Progress in Stamping Out Smoking Has Stalled

The EPA's 1993 report on second hand smoke claimed that it had found that ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke) was a Class A Carcinogen. A Congressional inquiry into the EPA was instigated in 1994

Among its conclusions was the statement:

"The process at every turn has been characterized by both scientific and procedural irregularities. Those irregularities include conflicts of interest by both Agency staff involved in the preparation of the risk assessment and members of the Science Advisory Board panel selected to provide a supposedly independent evaluation of the document."

In court Judge Osteen (anti-smoking) overturned that ETS was proven to be a Class A Carcinogen. saying:

"The Agency disregarded information and made findings based on selective information... deviated from its own risk assessment guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers... Gathering all relevant information, researching and disseminating findings were subordinate to EPA's demonstrating ETS was a Group A carcinogen... In this case, EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized the Act's authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme... and to influence public opinion... While so doing, produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer."

The US Congressional Research Service conducted a study as well (Environmental Tobacco Smoke And Lung Cancer Risk," CRS, Nov. 14, 1995) and stated:

"The statistical evidence does not appear to support a conclusion that there are substantial health effects of passive smoking.... Even at the greatest exposure levels....very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS."

A US Department of Energy Report, found serious and telling flaws in EPA's methodology, and went on to demolish the underlying studies, even quoting EPA's prior critiques of the same studies!

The International Agency on Research on Cancer (IARC) conducted a 10 year study in 7 countries and concluded that living with or working with a smoker presented no statistically significant risk for non-smokers.

The National Cancer Institute study (Brownson et al, 1992) found opposing findings to the EPA report as well

In 2003 the American Cancer Society's Cancer Prevention Study (CPS1) confirmed the findings of the study by IARC.

This study followed 35,561 nonsmokers married to smokers for 39 years. It showed no increase in lung cancer.

In 1981 and 1988, the American Cancer Society did two major US studies (CPS-1 and CPS-2) and found no connection between smoking and heart disease.

A 10 year, 21-country study, conducted by the World Heath Organization , reported no link between heart disease and first or second hand smoke.

get out from under your own rock you fascist.

Baccybeast of TX 6:16AM February 05, 2010

That's "Morbidity and Mortality" - not "morality

JC of ID 3:24PM November 19, 2009

Of course, it's impossible to deny that smoking CAN be bad for you. That can be said of almost anything and be equally true. But perhaps some better questions can be asked, like is it as bad and as certain as they say it is, and is tobacco the real killer, or is it something else? After all, people have been smoking for centuries but it's only been relatively recently that it's become a health hazard. Back in the Roaring Twenties almost everyone smoked, but they weren't dropping like flies from cancer, emphysemia (sp?), COPD and the like. So what happened?

One really gargantuan thing that happened was the great science fair experiment we've all been participating in since about WWII, flooding the human body with the most poisonous and pervasive chemical soup that can hardly be imagined. It's in the air we breathe, the water we drink and bathe in, the food we eat, the potions we slather on our bodies, and in the fistfuls of pharmeceutical drugs we take. And surprise, surprise. We're all very sick and getting worse. Smokers get cancers and lung disorders, people who like to eat a lot get obese, and people who don't do anything wrong are dropping like flies from horrible diseases - autoimmune disorders never seen before, autism, Alzheimers, heart disease, organ failures, and of course cancers of an almost unimaginable variety.

Enter the self-appointed anti-tobacco truth squad. Just look how they've managed to focus the widespread perception that a real enemy is stalking our health, and convince us that the evil is tobacco, diverting public attention away from any other possible villains. They have done us a monstrous disservice, and to the extent that they have convinced the government that we can't make important choices for ourselves, they may be gutting everything that made this democracy great.

So how did we come to live in this poisonous chemical soup? I don't think it's any stretch to see that it was because huge corporations saw that they could maximize their profits by using relatively cheap chemicals, and through the wonders of modern advertising they could convince us that all these chemical based products are wonderful and we should buy and use more of them. It worked. And you don't have to believe in any wild conspiracy theories to see how it worked, because it was the profit motive pure and simple. This wasn't something that our founding fathers would ever have thought could happen, but the wisdom of what they did see still shines through. That giving people the freedom to perceive truth in their own ways, and to make their own choices about how they would live would conquer all, eventually.

Sambora of WA 1:17PM November 13, 2009

Hmmmm I would have guessed obesity is the number one cause of death that is, as the writer claims, preventable. So what I would rational from the in depth reporting here is people can only control a cigarette from going to their mouths , but not a donut.

Now on to the point of smoking in a movie. What the fool in the article they interviewed is pretty much saying, is that we should have the government censor films. Forget about the artistic vision the makers of a movie have, or the story they are are trying to portray. We live in America the land of "someone else is to blame not me" so let's blame the movies. I guess this should also apply to books (if people still read those things), paintings, and anything else that could one day be in a government funded building like a library or museum. Why stop with smoking? The people behind the censorship do not like smoking so they want to censor free speech and artists to get rid of what they don't like. What else don't these people like would be a fair question? What is next on the censorship chopping block so that society, who I am guessing these people feel can't think for themselves, will be safe?

For the critics I am not a smoker, but I do not agree with passing laws that take away the rights our country was founded on, once stood for, and more importantly fought for. Yes I did say ONCE stood for, because it seems we the American people don't mind giving up our inalienable rights so the government can tell us how much safer we are. Illusional safety or FREEDOM, hmmm wonder what the founding fathers of our great nation would choose at a time like this.

On a slight side note I would like to say please bring back the 10th amendment, it seems to have been omitted from the constitution about 100 years ago with the way the FEDERAL government sticks it's nose in what should be state level governing.

Remember QUESTIONS are the biggest enemy of any LIE. So go out and ask the questions of WHO, WHEN, WHERE, HOW, and most importantly WHY.

Steve of MI 10:38AM November 13, 2009