With regard to the smoking ban in Chicago:

The latest television ad by Smoke-Free Chicago is another example of the lies, half-truths, and “scare tactics” used by lobby groups to get what they want. In this ad they state that 8 hours of second-hand smoke equals smoking 16 cigarettes. They apparently pulled this number out of that smoke-filled air, since there is no evidence to support the claim. There isn’t even false evidence that supports it.

Epidemiology is the science that studies causes and distribution of disease in the population. In Epidemiology there are certain methods of statistical analysis and criteria that are followed to determine a study is accurate and how much so. There are values extracted to determine the results of the study such as Relative Risk. A Relative Risk of 2.0 would be a "maybe", 3.0 or greater is a "yes", and less than 2.0 is a "no". Careful mathematical analysis is vital. If a study reported there was an epidemic of a infectious disease there would be panic. If we then found the study was false there would be anger.

In 1993 the EPA claimed that second hand smoke caused 3000 deaths per year. The report has been the heart of the anti-smoking fervor and has been adopted by every anti-smoking private and health organization in America and much of the rest of the world.

However, there are significant issues with the EPA research that indicates it was manipulated to reach the results.

* The EPA announced the results of the study before it was finished.

The study was a Meta Analysis meaning existing studies were used. (Meta Analysis is very difficult to do accurately, and is the easiest method to falsify and manipulate.) The EPA did not perform its own fact gathering.

* The EPA selected 33 studies on the subject, rejecting 3 of them for not having information they wanted.

* The EPA could not reach 3000 deaths per year using a narrow confidence level. (more narrow levels are more reliable)

* The EPA later reduced the number of studies to 11, in effort to widen the confidence level, and still could not achieve 3000 deaths per year.

* The EPA then doubled their margin of error, accepting a relative risk value of 1.19 indicating nicotine is a class-A carcinogen, even though 1.19 would otherwise be insignificant.

Yet when testing other substances for toxicity they look for the target relative risk value of 3 or greater.

* The EPA estimated that second hand smoke, based on nicotine measurements in non-smokers blood, equaled .2 cigarettes per day. However, the largest study ever on the subject, in the U.K. by Covance Laboratories indicates that actual amount is only equivalent to six cigarettes per year. Personal air monitor research found that passive smoke was one thousandth that of the active smoker. Yet Smoke-Free Chicago claims 16 cigarettes in 8 hours.

In 1995 the Congressional Research Service criticized the EPA's methods and conclusions. They found that 24 of the 30 studies used by the EPA found no significant affect of second hand smoke.

The end result is the EPA rejected two thirds of their hand picked data and invented a result that fell within their margin of error.

In 1998 Federal Judge William Osteen vacated the study - declaring it null and void and used the term "cherry picking" in his decision. Osteen said "The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies." Judge Osteen often sides with the government on tobacco cases.

The Cato Institute, The Heartland Institute, a Federal judge, the scientific community, and numerous other research and "think-tank" organizations have all discarded the EPA study as false. Other EPA studies have also been determined to be false.

Similarly, flaws have been found in the research indicating that smoking bans have not affected businesses adversely. It turns out that in some instances smoking bans have caused significant drops in business. Groups such as Smoke-Free Chicago, stand behind the falsehoods of the issue. The woman in an ad says she had gotten cancer and that her doctor said that likely her exposure to second hand smoke gave her the cancer. Many doctors of course respect the EPA results. She then says, "If people in almost every other city have the right to breathe smoke-free air, why not us"? They seem to believe that one of our 50 States and a few other cities equals almost everywhere. Furthermore, absolutely everyone already has the right to breathe smoke-free air. They simply need only to leave any area where there is smoking. Or they might try asking politely for a smoker to stop or smoke elsewhere. Don't smokers deserve the right to breathe smoke-filled air? If a restaurant, or any business, chooses to be smoke free, that is their right. Many restaurants already are smoke free. And how dare owners of smoke-free establishments stand behind legislation that would force other businesses to be like them?

A smoke-filled restaurant may be uncomfortable to some people. They have the right to leave, and the right to complain. People should spend their money wisely. If smoking bothers them they should patronize non-smoking establishments. Let the free market decide. The idea there should be a law, because it protects the innocent is complete non-sense, particularly when there are no facts supporting said law. What the City of Chicago needs is a dose of truth, not a smoking ban.

Mayor Richard Daley said, “ Everybody's for a smoking ban and everybody wants to be healthy…”. Everybody? Not the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce. The Mayor is just plain wrong. But rather than explain the situation he’ll just side with the lobby groups. Now that’s leadership.

Respectfully,

Eric Ferguson