Posted on 06/08/2006 8:38:33 AM PDT by ZGuy
MPs voted in February by a huge margin to ban smoking from all pubs and private members' clubs in England. The proposed ban is based on the premise that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or so-called 'passive smoking' is a risk to health.
In an interesting turn of events the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee has just published a report on the Government's Policy on the Management of Risk.
The report has reached the conclusion that environmental tobacco smoke is not the risk it is purported to be and does not justify such a ban.
The report says that greater attention should have been given to scientific evidence, which it says suggests that passive smoking in public places is a relatively minor problem compared with passive smoking in the home.
The report calls on ministers to pay more attention to the risks to personal liberty posed by new legislation.
Lord Wakeham, chairman of the Economic Affairs Committee, said the government had failed properly to apply guidelines on risk assessment.
This is of course great news for the Tobacco Manufacturers' Association (TMA) which has always taken the view that the scientific evidence, taken as a whole, does not demonstrate conclusively that ETS presents a serious risk to health.
The chief executive of the TMA, Tim Lord says the findings of individual studies of the health effects of ETS are inconsistent and inconclusive.
He cites the five largest studies on the statistical association between ETS and lung cancer, where one reported a small increase in risk, three reported no statistically significant increase in risk, and one reported a statistically significant decrease in risk.
Tim Lord says if there are concerns about ETS, the TMA is prepared to acknowledge them and address them.
The TMA favours the provision of designated smoking rooms or areas for the specific use of smokers rather than a blanket smoking ban.
Deborah Arnott, of the anti-smoking charity Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), said the scientific evidence on the harmful nature of secondhand smoke was "overwhelming" and breathing other people's smoke in the workplace was estimated to cause around 600 premature deaths a year.
Simon Clark, of the smoker's lobby group Forest, said MPs had been hoodwinked by exaggerated claims about the effects of passive smoking.
In a major study published in the British Medical Journal in May 2003 conducted by Enstrom and Kabat on over 100,000 adults in California between 1960 and 1998, no causal relationship was found between ETS and tobacco related mortality.
The only hope for the UK is a party that somehow unites the aristocrats and the soccer thugs.
Ping
I'm pretty much convinced now that the success achieved with smoking bans is the same template being used in the Global Warming hoax. Outrageous science, intimidation of dissent, and it's all for the sake of the children.
Yes, I'm a smoker
Yes, I realize its a nasty, dirty, smelly, "evil," habit.
That said, there has NEVER been a "conclusive" study which can show, with "scientific evidence" (and not one which is skewed and false as the EPA one below) that ETS causes cancer.
"THE EPA ETS FRAUD"
"THE WORLD HAS BEEN CHEATED BY THE ANTI-TOBACCO CARTEL".
"THE TEXT OF THE DECISION OF THE US FEDERAL COURT ON THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE EPA."
http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/damn.htm
Oh course not!
DON'T LET THE HEADLINES FOOL YOU
Court throws out challenge to EPA findings on secondhand smoke - (December 2002) - The ruling was based on the highly technical grounds that since the EPA didn't actually enact any new regulations (it merely declared ETS to be a carcinogen without actually adopting any new rules), the court had no jurisdiction to rule in the matter. This court ruling on the EPA report is NOT a stamp of approval for that report. Judge Osteen's criticisms of the EPA report are still completely valid and is accompanied by other experts.
Everyone here know of Craig's List?
Go to the, "Rants and Raves," section on the CL site for your home state. Mention this and watch the fireworks.
Who wants to join me at the Denver CL R&R page?
(BTW, some people post some pics there that are NOT safe for work)
Ping to post #9.
Sorry Randall. But I get enough hate postings right here in FR! 
But, it's FUUUUN!
And anonymous.
I am raising such a stink on the Denver board when I get home from work in the mornings.
Go for it hun!!! Speak for us both!!!!!
I do not smoke anything and I do not mind if people smoke. As long as it is not in my house or my car, it does not bother me.
What really bugs me is that if, like they say, smoking is so bad, why don't they just completey ban tobacco?
If New York City (a place I despise to begin with and stay away from) is privileged to ban firearms in contravention to the Bill of Rights, why not tobacco?
If some places have all these anti-smoking laws, why do they permit “medical” marijuana?
If they ban smoking in bars where people are drinking, why do they permit them to drive away?
If the federal government allows lawsuits against tobacco companies because of the serious public health risks, why don't they just make it illegal?
This issue is a lot like silicon breast implants... Instead of allowing lawsuits against Dow-Corning, why not pull the licenses of physicians who implant them or prohibit their manufacture altogether? (I could elaborate much more, but I think you get the picture.)
I was once the only guy in a Suburban full of cute young preppy girls on the way to a Motley Crue show. They were smoking those awful clove cigarettes, but the other humiliating things they made me suffer through... like staying sober to drive, listening to them jabber, giggle and be groped and kissed... it was horrible...
Thanks for the ping!
I doubt very much I will read about this information in my Boston Globe.
What a crock this ETS thing is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.