The case against smoking bans, part 2Politicians based smoking ban justifications on epidemiological data supplied by pharmaceutical nicotine funded lobbyists. (pharmaceutical nicotine = Nicoderm, Nicoderm CQ, Nicorette, Chantix) Specifically the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), a division of the Johnson & Johnson Company, provided the funding to non-profits to push the smoking ban agenda on all areas of local government.
Epidemiolgy: educated guess after the fact. Epidemiologists compiled anecdotal stories ie. How many cigarettes do you think uncle Charlie smoked in the house for 40 years before aunt Mary contracted cancer?
These studies were ruled in court, as statistically flawed because researchers used a 90% confidence interval instead of the standard which is 95% confidence interval. ie.They lowered the bar to make the findings seem significant. Even at that lowered bar the relative risk ratio was only 1.2, a no risk ratio result is 1.0, a significant risk ratio is 3.0 to 4.0. Note, studies that show cell phones cause cancer have a relative risk ratio of 3.0, yet we have not banned cell phones as a health hazard. And in fact Walter E. Williams discussed the EPA flawed scientific testing with an official of the FDA:
During the late `90s, at a Washington affair, I had the occasion to be in the presence of an FDA official. I asked him whether he would approve of pharmaceutical companies employing EPA’s statistical techniques in their testing of drug effectiveness and safety. He answered no. I ask my fellow Americans who are nonsmokers: Do you support the use of fraudulent science in your efforts to eliminate tobacco smoke nuisance in bars, restaurants, workplaces and hotels?
On the other hand, we have actual secondhand smoke air quality test results conducted today in the very places which would be affected by the smoking bans…….bars and restaurants; not in aunt Mary or uncle Charlie’s home 20-30 years ago. Every one of these numerous test results around the world prove secondhand smoke is 2.6 -25,000 times safer than Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limits (pel). OSHA air quality analysis of secondhand smoke AQ testing is appropriate because smoking bans are justified per lawmakers and lobbyists alike as helping protect the health of workers. OSHA is the federal agency charged with protecting the health of workers.
The methodology of all of these secondhand smoke air quality tests was to measure for the trace or marker chemical nicotine, for reasons outlined below*. And it just so happens that OSHA does have a permissible exposure limit for the measured airborne chemical nicotine, it is 0.5 mg (milligram)/ cu. M. = 500 ug (microgram) = 500,000 nanograms. OSHA has permissible exposure limits for thousands of airborne chemicals, so not only can OSHA measure nicotine levels in secondhand smoke, they can measure all the individual chemical components. It is worthwhile to note that all of these AQ secondhand smoke test results were conducted by pro-smoking ban groups.
Thus, the fact that federal workplace air quality standards (OSHA), finds that secondhand smoke concentrations are multiple times safer than necessary; calls into question the validity of any and all smoking bans. If challenged on the science none of these bans would hold up. In fact the World Health Organization (WHO) quietly buried a study it conducted that found "Passive smoking doesn't cause cancer".Further, the pharmaceutical nicotine special interests which funded and lobbied for these financially benefiting laws have culpability in as much as they knew the AQ test results and OSHA permissible exposure limits, yet failed to provide the correct analysis to lawmakers.
So in repealing these smoking bans, based on science, it would be prudent remember to hold the special interests responsible for the financial damage they've inflicted from these rent seeking laws.
*Nicotine is the only unique or "trace" chemical in secondhand smoke. If you measured for formaldehyde, the carpet and other interior sources of formaldehyde would corrupt the test result, formaldehyde is formed naturally in our atmosphere due to photochemical oxidation. Benzene is given off from burning foods in the kitchen or diesel exhaust outdoors so again a false reading would be obtained. Therefore, nicotine is the ideal chemical to measure to determine secondhand smoke concentrations in the air.