[patton]

When the USSG published, he very carefully stated that he was publishing a "scientific" report, and not promulgating a rule. Thus, according to the appellate decision in the EPA case, his finding cannot be challenged in court, no matter how fictional they are.

In phase II of this con job, local governments all over the place will cite his finding as the basis for promulgating new rules, thus accomplishing the same effect - further restrictions on smokers.

This is a planned strategy, IMHO. And the blatant dishonesty makes me ill.

[RandallFlagg]

You bet!
And by the time the challenges to the laws that kicked smokers out are successfully challenged, the relevent businesses will have already closed and they can make a NEW law via referendum.
The Colorado law CAN be tossed out for it's unconstitutionality alone -it exempts casinos.
Equal protection clause.

[SheLion]

When the USSG published, he very carefully stated that he was publishing a "scientific" report, and not promulgating a rule. Thus, according to the appellate decision in the EPA case, his finding cannot be challenged in court, no matter how fictional they are.

In phase II of this con job, local governments all over the place will cite his finding as the basis for promulgating new rules, thus accomplishing the same effect - further restrictions on smokers.

This is a planned strategy, IMHO. And the blatant dishonesty makes me ill.

Here's some more:

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE 

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

But where does this Taliban-like anti-smoking campaign come from? It can't really be this stuff about second-hand smoke. The famous 1992 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study showing a causal relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer was so roundly debunked as junk science (even by other federal agencies) it was finally declared "null and void" by a federal judge. Sure, second-hand smoke can be annoying, and it can't be healthy, but if you relegate smokers to their own enclosed space _ say a bar or a separate part of a restaurant where people, including staff, only go of their own free will _ who can object?

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.

The Illinois Clean Air Act, banning smoking in public and government buildings and on public transportation has been in effect for over 15 years.  This is not an issue about smoking in public buildings....it is about removing the rights of private businesses...restaurants and bars and smoking outdoors.

When the USSG published, he very carefully stated that he was publishing a "scientific" report, and not promulgating a rule. Thus, according to the appellate decision in the EPA case, his finding cannot be challenged in court, no matter how fictional they are.

In phase II of this con job, local governments all over the place will cite his finding as the basis for promulgating new rules, thus accomplishing the same effect - further restrictions on smokers.

This is a planned strategy, IMHO. And the blatant dishonesty makes me ill.

Here's some more:

Oak Ridge Labs, TN & SECOND HAND SMOKE 

Statistics and Data Sciences Group Projects

I think any anti who tries to dismiss the findings of the U.S. Department of Energy labs at Oak Ridge, should be confronted with the question: "Are you saying that DOE researchers committed scientific fraud and that their findings on ETS exposure are untrue?"

But where does this Taliban-like anti-smoking campaign come from? It can't really be this stuff about second-hand smoke. The famous 1992 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) study showing a causal relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer was so roundly debunked as junk science (even by other federal agencies) it was finally declared "null and void" by a federal judge. Sure, second-hand smoke can be annoying, and it can't be healthy, but if you relegate smokers to their own enclosed space _ say a bar or a separate part of a restaurant where people, including staff, only go of their own free will _ who can object?

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.

The Illinois Clean Air Act, banning smoking in public and government buildings and on public transportation has been in effect for over 15 years.  This is not an issue about smoking in public buildings....it is about removing the rights of private businesses...restaurants and bars and smoking outdoors.