appropriate way to fulfill their agenda. This may work with some elected representatives – those who cannot or will not come to their own conclusions through searching the truth, but independent thinkers, including a growing number of elected representatives, are guided by the discovery of truth and they are rising up and shouting back against the propaganda. True scientists follow a methodical process to discover truth and discard false notions. Business owners make decisions affecting the security of themselves, their families and those on their payroll based on facts, not wishes. Freedom-loving citizens know that their happiness can’t be bought with others’ stolen liberty. We do not appreciate lies, even for our own good. We want the truth, not propaganda. We want laws based on truth from unbiased sources, not convenient lies and exaggerations used to sell snake oil.

A non-smoking doctor opposed to smoking bans
A letter from a practicing physician and member of American Cancer Society By Robert E. Madden, M.D I’m Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact. I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to antiSemitism or racism. To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights. Respectfully, Robert E. Madden, M.D

Dr. Madden was contacted by Sheila Martin in preparation of this booklet. Dr. Madden verified that he is the author of this letter and still holds the views expressed.

Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds
OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 2, 2000 — Exposures to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated for bartenders, waiters and waitresses, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). While people who work as wait staff and bartenders may generally be considered to be more highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, data from our study suggests that the situation is more complex," said Roger Jenkins of the Chemical and Analytical Chemistry Division. The study, which involved 173 people employed at restaurants or taverns of varying sizes in the Knoxville area, concluded that exposures to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP), for example, were considerably below limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the workplace. Subjects, who were non-smokers, wore pumps that sampled the air they were breathing while at work for a minimum of four hours. Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of 768 micrograms per cubic meter. The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours. Samples from the subjects were analyzed for ultraviolet absorbing and fluorescing particulate matter, solanesol, 3ethenyl pyridine, nicotine and RSP. Other constituents of environmental tobacco smoke, sometimes called second-hand smoke, also were not present in the levels previously thought, Jenkins said. For example, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1993 concluded that average RSP levels were 117 and 348 micrograms per cubic meter for bars and restaurants, respectively, while the ORNL study found those levels to be 67 and 135, respectively. While the higher estimates in earlier studies may be explained by the choice of the establishments in which the studies were conducted, another reason for the difference could be that today's ventilation systems are more efficient, Jenkins said. The Knoxville study also showed that for bartenders who live with smokers, the away-from-work exposure is at least as important as the at-work exposure. And people who are highly exposed at home tend to be more highly exposed at work, probably because they don't avoid it as much, Jenkins said. Jenkins' paper, "Determination of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke in Restaurants and Tavern Workers in One U.S. City," is scheduled to be published in this month's issue of Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. The "Restaurant and Tavern Workers" study builds upon findings of an earlier ORNL study involving 16 cities and more than 1,500 subjects nationwide. In that study, test subjects wore separate air sampling devices at work and away from work over a 24-hour period. Results from this approach differ dramatically from stationary air sampling, which does not take into account the constantly changing conditions as people move from place to place throughout the day, Jenkins said. "The fact is that while individuals may live or work in environments where there is smoke, stationary monitors cannot take into account changes in smoke exposure resulting from changes in a person's micro-environment," Jenkins said. "In these micro-environments, a person may be closer to or farther away from various sources of environmental tobacco smoke." Over the last six or seven years, more data on personal exposure to tobacco smoke has become available and the methods for measuring and analyzing the smoke have become more sophisticated. The 16-cities study, the largest of its kind ever conducted in a single country, found the highest levels of environmental tobacco smoke nicotine levels in workplaces where smoking is permitted to be between 9.41 and 14.9 micrograms per cubic meter, far lower than the numbers assumed by EPA and OSHA. "A well-known toxicological principle is that the poison is in the dose," Jenkins said. "It's pretty clear that the environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for most people." Extensive controls were employed in collecting and analyzing the air samples collected by the 1,564 participants in the study, Jenkins said. Test subjects also submitted to saliva tests that would reveal cotinine, a constituent of tobacco smoke. Smokers were excluded from the study. Cities used for the study were Baltimore; Boise, Idaho; Buffalo; Columbus, Ohio; Daytona Beach, Fla.; Fresno, Calif.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Indianapolis; Knoxville; New Orleans; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Portland, Maine; San Antonio, Texas; Seattle and St. Louis. A book that delves into this work, "The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measurement: Second Edition," is expected to be released in March. Co-writers are Jenkins, Mike Guerin and Bruce Tomkins of the Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division. Authors of the restaurants and tavern workers study are Jenkins, Mike Maskarinec and Amy Dindal of the Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division and Richard Counts of the Computer Science and Mathematics Division. The research was funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research. ORNL is a DOE multiprogram research facility managed by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation.

Still Pooping in My Salad
By: Joseph Bast Heartland Institute Heartlander April-May 2008
Five years ago I wrote an essay in The Heartlander titled “Please Don’t Poop in My Salad.” It came from an email I received from an anti-smoking activist in Milwaukee, who called himself “Harry,” who was annoyed by an op-ed I had written that ran in a daily newspaper. Harry wrote, “if Bast promises not to smoke within ten feet of me, I promise not to poop in his salad bowl while he’s eating.” Only he didn’t say “poop.” Harry epitomized the mood and tactics, and often the language, of the anti-smoking movement of the time. I regret to report that the debate has not gotten any more civil. That’s too bad, because there’s a lot at stake in how this debate unfolds.

Secondhand Smoke
Smoking bans are usually justified by concern over the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, “the debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard.” He released a massive report -- 709 pages -- that said “secondhand smoke is a major cause of disease, including lung cancer and coronary heart disease, in healthy nonsmokers.” But here’s the problem: None of the claims in the Surgeon General’s report would pass muster in a court of law because the studies it relies on have sample sizes that are too small, or the time periods they cover are too brief, or the effects they show on human health are too small to be reliable. Most of the research cited in this report was rejected by a federal judge in 1993, when EPA first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherrypicked studies to support its position, misrepresented the findings of the most important studies, and failed to honor scientific standards. The largest and most credible study ever conducted of spouses of smokers, by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, was published in the

May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. They found “the results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.” The study is mentioned just once in the Surgeon General’s report, on page 673, in an appendix listing studies that were too recent to be included in the report. But it was published three years before the Surgeon General’s report, and the report quotes other more recent studies.

No Public Outcry
The scare tactics of the Surgeon General and other anti-smoking advocates, such as the American Cancer Society, are intended to create public support for smoking bans. But what really drives the anti-smoking movement is private profit, not concern for the public good. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has contributed more than $200 million to antismoking groups. Why is it so opposed to smoking? It owns $5.4 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock, and its board is controlled by former Johnson & Johnson executives. Johnson & Johnson is the manufacturer of Nicoderm and other smoking cessation products. By demonizing tobacco, they’re creating a market for their products. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation created the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids with a $20 million grant in 1996. The Campaign for TobaccoFree Kids helped negotiate the Master Settlement Agreement between the tobacco industry and state attorneys general in 1998.

The Master Settlement Agreement funds the American Legacy Foundation, which runs the television ads you often see attacking smokers and tobacco companies. The American Legacy Foundation spends $130 million a year opposing smoking and has awarded grants of more than $150 million to other groups since its inception. It has net assets of more than $1 billion. All this is just the tip of a billion-dollar industry devoted to attacking smokers. Thousands of people now work full-time attacking smokers, and they have life-long funding. They are the ones quoted in newspapers and talking on the radio. They design and run the ads. They lobby in state capitols and Washington DC. What does the average Joe Lunch Bucket think? He just wants to be left alone.

businesses are actually public places and can be regulated by the state. By what authority does the state say a person cannot smoke in a particular place, regardless of whether there are others in the room, and regardless of whether the owner of that place approves? This is unprecedented interference with the private property rights of owners. It starts with workplaces, then restaurants and bars, then parks and sidewalks, and soon it will be homes and private cars. Once we say the state can violate people’s private property and privacy rights, where does it end? Like all victimless crime laws, the laws against smoking are difficult to enforce. With 23 percent of the adult population of the U.S. still smoking, it would require a police state to actually enforce a ban on smoking in all places that serve the public. Is that what we want?.

Economics of Bans
Why should we actively oppose smoking bans? One good reason is because bans really do hurt bars and restaurants. Two of the best studies of the economic impact of smoking bans -- a 2002 survey of 300 businesses in California by KPMG, the big accounting firm, and a 2004 study by Deloitte & Touche -- found major negative effects of smoking bans on restaurants and bars. The first study found 59 percent of bars and restaurants that served alcohol experienced a decrease in business. The average decline in sales was 26 percent, and 29 percent laid off staff. The second study found declines in annual sales of 36 percent at restaurants in communities with smoking bans.

Time to Speak Out
Unfortunately, many people who generally support less government, lower taxes, and freemarket solutions to social and economic problems nevertheless stand on the sidelines of this debate, saying, “I don’t smoke, so this isn’t my issue.” Or they smoke and blame themselves for being poor parents or poor citizens -- they believe what the television ads say -- and so they don’t turn out to vote against smoking bans. It’s time for that to stop. Fundamental liberties are being put at risk by the anti-smoking campaign. These rights didn’t come to us easily or as a matter of entitlement. Our forefathers fought a war for independence to secure these rights. We owe it to them not to abandon these rights without a fight. Joseph Bast ( is president of The Heartland Institute.

It’s about Freedom
The attack on smokers and bar and restaurant owners is the tip of a spear aimed at the heart of all of our liberties. Smoking bans say private

Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Are Just Smoke
By Paul Soutar/ February 20, 2010 Opponents to a statewide smoking ban say antitobacco advocates are playing a little loose with their facts. They have an unlikely ally in Michael Siegel, a medical doctor and professor of community health sciences at Boston University’s School of Public Health. He’s a long-standing anti-tobacco advocate, a proponent of smoking bans and a strong critic of bad science. In a story published Feb. 18 on his weblog, “The rest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis and Commentary,” Seigel wrote, “It is irresponsible to disseminate conclusions that are not supported by any scientific evidence, especially if that information will be used to infringe upon the freedom, autonomy, and rights of individuals.” “I believe that anti-smoking groups have been recently exaggerating the evidence in several ways,” Siegel said during a phone interview Wednesday. “To me, the truth is enough. I really don’t understand why these groups are exaggerating when I think it would be enough to tell the truth.” “A lot of groups have been saying that 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand hand smoke is enough to cause heart disease. I think that’s an exaggeration. It’s not true that somebody walks into a smoky restaurant for thirty minutes and they’re going to suffer a heart attack.” The proposed ban would not exempt bars and other gathering spots for adult smokers Another exaggerated claim Siegel sees is that passing a smoking ban will immediately and dramatically reduce heart attacks. “The evidence shows that in countries which have enacted these bans, they haven’t seen a decline in heart attacks within one or two years of the ban,” Siegel said. The third claim Siegel objects to is called thirdhand smoking. Some smoking ban advocates say nicotine left on a person’s clothing and skin is deposited on the surfaces away from the smoking area then create vapor that exposes non-smokers to harm. “I think that’s just a gross exaggeration, and the levels of exposure are so small that it’s not creating any meaningful hazard,” Siegel says credibility is the key to changing public attitudes about health. “Once we start exaggerating the evidence and the public becomes aware of this they’re going to lose trust in everything that we say.” Proponents of a statewide total ban on public smoking came under fire at a recent Health and Human Services committee meeting of the Kansas House of Representatives. Committee Chair Brenda Landwehr, R-Wichita, and other committee members challenged smoking ban advocates claims about studies used to support a ban. Several ban supporters referenced a study led by Dr. David Meyers, professor of cardiology and preventive medicine at Kansas University Medical Center. The study, officially released Sept. 29, 2009, in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC), claimed bans correlated to at least a 17 percent reduction in heart attacks shortly after enacted. On Nov. 10, 2009, JACC published a correction to the study. The language of the correction gave no hint of its importance nor did it say the study’s most quoted claim was nullified. Siegel, who was critical of the study’s original findings, published the correction and clarified its meaning on web sites he operates. The KU study was an analysis of smoking ban studies in 11 locations. Data from one of the studies was incorrectly reported, thus throwing off the broader analysis. “As it turns out, the study findings were due to a careless error. In the original study, the authors had inadvertently reported the Pueblo study has having reported a 70 percent reduction in heart attacks (a result that is completely implausible and clearly should have been noticed as having been in error). Instead, that study actually reported a 34 percent reduction in heart attacks. The meta-analysis authors published a correction in which they re-analyzed the correct data. “It turns out that the 11 studies did not find a 17 percent reduction in heart attacks, only an 8% reduction. “This level of decline in admissions for heart attacks is obviously not significantly different from the levels of decline in heart attacks that are being observed in the absence of smoking bans, which have varied between 5 percent and 10 percent per year in many communities.” The study’s original claims of a dramatic decrease in heart attacks was heralded by dozens of antismoking groups and reported by media across Kansas and around the world. The correction received far less exposure. For example, the Lawrence Journal World reported the study’s 17 percent claim on Sept. 27, 2009. Well after the correction was published by the JACC, a Feb. 9, 2010, article the Lawrence newspaper’s online edition included a link to the original, uncorrected story.

Dr. Mike Munger, president of the Kansas Academy of Family Physicians, used the uncorrected study’s findings in the Feb. 10 HHS committee meeting. His office sent notice of the correction to Landwehr Feb. 16 after committee members were made aware of the correction by an anti-ban advocate.

Dr. Jason Eberhart-Phillips testifies in support of the smoking ban before the HHS Committee. UPDATE: He has since been fired.

Dr. Jason Eberhart-Phillips, director of the Health Kansas Department of Health and Environment, also used the data and sent a detailed explanation of the correction to a committee member around the same time. Smoking rights advocates support a House bill because it creates a uniform public smoking ban statewide, preempting a hodgepodge of local ordinances. It permits smoking in bars so long as signs outside warn that smoking is permitted inside, prohibits anyone under 21 from entering and requires a $1 per square foot fee for an exemption. The House bill does not automatically exempt state-owned casinos. Anti-tobacco activists support a Senate bill which leaves existing local bans intact and offers no exemption for bars, private clubs or other drinking establishments. Several ban proponents said they’re willing to accept the bill’s exemption for state-owned casinos in order to avoid broader exemptions. Siegel says the casino exemption is rank hypocrisy that, along with some shady science, helps fuel the skepticism tobacco supporters have for real science he says supports smoking bans. Siegel says his colleagues have attacked him for his stand. “People think somehow if I’m saying these things, if I don’t buy every single line that the antismoking groups say, somehow I must be working for big tobacco.”

He says he decided to speak out when his conscience would no longer allow him to be silent. “I’m trying to tell it like it is. When it comes to smoking bans and their effect on youth the evidence shows an effect. When it comes to an effect on adult cessation, I don’t see an effect. I’m basically calling it as the science sees it. That perspective is not welcome in the antismoking movement, Siegel says. “They don’t see that there’s any role for scientific objectivity. Either you just spout the entire line of propaganda or you are somehow not worthy of being in the movement.” Siegel sees parallels to suppression of dissent in the global warming issue. “This is why there isn’t a lot of dissent in the anti-smoking movement, because people are afraid to speak out because this is the way they’re going to be treated. They know that if they speak out their funding is going to be at risk and they’re going to be not able to participate in the tobacco control community. They’re not going to be invited to speak at conferences. It hurts their careers.” He says the parallels extend to the animal rights movement as well. “It went so far that they basically lost credibility. I think this is the way eventually that things are going in the anti-smoking movement unless they kind of wake up and change their approach. Smoking rights advocates have created several web sites monitoring the Robert Woods Johnson Foundation’s spending on anti-smoking efforts. The foundation was created in 1968 by the founder of Johnson & Johnson and became the largest single investor in the world’s largest health products maker. Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries make and market more smoking cessation products than any other company and critics say RWJF’s anti-smoking advocacy is merely a way to redirect tobacco money to smoking cessation product sales. Siegel says he doesn’t believe RWJF is motivated by anything other than a genuine public health movement but he is worried that talk of an profit motive does not bode well for a scientific approach to public health. “Even the fact that there’s a perception that somehow this is a movement that Johnson & Johnson is behind, it sounds like people are already losing sight of the fact that this is a significant health hazard and this is the problem when you make hysterical health claims.” ____________________
For more stories on the smoking ban go to and search for “smoking ban”.

The economic losers from smoking bans
Should policymakers worry about harm to bars, VFWs, and fraternal organizations?
BY MICHAEL L. MARLOW Smoking bans in public places are promoted for a variety of reasons, including protecting public health and discouraging smoking. Such bans have become increasingly common in
The United States. According to the ban-advocacy group Americans for Nonsmokers’ Rights, 29 states now prohibit smoking in restaurants and 25 in bars. The group further claims that 17,628 municipalities are covered by either local or state bans on smoking in workplaces, restaurants, and/or bars. Business owners often raise concerns that they will be economically harmed by the bans. Ban proponents dismiss those concerns. The proponents typically cite two literature reviews, one by M. Scollo et al. in 2003, and the other by Michael Eriksen and Frank Chaloupka in 2007, that describe the academic literature as showing that the bans have no statistically significant negative economic effects on bars and restaurants, and may even have positive economic effects. Economists are naturally skeptical of assertions that a government intervention could yield benefits with no costs. Such intervention would be an example of the proverbial “free lunch,” and free lunches are few and far between. This article uses empirical evidence from Ohio’s recently adopted smoking ban to determine if such bans have negative economic effects on bars and restaurants. The article examines ban noncompliance data from Ohio, under the hypothesis that establishments that regularly violate the ban do so because it is profitable to do so. The detail of the noncompliance data allows this analysis to determine what sorts of establishments, if any, are harmed by the bans and what sorts of establishments are not. Ohio’s comprehensive ban took effect in May of 2007.By the end of 2009, over 21,000 citations for violating the prohibition were issued to 4,422 restaurants and bars, and another 11,000 citations were issued to 1,190 veterans organizations, fraternal organizations, and private clubs. The data indicates that individuals — owners, employees, customers, and smokers associated with bars and organizations are much more likely to be harmed than their counterparts in restaurants. An important implication of this research is that previous studies underestimated harm because they did not consider the implications of establishments not complying with the bans. This article also raises the important question of whether policymakers pay less attention to the desires of some establishments and their clientele — namely, bars and clubs, along with their patrons — than to others — namely restaurants and their customers. Thus, a fuller accounting of who bears the costs of bans should be weighed against any gains—both economic and public health—in a debate over the desirability of smoking bans.

Previous studies of the economic effect of smoking bans have typically used “community effects” methodology in their analysis. That is, they used aggregate data in their analysis, looking for changes in total revenues or tax receipts for all restaurants, bars, organizations, and other establishments

combined. “Community effects” studies often conclude that bans do not exert harm because nonsmokers outnumber smokers, and thus bans cause more nonsmokers to frequent businesses and out-spend smokers who may lower their frequency and spending. The problem with this methodology is that it is like looking at a community with 30 bars and restaurants and, after observing that total revenues have been $150 million for each of the past five years, concluding that no changes occurred over that time. Lost in the aggregation is the possibility that some owners gained $2 million in revenues, some lost $2 million, and still others experienced no change. An unchanged or rising community aggregate cannot uncover whether revenues for some owners fell, or some owners went out of business, or if new businesses entered the community during the examination period. More careful studies that disaggregate analysis to the level of individual businesses find that smoking bans exert differential effects: some establishments gain, some lose, and others are unaffected. A 1996 study that I conducted with William Boyes of bar and restaurant owners following the 1990 smoking ban in San Luis Obispo, CA found that 17 percent gained, 25 percent lost, and 57 percent were unaffected. A 2000 nationwide study that I conducted with John Dunhamon the anticipated effects of a smoking ban found that surveyed bar owners predicted losses from smoking bans twice as often as restaurant owners. For bars, 82 percent predicted harm, 2 percent reported gains, and 14 percent were unaffected. For restaurants, 39 percent predicted losses, 10 percent reported

gains, and 51 percent were unaffected. Owners who catered to many smokers predicted losses much more often than those who did not. A 2003 study that I also conducted with John Dunham of Wisconsin bar and restaurant owners concluded that bar owners lost business 50 percent more often than restaurant owners following adoption of a local smoking ban. Smoking ban studies that disaggregate to the level of business in the United Kingdom, Scotland, and India also yield evidence of differential effects. Common sense suggests that owners who had not found it profitable to voluntarily forbid smoking prior to a ban will be harmed by a ban more often and more likely to be cited for noncompliance. As for claims that smoking bans boost the value of bars and restaurants, a recent study by Robert Fleck and Andrew Hanssen suggests that, because bans are often adopted most readily in areas that are experiencing above-average rises in property values, studies of those bans mistakenly conclude that they cause rising business values, when actually business values were merely rising in step with overall real estate gains in those communities. Bars probably suffer more harm from bans than restaurants because bars provide a more social atmosphere where customers enjoy mingling with one another. Bar owners find it more expensive, and many customers would find it unappealing, to segregate smokers from nonsmokers, as would more normally occur in restaurants where such mingling is less important. Most bars are also too small to profitably offer smoking/nonsmoking choices for billiards, darts, or dancing. Research showing that restaurant owners offer substantially more nonsmoking seating than bars is consistent with this hypothesis. A new study by Dinska Van Gucht et al. of 110 Belgian smokers assessed over four days is consistent with expectations that locations that focus on alcohol and social gathering are much more strongly associated with smoking than other locations. Over one-half of all 6,397 cigarettes (14.5 per person per day, on average) smoked were in just five types of locations: living rooms, kitchens, outdoors, in cars, and in bars. The most frequent circumstances under which these cigarettes were smoked were after eating, while watching TV or listening to the radio, on a work break, “on the go,” together with alcohol, in the company of others, while having coffee, and at work. This study is consistent with expectations that social settings in which alcohol is present are more associated with smoking than restaurants where smokers apparently are more content to smoke upon leaving the premises than during meals. Moreover, studies also suggest that alcohol consumption influences both the magnitude and the emotional valence of cigarette cravings, thus again forging the connection between alcohol establishments and smoking.

and Karl Lund of Norway’s ban, in which aggregate revenue gains of restaurants were found to outweigh aggregate losses for bars. The authors conclude, “Some smaller sub-sectors might experience a decline, but the hospitality industry on the whole will not experience a statistically significant decline in revenue.” Apparently, the authors used a social welfare function in which all bars and restaurants are treated equally and that, as long as the overall sum of revenues did not decline, the net economic damage is either zero or nonexistent. Of course, this also ignores gains or losses imposed on workers, customers, nonsmokers, and smokers. This discussion raises questions of whether a policy that creates winners and losers is ethical — certainly an issue that deserves clarification when advocating bans on the grounds that somehow the overall community is either unaffected or gains from bans. If, for example, most winners are restaurants and most losers are bars, does this fact matter? Does it matter if most bars that lose are small, local “mom and pop” establishments that serve little or no food, rather than large corporate chains that offer full-service bars along with largescale food operations? Unfortunately, the “community effects” methodology does not allow inspection of who actually gains or loses.

A few compliance studies exist based on independent observations of small subsets of affected businesses. A 2003 study by M.D. Weber et al. examining 650 California establishments per year for five years found compliance rates rose from 46 percent to 76 percent for bars and from 92 percent to 99 percent for bars/restaurants over 1998–2002. A 2009 study by Roland Moore et al. of 121 stand-alone bars in San Francisco found a 30 percent noncompliance rate during 2002–2003. A 2008 study by Douglas Eadie et al. of Scotland’s ban found that, despite government claims of 98 percent compliance, compliance rates from a sample of eight bars varied substantially, with the lowest levels observed in bars located in lower-income neighborhoods. These studies never entertain the hypothesis that noncompliance indicates bans harm some businesses. An advantage of examining compliance data is that commonly used measures of revenue or tax receipts may not always reflect harm. Data on profits at the level of individual firms have never been examined either, though such data would provide better measurement of harm than revenues. Moreover, bans affect owners, employees, and customers in ways that involve revenues, prices, services, hours of operation, wages, hours worked, menu items, and other factors. Measuring harm by any subset of these factors is clearly not possible since research has shown that bans exert different effects on these many factors across different businesses. A recent example makes clear that bans push owners to rearrange their business attributes. Nick Hogan, a former pub landlord, became the first person to be jailed in connection with the UK smoking ban after refusing to pay a fine and costs of roughly $11,000. Hogan argued: “Ninety percent of people who come into my pub want to smoke. Even the nonsmokers think there should be a choice. These laws are ridiculous.” In contrast, Deborah Arnott, chief executive of the anti-smoking group ash, insisted it was a myth that the smoking bans in any way damaged pubs. Arnott stated: “Many pubs have shifted their focus to serving food, so they have changed their nature.” But her analysis is flawed;

Ban proponents who cite “community effects” analyses are not arguing that the bans are Pareto-optimal, as that would require either no harm to any bar or restaurant owner or adequate compensation to those who are injured by the ban. They probably mean that harm to individual owners are matched, or smaller than, gains to other owners. However, this distinction is usually never discussed. Community effects studies do not disaggregate to the level of individual owners, thus making it unclear who gains or loses and whether characteristics of gainers and losers differ in any significant manner. A recent exception is a 2009 study by Hans Melbert

shifting away from alcohol and toward food reflects harm reduction efforts, and likely would have been implemented prior to the ban if they were truly profit-enhancing. A focus on revenues or tax receipts is unlikely to measure true levels of harm. Owners who do not find it profitable to comply with a ban will predictably be those with the most to lose from fuller compliance and, other than those who close their businesses, are those most damaged by a ban. Fuller compliance could be promoted through higher fines, more frequent inspections, and possible confiscation of liquor licenses or forced closures of businesses. Continued noncompliance would thus appear to be a useful indicator of harm from bans and does not force us to choose any one attribute — such as revenues or tax receipts — to measure harm.

Ohio voters approved the state’s indoor smoking ban in November of 2006. The Ohio Department of Health estimates that 280,000 public places and places of employment are covered by the ban, which excludes only private residences, family-owned businesses with no non-family employees, certain areas of nursing homes, outdoor patios, and some retail tobacco stores. Business owners have three responsibilities: prohibit smoking in any public place or place of employment, remove ashtrays, and post clearly legible nosmoking signs with the toll-free enforcement number in conspicuous places. The law allows for both businesses and individuals to be fined for violations, though recent court actions have called into question the legality of fining owners for smoking by customers. Businesses receive warning letters for first violations, $100 fines for second violations, $500 fines for third violations, $1,000 for fourth violations, and $2,500 for fifth and subsequent violations. Fines may also be doubled for intentional violations at the discretion of the enforcement entity and may also be assessed on a daily basis for continuing violations. Individuals receive warning letters for first violations, and then $100 for the second and subsequent violations. There are also penalties for retaliation against complainants that begin with a warning letter for first violations, $1,000 fines for second violations, and $2,500 fines for third and subsequent violations.

A complete list of citations for violating Ohio’s smoking ban beginning with initial enforcement in May 2007 to yearend 2009 was obtained Through the kind efforts of Pam Parker of the group “Opponents of Ohio Bans.” This list contains the entire population of citations and thus does not suffer from small sample bias that hampered the few previous studies that collected compliance data. Locations of citations were separated into four categories by inspection of their business name and, when it was not obvious, an Internet search was undertaken in order to judge which group they belonged in. The four groups are: Bars, which are businesses that focus on alcohol sales or, if they also serve food, prominently list alcohol on their menu. Business names often contain “bar,” “pub,” “brew,” “club,” “drinking,” “sports bar,”

“billiards,” “darts,” “lounge,” or “public house” in their title. Most are small bars, but there are also national corporate chains, such as Chili’s and Applebee’s, that offer full-service bars. This category was selected on the basis of previous research indicating that businesses that focus on alcohol are more frequently harmed by bans. Previous research also indicates a connection between smoking and alcohol consumption, thus suggesting bars attract relatively many smokers. Restaurants, which provide food and non-alcoholic beverages, though some provide limited alcoholic drink menus that are not prominently listed on their menu. Examples of national corporate chains are Denny’s and Bob Evans Restaurants, as well as “fast food” chains (e.g., McDonalds, Burger King, Wendy’s) and many breakfast/lunch businesses. Previous research has indicated that smokers tend to smoke following meals, thus suggesting smokers frequenting restaurants are less apt to want to smoke while in restaurants than when in bars. Organizations, which include fraternal organizations (e.g., Elk and Moose lodges), veterans’ groups (e.g., Veterans of Foreign Wars, American Legion), and private clubs (e.g., shooting clubs, country clubs, swim clubs). Many of these organizations offer full-service bars and thus are closer to “bar” than “restaurant” categories. Research also indicates that smoking prevalence of veterans is as much as 25 percent higher than nonveterans. Research suggests that the military’s smoking culture is bolstered by a high rate of alcohol consumption, which many believe to be associated with smoking as well. Other, which includes all other locations in which citations were given. Locations are highly varied and include elementary and secondary schools, universities, parking garages, courthouses, gasoline stations, supermarkets, convenience stores, floral shops, apartment and office buildings, hotels, manufacturing plants, nursing homes, rental car companies, buses, medical offices, and hospitals. Figure 1 displays the numbers of citations issued for noncompliance for bar, restaurant, and organization categories from May 2007 to December 2009. The “other” category of roughly 14,000 citations will not be analyzed further because it is heterogeneous and has not been the focus of previous inquiry. Bars lead in violations with 20,138 (60 percent), with organizations cited 11,543 times (35 percent), and restaurants 1,666 times (5 percent). The data thus indicate that bars and organizations find noncompliance more profitable than restaurants. That organizations experience so many citations suggests they are more like bars than restaurants.

Figure 2 displays individual locations cited for noncompliance. In cases of multiple locations of the same business name, each unique location was counted once; e.g., multiple “Mike’s Bar and Grill” locations in a town would each be counted once. Bars again lead citations with 3,471 (62 percent), followed by organizations with 1,190 (35 percent), and restaurants with 951 (17 percent).

for Continued noncompliance. Specific names and identifying lodge numbers are removed to protect privacy.All top10 bars contained the words “saloon,” “tavern,” “night club,” “pub” or “lounge” in their names. Large corporate chains with full-service bars (e.g., Chili’s and Applebee’s) received just one citation. The top 10 organizations are vfws and Moose and Eagle lodges. Table 3 displays summary statistics of the organizations cited foremost continued noncompliance. The Fraternal Order of Eagles leads with 2,648 citations issued to 164 branches, followed by Veterans of Foreign Wars with 2,239 citations issued to 253 branches. In total, these eight organizations were issued 9,606 citations to 851 branches. The eight organizations accounted for 83 percent of all citations and 71 percent of individual locations within the organization grouping. Obviously, citations represent few of the instances in which the ban has been violated and citation data are subject to various biases. It is unlikely that public health authorities pick their visits on a purely random basis, and common sense suggests locations with relatively many smokers violating the law are targeted. Thus, citation data

Table 1 displays average citations per location. Bars average 5.8 citations, restaurants 1.7 citations, and organizations 9.7 citations. Maximum citations ranged from48 for restaurants (specifically, a restaurant focusing on chicken wings), 119 for bars (specifically, a night club), to 218 for organizations (a vfw). Conventional tests indicate differences in means are significant between these categories and confirm that bars and organizations experience continued noncompliance more often than restaurants. Figure 3 displays the distribution of citation frequency by individual establishments. The evidence indicates restaurants are much less likely to be found in continued noncompliance. Table 2 displays the top 10 bars and organizations cited

probably indicate bars and organizations are where smokers continue to smoke the most. No information is available on how many inspections found full compliance. Owners, employees, and customers who prefer to keep smoking have also undoubtedly developed sophisticated tactics to avoid detection. Working hours of enforcement officers are probably well known, and their faces are likely becoming common knowledge.

Noncompliance data indicate that smoking bans impose economic harm on some bars, restaurants, and organizations, with continued noncompliance mostly in bars and organizations. Cases of continued noncompliance apparently indicate where smokers congregate and continue to smoke in the presence of the ban. Previous studies underestimated harm to the degree that continued noncompliance indicates higher losses from greater enforcement. Public health authorities rarely publicly complain about noncompliance, since drawing attention to these owners is inconsistent with claims that bans

do not cause economic harm. Public airing of continued citations might also empower owners to seek remedies for losses. Studies claiming that bans impose benefits without costs distort the debate over whether communities should adopt the prohibitions. Even if ban proponents reject the Pare to optimal framework that requires adequate compensation for harm, the question remains regarding who gains and loses within the net benefit framework that apparently underlies the “community effects” methodology. “Community effects” studies gloss over costs imposed on individual owners, workers, customers, and smokers. This article’s focus on continued noncompliance provides new information on who loses —mostly individuals associated with bars and organizations — and a fuller accounting of their costs should be weighed against any benefits — both economic and public health — in debates over desirability of smoking bans. A reasonable question remains whether it is appropriate to target so much of the harm from smoking bans on sectors that provide social settings for adult customers. Bars and most of the organizations cited for continued noncompliance do not cater to children, which clearly takes away arguments that bans somehow protect the health of children. Members of social clubs and patrons of bars also voluntarily choose these locations and it would appear that nonsmokers have plentiful opportunities for avoiding smoking by visiting one of many locations in full compliance. Bars in continued noncompliance probably reflect the remaining locations where smokers feel comfortable congregating with a shared purpose of violating the ban. It is hard to believe that these locations would not be common knowledge by nonsmokers and easily avoided by those wishing to frequent smoke-free locations. Some might also worry that smoking bans in effect target specific locations for harm such as those catering to smokers and alcohol drinkers. That raises the possibility that

bans are used to systematically target individuals who gather at bars, veterans associations, and fraternal organizations. It would appear that these individuals matter less in our definition of communities than those not targeted, when one accepts the validity of a “community effects” methodology to judge whether or not a ban causes economic harm. If true, it would be more ethical to simply state that targeting such locations for harm is appropriate rather than pretending that no one suffers harm or that, even if there are more winners than losers, that bans do not systematically penalize some in our communities more than others.

Finally, enforcement costs in Ohio have been estimated at $3.2 million and, although $1.2 million in fines have been levied, only $400,000 has so far been collected. A recent court decision has suggested that owners are not legally responsible for customers who continue to smoke and has lent support for owners wishing to recover past paid fines. Given roughly 47,000 citations, enforcement costs of roughly $68 per fine is a hefty tax imposed on taxpayers, given only $8.50 in revenue per citation. The difference — $59.50 per citation — is picked up by taxpayers and is another cost associated with the ban.
Michael L. Marlow is professor of economics at California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo. He received no grants or funding of any kind for preparing this paper. He has received past grants from Philip Morris Management Corp. for other research into the economic effects of smoking bans, and that research led to refereed publications, all of which acknowledged that support.

Though repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke." OSHA begs to differ. OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals, including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result. Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens. -"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992) There. Feel better? As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that: "Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997 Indeed it would. Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that would be. As you're about to see in a moment. In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke. Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke, they compared them to OSHA's PELs. The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS. "We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance. "Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where these threshold limits could be realized. "Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples. "For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold. "For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required. "Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes. "At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might begin to pose a danger. "For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this 20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour? "Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two, or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed) achieving these levels becomes even more implausible. "It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat." -"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and president of Action on Smoking and Health (ASH). Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors. Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces. It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the realworld science to make it credible. So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick in the political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough. In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace. Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death. Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted. That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe. This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release: "ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against avoid serious harm to the non-smokers rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might be a better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights legislation at the state and local level... Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take. As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include." -ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes: "We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind." Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition (stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air." And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do the science.

Huffing and puffing
By Dan Deming - Community columnist Jan. 20, 2009
I'm convinced that the recent City Council decision to no longer pursue additional restrictions on smoking in Hutchinson was correct, and the three members who reached that conclusion - Bob Bush, Dave Razo and a reluctant but eventual "light-seeing" Ron Sellers - deserve praise from those of us who feel government is already too much in our lives and needs to "butt out," pun intended. Listening to the debate over two council meetings was fascinating, including Mayor Trish Rose's assertion (correctly) that "civil rights are restricted all the time by government" and are often "arbitrary" in some limits on how citizens may lawfully act. Her Honor argued that handwriting is on the wall for additional smoking restrictions, and so Hutchinson won't get stuck with an ordinance that bars smoking in private offices and virtually everywhere else, as favored by the Reno County Tobacco Use Prevention Coalition, we ought to negotiate a limited ban that excludes bars and taverns, where opposition to further restrictions has been strongest. There is something to be said for that position. Councilwoman Cindy Proett, who has developed into an effective, sensible public servant who is willing to ask good questions, noted the push for vastly restricting rights of smokers and rights of property owners to decide how to use their offices and buildings, was "spawned by a small group who are not business owners," and later suggested working out a compromise with those pushing for major restrictions. Councilman Dave Razo made his position clear from the outset: Leave the current restrictions against smoking in restaurants alone, it is working well, and don't expand it. Bob Bush challenged the mayor's defense of restricting civil rights by maintaining there must be a "valid reason to act." In Bush's view, guarding people from secondhand smoke and the proven dangers of smoking doesn't meet that "valid reason" test and giving in to the small band of taxpayer-funded proponents of a total ban would amount to "government by blackmail" and "compromising values." This issue could have and would have gone to the "let's sit down with the proponents and see if we can work out a watered-down yet more restrictive ordinance route" had it not been for the somewhat late awakening of Ron Sellers, who initially declared himself "on the fence" in knowing what is the best thing to do. Seemingly moved by a woman from the audience who argued most people in private offices and businesses had no idea of their rights that were about to be taken away, coupled with concerns that if the publicly financed Tobacco Coalition advocates got their way, poor old Joe The Smoker, who operates his own repair shop and puffs away while fixing vehicles, could also find himself a lawbreaker and subject to being cited by the smoking police, Sellers eventually sided with Razo and Bush. Noticeably absent from attending these key discussions on expanding smoking restrictions were representatives of the county health department's Tobacco Coalition. They had launched the effort to further limit smoking in Hutchinson, seemed put off when the council didn't respond favorably to their cause, then disappeared into the night when the important and decisive discussions at City Hall took place. This group may come back with a petition, aimed at sufficient signatures to force adoption of a broadly worded smoking ban or forcing a city election. We can only hope that if they do, they will be responsible enough to time that petition so the city doesn't have to hold a costly special election to settle a question that many of us believe the City Council majority has already properly decided. While most people in Hutchinson don't smoke, don't like to be around smokers, appreciate the opportunity to go to a local restaurant without having unwanted smoke with their food, they also don't want government telling other businesses whether they can or cannot allow smoking. It is a problem that the local marketplace has largely decided. Government already abridges many of our rights and is far too involved in everyday lives, although some of this "involvement" is necessary and in the majority's best interests. The time for an expanded governmentmandated smoking ban and its infringement on individual and property owners' rights has not come. Let's hope the smoking police and their government grant do-gooders will take the hint and shift their efforts to more worthwhile and productive causes.

Dan Deming was elected to the Reno County Commission after this commentary was published in The Hutchinson News. He is a retired general manager of Hutchinson radio station KWBW,

The Debate on Secondhand Smoke

Debunking Carmona's 2006 Surgeon General's Report
On June 27, 2006, Surgeon General Richard Carmona made this statement[i] about his report Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke: "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.

BUT Carmona points out flaws in his methodology in his report
On page 21 of his report[ii], Carmona states "Recognizing that there is still an active discussion around the use of meta-analysis to pool data from observational studies (versus clinical trials), the authors of this Surgeon General's report used this methodology to summarize the available data when deemed appropriate and useful, even while recognizing that the uncertainty around the meta-analytic estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated by conventional statistical indices, because of biases either with the observational studies or produced by the manner of their selection."

cause heart disease? It takes many years for heart disease to develop. It takes years of exposure to tobacco smoke even for a smoker to develop heart disease. I estimate that it takes at least 25 years of exposure (based on the fact that very few smokers are diagnosed with heart disease before age 40). So how could it possibly be that for an active smoker, heart disease takes 25 years of exposure to tobacco smoke to develop, but for a passive smoker, it only takes a single, transient, brief exposure? It is also quite misleading to tell the public that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of lung cancer. There is certainly no evidence for this and the Surgeon General's report itself draws no such conclusion. In fact, the report makes it clear that most of the studies linking secondhand smoke and lung cancer studied nonsmokers with many years of intense exposure. In his remarks, Carmona similarly claimed that "breathing secondhand smoke for even a short time can damage cells and set the cancer process in motion. Brief exposure can have immediate harmful effects on blood and blood vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart attack." Clearly, it's not just the news media that are misrepresenting the findings of the surgeon general's report. So is the surgeon general.
[i] 006a.html [ii] oke/report/chapter1.pdf [iii]

"Did Carmona Read His Own Report?[iii]"
Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine interviewed Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Services, Boston University School of Public Health, about Carmona's report. Siegal criticizes the Office of the Surgeon General for falsely claiming or implying that brief, transient exposure to secondhand smoke raises the risk of lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, and heart attack. The inaccurate or misleading statements appear not in the surgeon general's report on secondhand smoke but in the press release, fact sheet, and remarks by Surgeon General Richard Carmona that accompanied the report's publication. Dr. Seigel writes: No evidence is presented in the Surgeon General's report to support this claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General's report draws no such conclusion. In fact, such a conclusion flies in the face of common medical sense. How could it possibly be that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can

Additional reading
From Jeremy Richards, Ph.D. Southeast Regional Director and Director of Historical Research Citizens Freedom Alliance Associate Professor of History Gordon College
Failing smoking bans: Failed York County, SC ban (ban partially scaled back) 39822/across-the-region-the-latest-from.html Failed Galveston, TX ban (Galveston partially backtracks) Failed Dutch ban (Partial scaleback): Failed Illinois casino ban (Casinos will be exempt under this bill, state needs $$$$) spid= Failed Greek ban to be partially scaled back (also ignored anyway): olitics_100008_19/11/2010_ 121278 ticles/show/307671,greeces -smoking-ban-not-workingsay-officials.html Failing French ban: orld/article/0,8599,1949817, 00.html Failing Indian ban: http://timesofindia.indiatime .cms

Failing Maltese ban (even cops break it): 207/local/smoking-laws-widely-ignored-even-bypolice Failing Bahrain ban: Failing Isreali ban: ter/Article.aspx?id=166424 Failing Big Apple (NY, NY) ban: ted_news&rid=96765&catid=101 Failing American bans: Bars and clubs all over the country pretty much: Failing Nanny Bloomberg NYC ban again: NYTimes, late to the game as it frequently is these days. Better late than never: moking.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc= rss Even around hospitals bans are ignored 85190.htm List of 600 Ohio smokeasie businesses that ignore the Ohio ban m/ Failing North Carolina ban (merely five months later) s/23636558/detail.html History of smoking ban disasters: licybot/results/23460/Histor y_Shows_Smoking_Bans_ ml

Clearing The Air
Private pharmaceutical nicotine entities (RWJF / Johnson & Johnson Co.) fund the smoking ban movement in order to promote their financial interests... Friday, January 05, 2007 100 bars and restaurants put out of business in less than two years since Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Bloomington, MN. enacted smoking bans

Update: Nearly 400 Minneapolis and St. Paul area bars and restaurants closed after smoking bans were implemented. These businesses and jobs were eliminated by government intervention long before the economic crisis of '08-'09......and in fact were the cause of the aforementioned economic turmoil as the economic effects were identical in hundreds of other smoking bans around the globe. See which MN lawmakers voted to eliminate choice and jobs here in MN. Just remember what the Nicoderm (RWJF) funded smoking ban lobbyists told lawmakers "...smoking bans are good for business....." They just didn't mention that the business they were referring to was the Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical nicotine business: As of 10/1/2007 a new Minnesota statewide smoking ban is beginning to have a negative financial impact on bars and restaurants outside of the metro area, the metro area closings started to occur after Mpls, St. Paul, and Bloomington smoking bans in 4/2005) According to this 2004 end of year Star Tribune article only 14 establishments closed in '04.....the last full year without a smoking ban. (Scroll down to The party's over heading) Since implementing smoking bans the Twin Cities area has seen nearly 400 closings......the facts speak for themselves, smoking bans are very bad for business.