Mn Smoking Ban

Smoking Ban in Minnesota Polls in Olmstead County, St. Paul, and Minneapolis confirm studies done by impartial and reliable sources offer a much different picture than the anti smoking advocates tell you about public support for strict smoking bans. Anti smoking advocates, legislators and even the media often report the cost of SHS to the state of MN is anywhere between $2.66- $2 billion dollars per year. Yet every April 30th the DHS commissioner is mandated by statute 16A.725 to make a "CERTIFIED" account of the cost of smokers to the state and that number is vastly different. In 2006 Health and Human Service Commissioner Goodno certified the cost of smokers at $294.3 million dollars as the cost to state taxpayers. Given the tobacco settlement of $6 billion and the $3.5 million that MN smokers pay PER WEEK more than covers any cost to the state. That SG said the debate is over, the report shows something entirely different. "The debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults." — Surgeon General Richard Carmona, June, 2006. No where in the report does it state: "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke." SG Carmona made that statement in a press release. That doesn't make it true. The American Cancer Society and the California Environmental Protection Agency conducted air-quality tests at several smoking venues that prove the Surgeon General flat-out wrong. This Surgeon General report is not a "new study," nor is there any new science in this report. It is a review of a lot of studies done in the past, many of which have been shown to be deeply or even fatally flawed. In more than 700 pages, there is nothing that indicates any harm will come from low levels of exposure similar to what you would find in any well-ventilated bar/restaurant. There is a big difference between smell and health hazard. By telling consumers there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco, the anti-smoking advocates have lost the argument.

Not one study of secondhand smoke has shown statistical scientific significance of any threat from the low levels of smoke

one would normally find today in any ventilated bar or restaurant and the epidemiological standard test of minimum relative risk. In almost 2 years strict smoking bans have closed 110 businesses compared to an average of 15 in previous years. Minneapolis businesses report job losses of 2500 in the first 8 months.

The Hennepin County Impact Statement: Hennepin County called their Impact Study inconclusive, it was not inconclusive to the 107 small businesses that have closed since the smoking ban was implemented. Compared to an average of 15 in previous years. -Hennepin County Showed the lowest percentage of growth in the 7 county metro area Hennepin County showed a .15% growth in liquor sales. These numbers included liquor stores. -Other metro counties average increase was 1.6%. -Hennepin County increased 3.5% the previous year. -Anoka County (with no ban) had a 7.2% gain in liquor sales comparing 2004 to 2005. -Food sales grew in all counties. -Bloomington was down 6.71%.

Bad science makes bad laws. New Studies: Stranges, et.al. 2006 no risk from ordinary exposure http://archinte.amaassn.org/cgi/content/abstract/166/18/1961?maxtoshow=&eaf Enstrom/Kabat 2006 when all published studies reviewed, no heart attack risk http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/IT030106.pdf Enstrom/Kabat 2003, 35,000 Californians, no risk http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/BMJ051703.pdf Lee, 2002 after proper adjustment, the risk appears to be near zero http://ibe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/59 Kreuzer 2001 nonstatistically significant effects http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11139328 Nilsson 2001, published studies are unreliable http://www.ncbi..nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=11726024&query_hl=37&itool=pubmed_docsum Adlkofer 2001, the question if secondhand smoke causes cancer is still

open http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11401014

Wang, cooking fumes do cause lung cancer in nonsmokers http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/26/1/24 and http://152.1.118.33/Files/Mutation%20Research%201997%20381%20(2)%20157161.pdf Bailar 1999 problems with smoke studies http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/extract/340/12/958?andorexacttitleabs=and&search_ta b=articles&tocsectionid=Original+Articles&tocsectionid=Special+Reports&tocsectionid =Special+Articles&tocsectionid=Videos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=Clinical+ PracticeAORBClinical+Therapeutics&tocsectionid=Review+ArticlesAORBClinical+Pra cticeAORBClinical+Implications+of+Basic+ResearchAORBMolecular+MedicineAORB Clinical+TherapeuticsAORBVideos+in+Clinical+Medicine&tocsectionid=EditorialsAO RBPerspectiveAORBOutlookAORBBehind+the+Research&tocsectionid=Sounding+Boa rdAORBClinical+Debate&tocsectionid=Clinical+Implications+of+Basic+Research&tocs ectionid=Health+Policy+ReportsAORBHealth+Policy+2001AORBQuality+of+Health+ Care&searchtitle=Articles&sortspec=Score+desc+PUBDATE_SORTDATE+desc&exclu deflag=TWEEK_element&hits=20&where=fulltext&andorexactfulltext=and&fyear=199 6&fmonth=Nov&sendit=GO&searchterm=bailar+1999&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0& resourcetype=HWCIT Gori, 1999 Passive smoke: the EPA's betrayal of science and policy http://www.geocities.com/~msrc/bookreport.htm http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIO NS&p_id=24602 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057 http://www.scientificintegrityinstitute.org/IT030106.pdf http://ibe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/2/59 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11139328 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=11726024&query_hl=37&itool=pubmed_docsum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11401014 http://www.bmj.com/cgi/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=317/7154/34 4 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=9126500&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=8785671 Lee, 1998 workplace exposure not related to lung cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=11401014 LeVois, 1998 scientists argue about whether smoke causes heart disease

in nonsmokers http://www.bmj.com/cgi/ijlink?linkType=FULL&journalCode=bmj&resid=317/7154/34 4 Givens, 1997 mathamatical analysis shows many null secondhand smoke studies are unpublished. citeseer.ist.psu.edu/givens97publication.html Ko 1997 cooking fumes, yes, secondhand smoke no http://www.ncbi..nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=9126500&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum Wang 1997 OR= 0.91 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=9152946&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum Wang 1996 not sig http://www.ncbi.nlm..nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=8785672&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_DocSum Kabat 1996 little risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=8865119&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum Du, 1996, Environmental tobacco smoke not associated in females.(

cooking is) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=8785671 Kabat 1995 little association http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=7598113&query_hl=10&itool=pubmed_docsum LeVois 1995 ETS and CHD not related (publication bias study) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=7784630&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_docsum

Layard, 1995 little association ETS and isochemic heart disease http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=7784629&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_docsum LaVois 1994 workplace ETS exposure does not cause Lung cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=8090954&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_docsum Fleiss 1991 in our opinion smoke studies too unrelaible http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=19 95774&dopt=Abstract Liu, 1991 not associated with passive smoking http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=2066232&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_docsum Sobue, 1990 no elevated risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=2313887&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum Zhongua 1990 female lung cancer not associated with passive smoking http://www..ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=2372823 Burch, 1989, no risk of bladder cancer http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=search&DB=pubmed Lee, 1986 very low, or nonexistant http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=3730259&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum Koo 1987 very low http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=3195828&query_hl=11&itool=pubmed_docsum Pershagen 1986 association cannot be regarded as causal http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=3545149&query_hl=24&itool=pubmed_docsum Garfinkel 1984, no risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?itool=abstractplus&db=pubmed&cmd=R etrieve&dopt=abstractplus&list_uids=6536943 Kabat 1984, no risk

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=6692309&query_hl=24&itool=pubmed_docsum Buffler, 1983 a link has not been demonstrated http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=6346979&itool=iconabstr&query_hl=2&itool=pubmed_docsum Garfinkel 1981 very little risk http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=6941041&query_hl=13&itool=pubmed_docsum Zeeb, 2003 no excess mortality of airline crews in Europe from

occupational exposures (despite exposure in aircraft) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=12835285&query_hl=40&itool=pubmed_docsum Blettner, 2003,flight crews had lung cancer SMR=.53 1960-1997 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=12918075&query_hl=6&itool=pubmed_DocSum Paridau 2003 very low lung cancer deaths among Greek cabin crews http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=12714544&query_hl=40&itool=pubmed_docsum Blettner, 2002, occupational exposure of german flight crews not

associated with risk of cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=12226003&query_hl=40&itool=pubmed_docsum Crawford, 1991 Flight attendants exposed to less than one cig equivalent/year. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=Abstr actPlus&list_uids=1859349&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum Reynolds, 58,000 flight attendants, RR= .37 to .42 for lung cancer 1988 to

1995 http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:b2KM91Ngr8J:ashsd.afacwa.org/docs/CDPH_AFA%2520Final%2520Report%2520to%2520BCRP ..pdf+flight+attendants+lung+cancer&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=7&ie=UTF-8

Tavern League of MN Sue Jeffers

Short version: Sorry Surgeon General Carmona, the debate is not over. "The debate is over. The science is clear. Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and nonsmoking adults." — Surgeon General Richard Carmona, June, 2006 The Surgeon General’s report is not a "new study" nor is there any new science in this report. It is a review of a lot of studies done in the past, many of which have been shown to be deeply or even fatally flawed. In over 700 pages there is nothing that indicates any harm will come from low levels of exposure similar to what you would find in any well ventilated bar/restaurant. The Surgeon General stated in his PRESS RELEASE that "there is no safe level of secondhand smoke." That doesn't make it true. The American Cancer Society and the CA-EPA conducted air quality tests at several smoking venues which prove the Surgeon General flat our wrong. There is a big difference between smell and health hazard. By telling consumers that there is no safe level of exposure to tobacco the antismoking advocates have lost the argument. The basic rule of toxicology is: the dose makes the poison. A message stating that anything is harmful at a high dose can be lethal at a low dose is simply put, not true. We must objectively define a public health risk that requires government intervention before we ban use of a legal product. We must honestly talk about facts and science. Not one study of secondhand smoke has shown statistical scientific significance of any threat from the low levels of smoke one would normally find today in any ventilated bar or restaurant and the epidemiological standard test of minimum relative risk. The fraud, deceit, faulty science, exaggerated claims and even outright lies are used in an ultimate goal to prohibit legal use of tobacco on public and private property. A normal nonsmoker, even most asthmatic nonsmokers, have nothing to fear from the levels of smoke they'll encounter in any decently ventilated bar/restaurant. The few exceptions to this rule will suffer more of their symptoms from the fear and stress brought on by scaremongering reporting than from the smoke itself. Bad science leads to bad public policy. Unethical statistics, like those cited in the SG report, are often used to politically motivate enacting bad legislation. Many smoke haters no longer believe they need to be constrained by obstacles such

as science, integrity, ethics or respect for individual choice in their quest to eliminate tobacco in public and private. ClearWay Minnesota has recently stopped trying to claim just 30 minutes of exposure to SHS damaged the lining of the arteries and would lead to heart disease. In fact, any changes are transient and reversible and cannot lead to heart disease in healthy adults. Caught in the lie, to their credit, they removed the billboards and the TV and radio ads. Unfortunately they’ll never put the same resources into undoing the damage they caused as they put into spreading the fears and divisions in the first place. Antismoking advocates often cite the “rights” of nonsmoking customers and employees vs. the fundamental issue of the rights of private property owners' ability to regulate legal activities on their property. While public safety is an important role of government we cannot allow an arbitrary definition of public health to create policy. Inspectors and food safety experts protect us from unseen and unknown risks that a person cannot reasonably protect ourselves from. For example, clean water, contagious diseases or bad spinach. A person can reasonably choose not to enter an establishment that offers smoking and nonsmoking choices. Political decisions affecting the lives and livelihoods of thousands of Minnesotans need to be based on truth, not on exaggerations or outright lies. With truth and science there will be no need to be “fair” to all and ban smoking across our state. With over 80% of Minnesota’s workplaces being smoke free, no on is forced to work or patronize a smoking establishment. Ethically and morally we must determine if the if the end justifies the means. Are exaggerated scare tactics OK in the name of public health? How far should government go in the name of “public health?” If smoking bans are justified on private property what will be next? Sue Jeffers 612-384-4374 Stub and Herb’s Bar and Restaurant Minneapolis, MN