Comments on: The Law Of Unintended Consequences Strikes Again http://jayreding.com/archives/2008/04/04/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-strikes-again/ Sun, 31 Jan 2010 18:46:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mark http://jayreding.com/archives/2008/04/04/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-365062 Mark Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:23:51 +0000 http://jayreding.com/?p=5843#comment-365062 Here's a rare moment of agreement I have with you, except for one point. Secondhand smoke is not dangerous. It's a "nuisance" that antismoking ideologues invented to accelerate their movement to the next level, convincing public policymakers that one person's unhealthy smoking habit is ending the lives of those around them. Even in the 2006 surgeon general report that shouted as through a megaphone that "THERE IS NO SAFE AMOUNT OF SECONDHAND SMOKE!!!!", the fine print of the report concedes that the cancer risk from environmental tobacco smoke is an insignificant 0.3%. To put that in perspective, the cancer risk from eating food cooked on grills is 0.9%. So you're three times more likely to get cancer from the grilled hamburger the restaurant serves you than the "secondhand smoke" that used to exist there. Minnesota's smoking ban has been an unmitigated financial disaster and the halfwits in Iowa's Legislature have a 50-50 chance of repeating the same epic blunder yet this week. As you suggest though, even if they were beneficial in any tangible way other than mandating fresh air for every antismoking prima donna who chooses to step on someone's private property and demand it, the nanny state bootheel is approaching Shaquille O'Neill's size...and shows no indication of being lifted off of the peasantry's neck anytime soon. Here’s a rare moment of agreement I have with you, except for one point. Secondhand smoke is not dangerous. It’s a “nuisance” that antismoking ideologues invented to accelerate their movement to the next level, convincing public policymakers that one person’s unhealthy smoking habit is ending the lives of those around them.

Even in the 2006 surgeon general report that shouted as through a megaphone that “THERE IS NO SAFE AMOUNT OF SECONDHAND SMOKE!!!!”, the fine print of the report concedes that the cancer risk from environmental tobacco smoke is an insignificant 0.3%. To put that in perspective, the cancer risk from eating food cooked on grills is 0.9%. So you’re three times more likely to get cancer from the grilled hamburger the restaurant serves you than the “secondhand smoke” that used to exist there.

Minnesota’s smoking ban has been an unmitigated financial disaster and the halfwits in Iowa’s Legislature have a 50-50 chance of repeating the same epic blunder yet this week. As you suggest though, even if they were beneficial in any tangible way other than mandating fresh air for every antismoking prima donna who chooses to step on someone’s private property and demand it, the nanny state bootheel is approaching Shaquille O’Neill’s size…and shows no indication of being lifted off of the peasantry’s neck anytime soon.

]]> By: bobunf http://jayreding.com/archives/2008/04/04/the-law-of-unintended-consequences-strikes-again/comment-page-1/#comment-365059 bobunf Sat, 05 Apr 2008 19:19:04 +0000 http://jayreding.com/?p=5843#comment-365059 I don’t think that it is possible to objectively state that “second-hand smoke is dangerous.” The government and other studies have been efused with near hysterical political biais, creating so much smoke that it’s near impossible to know what’s really going on. The 1992 EPA study, which produced the assessment of “3,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke,” was rejected by the Federal District Court (see decision at http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm) with these statements (among others): “EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun…adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion... disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning… “EPA's conduct of the ETS Risk Assessment frustrated the clear Congressional policy … to provide clear, objective information about indoor air quality...” The District Court was overruled on the grounds that EPA’s report had no regulatory weight, which seemed a bit like winning out of pity. Far too many government studies suffer from such very fatal flaws, mislead the public and obscure the truth. Bob I don’t think that it is possible to objectively state that “second-hand smoke is dangerous.” The government and other studies have been efused with near hysterical political biais, creating so much smoke that it’s near impossible to know what’s really going on.

The 1992 EPA study, which produced the assessment of “3,000 deaths per year from second hand smoke,” was rejected by the Federal District Court (see decision at http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafraud/files/osteen.htm) with these statements (among others):

“EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun…adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion… disregarded information and made findings on selective information; did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning…

“EPA’s conduct of the ETS Risk Assessment frustrated the clear Congressional policy … to provide clear, objective information about indoor air quality…”

The District Court was overruled on the grounds that EPA’s report had no regulatory weight, which seemed a bit like winning out of pity.

Far too many government studies suffer from such very fatal flaws, mislead the public and obscure the truth.

Bob

]]>