The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0013.012 2002-2004 Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1.40 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 P Ot United PI'CSS Intemetiomal Assignment America: Smoke screens By JoM Bloom From the Life & Mind Desk Published 8!222002 12:35 PM NEW YORK, Aug. 22 (UPI) - Tf you were to be strapped down on a surgical table while four guys exhaled smoke directly into your mouth and nostrils for 30 years, you MIGHT get lung cancer 40 years after they stopped --but it's not likely. I'm using this absurd example, because ALL of the other examples m the available scientific literature are equally absurd. The second-hand smoke scare is a political farce. It was invented in the mid-1990s by the Clinton administtation - it has Hillary's hands all over it --because anti-smoking radicals, who Lead to be like and-abortion radicals in their zealous devotion to the cause, actually convinced the Environmental Protection Agency to change its "conventional standard for statistical significance" so that second-hand smoke could be proven to be a killer. Normally nobody but specialists would cats substandard scientific reports get released all thetime --except that ICs now being used to justifyanti-smoking legislation that, in the case of New Xork City, could result in smokers not even being able to light up in their own clubs, their own bars, and, in one case, their own aparmentbuildings even if the place is clearly marked as a smoking establishment, h`Mayor Michael Bloomberg gets his way, they wont oven be able m smoke in smokimg lounges, tiger bars or tobacco shops. W ouldn't the American way be to put a big sign on the fiomt of your restaurantT "People Smoke In Here DonY Come In If It Bugs Yon." And then let everyone act like grownups? The simple fact of the [natter is that by about 1990 everyone had reached a compromise on this issue. Smokers would sit in smoking secttons. Ventilation systems would be installed in public buildings. Everyone would live and let live. Not good enough for the smoke-haters. They !mew that arguing against a legal substance on the basis that it was hurting the people who LIKED IT was a losing battle, and un-American besides. But if they could somehow prove that innocent people were dying (Additional information sent to Councilman Curtis Tyler from Keith King via FAX on 12/18/02) Comm. No.' • j ~ ~ l File No. - ~)7 ~t __~.._-s.> - - Ref. To: v_. r+ w ~ 2 Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:40 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 P 02 And so they proved it with "junk science." The Bush administration recently rejected a scientific report, 30 years in the making, signed by some of the top researches in the world that said fossil fuels were the principle cause of global warming in the form of air pollution. The reason Bush rejected the findings: it was 'yank science" from "the bureaucracy." If that was junk science, then the second-hand smoke reseazch comes from a junkyard infested with giant rats and scavenging stray dogs. Most of the available studies have "confidence intervals" right around l.0 which mesas no confidence at all. And almost all of them fail to take into account the other sources of air pollution. It's as though our polluted air were made up of 140 parts car exhaust, 70 parts smoke from fossil-fuel-binning factories, 40 parts methane, and .0000001 parts smoke from that guy on the comer sneaking a cigarette on his lunch hour. So what do we do? KILL THE SMOKER. HE'S DESTROYING THE AIR. The fact is, there have been 40 epidemiological studies of second-hand smoke, almost all of them based on the experience ofnon-smokers married to smokers. Thirty-two of them found no evidence of second-hand smoke causing any disease at all. The outer eight showed "weak association" but in some of the studies there was actually a NEGATIVE result, indicating that non-smoking spouses of smokers are LESS likely to get a serious disease. Of course, the ones that showed a negative result were thrown out as wacky, but the others are equally wacky. For one thing, theyYe all infected with what science calls "retail bias." People interviewed are asked to reconstruct smoking patterns over their entire lifetimes, and it's been shown time and again that their memories aze faulty, and in many cases, designed to mislead. The non-smoker frequently tome out to be a smoker for a portion of those years; he changes his story for insurance reasons or because ofpending litigation. And the non-smoker with lung cancer tends to seek external causes and fasten on the most convenient one, even when we Imow that a person living in an urban area is subject to multiple possible causes of lung cancer, most of them far more potent than cigarette smoke. Complicating the issue is the media treatment of second-hand smoke. If you say something alien enough, it acquires the patina of bulb even if the original basis for it is phony. I could use dozens of examples, but I'll just use the most recent one that I know of. Here's the lead paragraph from a July 12 article in the Globe and Mail, the Canadian newspaper. "People who are routinely exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke, such as workers in bars and restaurants, can see their risk of lung cancer triple, anew study says. The Canadian study provides some of the most compelling scientific evidence yet for a total ban on workplace smoking, including Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:40 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.03 bars and restaurants." Okay, now let's look at the study the article was based on. It was published in the International Jounuil of Cancer and signed by a lead researcber for Health Canada - a government agency with a vested Interest. (Public health agency research tends to ba uniformly alarmist.) Even so, the Globe and Mail's report leaves out the most important conclusion in the study: "Although more years of and mare intense residential passive smoke exposure tended to be associated with higher risk estimates, no clear dose-response relationship was evident." Any particular reason this would be left out? Other than that it's inconvenient? Of course, to report the data without any agency spin on it, you would need to study the tables, evaluate the "confidence intervals," allow for "recall bias," and do all the other things scientists normally do, and journalists SHOULD do. Apparently Australian journalists are a little more diligent. When the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council released a second-hand smoke report in 1997, the authors decided to omit the statistical tables entirely because they feared the press might study them. An outraged judge eventually censured the government agency for what he called lying by omission the same thing that happened in a North Carolina court case, when a judge said the Environmental Protection Agency's report was rife with "cherry picking" of statistics, and had excluded half the available studies for no good reason. Later the Congressional Research Service issued a blistering report of its own, essentially calling the EPA study imspons?ble and alarmist. The reason the issue of second-hand smoke is such a raging issue right now is that it's being used as the rationale foradditionalanti-smoking laws. Waiters, bartenders and cooks need to ba protected. This is what Bloomberg is basing his whole campaign on. People might not LIKE smoke. They might find it unpleasant. But it's a huge jump to say it's actually harming their bodies, as though they were coal miners, soon to be diagnosed with Black Lung Disease. In fact, we have two studies that measured Environmental Tobacco Smoke the scientific name for it -and came to the conclusion that, fast of all, the smoke inhaled from the air is chemically and physically different from the smoke inhaled from the end of the cigazette, and, secondly, people who work eight hours a day in heavy-smoking environments had the following CE's (Cigarette Equivalents): Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1.40 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.04 Sydney: 0.2 Prague: 1.4 Barcelona: 4.3 ThaPs cigarettes PER YEAR The worst case they could find had the bartender adding ro his cancer risk at the rate of 4.3 cigarettes par year, which is, of course, like saying somebody who eats six Lifesavers is a candidate for heart disease. Even more to the point, scientists computed what would happen if a 20-by-20.foot room with a 9-foot ceiling were filled with smoke, and then compared that exposure to the EPA's lowest published "danger" doses. Here are the results: For the lowest level of danger for benzopyrene, you would need to have 222,000 cigarettes burning in the room. For the lowest level of acetone, you would need to bum 118,000 cigarettes. For the lowest level of hydrazine, you would nced 14,000 cigarettes. And for toluene, you would need a cool million smokes, all burning at the same time. Unless, of course, you opened the door or window then you would need more. John C. Hailer, writing in the New Englead Journal of Medicine recmtiy, said that, if you sum up all the available evidence, the MOST alarming case you can make for second-hand smoke being related to disease is "We don't know." (He was primarily writing about heart disease, but the wnclusions on tong cancer are similar.) Bailer was being polite, We lmow. Get a ventilation fan. Put up a sign Go to separate rooms. But let's sot start a whole new era of Prhrbition in which people have to open speakeasies a~ private clubs just to enjoy a meat or a drink. We can't all afford to go to Paris to smoke. (John Bloom writes a number of columns for UPI and maybe contacted at jcebob(a}upi.com or through his Web site at joebobbriggs.com. Snail mail: P.O. Box 2002, Dallas, Texas 75221.) Copyright r 2002 United Press International Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:40 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.05 BETRAYALBYGOVERNMENTSHOULD HAVEUS SMOKIIVG' Chicago Tnbune; Chicago, Ill.; Ju122, 1998; Katlileen Parker, Tnbune Media Services.; Everybody knows it Breathing secondhand smoke kills non-smokers. Excep[ that now, it seems, maybe it doesn't. A Nordt Carolina federal judge oiled Friday that the Environmenhrl Protection Agency's 1993 report declaring environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) a Class A carcinogen was wrong. The report was conducted improperly, he said, and the science was lousy. In his oiling, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas l)steen wrote: "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun ...adjusted established procedure and scientific rroana to validate the agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utiliud authorityto disseminate findings to establishade facto rogtilatoryscheme intended to restrict plaintiffs (the tobacco industry) produce and to influence public opinion." Which finding poses a troubling question for Americans: Whom can you frost? Notthe tobacco industry, ofcourse. Corporate America is always suspect, buttobacco is especially, given recent admissions to having iettored or concealed findings related to nicotine addiction Nonsmoking activists, who have said that even though science doesn't necessarily support them, the end of stopping people fromsmoking justifies tbe meets ofbending the tnrdr. Longtime anti-smoking activist Stanton Glans, a University of California at San Francisco professor, summed it up nicely in 1990 at the Seventh World Conferatce on Tobacco and Health: "the main thing the science has done on the issue of ETS, in addition to help (ing) people like me pay mortgages, is it has legitimized the concerns thatpeopie have tbattheydon'tlike cigarette smoke. And that needs to be harnessed and used we are all on a roll and the bastards are on the run and I urge you to keep chasing them." Not the media, some of whose members in recent weeks have apologized for everything from inventing feels and people to reporting eves that may not have happened after all. The betrayals ofactivists and corporate headsneednkdisturbone's sleep. Bothgroups arc driven by agendas, and both, ultimately, are motivated by money, Americans expect as much The betrayals of media are more disturbing given that trust and credibility are imperative to the media's effectiveness. Contraryto public opinion, mostmedia people aren't agenda-driven. Most don4 care who gets elected or how many papers sell-the majority are patheticallyunderpaid no matter how well the publisher eats. Moro to the point, they care about gelling a good story, which translates into pay raises, better boon: and private schools for their kids. What should be keeping Americans awake nights is the betrayal of government For the past five years, the federal government has been spreading tbe word thatETS kills non-smokers. Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1 40 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.06 As a direct consequence ofdte EPA report,smokers have bcenbannedas pariahs from offices, restaurants and, in swne places, bats and sidewalks. Owing to govetmnent "proof' that sacon&and stroke damages or eventually kills children exposed [o it, some kids caught m custody disputes have been deprived of the patent who smokes. It's one thing to say tobacco smoke exacerbates existing health problems--a claim that can be supported by scientific evidence--but anodter to say that tobacco smoke is killing people. No goad end justifies such damaging means. The alleged connection between exposure to ETS and development of lung cancer in non-smokers has ban temrous from the start. The EPA report wasn't a study but a "meta-analysis" of several studies, many of which weren't scientifically defensible. Objective critics pointoutthatmoststudies includedwere conductedouLaiderhe U.S. where confounding environmetnal factors weren't considered. Some studies were absurdly small, such that any result would be scientifically irrelevart. All combined, the studies weren't"statisticallysignificant," the measure scientists use to separate tmdn~ga that are merely interesting from those that demonsnate a clear association. Inthe years since dte EPA report, other studies have only added to the confusion Tha California EPA produced a study that cotttumed the EPA's Endings. Anew--and reportedlybetter-study bythe International Agency for Research on Cancer fotuid no statistical significance. Whom can you tntsC? That'saquestionnoone cananswer, especiallynotyourgovemment. At best, the EPA report, which prompted life-altering judicial and legislative decisions, may be a mmtbing example of how government can fabricate information and modify behavior while the bathed masses are wondering what's for dessert. Whom can you trustT Maybe a better question is, what's next? Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1 40 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.07 Guest Choice Network Posted On March I, 2000 Is It Time To Roll Back Smoking Bans? Oakridge Study Refutes Secondhand Smoke Information By: Guest Choice Staff California's much-reviled total smoking ban in bars affi restaurants was based on claims by soli-smoking activists that the slate had a duty to 'protect" workers from exposure to secondhand smoke. But comprehe>ffiive new scientific data from the U.S. DepattmeM of Energy indicates California now has anodter duty: protecting its hospitality industry from junk science claims that have wreaked havoc on many businesses' bottom Imes. Oa February 2 the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) released a new study showing that bartenders, servers and other staff are exposed ro far less secondhand smoke thm the public presumes. ORNL's masurements are considetablybelow air qualitylimits established forworkplaces by tlrc Occupational Safety and Health Adminiahation (OSHA). In fact, less than one-sixth of OSHA's maximum allowable level was detected. "It's pretty clear that environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for most people," said ORNL's Roger Jenkins, who oversaw Ute study. Taking advantage of sophisticated new av-sampling monitors, government scientists ~ 1 era{,c ~ „ , , . c ose y non-~ag restaurant and bat employxs in Knoxville, TN who worked at least four hours per day. A previous ORNL study measured secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants by tracking 1500 pceple in 16 cities, who wore high-tech devices 24hottrs a day; atwork, at home audeverywhere in-between. That studyalso determined airquality levels ineatablishments where smokingwas allowed was far below OSHA maximum allowable level. The new OslrRidge study result should change the course of future bar and restaurant smoking ban legislation. It could even help rescind heavy-handed laws like California'sthatwere mshedonto Stebooks soonatter America's greattobaccodebate ignited. But it won't Eves though the Department of Energy's best efforts indicate there's no need or basis for barring s~kiog in bans in bats or restatrants, the current public mindset in California is tainted against toh:rmce - at least fes right now. Ironically, the case against public smoking bans conthmes to strengthen. The Oak Ridge study ~romes on the hcels of a U.S. federal court invalidating the unsciemific cla®s made in U.S. Environmental Protection Agenclls (EPA) now infamous secondhand smoke study. The federal judge who ruled the EPA study "null and void" stated in his decision that EPA "acted illegally and corrupted science to engage in a campaign of misinformation." Wednesday, December 18, 2002 2 04 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 In a less politically correct world, this indisputable, scientifically verified "one-two punch" would legally ktrockout the smoking bens that have done twthiog but choke off business. A KPMG Pest Marwick Andy conducted for the American Beverage Institute found that after California's statewide amokiog ban took effect oa dannary 1, 1995, bars a:perienced au average sales decline of 26%. Of those surveyed, 81 of freestanding bars sad taverns reported a decrease is business, wh8e 66% of nightclubs fed 44% of hotel and restaurant bus also saw a decrease. Ahneat 30% have had to lay off employees or cat working boors and shifts. California's smoking ban even proved to be inhospitable to overall business operations and customer comfort. More than half of the bars responding reported an increase in customer complaints. A review of nightly tips proved that. A whopphrg 5970 reported a loss of gnloitles for the bar and aerviog staff -all because of ahumist, bogus activist claims now contradicted by hard sckntilic data. California legislators' main justification for imposing the ban - to protect workers fromrisk- is completely without foundation. Unless yours hermetically sealed in a Plexiglas bubble, m aue unearth can live or work risk-free, nor shouldone expectto. Every job poses some risk. The U.S. government's most recent data shows many outdoor jobs, Nice Ember-cutting and fislring, actually involve a greatdeal ofrisk, with approximately 140 fatalities per 100,000 employed. Airline pilots and navigators also assume vary high risk, at 80 fatalities per 100,000. Farm workers, construction workers, oil riggers and taxi drivers all assume fatality risks that exceeds 40 deaths per 100,000. Government data shows bars a~ restaurants are one ofthe safest places m workwith 1.6 fatalities per 100,000 for the folks waiting tables or behind the bar and less than one fatality per 100,t10t1 if you're in the kitchen Only in the emotionally charged political chaos within California's attack on tobacco could so unrealistic m argrnnmt as total risk-avoidance possibly take hold. Why was ]aw applied in California so unfairly? Can you imagine lawmakers barring fazming lathe Lnperial Valleybecausethe riskofdeathis 40 tunes higher thanwaiting tables? Now thatthe Oak Ridge data confuming air quality conditions in bats and restaurants to be well below OSNA's maximumallowable levels, shouldn4 lawmakers move to protect these businesses with at least one-seventh of the speed they applied to "protecting" the businesses' workers? No doubt some bars and restaurants in the Golden State will choose to remain smoke-free, law or no law. That's fine! They koow their clientele and the ambiance thatbest suits their business. On the otherhaml, there are many bars and restaurants up and down the California coast anxious to return to business-as-usual, with smoking customers spending and tipping in numbers not seen since the smoking ban clobbered there in January, 1998. It's time to repeal an unjustified smoking ban Copyright ®1997-2001. Guest Choice Network All rights reserved. 1775 Pemuylvania Ave., NW, Suite ]200 ~ Washington, DC 20006 Te1:202-463-7112 Wednesday, Decemher 18, 2002 1 X49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.01 THE WALL ST .fir II.i~' IIIIDII d!`~~~~~l~f~ Smoking Out Bad Science March 12, 1998 QY Lorraine Mooney For the past 15 years the antismoking lobby has pushed the vices that second hand cigarette smoke is a public heahh hazard. This was a shrewd tactic. Far, having failed to persuade ?be moat committed smokersto save dtemselvea, theycould useproofthatpassive smoking harms nonemokingwives, children and co-workers to make the tstse for criminalizing smoking. But the science fell offthe campaigttwagontwoweeks ago whenthe definitive studyonpasaive smoking, sponsored by the World Hoattlt Organization, reported no cancer risk at all. Donn bet that will change the crusaders' minds. The anti~rnoking movementafterall,hss slipped from ahealthcrusadero a moral one. It is now obvious that anti-smoking activists have knowingly overstated the health risk of second hand smoke, The onlydefinitivelarge-scale atudyon the subjoct was designed in 1988 by a WHO subgroap calledt6e lnterrrationalAgeayonResearch onCancer. Itcomparod6501ung-cancerpatrentswith 1,542 healdry people in seven Europem countries. The results were expressed as "risk ratios," where the rrormal risk for a nonsotoktr of contracting burg cancer is set as 1. Exposure to wbacco smoke in the home raised the risk 10 1.16, and exposure >n smoke in the workplace increased it to 1.17. This supposedly represents a 169'0 or 17% increase. But the admitted margin of error is so wido-0.93 to L44-that the true rink ratio could be trivial or nonexistent. This is what anyone with commanseose might have expected. After all, the dose makes the poison, and a pack-a-day smoker is exposed to a lot more smoke than his wife ar office mate. Non~heless in 1988, the httanariomlAgenyonResearchonCancerdecreed tobacco smoke acarcinogen, firllyexpecting that the seconArmd produdwould have a similar, lowereffoctl6atcaddbe extrapolated fromwhat we know about the risk to smokers. Anticipating thatscience would confirurthis hypothesis, manycamtrieshavebeenadopting antismoking policies in tlu name of public health. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has confidently slated that3,000Amerit~nediesum~atlyfiominhaliogsec;ondhaodtobaccosmoke. The state ofCaliforniahas imposed a total smoking ban in all public places, whicfi took effect on Jan. I. California is not the first jurisdiction to enact such a ban: Iran did so in 1996-but it was overturned as unconstitutional. Before the International Agency on Research on Cancer Study, no other mliable study on second Hand smoke was available. In trying to detect sucha modest increase, the margin of error is very high, which means the numberofcascs inthe studymustbe very high. Atxing inthe moatunscierdificmanner, die EPA decided to pool the results of 11 studies, 10 of which found m statistically significant risk, to arrive at a risk ratio of 1.19. As is always a problem with this kind of "meta-analysis," the studies were all diffenat fmm each other in various ways, so that they were not measuring fhe same thing. Ms. Mooney is a medeeal demographer for the Cambridge based European Science and Environment Forum. Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.02 SMOHING BAN IlVIPACT ON RESTAURANTS by Otto Mueksch After obtaining data on "Taxable Sales in California" (Sales and Use Tax), I analyzed the Periods of 1989 to 1993 (Pte-smoking ban year), and 1994 to 1999 (Post smoking ban). The media, with famished information from the anti-smoking industry, wants to tell us that everything is fine, them is NO damage to the restaura~ industry. In fact they tell us that the restaurants are doing better drao ever since the ban and there is no cause for alarm. When you look at those two periods, you also have to consider the overall economic tendencies - 1989 to 1993 was at Ote tail end of a recessionary period, with ZERO STOµ'~- The "Eating and Drinking" group contains eating places where no alcoholic beverages are sold; eating Places where beer and wine is served; and eating places where all types of liquor is served.. I call the first group FAST FOOD ar FF, and combine the two remaining groups iffio RESTAURANTS AND BARS or RB. The analysis I conducted shows the following: Even though there was Zem growth, the FF sector slwwed an increase in sales of 11.7% Whereas the RB showed a modest gain of 1.2%. Another interesting feature of the report issued by the Board of Equalization is the number of permits issued in the various categories. The permits for the FF sector increased doting this period by 15.7%, while the permits for dte RB group doclitred by .9%, or 293 fewer RB. Looking at the period from 1994 to 1999, the overall economy (taxable sates statewide) increased by an incredible 31.9%. Looking at the sales for FF and RB I found that they increased also, with FF sales outpacing the overall figare at 38.4%, while the RB sales were below the overall economy figures, at 28.6°r6. However, the clincher, and what the Media and the a»ti-smoking industry does NOT tell you, is drat dre number of permits issued for PF rose by 12.7%, whereas the number of permits for RB DECREASED by 3.3%, which areans that there were 1,039 fewer RB's in California. in other words, during a period in which we saw a tremendeous increase in the overall economy, 1,039 restaurants or haze went out of business. That is the real impact of the smoking ban. So if you hear of anyone saying that the smoking ban in restaurants and bats does not hurt anybody, you can quote my figures, which are based on the official reports issued by the State Board of Equalization here in California. Wednesday, December 18, 2002 149 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.03 Bemidji Pioneer (Minnesota) Reader Opinions Name: Sandra Date: June 24, 2002 To tbe restaurant and bar owners of Bemidji. You had better listen to the pro-choice people here. My husband and 1 are both non-smokers. We used ro own 2 restaurants and a half-share in abet-nightclub here in Victoria B.C., Canada In 1999 the Capital Regional District (CRD) here enacted a 100% smoking bylaw. We did not protest, after all we were told we would not be adversely affected by the smoking bylaw. So we thought. W e never violated the bylaw. Ourrestaurant-bar and grill was ah+eady 70% non-smoking 25°~ smoking before Ote bylaw anyway. We did not believe it would matter to ua We were so wrong. We believed that wilt a level playing-field as the CRD promised us, our businesses might even see higher profits. We ware fools to buy into this anti-smoking rubbish- We lost our baz~lub within eight months of the bylaw's introduction. Our partner filed for bankruptcy. Fozty-two of our wozkers became unemployed. In the previous five years the business was generating gross sales of over $2 million per annum. Our business was down over 50% in 1999 peaking at 65% in the winter months. We closed early most weeknights and on several occasions on weekends. It was a bitter blow to our family and all the people involved with our business. Fortunately we had other investments that did do well for us. Our other investments: We own and operated two restaurants. One a baz and grill (200 seats) where my husband is the manager and I co-manage along with my brother and a pizzeria (delivery and take out only) in a small strip-mall. The bar and grill in the last two and a half years is barely turning a descent profit. We do have a fair sized patio and in the spring-summer Wednesday, December 18, 2002 t:49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p 04 months we have been malting out alt right The winter is a different story, Business is down over 35-45%. Our staff is reduced by 12 and my husband puts in over 90+ hours per week. We normally employ 28 people before the bylaw. This used to be ourfull-time staffing year-round. We can no longer afford to hire the help except during the spring-summer season. We also had to stop hiring live music. We used to have bands every night of the week. It was too costly. We never thought the bylaw would have such a drastic impact but it has on moat businesses in our industry. We were told that smokers would, in time accept the bylaw and things would actually be better for most businesses. This has not happened in most places here. I have talked to many other business people in our industry and I know many of them personally. They have no reason m lie about this. We were sold a bill of'bad goods.' The almost the entire industry in Victoria is paying for it. I know of 40+ busitesses that have closed directly on account of the smoking bylaw here. There will be many more to come. Ourtake-out pizza parlor is tluiving on the other baud. Sales have steadily increased and we are now doing over 30% better in gross sales than we were before the smoking bylaw. Still this is a far cry from offsetting the loss of our bar and the profits from our restaurant-bar and grill. We are luckier than most. Our family has helped us financially in our times of money woes and the loss of our business (bar-club). We would sell the restaurant (bar and grill) tomorrow, but the market value has dropped so low that we must keep working until we can at least break even on what we paid initially for the business. No one in their right mind wants to be in the restaurant business in this city unless they are achain-restaurant, a high class dining, take-out-delivery or donut shop. The bar/nightclnb/pub business here is down at least 15°h-50%, and it's not improving. People: smokers andnon-smokers are staying home or going outside the city to locales where stroking is allowed. Non-smokers are not replacing smokers in bars, clubs or restaurants. The anti-smoking operatives are lying to all of you. Do trot be fooled. Bringing a smoking ban or bylaw to your community will bring nothing but hurt and economic suffering to most businesses in the hospitality field. My husband and I have over 60 years between us in this industry. The most Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1 ~.49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.DS insulting thing I ever heard was when we attended a council meeting to voice opposition to the bylaw when we had afirst-head look at how two out of our three businesses were suffering. When we said our barclub was going to go under if the bylaw continued our council members commented that "Maybe we should seek another line of work, obviously we had no idea how to run a business." My husband had to be restrained. Some idiot in a business-suit who has never to my }mowledge ever patronized any of my businesses with arty regularity, who has no experience running such a hospitality establishment is telling us with over 60 years experience that we Have no idea how to rim our places. We had fumed constant profits since becoming business owner for over the last 25 years. These people who claim secondhand smoke is a health issue are not kidding. The heahh of your financial well-being is in jeopardy if smoking is banned in your city. You will lose tourist dollars and valued customers. Aword ofwell-earned advice. People who did not patronize restaurants and bars in your community when smoking was allowed will seldom, if ever come out even if those businesses become smoke-free. Non-smokers and Ote anti-smokers pushing for government imposed smoke-free drinking and dining will not even put a dent in the amount of customer base that yon will lose. That's not all you will lose. Monetarily speaking, we have lost in excess of $530,000.00 Canadian dollars from the loss of our bar/nightclub. Over $220,000.00 in revenue from our bar and gill restaurant. We have gained about $120,000.00 from our pizza parlor. Do the matb: smoking bylawm$750,000.00-$120,000.00-$630,000.00 and our early retirement. We are not taking into account the loss we would take if we tied to sell our bar and grill restaurant at mazket value. Do not believe tho'anti~moking snako-oil pitchmnn.' They are lying to you. They are playing games with your livelihood. It is too late for us here in Victoria. Hopefully you can learn from our mistake. Had we of known of the impact a smoking ban, we would have fought. Now we must pay the price for our complacency. The smell of fascism is much more unpleasant than the smell of any amount of secondhand smoke. To the'concemed' citizens who advocate a local smoking ban or bylaw: Butt out of other people's business. You are brainwashed fools. Go back to your smoke-13ee'caves.' Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.06 O~inionJournal T0~ WLLI, ST6~~T JOIIBAALL 6dkortor rage PEOGY NOONAN Them The one group for whom liberals have no tolerance at all. Friday. November I5, 100111:01 a.m. There's a lot to think about this week-the rise of Nancy Pelosi, the meaning of the Republican triumph--but my thoughts keep tugging toward a group of people who are abused, ostracized and facing a cold winter. It's not right what we do to them, and we should pay attention. I saw them again the other day, shivering in the cold, in the rain, without jackets or coats. The looked out, expressionless, as the great world, busy and purposeful, honied by on the street. Thcy were ?ined up along the wall of a business otTice. At their feet were a small mountain of cigarette butts and litter. They are the punished, the shamed. They arc the Smokers. As they stood dtere--I imagined a wreath of smoke curling round their shoulders like the wooden collar of the stocks of the 17th century--I thought: Why don't we stop this? For a decade now we have been throwing them out of our offices and homes and public spaces. We have told them they are unclean. We treat them the way India used to treat the untouchables. We have removed them from our midst because they take small tubes of soft white paper with flocks of tobacco stuffed inside, light them on fire and suck on them. This creates smoke, which pollutes the air. "Second hand smoke kills." But--how to put it?--we all know that's just politically correct propaganda invented by the prohibitionists, don't we7 If you spend 24 hoots a day in a 4-by-4-foot room with a chain smoker you71 feel it, and you'll be harmed by it. But are you damaged by the guy down the hall who smokes in the office at work? No, you're not, and you know it. You just dunk like it. Your nostrils are dainty little organs, and your nostrils trump his rights. But you definitely wouldn't be harmed if tbe handful of smokers in your office were allowed to smoke only in a common room with good ventilation. Why wouldn't that be a civilized and acceptable compromise? And why is it smoking that is the object of such fierce disdain? Within blocks of where the smokers stood in front of the office building on Madison Avenue the other day, them were people who last night bought five rocks of crack cocaine. There were Page t of 4 Wednesday, December 18, 20021:49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.07 people who watch child pom There were people who drive by with the sound up so you can hear the lyrics of the song thcyYe listening to, which is about how women are ho's who should be shot. Talk about air pollution. Them were people who gorge on food, people who drink too much, people who perform abortions in the eighth month of pregnancy-the eighth month, so late that the child could almost come out and shake his little fist and say "I wish you had not killed me!" Within blocks of where the smokers stood there were thousands of purveyors of and sharers in all the mutations and permutations of hnmazt woe, sin, matfwr~a,~ro, messiness and degradation. And they all get to stay inside. They all get to sit at their desks. It's the smokers we ostracize. It's odd, isn't it? Actually it's crazy. I think it is as insufficiently commented-upon irony that cigarette prohibition and the public shaming it entails is the work of modem hberals. They're supposed to be the ones who are nonjudgmental, who live and let Gve, but they approach smoking like Carry Nation with her ax. Conservatives on the other hand let you smoke. They acknowledge sin and accept imperfection. Also most of them aro culturally inclined toward courtesy of the old-fashioned sort. if you tried to light up near alert-wing bigcity attorney, she would cut off your hand the way Christopher chopped off ltalphie's the other night on "The Sopranos." But if you are a smoker and you go visit a nice little uneopltisticated Baptist lady in a suburb of Tuscaloosa, sbe will not only allow you to smoke, she will scurry into the dining room to 5nd the china ashtray she put away 10 years ago under the folded table clothe. She would do this so you could have a nice place to put your ashes. She wouldn't dream of making you uncomformble. That would be impolite and inhospitable. Modem liberals ate not culturally inclined towazd courtesy. They are inclined towazd !mowing what's good for you and passing ordinances to make sure you get the picture. The first Thank You For Not Smoking sign I ever saw was kn 1976, on the desk of Massachusetts governor Mike Dukakis. I thought: I have seen the future, and it is puritanical. Why do liberals punish smokers? Could we discuss this? Is it that it makes them feel clean? Some parts of our culture in which liberals largely call the shots-Hollywood, for instanco--are fairly low and degraded. Maybe I'berals can't face this, and [Hake themselves feel clean if they ban unclean air'? th maybe banning smokers makes them feel safe, like they?! never die. Maybe it makes them feel in control. Maybe it makes them feel superior. Or maybe they just want to bully someone. Which gets me to Michael Bloomberg. New York is still suffering ftom 9/11, threatened by huge budget deficits, straggling with Wall Street's downturn, facing draconian tax kncreasea including a brand new commuter tax--that'll certainly encourage new businesses to come here!-and trying Page 2 of 4 Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1'49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.08 to come to contract agreemem with big unions. Our reafisticand no-nonsense mayor has surveyed the scene, pondered the landscape, and come up with his answer: Ban all smoking in bars. In bars, where the people we force out of our business offices seek refirge! In bars, where half of us plan to spend our last hours after Osama tries to take out Times Square. In bars, the last public place you can go to be a dropout, a nonconformist, refirsenik, a time wester, a bohemian, a hider from reality, a bum, a rebel, a bore, a heathen. The last public place in which you can really wallow in your own and others' human messiness. The last place where you can still take part in that great American tradition, leaving the teeming marching soldiers of capitalism outside to go inside, quit the race, retreat and have a drink and fire up a Marlboro and ...think, fantasize, daydream, listen to Steely Dan or Sinatra, revel in your loser-lode, play the Drunken Misery Scene in the movie of your life, meet a girl, meet a guy, meet a girl who's a guy. The last public place you could go to tom on, tune in, drop out and light up. No more, says our mayor. Unclean! In this Bloomberg exhibits for the first time a bad case of mayoral mental illness. Something about being mayor of New York makes you, ultimately, nuts. In David Dinkins it manifested itself this way: Facing deep reccasion, rising crime and union strife 6e would contemplate our problems and then call an emergency press conference to announce his aoswer. The city of New York, he would say, will no longer do business with the racist government of South A$iea. In Rudy Giuliani's case it was government by non sequitur-government by someone who needed an event ae dramstic as 9/11 to provit~ a foe as big as his aggression. For Mr. Bloomberg now, it is Bloomberg Has Decreed. Mr. Bloomberg doesn't allow smoking in his east side townhouse, Mr. Bloomberg will not allow it anywhere in New York. Those nasty workingchtss folk who still suck on cancer sticks while swilling Buds will be put down. Bloomberg Decrees. What an idiot. What a billionaire snob bullyboy. A short word on smokers. They are people whoYe made a deal. They are old-fashioned, and it's an old-fashioned deal. Their sense of life is essentially conservative: They know it is short, they know part of how you say thank you for it is to really feel it and enjoy it, and they know this life isn4 the most transcendent and important one you'll be living. Smokers are disproportionately Catholic, did you know that? They know that eventually something will kill them. They accept death and illness as part of the equation. They love smoking so much, it so enhances their enjoyment of each day, that theyll gamble. Some of them, they know, will die in a car accident next year, so it wonR matter if they smoked; some will die of old age at 97; some will get emphysema or lung cancer at 50 and pay the price. Finn. You buys your smokes and takes your chances. This is a hardy and, as I said, old=fashioned approach to life. It is not modem. Modern people think that if they're tidy, floss and eat fennel they'u never die, and if they get sick they'll clone themselves and go get reborn. Smokers are more stoic and sacramental. They don't want to be cloned, they want to go to heaven and see grandma. I made up tbe part about how they're disproportionately Catholic but I bet it's tree and in any case why shouldn't I assert phony facts? The other side does. Page 3 of 4 Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.09 No, I don't smoke. I used to. I still have some feeling for my old messier, more anarchic self, but now I don't like the smell of smoke and don't think I71 ever go back to it But that doesn't mean no one else can. And it doesnR mean I won't let you light up. We should let the smokent back inside and treat them as if they're human, because they are. Until then I hope the smokers huddled together in the cold realize they're outside because of the modern li'berals' war against being human. I hope they organize building to building end raise money to fight the prissy prohibitionists of politics, the Bloombergs and their ilk, who canR keep you safe from muggings or suitcase nukes but make believe theyre being effective by keeping you safe from a Merit Ulttalight. Ms. Noonan is a wntributing editor of The Wall Street JoumaL Her most recent book, "When Character Was King: A Story of Ronald Reagan," is published by Viking Penguin. You can buy it from the ppinionJoumal bookstore. Copyright ®2002 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Page 4 of 4 Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1'49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.10 BxPosures to eemod-land smoke lower Man believed, ORNL study 5nds teak Rid a National laboratory Bringing Science to Life Home: Newsdesk: Headline News: Media Relesse MEDIA CONTACT: Ron Walli Communications 8c Public Affairs (865) 576-0226 Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds OAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 2, 2000 - Exposwes to environmental tobacco smoke may be lower than earlier studies indicated for bartenders, waiters and waitresses, according to a study conducted by researchers at the Dcparhnent of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL). While people who work as wait staff and bartenders may generally be considered to be more highly exposed to environmental tobacco smoke, data from ow study suggests that the situation is more complex," said Roger Jenkins of the Chemical and Analytical Chemistry Division. The study, which involved 173 people employed at restawants or taverns of varying sizes in the Knoxville area, concluded that ` exposures to respirable suspended particulate matter (RSP), for example, were considerably below limits established by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for the workplace. Subjects, who were non-smokers, wore pumps that sampled the air • . irk they were breathing fvhile at work for a minimum of fow hours. Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of 768 micrograms per Roger Jenkins inspects fikers cubic meter. The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per designed to coNect particles of cubic meter over eight hours. Samples from the subjects were environmental tobacco smoke. (ORNL photo by Curtis Boles) analyzed for ultraviolet absorbing and fluorescing particulate matter, solanesol, 3-ethenyl pyridine, nicotine and RSP. http://www.oml.govlPresa_Relesaes/erehivelm(200002030U.html (7 of 3) [8127/07 8:49:17 PMJ Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 p.t t Enpoadm m seooud-hmd smoke lower tlun believed, ORNL eddy Eeds Other constituents of environmental tobacco smoke, sometimes called second-hand smoke, also were not present in the levels previously thought, Jenkins said. For example, a study published in the Journal of We American Medical Association in 1993 concluded that average RSP levels were 117 and 348 micrograms per cubic meter for bars and restaurants, respectively, while the ORNL study found those levels to be 67 and 135, respectively. While the higher estimates in earlier studies may be explained by the choice of the establishments in which the studies were conducted, another reason for the difference could be that today's ventilation systems are more efficient, Jenkins said. The Knoxville study also showed that for bartenders who live with smokers, the away-from-work exposure is at least; as important as the at-work exposure. And people who are highly exposed at home tend to be more highly exposed at work, probably because they don't avoid it as much, Jenkins said. Jenkins' paper, "Determination of Exposure: to Envirogmental Tobacco Smoke in Restaurants and Tavem Workers in One U.S. Cary," is scheduled to be published in this month's issue of 7oumal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology. The "Restaurant and Tavern Workers" study builds upon findings of an earlier ORNL study involving 16 cities and more than 1,500 subjects nationwide.ln that study, test subjects wore separate air sampling devices at work and away fibm work over a 24-hour period. Results from this approach differ dramatically from stationary air sampling, which does not take into account the constantly changing conditions as people move from place to place throughout floe day, Jenkins said. "The fact is that while individuals may live or work in environments where there is smoke, stationary monitors cannot take into account changes in smoke exposure resulting from changes in a person's micro environment," Jenkins said. "In these micro-environments, a person may be closer to or farther away from various sources of environmental tobacco smoke." Over the last six or seven years, more data on personal exposure to tobacco smoke has become available and the methods for measuring and analyzing the smoke have become more sophisticated. The 16-cities study, the largest of its kind ever conducted in a single country, found the highest levels of environmental tobacco smoke nicotine levels in workplaces where smoking is pemaitted to be between 9.41-and 14.9 micrograms per cubic meter, far lower than the numbers assumed by EPA and OSHA. "A well-known toxicological principle. is that the poison is in the dose;' Jenkins said "It's pretty clear that the environmental tobaeca smoke dose is pretty low for most people." Extensive controls were employed in collecting and analyzing the air samples collected by the 1,564 participants in the study, Jenkins said. Test subjects also submitted to saliva tests that would reveal htlpJ/www.oml.govlPresa_ReleasedarcNVelmI2000920300.hdn1 (2 of 3) [8/27/01 6:49:17 PMJ Wednesday, December 18, 2002 1:49 PM Keith King 808-325-7935 P~~2 Exposure to second-Lmd emdce lower than believed, ORNL sNdy finds cotinine, a constituent oftobacco smoke. Smokers were excluded from the study. Cities used for the study were Baltimore; Boise, Idaho; Buffalo; Columbus, Ohio; Daytona Beach, Fla.; Fresno, Calif.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Indianapolis; Knoxville; New Orleans; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Portland, Maine; San Antonio, Texas; Seattle and St. Louis. A book that delves into this work, "The Chemistry of Environmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and Measwement Second Edition," is expected to be released in March. Cawriters are Jenkins, Mike Guerin and Bruce Tomkins of the Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division. Authors of the restaurants and tavern workers study aze Jenkins, Mike Maskarinec and Amy Dindal of the Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division and Richard Counts of the Computer Science and Mathematics Division. Thc'research was funded by the Center for Indoor Air Research. ORNL is a DOE multiprogram reseazch facility managed by Locldixd Martin Energy Research Corporation. [ Search ~ Index { Heln ~ Comments ~ Disclaimers ) A service of the ComnutinQ Information and Networkine Division Rev.' Friday, 30 Jun-2000 09:13:31 EDT htlp:/lwww.oml.gwlPrees_Roletiyee/moldvdm20000209-OO.hhnl (3 d 3) [827/01 6:49:17 PMn 1 iT'ai.t~~1~J1~.~ .CS3~~ ~~~j~t'Y~I ~1 1 1:93[ ae.~ ~.J~~ l[ JA.~V lSt 4., i:11i~~~S"tr ~ l \ LJ ~ Cl~~~~a ~t~b~; <i:iiica8o, ll,; J~?122, 1998; K.athla p:~r'~er, T<.t;~~.ne I~v~li~ Services.; Ev~:~°bo~#~ l~no;4Fs it. ~3,+,.~tlxin~ A;.condl~asnd smoke kilts non-sr~~^'~.<;rs. Except that raoe~r, it scc~s, rc~:~y~sc it dc~sr:'t. A I*i€~rtlt Caroli~~ r~dr~l j:;<~1~;.: ruled Friday ti~~:t the Environr.~~ntat Protection A~ey's 1993 rfri~rt de~.la~.~ ~'~nviro.ent~.': tobacco :~~?ke (>~TS) a Class A "1'he- report ~va.s cc~~d~a~~t. iixipro~rly, he said, :xnd tl~e science :vas lousy. Ian 1t.iG r~?~:~, U.S. Bist,.pc'~o~.~ Ja~:~~c `T~€~r~~~ Este =~~rote: "El'A P~;l'i~=ly co~i~~d to a co~~;.tos<on bt:fcry r~:sc-arch had bed ~ds~€stcd csbli~~#~:~~ procedure scicr€~c h~:l~ J:~t:~; , -~:;~cy's public concla~ion5 ~rfd r, =lively ~~t~t~~~:,°t ~~~e; <<ty to c' ,.i„ #~s~:~ to Establish.a de fa~"to ~°ctato~y ~~le irndcd te, rc~t~:i~;t p'alntfs (tln: tab: ;co =ndus~y) prod_~ to inllu~r~ r$~blic opi~,ior,." .ich ~rdi poy~:: a troubling ~~~~;stion for.°4ericans: ~~'ho~ ~ yoo t~:~st? Nott'tob~cco rr~~~'?-y, ofco~~:r~e. Corporate A.rraoraca is alp=ays s~>;£~,~ct, ttobco is c4.~~ci~i.~y, ~iv~;:<.~~ze~=:~t ~d~r~j:~:~'~~'is ~ l~vi~~ i€orcd ~r concealLd t~lin~s rcl~t~;-d to nicotir~~ adda~::tir:ri;. ha~~lEt::~ activi3tj ..=l-~c~ '~.~vc £aid fat ev~o ~u~'~ science d+~~c:~n't ncccssa~ily >~pp:~rttl-zeia, tl:~e e:~~d of~€oppv~:~pcoplc frox~x:~:o~ia~justi~estt~e ofl~n€l#:e~ t` ~<~d~ ~t~~ Yr~..:~~~cj~~.- ~z-~ivist Stt~.s~-£ ~:ta~•~~~ a L'niv; ~=~y ofCal3fo~i~ at Saxe 1 r~~:e.sco pr, f .~~T :rd it i~iecly in 19}0 at to;e SevcntR~ ~~,'orfld Corf~~;r~~; onfirl•<~:~o ~~d ~l~;alj:~: "t.bc rnain ~.i~ d"~ sci~;nce e1~= onto s~.~3; of ETS, i _~:d+t<~;~~:~: to+'h~lp }.~~ople lie a~~: pay o~~ess i:s ii i~as lc~it~:,i~cd nc~ c~~s th<~"~~~ ~p1r h~.r mac ~.t~~~~ th~;y d€~m't like cif e~ io4 e. t~:~~ tl°~~~t nccd,~ to be hay end ~.~~>yd ~v are all on a roll cl $he ltar~ e E,,:? tlx: ran and I ~c you to k~~p ch~_~~:~; Not the r€~~~li~a~ <~#:~e of ,~~~,o~ nnebers in rcc+t ~vccks h:~vc apolo~izcd fir c:ve~~h~=,~ l'xo~ i€;;4=~,~,,~ fx~$~ .end people ~-eporti~ e~:•~ts df2t may not have happened ~~er a.il. 'I`hc b,tray~tls af~~.:t:vi~t.~::~~ corpr3rate heads ~n'tdis~~~one's sl~;cp. both ~oupr acre tlriv~~. by ~;~~zt:~~> ~°:<d t~~:l.~; ultiatcly, aze rnotivate~l ~y n-sc~ baby. A.tx~rs 3.ca~~ expect as ~€~-j. t-K ¢y~t~ of rn~di~ are n3or~ distll;ir€ tlsat t~~~t and , ~dit,ilit-y ire i,=ip~;£:$~v~. to the z~~~,dia s effect.ve~.ess. Con-a~-ytc, piab':c ~pi:~i~~~-~, ;::x.~~cd~ people ?~:n't a.~cnda~~~lxive,:,. 14~ost do~?'t carp :a~ho ~ elacted echo=~v p~l::~rs setlT-t1 a~:ajo~ty arc patl~ca~~slya.~ntl~~id ~~.~r r;.e~, ;vc€ its: p~~~l~:..t~~r ~~3>. Marc to tl:~~. paint, ~;vy cam ~g ~c~~ a v~tory, ~~=t-sAehtr~...~t.~;4~ ~~te pay r~<.ses, better l~a€~r~~ aid private s~h~:;ls for Fzicir Itid;~: ~a~'l=<.r clao~td. ~ k~~:.~~~ A~ric~::~ abvalce ni;~hts is tx~yat ~:~f ~overtixate~,t:. 2~or tl~ p~~t Evi yc~~-sy =3; l'#ad~~ l ~~~rnt lfi~ be spreadia~~ tb;~ =~:~x •rd th~3t EI`S ki13~, ~t?33~ aili7.(?~15. A,s a i~r~~~ t co~,y.~~:>~~~-~: of~: ESA s~~;~ ~v~ az p~~.a_~;~ fTv,~, 0~~~.,L`; i~;~>A..'s~l'<"~ ~~~s EI} .4.<3T"_~> ~'~C~a, r5 ~s'i ?~~'~~;3`~~~45. t:''F~ #z ~ 4Ct~'.m:}'G~°R#?.~:`•$ nj3i'~~0~' S€:~+~~"#'# <~f;%'sc`~ }:~.s-~ z~s.1}"5~~;:~ Og ~v~#~~;~s:~y ~:=1 it~"#:%3 ?F~,~ ~a~~E3~~~'~ t0 1t, k~c~~: ~a€~~~ ~x ~~>e:~y ~~.~Ft~s b~ +~z~~~d oftia~; ~r~~~t s~zc.~C~-, it's x 20 tfiy ~:z~~ti+_.o .,~~~~z ~~~rbat~s ~~~~t~~ ~ro~~~<s„na c~.i~r1t~? C~11 5~~~~3~s:~;~ ~y ~~s.{'..s}iii=' Gi~'t~Cl}C~t.-'~31:#~ 3::<~r€'~~3' ~{i _s2y -~.t` tLb~c`1~.CO SH}`~t1~C 1S kili~#~~ ~~~i~_ ~ io F:~„~ s;r;~ ~~>~~i:~~s ~~1 i"t~.: ~Lt::~~ oo~rf< ~fi~~t~ t~~;:~;`~~`~h ~~~uP.e to ~~TS ~ ~~°~io~,:~2 ~,f ~u~,~ c-~~L~~in rz~,~--;;.:txc~~~:~~ ~=nr r fti:~#y~c~> fi'~~ stmt. Tf~~: ~~A alt ~~s<.~'t a but a "Tip+~~-~EAC ~yr,3C" O~':?s~~i"a .~e'~3x cy 1Ty Of ~~'~~~Cti} `l>rbt'4ts~f aClc.~~t~4'~~ly t'tt;';2~5#{ibiC. ©~j~utiVea iTi~ ii C~ ~.F'f'r>~~°<~'~'Fi.## iiir.~<~s'~9~£lxi:~:a ll~t,~~~~.'a~ ~Vb:%'C cc?~t~s'E'~~'~ ~~~~1~~ $~°SC' U.S. :V~it:F: O ~~Cs~€#'#~.;. , s~~'~%'~'.s~:~ ~~:x'#?~3.~ ~CO~ s~"C~13't CO's}:~3~t~}'C~ ~a3~':t; S.~dls~ 3J6'Ci' ~*~:~<.~~y ;-=.~`l; :~~:<~:< t~~~~t ~~y _~~~.~t ~~o~a~rt b~, ~ti~.~:t~~.~~;~ ~1~-~i~:y:~~t. ~ 4~~i?fil.'(3?'.,ti~, nst;Y.,e:;::.<~, x`.'+'C~?'.::.} t u~s~3w~~Cs£9~~yslx?~3 . 4'~s:i~, iiT#~>'tr~.at~ S~s~3~~'d~~ 1!?.~wV: ~:~t~ t~~ ~.F:~; ~}3~;r~y a~t:~;:~~~r{ imp t€~s~ t~~ c~.~~~~ a ~l~;ar a-~~~::3~~0::. l~t studaes 1:~~~e oily: #,3 : e.6n_ .~~b~,a,. ~.~1F.f~s~. ~r3~~::,ra~ a ~;t#.;.c~y ~t oo~~l~~ € ~P~t~'s ~i~~F k, ~ ~~~~--~~±~i F~~i01~'~ly bs>~a '~y3#<a1' ~~3~a t''~#~+`?~#~ls AtY ~+f3Y ~~snzs~'oh r:~xr C°;~sg~'£~~ 1~c3Q}~ ,5.'w y~'tls~ln cap you ti~.~s~~r T~_~t's a ~s{;~:~~~.~± rug a:>> ~i', ~s~~~ially ~€~?t~~la~ ~sa~~€~~t_ ^.t bit, ~;;~cs~, ~~,l~~x.~ pa ~#~i.~€x F~~c~~l~..€: ~~~~:i~~al <z~~3 l~~l:~_?~~~ ~~s~o~, ~~.y tsti. a }a(€i.33~pp#'t_s. rt7:~3i.lit#~ ~tt ~'?~a~~ss' L'~t'?Y%~~3`<';,:~'€~£ G s~~l'?g'ys'~~i: "zeas~ . xc.Ax-s ~'10~ ~:5'#{~: ~#'r~3~y ~#-~VIOt F31'i7.~19,~` 1.;'' ~Ft3~A~af"`~s !%5:~~%; 3: 5 s:~31`'. ~:?'i~ti~:F~~~~e~'.4~...y ?3'.~~~.~' l.~'?Z' ze~:N'~%3 t. ~~cTll03}S C#ri yft~~ ti~'s~i-% iia'~~y'~:~e.' a ~-°n~i':t" yl~~'~~lO%1 1S, `3f~';:~~'S I}C3Ct`~ ~~~~~t ~Oi~~ '"~T~~~~~r Post:' Or,1l~"Larch 1, 2000 I~ f~ll~k~~~~ I3y: GFFest Ohoice Ss.a;_ Califorro.~'s Fr~€FCI~~r~vi.'•~d toxa! ~;s";7o ban in bars l restaFFr~ntc €~ra.s based on claisrs by anti-s~.yox-ia~.F ~:;tivis~.s that c stage had a to "prvtcct" ~a~~orl~ers froxr e~po:~tare 4~#:`<~~:~~~ .€~1.~.1~3€<€ coFxFprehe~yive nevr scacntgfl:..-1z~*~ froFSF tl~c: U.S. T~p<..~v of Fr;~:r~ i:~.clic<;t}~s Oaliforoia ^~~=.~r leas ~notber t1F;t;y: protecting it=: 1FOSI>?t~lity ind€;:~y f~c,~ ju<,.k x c~a~ claims tl~~t 1€ave v~~c~.l;cd ~::avoc or, many bFasi~'resscs' butt<-~~z .lin,:. OrF h"ebr~~_~.~-y 2 ~ i^3cf :>nt of energy's Oa?~ Ridge Natioz€,~1 I.a3~~Aatory (ORNL) relc,~ =:cd a ~e~ ~.~~,:1' ~:~?o~~=ir~g tlas.€ b~iders, crv~rs d other ~t~ai~F a~ e~poscd to frr l,:ss :~:.condl;:~~~ :z~~-?r:~: ib>-€ra s?ae ~blic pF'ti~€Frnzs. OI~.NIL.'s~«:~~~rcr€~c~t~ aF'c coz~sade€~~blyL~l~.:~~~ ~i~ E~<~.~~li liz~:~ts establisb~d.foT§~rorkplaces bytiic Occtap~tyonal. Saf~:t'y end I3ca'tl~ ~dn-;ir~~.~~~~cn {OSl••I-IA). In fact, lass tl€;~~a one-si~tl7 of OSIIA's FilxlXi3YiLFrFF allo~r2.llY>' ~~I .~,~as dctceted. "It's petty clear sl~z<.r •~:~cvirct~l tobacco nl4:e dose is prvt'cy lo:x~ for Frost people," s~;d ORIv` 1:'s Roger 3•cr~-iras, ivho ov;~ ~a~=.= the st€ady. fakir ~dv~n~gr of Lo ?4.istic<~~d n~W air-sarFZ~p1iF-gig FxFOF~itors, gov~.rFxFrFerFt scicntls~ closely ~~4:l±.ed 17s >":<,r--~:-oo'~ir;~ €°-v:~taF,ar$.nt aFFd bar ~nployccs izl K~FC$:.~ville, 'I'N ~1Fo :,~orl;~,d at least f~~€~ '!:r€~;~ pe€- rl<~y. A previoe~> ORNT, s~dy zn~ ~~;€4~~ :~;co~~lh,~~~;1 --rrFOl~ in bars ~~~si :t:~:~.F:r~s by t~eking 1500 peolslc in 16 c:~rics, ~vho =gore 1€igb-t~;~;h,~€,vvice~ 2~ -:bo€~rs a $a~3~; ~~~~ao€''k~ at ho~Fe €F~ evcry~b~F;:~-c i€~-~~~~r;;~~°FF, `I'1?~' *t-c~dyalso t~Pr1C;i~<'''3;~ ais a~~~~.lifiiy lLvels ine~tabb:hcF~ts ~vhe~ s~?cl~~:Y~aa~ allovYed vas far belc3,5a OSI~Y=', r =xit~AaxiY al.lo~able lev~:l. ~c n~,€v Oak. Rie'~~< y~.Fdy rcglF.lt sboFlZd cl3ange the corFZ of f€FtF~re 1•~r ;end ra;sta€v~t saao'~:r~~ b{.:ra lc€.s'::;°fti.on. It roF~l.~l. even help r~sciF€d ?~cavy_h. :::::~cd la€vs life tr'~_iFf~;rnRa's tF-s:~t4~~-4:rc ~:;M'~,::d ~3F~°~~ boos soona>sr AAneF-ica's grc_attobacco debate igrritud, u~r`. it ~aroi7't. F.vcFS tl€oFagl'x ~c I~er ::::~',~.~t of ~rFsgy's best ef~orts indicate there's F3o rFe~d or ~:~sis for 11~:nr~i~.~ >nFt~lk-i~~ ir, l~-~n; it b:;~rs or restaa~rant~, the cF~F~rerFt p€Fl~.lic znirFdsct in CalFflrr+Fa e4 ts'FF.i?:'~'y' <~"y.~~s ~%lz;~'~%#i€°. - at lea f4Afi' YRgI€t`•s$3~fi'. I_r~~nically, t'C,c caee ~~s~ir t p3~bli..~ zFnokizFg bags corstinucs to stic~~the~F. T`IFe Oak Ridge ~y corrr~s >~n hce.Is of a U.S. fedcl coa~rt iFFValisla'ir~ ~ ZFr~scicpYtibc cl.~i:~ ~~c in U_S. ~rsviror~r:M:e€~;1 Rrotecti~.;a~~ ~A.gcncy's (F'PA) Boa=<~ i~FfartFOUs se~n~b~_n~~ smcs'n.~°, <<~:F,~y- i t £~;t.~l jF~gc vrl ~I ~ FPA study "r~~Fll a€~~d void" ~rate~ in h.i.:; d; c t.}~<~t. l"PA. ".~cd illegally :€nd coF~e€Fptcd science to engage in a c.~~Fp:~:igrF of Fnisi:~~f~~~F?zaticFn." lna i~sc pali9~s~liy ~o~~vt ~~-~~-l~l, tl~as a~Idl~p -bie; ~ci~~.ti~;;~sily v~I-i~I~ "ore-~~ro ps.~.is" ~~°~~.~)d ~~'#;.~`.ly ~`~=1~$:~~ ~:ls~., l.<3 i~~~s; ~'~:#~1~~~~a:.~!~~~'~~ e~i'i ~~~I ~~~~1~:: tie in~1~~: ~:~'1:~~• ~~1I~~l:~'s ~~I~~~ ~ t~~~ ~'~~t ~~3 1, lf~~ ~;~p~~~~~e~ ~ s~~~s ~~ie t.~~ ~~~r'~z t~~ R~~~~ ~~f$ r~l~t~l: ~~~rs~ b~~~l ~~~t~~~-~~~ ~:~~s ~.1~~~ tr~lifr~.=:.~'s 'i['~'~;~:i~z ~?h~ e:~°~.n pPOVerI to lam. ~6c..it~t~le r~~ o=~e~all b~~~ir_~~.s ~+~s f`~#'h;'i~ >?<~dl ~:fs`~~.<~"sY.T !:fi~~~rr~. ~`1~oTG t~€~YI ~'?~:#~~4.~i tl~~'F't~~ T~:..,~3ax~3c'ixI'q~ T~~7'(~,t~ r'i.~ ira~~~:>,:~:~: it ~~~~<~af~::~ r:.#~-~~l_> 4 ~-~-i o~rF~~tly. t~;#s p~o~c~~ At ~~p~~~ ~9~~ ~ 1~~~ fx:~ I`~~ e ~I=l lr~~~:~~ nl' ~aiafol~2-~ i_li~!¢.3~~' ~::<#:~n j~~ ~.~~icr for i~.pc~~ink e ~ u, p~~:LF ~-orkers i~~~i'.~,i?'...~. is ~3"3fss~'~ '•:y's~'#'~iid3%~ r(3~.I3~?~~or. 1.JTAi3:~, y2rEI'T~ i~;Y.3'~t{'s"~~,~:~xy :s~~~."~ it a P€~'3~ ~53Iis1}~'>, >:::s°:. ~53~ - +if~'f ~~c:t~#.~:~ I2t'w'~ aI' s5ar~ii~ ~s,~.~~~-~£~°~y r'~~:=~.~:~>~ osl~ ~<s~;t ~'c,. Every job pc~~ ,<x ~~:c ~ 3~ IJ.S. ~o~reas~~:.~~¢~s Y.<si ~ec~~~ ~ f'~~#. ~~o=~~~ ~w~~y ('r~3'~'~~"~?I'jt~'b;~, lis£' ~ ,:s''~,'r.3' ~~.#:i£'..~s~s"z'ss"~t~~s~23's~,r`~~~£IE#~~'yx;xg'~~'c'£a_;~.'_i~~.~.lOf~_~~:, ~ ~pl,~~~x.~.~~y>~:ly 11~F ~~t: 1 ~~,(J ~lst$~=.~~d tl~i:~~ pil~~t~ ~:~y~i.tora ~lv<s, i~~`<sI<'~'<w i%y;:~ ~~,~'~E f'#~ ; ~t:3~%~f:#~:E~~~. per- 19:,~tl. 1'°;s:~'I~i 'sjb'~i3~€`: r~ CoT~ "s_,~~,.37.t'}.i~i :$(~i~r°T~. (Yil PTt`"~TC £ ~Fii l~i yn. j <-c ~~TT ~it~ i sJ ~.Il x$s~'f;,~;` ~:~i~6S:A ~:hy ~ .zc4 i~3` S:`.s.'t.5., ~:a ~ ~4 ~9c.`.. ~i~ 100,~i00. C.Io4°i,'`eY#~331:<5°, 1~~~~i-~, cs'ses:~ j $ ~'53~.~ 3'+i;:s~a~$~'•:k~t~ `z~.F'a: t33'4c< o~t,3C: ~r:r3t~l~:f14:.5 iIl `..`OTX `vTdIA15 1.6 li:.'~liti.~:~ 1~t, r~,r31}~ Jt z„l~~ ~~a~M t~b~s o~ tsebl and l~°~ : ~i~#~~ 1'{~~<~li~y pe- 10~}~:~ i:i' j£~v':~ ; 3~~tel-~, ~~iy in t~~ ~;c~~a£~«::y 4~>~ polltis~l chaos i~l-~i~ C.~.l~fOrr!~'S ~i".c~ on t~at~~:~co c~t~rls-1 ~ ,~i~ t~€~d ri~.~~.'~si+~~ce pns~ibly i,~~ 5= b~~ld, 'b-y i~~ pi#:~ a~ t: ~'i{~r~:>:3~ , r~•€'~:xly? Can yon i,x~e .If~~~l<{~Fs b~rr~~~ 3-;x;~~:~ xn ii~~ ~.4 V~11 ~ ri~,~ c~~~~Il~ ~~0 ~:s bid #1#<s~ =r~~~:~~ t~bl~~? i~~~PTO:' i'r~$z'nss, ~~:yt":: ~.~E~:~ in:tiii~i'c~'so ~R3T ti~~~.2~y ~at3:~a~?~Ii:~ 1T1'Y_~^,~S ?:~'n`~ i~.~~~3s .II~.4 rig ~is'; ~€'~t low t~; ~~:~vA'sir:~3,I'#'i~~~:~3r~4~~~;~=~~i: ~~~''~~`,~a9 ~~~~£~i't'~3~ ~##~.~~F~ 3~1+~.-~ proi~~t.~b;_}~}}b~~}~~~~>,~rA~ ~~°it3~ ~t~t';.;a~t e-sf-~sc~-:~?~ of ~ ~pec~~ ~i~~y ~pli~~ per "~~~l4~~.;`L~Y:##y?:~ ~fia f"~'''',~~'::2~ti;'::'k~:~f ~:Y'i~l.i?~3,'$`~ l~lo donut nae 1'<:{« end ~esiao~~nts it the Golden State s~=ill choose io remain ~no'~r_,-~, la~v or la,~=. 'T'~:::~t's one! ~aey i~-€~a~vi= tl~eg~ cl~en€cl~ tl~ ~bii~n zi€~:t best sits ~ C~ e o~'~~nd, tl~e are I~~Iy t€'s <;1 r~;~~~~r~ts I~'i dour ~ C~l€ ~a:~:~ri.~: ;~~~_<r ~;::~°~:i_oa.as to retaal-r to bl~~inea~-a.~-~s~~<l; with ;.~l~arag cnsto~abrs di°~ ~~n~l ;pl,i~~, i.n ~#~bcr~ not s~.~,r sizsce cs~.1e:l-.:~ ban clobber t11eAIj in .1~s~<ary, l~{~~s. It's time to rep~;al ari F.?p~j~.,~iified s~saol~ng ban, Cop~~l~t +"~F 199 7- x'101. t ~.~taee l~e~io~"~. ail ri.~h*.~ ,rerv~1. 1775 rczt~;~~~lva~i~ !~S`., I'~T;~J, S~ait~ 1200 ~ ~Va~hil~gton, IBC 20006 `del: 202-~~3-7112 Sl~'~®x~t~TV ~1\ R!.'rAd~l. 1 w.11 ~1T ~ 1 a`~V Y~X~L\ 11.7 by ®tto Mueksch A~`~~ vlS~=_~:r::~ €l~t~ an "`fnx~?~dc ~~'>y,-:s i~-~ California" (S~cs ~r~€1 Use T'~~), I ~~~ly~~d the f~~riods of 13> }a 1993 r~:rs;~;:4;~f<r.~.:~ <vn~1 199 ~ 199"9 l~ ~ ~r, ~3 bk (t~~~ ~:...g 3~:>f~). Thy r~di~; ~i~l', fi~~ ry~.~d ;~f~rs 1'~~~~: t~~ ~~~:~.:if:~~' idust~y, ~v~€€~t~ to tell gas rat ~v,~g~bi~~ is f3rf~, tb~'e is h`~ £:'~~~;gr tir t r~s~ ~:rx~ irr~~ry. In f~=~i they X11 us drat ~ s F~t~€.r:~nts are doing bettor than ever since it=.~ b~r~ and th~.re i~ no cause, for aL~.r-rr#. hezr ya=~ loe at those tiro periodsg you also have to coa#sEder the Oserall. econo~.ic tc~~cncacs - 19~~:~ to 1993 ~v~s ~t ~c tail ettd of a rece~~ionary ~s~~iod, vaitl5 7EI~0 gz°oa~~th, 1"~ "I~•:~~~z:~i~ incl. Y~r-in~-i~~11,~ fi cost 3~.~ ~,g place: ~vl~ na al~ul•CCil~ iscycr~~.~ a:c ;ol~i~ z I~1~~~ ~°l~.~rc lam= ~~~=::1 r~r r ~ ,ti~:g glees -h:~r~ a?1 tys of iq~uog is seed.. I call tl~~ rssr~.t L€~~ 1~.~,ST ~'~sI"~ or FI~, ~ ~n~Iy t~~o r~>~i~i;~ ;~'a~il alto The analysis I con~~racted s3-~~{s tl~e folloe~~ing: Ivedr t14or~glr thcrc ivas ~cr~< gra~~•tl-,, the FF sector shov=*ed asrr incr~:ase in ~~~'cs of 11.7°l0 ~~a'her~s the eft a. ~~~~r~ ctf 12~':,: ~4notlr i.€~r~~ fey of ~~:g~srt issued by yl;=:, f.to of ~~~r~~.li~=~~,~ i~ i~~ ~€y~~~,r of ~i ts~d ~a thy; va~io~as cr€~a~<;~~~€~s. Thy i~:y fr`#r 41~c ~t<~r ~r~~~cd s;r~~a~ by 15: 3~~~ilc tl's~ g~cr#i€~s f~~r tl~.~ I~ €lc~:lis~r~d by .9` or- 293 lr~s l~f~. Loolz.~~ : tr:~ gc ~crct frc~~. 193x3 to 1 X99, tl ov~;ral1 cco€r';gy {ta~xablc .~~1~:~ s$.~t~~-i.cl~) nr-.~r~:~~~ ~ by i~..r-e~~:hlc 31.g~;~~. I,o~.:<1>.i~~ ~t tl~ ~~,tcs for ~ ~:{1 i~ I fvu:d th~:t .r~r ine~::~d ~s~; -~3~rli ~F rt.:~~~~.#~~ 1.~~: oy f ~t 3g.~s~, ~ilc ~ l~~ ~al~ r~crc .lxan~~ the o~°~,:~11 k~~~~y I<g~~.~s- <~t X5.5`9'. IIv;~~.Y=~~~ >'.~f~ ~.Iir arrd ~<h t t f =?{ry~ 3~+,y~,; 3 f 9 ~ ~ 1 .u'$ x ~ .-Y.i ee LZS}5 ~•.5.3<eF f~, i~~~t d~ t~:~Il y ~lr~~ ry~~~.€~l~~r oaf ~ €~~:cd f€~r Fl~` ro~~~ by 1~~ 7~9~~, r~=:b~=~~~ the ~~~.r:b r?1'p~.t-s for ~.~r f"~r ~:.I' .~STa ~ 3.3°.~a, ~hi~~h r,~~.s that tl; ~ 1,1139 f~ z~=c~ ms`s rr C~.l€fo'?=~: In otl~~ v=.>r~;:~, rf€rrsng a in 3~=bs.~;tr v=~: saw ~ ~e~;:°n i<~c~~se in t-M ovc~ll ceo~¢~~~y, 1,039 r~~~~r~:rs:~ts o~ b<~.rs or~t of b~:~::~~n~:~~;. That is R:h~ rl i~~~t of ~ ~~.€~vkin b~~: So if yora hear of a?ryone e~.;~ t.n.~ rhst the ;~~:rokirrg ban in restauraa~ts and "~srs does not IEUrt anybody, you can quate y ft~r~s, ~vlriclr ~.re based on ~lr~ official r4po~ ~ issued by t~~e Stats Ind of ~qu~Li~~~o~ here in`6 C.~liftrlrz~ia, 1'3RZ4'~`~Tii:: e:5 i0 S4G6Tit~-~ ^=333-F3~E~ ~:3.FvY' f~>'=..:, ~i:':.s:''v^`~, C~NL s;f~s;~y f'in~S ~ ~y ~ • ,,~T, gyp gp ~ i.~l • ~K. Y~Y ~'}'a ~`~1 ~ 1~~~.1.~~~4 \'/.:'iY 5• li SE.~d~R'Ef C~W~~f9~~~ Qr!~K Tv~s~:., Fcb. 24t)0 - ~x~s~€~-~s ~o ca~viro~l ~bco s~~o~c z~~y tsc l.o~~,~~:~- ~n >L ~°11~ sj~l~s ~~~~1~~~~~-1 fear b~~~:~~~~-s; ~v~€~~s ~.~d ~;~issc~, .~.cca.~~ ~o ~ s~~y cc~~d~r.~~~ by ~~~~~cb~~°s ~s~~ of ~€~#~~;'s ~id~ I~I~Io~:~'. I.~br~~ory (c~.~). plc ot~lc. ~v1ho ~ori~ ~s ~~~i~ s~~~'~d ~~~c~dc~-s ~~y c~c~.lly be c.~~} l~lrc~~. be :orc l~~l~ly cxscd ~o ~~;v3~'t~~i~~`~.~ tobacco ~ d~~~~~ 1'~o~z o~tr s~#~y s.~~s~:s a~~ ~1~~~~ i.s orc €:>~3:1~'~~," 3~~. ~.o~cr ~~,s of~~c C~~~~ic~l ~d ~r~xy~c~l ~?{~y, ~~~.c~ ~z~~iv~;d 1 ~3 tic crs~:~ ~oycd ~t ~-c~~~~~s or r . ~~~:3~~~,~~5,:~ of v~ry~~ sl~cs f ~la~ ~~o~cvitl~ ~r~~, cc~cl~~d~d ~.#~~t , ~~~~~cs r3Mspl~.bic ss~dcd }~r~~~~l:~~c ~~c~- for >~~~r~; csidl t~lo~v 1.~.~~:~ ~•~bizsb~~. b° tl~c '''f ~~~°;.~~1:~~€~~1 ~~~c~y d ~:~~1~b ~'~~1.~~~~€€~~ (C.~~~~~,~.) fog- tl~c ~t~~~l.cc. ~~r~ ~o~z~s~c~~;:c~, ~~orc ~~~s s~icd ~bc sir :;~::::;:u. ~.~k~. 1~~~v~1~ i1~ ;~4~or~ for ~ i~~~ of fc~~.~~- bo~~, 11~~~~~;1~~~~ ~ 1~~~1 of ic~~ -~s per iY°i~~f >f~f f~~~£:s~^l 'f~#~~F3~v£~3 ~~3~,'~K~"v~? t- ~ a-z o~~~~~ cl.~ bo~~~5. 5~1~o~~ s~b~~ ~$~c~c (C~~~ t~~ C~~~°~~ <~:~~y.~~:~~ fcr ~~~.violc~ .~~~rbl s`~3~i ~~1~~~ ~~cr, s~14a;~~~>t}, ~..~;~l~~~yl ~Y-rl+~l:c, ~icoc htE~:f~.s~s~ar.osri.g®vf~r~~^_E?s~3~n:..:};~~6.~~~ry~?!'~'~?~Q3-~~ft.ht;~d (1 c,~ 3j [~f27f®1 ~re49: i7 P~IJ Fx~~= t~ s~as~c~~!~;~ad G~nk~ 1~<~r~;r fiy~~ G~~~r,~ ; QRI~E~ :r~-ty finds C3ther co~astit~~~ts of c~viro~~~r,~l tobacco snaol~c, so~ctir~.cs called secondgha~d sr~o~c, also acre got ~rese~t i~~ the levels ~roviotasly tbo~~ht3.1e.13:i~s said, for exa~lc, ~ }~~blishod i:~? the Joa~rrdal of the A;erica~ lti~~iical ~ssocl~ti~;;~ io 193 concluded that avcra~c l~:~rels ~rcre 11 ~ d 348 rmicro~s r cubic r€~~:ter fo~-1~~:~°s ~.nd r~surts, resp~tivcly, white the C3Ti1~I,, st~~~y ford those levels to be 6~ d 135, ~sctively. ~Thilc the higher cstin~at~ms in earlier studies s~~.y be ex~l~ined by the cl~oicc of the establishments iri which the sd~es cc~ndtacd, other reason for the dlffere~ce cold. be that today's ven~.lation systc are more efticiert, Jen:~~,i~s s~.id. ~~~oxville sdy also sl~o~ve~l. that for b~~odcrs vrl~o live ~vitfi s~o~.e~-s, the a~~,jay-h'crr~~orl~ .F, f ~ t t~~~ ~~~t~~t ~:1~~:; at-work ~xsa~€,1~.d ~al~ vyh~ 4ai~hly ~~~-~c~scd afi hoc t~~~ €::€t:,~~~ ~~~gNx~ ~~:~h~k~;~:d l~robbly becaa~:se they dc~~€'t avoid it as Bch, .l~nl~i.~€,~ said. .1~~.:i~' f~a~-, "t~~:3:ti~ o~'~:~s:~~, t~., :~vi.~-c~~~~t1 'T'obacco ~~~c i~ ~csta~-a~ts a~~l ~`avc~i 'orke~ ~c U.S. f"ity," is ~~.hdle t 13 bird i:: this oz's ~~w~ of .loaf of ~~~~ss 3~.n.lysis ~~d l:v-ro~t:~l ~pt:~olo. fih~ "~.es~~r~t ~ ncI Tav~~i ~~'c°:~-rs" dy b~~ylds upon ~din~s of c~-lier C31'~, s3iy ixavolvio.~ 1 b ~it£es rid th~~~. 1,~~ sub~~~t ~;~~:~n~id~,. that sdy, Est sub~ccts srat i~ s~i~lir~~. ~v~ces at ~rso.>d a<ay oz~. over ~ ~~-hc~€ rio~l, l~cslts frc~~ ~l€:ic ~~cl~ ~~it`~r lly from ~ttion~ air ~~~1:~, ~~~9~ieh. des not t~~~4e ink ~.cco~nt the cc~~~ntl~y chan~i~~ codio~°~~ ~ :s le n~v~ ~o ~:~.>~~,c to pE~4ce through®~t ~ may, ~crf_lns said. `~'hc fact is mat ~.~ltilc i~dividt~ls gray live or ~~~or~ in enviro~te~its ~Pl3erc ire is smcrl~e, statio~aary Monitors ~nnot t3~~e i.to accoo.t ~ vanes in sxol~c ex~,€ res~lti~ f~ cha~~es i.o a }~c~~arA's ~icror envi~°on.€nent,?` J~._ins said= ``Its these rr~icro~r~virortnts, a person may be closer to or f~:her away frorr~ v~rioos so~ces of ca~virone~:tal tobacco smo~c." ~%ea~ the last six or seven years, amore d~.ta o pcrso~aal exposes to tobacco snxokc has bccorr~e available ~d the ethocls for ~aas~.~~ aid f~~aly~i~ tl~c sole l~~ve becor~c x~orc ~phisticatcd, `TI~~e lb~Litics s~.~€~y, the lr~~st of its k=rid ever cc~nducd i ~ side coont~y, fo~rad ~ hihc~t levels of . ~-oct~~1 tob.~eco ~~€~ke o~~ ~~t~~~ a~;vel~4 im rorl~lacc- ~~hc~ s~:€~~: is ~i~~ t~:+ ~ llc. ' ` ~s per cubic; ~<t~, lo~€vcr ~ t.hc ntfbe as~_a~~~d by ~T'~ ~d (~3S~fA. :~d 1~.~ ikr~~ °ell--~~~ t~~col~~~~.{~1 ~€~ci~tlc i~, .~t i~hc poison is i the dose,,, ~e~~i~s said= "It's ~re~y clear ~,f~t the e~~iro~~~.1 tob~e} ~~1~~ s~ ~~:tty lo~° fog- most pcople.~, l~xtensive cools ~~ere ea~ploy~ i~ ce~ll~ end ~aly~i the a~:r sarl:~lcs collect~f by the 1,564 p:rticip~.~s i~ ~dy, 3et~~~.ins ~`3.~~~. ~e:~t s~Rb,~e~ts also sul~itd to salty:f~ t~ th~R ~o~l~I reveal h~fp:lh~s.:~sv.orrri.Q~vl~s~~ _~~s!~s~l~:~3~is+sltt~~~~!'?4®~~3-~O.r-=~~-r C~ ~ 3) ~8/2~/01 6:~4~:17 ~s~] Fx;~:~:~.~Y s~x~~-hid _4~~ ~:mr t~--r :.^"i~~~~34 ©~IJA, s~.~dy finds cotininc;, ~ constit~acnt of tobacco s~nakc. Sn~okcrs dvcri; excluded frorri_ tl~c study. Cities used for tlZC s~.dy ~v~re ~.ltiorc; l~oisc, Imo; ~ta~~lo; Cora ? .b~, ®hio; D~y~o~~ l~~~ch, Flu.; Fr~s~.o, C~li#:; Ord ~~~ids, ~licl~.; I.ndin:~:~olis; I~oxvillc; l~Icv,~ C3rlc~ns; Fhil~l~hi~; P'ho~nix; FolEd, l~~.i~e; l~_ratonio, T~:s; Sct$.lc ~d St. l~ouis. A boc~ tb~t d~lv~s into this nor ~ "~'hc Chcrnistry of ~ravirocr~t~l 'Tobacco Saoc~l~~: Composition ~~d Mc~srcn~~nt; Sceond ~ditio~~'~ c~p~t~d to be rclead .<n l~h. Coav~it~rs Jcn-ia~s, '~gikc Gu~rio ~d Doc I~oro~ins of the Ch~n~~~~l ~d .~:a~:Iytic~l Scicnc~s Division. Aaathors of the r~st~~aa°~nts and t~~u~~~ >~>or~;.~~-s study arc .longins, la[ikc ~~~~~ir~~ end t'~,~ay I)ind~l of the Ch~ic.~l end ~~~lytic~l Soi~$~c~s Di~visioaa ~d icb°d Couots of tl~~ Co~put~r ~cx~racc ~d I~~~thc~i.cs .Division. ~.s~~rcb f?a~:'~d by ~ C~.nt~r for ln+door ~~ir ~~°ch. C?Ii~TId is ~ Dfl~ ~n~lti-o-~. resch . ,~<$~y'-"a~~~~~ f <~< .o~~-'.c~i P~~h~i~ I~c~a°y f~.cscch Corpotion. .~i ij ~ i ~ e~-~i~~ ~ (~t.i t;iielli~ ~ ~)ISGtd111"this A SG'`y'4~dCK"~' O/ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 iy!"~ 1 f t 7 t tt ~x._ l)J(rii'i~a(Z/lOt2 (Z.r~ `~~'1'"' r7a?> ~1 t t 51 t ~t I hec~~ F`~clr~y, 3(~Jun-2000 09:13:31 ED7" i;"?~_, s~'~~-_~rii.~+"d~'Y~,.~c_~••'.Le~r. ~r~~:~'Y~'s~e,°~'~£'~'w<'ni =fl~.i~?~# ~s ~ff 3) x/09 ~i: a~:97 ~~.~j Reader Opinior~,s Name: Sandra Bade: June 24, 2002 To the restaura;at and bar o~-,ncrs of l3zmidji. You had better listen to tl~e pry;-choice peop?c here. My haisb~sad and I are bc" ~ non-srnec~l;ers. ~e used to ov~'r? 2 eestaurants and a half ch.~re in. a bar-nightcl~<b :,:re ixr Victoria 13.C., C~;a~a, In 1998 the Capi al Rc~ic~ >~l T~i<~i~:t (CRD) here enavted a 100~~a sano~ing by?a e~~. ~~'e did no, prot~~#:y ».~€<A.~- all >a~e ~~re told eae ~.vould ~aot be a~ive~~ply affected by the srnol~~xrQ b j.1~~~ . So {a=e tr~ought. We never violad~d the fiy I.~ Ltz~r r~v~:~~a~nt-bar and gill evas already 70`;'~ nork~~.r~~.ix~g 25°,~o srraol;:ir~~ bef'F.~r d~~ vylaw anyway. 4~e did Trot believe it ~~vould ~S?atter to r.~s. 3+7Ve ~.v>>c so ~,v-ron~. `JVe bclaev~3 that •e~tl? a le :1 playing-ficl~l. as the CRB promised u~ our ~usir~csses r~iglat even rec. ligla{.:r prUfits. ~'e e~l..r~ fools to buy into t:,ic ~.€rti-~arrel•;ing rubbish. ale lost our bar-club *vithi_n eight xnon€hs of the ljyl~~~'s introd?action. Our p~.r~er filed for bartl~ fi?tcy. 1~oy-rig~~o of our evorksrs becazrie c~n~~~ploycd, In tl~e previc~~.~:~ five yews t a business =~~as generating gross sales of o~.er ~2 rna'lion fr:T>n~.~. Char l~€rsiness =Nas dog=n over 50'-i'o in 1999 peal~irog a.?. 55°, in ~e ~raint~~~ n~a~nths. ~7~1e closed e,~~ly rne~t eve~~~i.ght~ and on swveral occasions on ~r~;ekendN. It ~~-as a bitter blo~~v to our ¢~a~i7y <:>T~i all the ogle involved :vitla our i3rasiress. For~~nat~ly eve ~.~f~ 6tiaer ir£e~es~~tcnts that did do well for us. Our other inv~:~,tn2ents: e,~v'e ~,Srri anal op~,rated t~vo rests€~rants. One a bar grad grill (200 ;~e~~~) evl~e~ my b<:f tb~,ad i,c t3~c;. manar and I cQ.rraanage along .,pith rry brother end a pi~~e~a (d~:liver'y ai tape out only) in a small strip-rna.ll. The bar and grill in thy; Iasi ta~~o ~.nd a l7al.f;~ars is barely tu~irag a d~seent profit. ST~'e r#o have a aKr si~cd patio and in the ss wing-sum~aer _ _ . Ts'Fti~f...~ ft:~tv`C 13~~« ? i'i%~~Si:ifr oYF~' ['c.#~~it, ~C ~I~~'~P F 21 dll~i~d?2 ~?€Y~'. f#~; is do~:ti o°.w# 3 ~:..~~zy~. ()err ~~~.ff i:~ ~~e~ Iry 12 y ht.r4~>~~~ p:.s€~ i~ o;:f;~- f.1?€~~:~rs s ~ =~'4 pr#<<:~lly ~~~,lf~y.}2~TI~; lf_~r~ t;~o b~?.<~~~c`. ~f:a 4:'=~`u?5 S.'+5: l.'S•r,.? ~~F..~..3'ft;: ~;S~~:ty.fi ~n~r~~5'~ y'P°s~i.-'s~.rT.s'8'S.. 7Y71~'i ~z~3~,`-2 .s~.o }(:'3i.~:S` ~2;~{'i7'~jl i€~ ~?ii~"~ t.~: bcs~ t;~ ;.t;,e t c.Ae:'s:::l#:~>t? t'f€ .s~giFr#~a.~0~3~:£F~dyZ' ~~0~_ ~~'iTe 15~? s~is% fo <z0~'t 11.3e'?F`##;# live ~i'i11-iG. ~~'o a td~ t0}i~VC ti'v~fy fLi(~rt Of tt~~, x~°$~;~:~;, It ~~a~.s too co•»:''. ~?~'e .n~; ~-~;r tl}{~~.?~.`~,.,{ e vy?:~., ~ R':-~3e!.~fg ~c'F vv ~L~C~E a (~r~..<3:(C i~t ~s~~ t b#.Ffi d~ 1'~Y oll t~tl(:~` ~'s~.•^._.~,:~?:~~;;,::~~', xis O?14%' 3i~>'~':<,,.~')t. ~t'G' ;sit m`ss' t(YS~ ~~t'£4 :T7c3~3:~'a'~i'$ sko'g~~~~, i~ ~a;°;e°. acct tl#:~ 1:~~=l~: ~ ~:1##€~~>~ Ise .~x~ ~ ~6y bc~ f~sr r~'#a~.~ b~~ i~ti~,A~L=. ~r {t ?~~~pi:;~:~~! #t:,>€ l:t<#:~~;~ 1~~=N. I b,~v~ t~~lz~~ t~ ~,~y oar. bu£€~~:.~ p~~=I~1: o~~r :7~~,< ~~-y >~£~#I I i~_§~3~ 4~.~y of a-l~cr~~ p~r~€~t~Ily. ~?Ek>Y b>~~:: ~o r~~~~:_r~ 2v lie ~.t^,~.~~r s~{~, ~~ye °~f:~~: ~ol~ a bi11 zff'~5~-:~ ~oi:~,' `T`be ~h~~?:} r't i~~ ~°.€~Ye ~#~4t:#°y Vx=:€#~=s~ I-f~y for iY. I of 41~~ b~:rf~~su$n>~ $:x~.~} !~~#~Y°~ clr~;~a ~ir;tly ozF f~ccoout of the by'7>; a~= ~#5:~. Ts`~~ ~>$f~-ili ~;:#<tr#y pare try c~r#{N. f~~r t~~~;-o~€t p~~~. p.~r€~?~' ~w. ~~#~#`i~var;:~ e~~ ~~~?<'3,c'..#` zs''.. cx'E":e ~#:if.`vi, ~£'#~~~-f S.'€'i.~~'£~?i~t ~7z•'C ~.r~ ?s'%`szi' ~:'~~"#~w ~~i`#~~s..'t'sr6'`r;'u ~ '~3;''?F' f:[I!'i;S~ .;#~t"~ Sh=x #IedC'ifi'~~`T'v fg3l~ ^O~:i33~ Llyf.i~;31a . Sti11 this ss a fir cry from o~`i~:c€tio t xc lor~:3 of our bar d the profits fF-orn our rest~~tr~.r#'~Za~r Fill. ~~'e <~re lt~.~i~:.~ most. €~;nily his b~lped us fin~uci~'.ly iu ot~.r tiny;~.s of rxAOr~~y ~vocs xhe 1~~~~.~ rf o~F r bt~~e:~ ~ (b~~ club). e vaould sell the rcYT~~:t#t ~~:x ~zall} t~~<;:srfic~oja>~, b~#t t~:~.< tr9~rl~et v~~~~:1~~;~ ~ppc~ so lo~:~ th;~~ ~~e ~~a4>t ~y~~~ ~8~t:+i ~.-c cz:~F at lct brc<~ ~ve~ o~ ~~hat .ve p~i~l ~;.:;ti~Ily € tr tl~w b~as~~~ No or~c in thei, ri~1Ft rnir~~l ,~=~fat,5 ts~ be in tl~r.. rest~.t busi~aess in this ~£~5.~ Y~2 r .~€Y''i'i%~y i1~ !,?3#~t~. ~#.i1` ~~S:c` ~ ir°~~;btt~`,.&'.nii.tif~~b s~~~~~'+ li~i:2~' 1S ,,ll ? 66 Cam, C ,,y . I.k~'i't~~ f~:•'_'~t:j& 1$ !L':.Jt%' Yaey ~.F~ tT~tj' 7tff,:~ .1 f^'i"~~.~~~#'#~. ~C't3I3~C: ~'3~'St~~,LJ ~ i_nq~~~;~stir°'SS t?'Y. ~c~yiS'~~ ~(}r~C oP u~~.','!°}.iY°s~ oF~~l~~~` C 6:Ity t0 lt}CC s':~s ~t.+'sz'"s_°6: 0~.~:":~ %"s ?s.<ss'~4:fi;~.'i`~.;>.~n..>%~d's'.~~~5 ~ :kt t`~'c'~~A ~{34:s, i~ b~~., ?'sE~: or ~'~r#€~, ~ 1:~ :~<~~~~w. op~~vcK ~:rc lyir# X11 of g'4r~, i BOO -F }-?t: ~~.~s-;k~~S~. ~"'b?:#~ ~t ~'#'#.~;:~~5:#t#;>, b~~i o?" f1~'?##<g~' 4':i j £3~P C®Zi'~FTx~xit%~y 4~~'~(l 13r#:~~"'r ~}~'}:::iv, ~~;#~:'C~~~~.~:~;~` <~0~~3fc },~F~'~'Pff~~ t0 }~gt`"3.ty~# ~?~~~~.wC~s 3 Ib!y hu~b.~.rl ~.~d I h~;rc ova: y+:.~t.(S b~t=~~=c.~.:r, US io this F~~t;~try. T:~e most insa~lting thing I ;vzr h~;;~~rd .wr~s :vh~:=, :~~e attended a council meeting to voice oppo :ft'ian to the byl;~ vl~~i .•~c liad a first-hand look at hogs- tv~ro out of otir tlire.~ b~,:~i~:~scs ~,~~:~e :~.~i`°r~ri~;~. ~,~'hen ~~ue said our liar-cl~~b vas g~?ing to go ~~~der. if c byla~~ L;~:iAi:~-~:#:vd ~~zr council n~egn'~ers con~xnented tlj~t "I~~y~ ~~°c, ~.3~ould secy. ~~~~{$~l~{:r line of °~aork, obviously ~e hnd no idc~ lios:; to ruin a l~nsin<zss." ~Iy h~.~4ban~t land to be res~~r:d. Srrx~~ idiot ira a business-suit t~~ho h~,s nev~:r to rziy l~o~=ledge c .~~r p.~oni~ed ~.ny of nny b€~.srrtesses ~vai21~ y red-a'~~~ity, ~=~~l~o l3a_ no exp~r~e running such a haspit~lity esta?~lslhn9~.nt is t~ llin ez.~ ~3~itli~ over 60 y;« a s 4.~~,rice that eve .have no idea ho~~ to gun our pl::~~.es. S?~'e ha.d ~r~~d constant p~-,:> is since bcco~ing busin,.,~s owner for ovex tl~e last ~5 y~t~~-. ~'h~~; peep'<£: ~~°fao cl~i~~ ~c<~-~ndl~,~nd sx~3oke is a healtb issue ~,~t l~iddiTig. The hca1~:3-~ ~,f yo~.xr 1•5:,~~~;a! well-bei~~~; is in jeoTdy if m~~~.in~ is b<vned. in yo3> cx~. You ~~il.l'_ose tourist dollars and valved custe~s.rs. A =ovord of ~~:~;1! ~~~.~.rr~e-d a~~~i+cc. People ~vho efid not patronize rest~~~~.n~ ~:~~d bans in yo~~>:> c-c;:~;:si.=;.~i.ty ~~hen soldn~ =was allowed ~~ill seldoxia, if ev~;.r come oast e.> ~ iftho~c ~>~i.~inesscs becotne stnolce-free. lelori-smokers and the setts.-.~:~~o'€.ers pi>:~.hing for goverr~mer~t ixnpo~d snnoke-free ~~rinkin grid. ~~ining 4~=itl nos ever, put a d~.nt in tl~e asr~oant of customer base fl=at you ,~~ill low:. 31~~t's n~::~ all. } ~ .<.~:s! lEt:~e. I~~a~aetarily ~ peald~g, eve have lost in e.~c~ ~,f $530_€:0,.+~0 ~{~~;d~~:n d€ill~~-s fro.'e loss of our liar{=.~ htcl~.~b. (~v $~ZOy~~.i.00 sn r~°yj~,~ir#~ from oar 1~~~:- sAnd grjll res~tir~~t. ~Ie Dave gained ~°~o~.~t $1?~~,C-0.00 from our p.~a parlor. i)o the meth: ssi-aokng bylaw:°--$750,(1~fl.00 ~$120,000.OO~i30,000.00 anal c;.~r cax°ly re~re~.:nt. ~~de are ~~j'~.l;iug irx:~ account the lo~~ ~~e ~vould take if :v~ tried to ll oar bar a~:d ~ ~ i.11 ~:SAaj~:art ~t pnarltet value. aUo n+~t believe e 'an?i-snic>:~:,r.•..g ~.~~1;,;~:.-ail pitchanan.' They are lying to yon. T`t~u.~' ai-e play~g g~~e~ ~R=AYIi yo.~j~ li~:lihood. It is too lam for:as h~~e in Vc~r=a. II$.~~,eful.?3' jau carp 1~.~;n Rratn oau mi:~t;~ke. I~ad eve of kno:.~ii of tl~c irt:~p~,t a s..o~ir~g ?~:;~.~i:; ~~f~ vtiould'^;~~f~: foa~ght. ivTo~~ sae txtust pay tine prig, for our compl~~ency. The 4me11 of fascism is rti~~~>l:= iron; ~pic:~:~~aat than the smell of any amount of secondl~an~# ~noke. To the 'conc+~ed' 4iti~en_s ~5~:`io advos~:~.~e a local smoking 13 or bylas~~: butt out of otls,~r p aple's bu~~i:~~.>~:. You ar brainwashed fools. Go 1¢a~l~ to yo~~r smoke-free 'cQ-ves.' United Press International Assignment Arne~ica: Stricl:<.e scryens By John Blootr~ From the Life & I!~ind l~ctk Published 522/2002 12:35 i~M NEVU YO1ZK; Aug. 22 (UPI) If you ss~ere to be strapped down on a surgical table s bile four guys exha.:':{;:3 sr-noke directly into your mouth and nostrils for 30 years, you 9'IIGI-I1' <:~::t 1?;rg ca.~tc, ~b0 years a~vr they stopper but it's not lil~ely. 1`m using this absurd examp le, because ALI. of the other examples in the _available scicnti~c liter,:t~az~ are $-lually absurd. The sccondrharad krnoke ss:f>-e is a political farce. It seas invented in the ~riid-i990s by tlsc ClirAto ~r~;~sini~tratson it has I~illa~-y's hands all ove~ it b::causc anti-~:.~.~okin.g r~.di~:als, esrl~r, tr;,d to be like axxati-,.abortion radicals in tl::zr ~calous cl~~<~<;tion to tl<:c L~=~?nse, actually convinced the Fnvizonrrtc~:~~,1 Prot~.ction .~;gc;~~;y to ,:.4~;~";~-ge itd~ "cot~vQ;otirtaal st:~ndard for statistical significance" ?h;~t second-hand smoke could be proven to be a killer. Normally nobody but specialists s=.rould care substandard scientiFic rc,ports get r:lcascd al.l tb~ i?Tte except tYat it's now wing used to justify anti-£n~ol;ir~t lsgis?>~:<, ? th,xa~, rx ~~c case ofNe:~~ York City, could result in amc?l:.ers not eve:, sr:ing able to light up in their os~.rn clubs, their OYVri bars, artd, In C~~c; cam.^~, ~ieti,i~ ov~°n >>"xj~,s~~.7i'lent bulldix!gS even if the place is clearly rna~'~:ed a s~~xc:ling ,.:s}ablishrraent. If l~~ayor Michael ;3loorrb~;rg g::.ts his .vay, tl-~ y s;,or~'t es=an bc, able to src-aoke in smoking lounges, cigar b or tobacco shops. :~.'oul.d.n't the Arrei;can s:~ay be to put a big sign on the front of your resta~arant? "People Smol;e Are I-Icre Don't Come In If It hsugs You." And Then let everyone act like ~~sv„urns? T he simple fact of the rr~a:ttiE< is th* by about 1990 everyone had reached a compromise on this issue. `:~_nolcca s;~ould sit in smohir~g adctions. Ventilatio~a systE;3r~ svoulr_11~;:: irv4~lle:d in public buildings. Everyone would live grid lest live. Not good tinough for the six~r~ke-h.~terJ. Th~.y knew that arguing against a legal su3~~¢ancc on the bads tl~.~t it ss~3s hurting the people tvho LIKED IT spas a losing battle, and,~;~~A.rr:ri~-an bc.•sid~a;s. lout iftl"~cy could soynehov~ prove tl~sat in_nocee~t people -~e dying And so they proved it :vitl~ "junk science." The Bush administration recently rejected a scientific rs.po«, 30 y~alrs iI'i tl~e m~a. king, signed by sortie of the top resparchcrs in the ~.Yor'..il tl<3r said fr~asi.l fuels werz the principle cax?se of gloY~al .~-awing ri i~se forirx of ai.r pollution. The reason Bush rejected the findings: it ~~-a "ja.~nk sci~tzcc" froth "the bu~aucracy." If ti~at was junk :acience, slrct~, the second-band smoke research comes frorx3 a junkyard infested with g>> :.t tae, and scav~,rtging stray dogs. Most of tl°d:; available 3eudics have "co¢xiclk;n~:c int~.~als" right around 1.0 ~~shich tncatts no confidence at all. And alt'~xas±all of them fail to take into account the other sources ~;;f air poll~.ttion. It's as though our polluted air were nade ~~.p of ]~0 p~~:- car exhaslst, 70 parts srxtoke frorti fossil-fuel-b~,~rr~ing fac2ori{~;; ~0 p;~~~ rne~hane, and .0000001 parts smoke from that guy on tlae cow:<<~ st~<:akirtg a c<garette on his lunch hour. So i~vhat do <~e do? IC.~Is T;r-Ik Sl~'l~`=1I~FL. I°Il~'S 1"31STIZOYIlo1G TI-IB AID. The fact is, them .have bc:;r'i ~0 epidemiological studies of second-lamed smoke, almost all of thezr ~-:tscd on. the experience ofnon-smokers rttaxzicd to srtael~ers. Thirty-t~~~o of tl~~,; fou€t~i no evidence of serondnhand smoke caz~sistg a.;~y cli.s~ase at all. The Dais: eight showc~~l "weal- association" but in sorry of tl3e studio there fs a=~tua:lly a 1~~GA~'IVE ; esuit, indicating tl?~t non-smoking spouses of sn<ok4;s are LASS likely to g;t a serious disease. ©f course, the ones that sh~4~.ved a nc~;ative result were thrown out as e~,racky, but the othe~5 are dually ~~=~vcky. E~or one thing, they're all infected with what so;icnee calls "recall b>:~." Feo}~'° int{>rviewed are _~sked to rcconst~.tct s~~tokir~g patt~:~-sz<~. oven th~ir;~Yeire lif~;tirttes, and it's been sho:>r;t time and af;ain tl~.^t €l?=.iT ircrrories are faulty, and i~ rrtany cases, d:;sigri,,d to zriislcad. The nc'1TSt3~it'3!~.~ frc~~ently turns out to be a smoker for a pox cion of tl~o~c years; he ±:h~rfes h < st~ary for insurance, reasons or because of p-~bnding litig<~ticj~:,. And rh,:. non-sanoker witl:~ iurtg cancer tends to seek ext~;r!°~a.l eau=s and fa:=.«eii on: the rfTC~t convenient orA~;, even :~~hen vae kna~v tl~.:~t a p~;rson living ii`I.;:~i.(11 »rb~ra v;ca is subject to multiple possible causes of hzng sansei, most of theit°i f~r,x;:'~T.e potent tli~.rt cigarette snnoke. Complicating the issue is tl<. rti:.dia truatnient of second-hand smoke. If you say sarnctlring orleri enott~li, it acga~is~s tl`zc patina of truth even if the original b~is far it is plir~ry. I could t3-e ds~~ens of examples, but I'll just use the must re~:eitt Deis that I kno~~ of. I-Ie~'s the abed paragraph frotr? a July 12 article in the G'.oh<: and ;~~dail, ilbe Canadian newspaper: "People v.~ho are routinely exposed to a lot of secondhand smoke, such as workers in lsa,: ~ a.nd resta?.tra}s, can sec t'~.r risk of lung cancer triple, a ne~~~ 3~tdy gays. ~T'I~e Ca:~::li;,.rl s~.tdy provides some of tlic most compelling scientific cviclr.nce yet for a u~tal on .~~orkpl~c smol~ir~g, including ba, ~ and restaur~ir~ts." Okay, noev let's lock at tl~~::: study the article was based on. It was published in the Tntern~:tioa,aJ Journal of Cancer and signed by a lead rest'archer for Idealtl~ Ca?~:x:a a gc~~cr~.ent agency with a vested inter2s2. (Aablic 1'tcaltl~ agency rc~tiz~ ~h tends to b€ uniformly ~lar~nist.) Even so, the Globe ~s,d l'~ai:l's report leav,~, out tlac most important conclusion inn th€ study: "Althou~`x r~iore years of a:3d note inxcnse residential passive smoke exposure tended to be associ ~ted .~°it}; higher risk estimates, no clear dose-response relationship vas evident.,' Any particular reason this ~~->~uld be leii: out? Other than that it's inconvenient? Of course, to eport tl~e rlat.~ without any agency spin on it, you would r~~;cd to study t14:: g~~ls:s3 eva1~~~3~e the "cont~deatce intervals,,' allow for "recall bi~s9" anal all tl;e o€~~cr things scientists normally do, and journalists SH`OLTI._~~ do. Apparently A~~str~tli.~n jourr~~lists sre a little more diligent. When the Australi.~€~ N~tion~.l I-Iealtl~ :~:~d 1`:~;lical Rc=search Council Teased a second-h~.nd smoke report z~~ 19~~, tl~~: ~Y~t3~ors decided to omit the statistical t~~i~:s entirely bc~..u~Vs:° they fa.ared the press might study them. An oa¢ragcd ja~dge ever~tc€~lty vc~ saved tl-te goverr~rncr,t agency for what he called lyi :g by ornxs-lion t:l;•: s~.v thing teat I~appencd3 in a ~iortly Carolira~ court case, ~Srher~ a ~~.~dge fi.~i~-1 t :nvironr~ncnt~J protection Agency's report was rife ~~itl~> "chc:~ ry f;i.°.k i.ng" of statis~cs, and had excluded .half tl~e available s~;}t'li~-s for no good reason, I.atcr the Congssional I~ese~rcla ~~.^~o eye i ~ rued a bl::tering report of its own, essenti.~l_ly callrxg the EPA ~~~~1y i:rr;,sfi::yn~:ible and alarrraist. The reason the; issue of second--haaxd smoke is such a rang issue right now is that it's being 4~sed as the 3;alirnale for ~dtlitional anti-ganoking laws. ~~laitc~, b~~..cnders fated coelCC need to Irrotected. This is ~~rhat ~lootnberg is basing his =~~r~ole c-~xnpai~-, x;n, People might not I..I~E smoke. They might h.nd it unpleasant,l3ut it's a huge jump to G.ay it's ~ctualJy h.ai~:~ tl'~:ir l~dis~:, as though they were coal rrairters, _r~on to bs dG~g~soscd :.=itl~ ~t.~ck L~~~~~g Tl~isea~se. IAA fact, ive have t,=.~o studies that me~~ured Envir~}~:n~cr~l 'I'e~~c~:o Smoke tl~e scientific Warne for it a.nd c4~n-sc. to thr cona,l~.~>.ior? t;'~~:t, first of all, the sa-noke inhaled frora~ the air is c)xemic,~lly a,~.:d Y=hys:ically ~~i.ff'erent from flee smoke iralaaled from the end of tlr4e cag~-%tYa;;, :~:;~.d, s~:.~,oncl.ly, people who work eight hours a day in heavy-~n.4ols-ing vnviru?':;' ~x'<r,ts had the following CE's (Cigarette Equivalents): Sy~lnzy: 0.2 Prague: l .4 Barcelona: 4.3 Tl?.at's cigarettes PER YE Q.R. The ~:forst case they could find had the ba_rtxnder ~43ding to his c~~.~.er risk at the rate of 4.3 ~:igarcttes per year, ~,vlaich is, of couruc, like s<€f-ing ~~ro:body~ evho eats six Lifesavers is a caa~didr~te for hea~~t discs Even moss to the point, sr:3enti~s comfsutcd uihat va+ould happen if a 20~by-20-foot roor?x ~vitti ;t 9-foot cerlirng mere filled =~~itk~ smoke, sled then compared th~.t exposure ter ilze.l~PA's loF~~~est published "~~anger" doses. 1-lera are tl:c. results: For tl~e lowest level of dan5:h~er for be~raopyrene, you ~3rould recd to have 222,000 ci~~,rettes burnir<~~ ehc room, F{rr the lo~rest level of acetone, you 5~~ould need to buzn 111,000 `ig«re~:~. For flee lo~.Yest level of hydrazine, y©u ~~ould rcc~I 14,000 ci~ar~ttes. Q,nd for toluene, you *~ould recd a cool snillior~ smek.~:4:; all bares;gig z~ the earns tirr~c. Unless, of course, you opext the doter or ~~ind~rv. then you ~.TouJd Sneed more. John C. Bailer, ~rrttitag i:'~>u Ness, ingla.od Joun2al of Ie~Iedicine recently, said ti~~*, if yc~u s~~m up all ~~e av~.ilable evidence, the lvl®ST alaxrr~ing case you can make for s~ycox~d-•13~~.nd s~x~rlk~: being related to disease is "~~Je don't kno~~~." (I~e ~a-as prwmarily i~~ritin~ about heart disease, but the conclusions on lung cancer are similar.) £iaila~- .i~as being polite. ~'s:: knov~. Cct a v<,ntilatioxi fan. Put up a sign. Go to separate roarr;s. But ?pa's not smart a ~vl~nle new vra of Prohibition in which people 13avc to ap~-n spc<.lt~<asik~s ~~sd private clubs just to enjoy a rtteal. or a drink. ~~'e can't ail af3©rd to go try Paris to srrrc~lce. (John l~loorn ~crrites a n?ar~°,l~~r of cotunnns for UPI and may be coned at jocbob~~upi.cc?~?i or tl~ro~.~~h'}}is ~'~'eb site at joebobbriggs.corn. Snail mail: F.G.13o~; 2002, I<3<ll~s, Texas 75221.) Copy~~ght ~ 2002 United Preils Inteft:~tian.~l ~ ~ Pl?GGY N~i4NAN T~i~ The o~L ~rou~ for ~~la~~~ libcral~ hive no tolcr~~ce at all. i~ y~dc~y, Nos~,~:,~rher 1 S, 2002 12:01 a. Sri. there's a lot to think abort this ;=~:.cl:-tire rise of Naancy I~elosi, the nneanixig of the R~;publican tri~irnPb~--bait my t'A€iu~bt,'~e~~ to=ward a group of peaplc ~>IAO ~~~-e ~ ~~yd, os~ac~x~d a~ad faciatg a cold >~~=r~t~?-. It's n~~t right ~1-~,~t ~~z do to tbe~z, and sve shoold pay aite~ztion. I sa.~r tli~~ as~ain roc otl~t-r t;'~y, ~fiiv~-i~ in the cold, in the rain, z~aitho:at ja~°kct~ or coat.. i`t~e lool~~~~ out, e~pr`s>~ionle t:'.:~ gr~.£? _~~-?rid, busy an€1 purpoftal., lbtz~c=d by on the stryct. Trey ~vcrc lne:~-I anp ~.lon~, the ~a~.l# of a b}r~-•ey;s office. At theft feet ,sere a sell naour~tai.n of ci~ar~:tte butts and lits~r. They are ttte p~i.?iishc~i, the <<!a~~e~l. 1lr~.y >.;re ~e Smalscrs. A.s th..y stood tl~,:xe-=I i.rtnagiricd a :~~reatli of ~nxoke ~:~=.rlin ~~;.~~~d tb~:ir ~`toaalders line the iFaooden collar of t n stocks of the 17th century~~I thoirgl~t: ;~~~lty d~>,n;'t r>~r~ stop this? For a decade no~~ s;s~e haz°c ~~U€i tlaro.~~rirg tl~ern out of our. offices a,nd liorncc grad public sg~>~;Ls. ~~'e r~.ve told. tl~ they ~.r~ ?~cle~ri. ~~'e treat tlic~ the may India u~d tc~ ~,;,~t the iAntouchf:`slcs. ~Ye 3i~ve rvrnoved tlieaxr fi-o~ oijr rnid'~~t b•;;ause they f '<be ~.rnall !ubes of soft s~hite piper ~.=itti flecl~s of tol?A~Yco ~<iffcd i~:>;:'c, liW.t t3~~.n-~ on fire and ~~ck on tlae~. Tlias crates stxaoke, ~~~iich pollutz:s tl'~c ~i3'. "Second l~~n~i srraol~e kills." I:3ut~~lzo•~;~ to pcit it?~~~e alI know that's just politically correct propas~a it-~~-entex~l by t~f~ f~rt~bil.~itaic~sAY4t~, don't tee? 3i yore spend 2~ hours a day zn a 4-by-~-foot r;,o~ ~itl~ a ~1~;::aFx fi.,_=-t~fkey you~.l feel it, ara~l you'll. be h€d by it. ffut are you d~~~~•ti€l by a'_c y do~~-n tl~~<~ .b~li ~~;ht; sn3~~kes in the oI'ftcc at ~xork? No, you're not, and you lt;:io~~ it. Ycs~; just ds-sn`t li~.e ix. Yoi~~s rtr~:s~¢,~ ate: minty i9~1~ organsc, anc~ y o!~r nostrils t~:ir-ci.Is his r igixts. lout you definitely F~ould~n't b~e hatztZ~,d if t,'~k; handful of srno'~ers in your office ~.vere allow{ed to smoke oily in a co:rraon r~,«.<3~-~ ~.s~ith ~~:?od ~~ntilation. 3~~lay wouldn't tlt~t be a civil.i~ed anal aeceptable coniproxr~ise? And 3~hy is it srxtol~ing tl`s>~± i~ tli. object of uch fierce disdain? Vs'ithn blocks of here tla: :r~ok~A:~ s 3t~~od xn front of ~c office buildixag on A~l%rdison Averse%e the other ck=~y, there ~ver~c people >~sho ?:~.~r nsg.4'ct bought five rocks of cr~clt coca?.e~e. '1'lrer°e a~tere #~ag~ 1 of 4 f : -~.1~ 1~;, j~ `T'b~<, ~c plc =~~t'~o dv~ by ,s~i~i t~ ^oit~d lj~ so you ,:u.~ tb~ lys~~.~ of r?~ ro~~ fl<., l~ s:~-~~~ t;~, v~~iob is ~?~ri~£ a~or~i:~s loo's r, loo ~,~:o~.~1R1 be rtibot. 1~~~~ ~rP ~`rs'~'`s.i3s~3~>..~ ;'s~c'*; 'ca 4 '~.{{Rk'3'•3~~' ~7`'s.~i? is~'?C i:r~3 ~ ] ~q~ ¢ L 'f'~~? 2~y y+~ $ Z""y Y ~Y[ Py s~.(f~ - ;+~}~y[a .y ~i'a. t~sCf~33. }7Y~a 1J~ ~-yZ~J'pSS, t3~~!Lf rs~y>>$ii 1g)y y j'°°~`~;"'~~.~ ~SI~~~ 3°iWj:.y~ ~~L~7.R 2{{ i?F:4 ~:5~ lb~~ i}~.#>~: f.:~S{bSi}i~ S[.$ '~M1f~i'Xi7{ids"d'Yy'_'_~i~YL $.3 u..~i t'2} ulLl4f4 ~5~ ?S2 i... lS :.:f. cb.~l~ cis#~1~ ~l~o~~ c- Iais li'~ ta(~•°~v'~,d~' Shy a'zs.~~!•~ ~ri:3H ~?s~ L~~i~ iiJx~+~~' i?`s.~rn ii'Lj~~l~_i~ b?-~;:ri:s of zt::,,s::~~~~~~~:;:r~ ><~c tka ~<vcr:; tbe3:~<~.~ of ~~~-~c~~,~~~rs of~~~ ~:?~~~k~~~ i~, a~ ziat3'~'r.~~ ~ ~c~.<~ti$5~ {3~'." Vi ga~Gi~, S'sgz, ~as3~E.'s~~$'~, %i";ct'~5~'~~'~. f~~ +C~E3's""'e~z'~~~e..,i::. ~auy ill pct to shy i:~>:~t. T?^y ill to pit ~t ~s~~ +:I~s~s. It'S tlac S~Iat3~C.aS tide (~~u$T'~ ~':LZ~. It'S OS~£~ ~5~!'t 1t? Act~u~lly it's crazy. 1 tb~l ii ;s ~n ~~~~~f~`~~;3~ t<J r.;~r;:~~~~~~-,~z..u~f:~~ irony tl~,~t ~cobib~~ic}~ t~~~= ~btic `+~`:a'#:~`#~ dt a~;~~'z ~ ~'a~#'~,>:^t~r~t'~~ ~~~°s4`r'"r ~S, ~€~;~`ri'~ V~94's:~Ea~ I}~ :~°.'sz~ r~3.E~ 3~:' ~€3~y3a~~M%£'~$'~ly's. ~A9`~ }~i;~ ~.:s. ~t~~.~ ~.::i`. #as'#~?~ ~~#~"3:€39C~ as:4E'ic"'.7~,'' e~p"r~+ i~iL~~~3#'at'~ c~r'~,~~"E I'kC~' E'lK. (.r~;?~~~<"v%~~`z:'~'b r`~ra a~'~x, r:t~:'£~i~:i." ~:s;#'s:'s:£~ : j~is3~: ~;'i',. 'I'3_'f~:y ~~'n.'&)':4''~C~S~~ 42 ~ ...^{y~i i~~3r~'f~r;£Fd°ss~. f..o oL~ of tl~.~ arc ~#~~~~.~y ~ ~.1~~~:1 :t${3<~€~ ~y of sI~F:: r~.l~~ f~~b~<<~:•~~ sort. If s~ tii~~ tv lit ~ f= c~~~r a'z>~~v7~~~. ~=i,~-raty ~aaacy, :n.~~, ~;rot~.ld c~~ offyo~~~ b~~~~. tic 3xay ~14T3.~:~s'i~5~~-. £~'~~1~;~c~ ~'1' ~.~1~ #F~"' C{s# s:.#"f:i C~3~ ~6~~rT~:it4is," #f j~~;:. ~T~ ~ %3g`;?'.~~~;i ~'t3+r'l y~~4 ~gF'o°c`;##' ~ i:,.':Ss i`E~;£:~'{., #3##,.;s..~~`'###:.°.:'i..; ~S:a`~ ~5'~s'~~5~">.~# ~ s:~'r{~^#a:~~ ~i ~~3.~'s~~~rr~..•, :z?~ ~~iA~~ r{?_a ~~i:y-~~3j lII yr, ~~~yi>~ tl~~' I'<.{I;:3,~>~ €~1$y c'f,~f:s~:, ~ro~.l.~ ~j~ t?~~..s = yo Hof>_':>;I Ir:~~c ~ ~~~c~, ~l ~•L~ bs~ j ~Ia~ 43~>~:~sl~~:~~'t f ~-in y~~r ~c~cor.~-~f€~~ ~~I~;. TI~r~~ ~dc31.~. t "vi~~~z~n Yibl:~i r.~.tc,~~t~l~ li~c~~ tr~~:Y~rd co€~csy. ~.y ~ a~Gliaa.~~ t~5~{-~r~ k_c~o~~~in~ >x~13~~°S ;~s. ~ yirTit ~~i'rs ~ ,~`a~~~'#•"ss'~~>~.~ ~,_c -Ms,~~~ S~ y~~?3 ~f fi~E ~kaC£'#s~'E: ~~SS? ~•~#~r;n: Yoe F`rr ~l~t ~#~fl.i~-~ I =.~..;r z~-~ 1 X76, o~ ~ s~ cif ~.~{~~~~}:~€~i~ix~:~ ~~i.'~ ~_C:; Y,.i~v., I ~%t"~i~~': I ~t'rt~ at: ~`6~FS r3' ^ i r' :i:r~.s i "=.f? s~ 2£ ~r~t~~gc>.~, ~~'hy do libel>; fs~.~~aish .~aaaol~€~Ts? Coi~.l~ ~.~°v rli~ ~.ss dais? Is it tl3~t it ekes tbcr~, fcEl clc~ra? vo~'EE rii Y"..~*si' i'tf3~;.#,~s>~ ~ f i< la's3E?.~#a~ ~ i?L:s:r.~'f/ ~v~~ ~E z;~~~.3"s,:%;-."~'~C31~'~/zIs'~3oC~ fC.ii' iY'i. ~?F.^~.~,st'~ r ~ ' t ~ 4-. s 'a. r . nom., w:+ f~i~ly low >~s>>:~ <1~~:~t~~.~, ~~~yl~ ~~~~t~$::< 4.ti~~~ i ~~;~~,~~..~la~€£~.Ivg#'Ex. l , l~.i~~ if tl~~:y ~rs'~'c ~T ~3~':c~~ s~s~_€"~ fps ~i.'~~`t':#3:~s}~s -'3 i S #3 .'.r..i,~~ES ~~E~<fs'~ E~~~3 :.'~8rti, s:~~sa ~ytd~s 3?• (~I~. "~~~y~ it x~;~.k.~:.~ tl~=::~a f~,r<l iu e~,r~t:~l. ~4~~y~„: it is-?3ke~ #~ear~ f~~l <aape~iox~. Qr naaybc tlacy jus? :~aaat to bully ~%~~#~~o~c. 3~ s~. <a *.3;, till ~ , v~lC1'i y,a~.{s' is -3+~...~f~..i ?~loo~..:.t-~~_ ~fC 4 Yt"ai'x. _ ~t~.~'i%'s~,, A- ~i'~ ~~1 t, ir,i':< z~:e'#~~ y 1i1~~?C ,}~~i,~~d? ~~~4-€~?, `s~;,•y.~,~'+~=r rd3~11 ~n hex R3;£ Sc~~S e:'t~#~1>,s .z~., ~~I{ ~°'~~3F3.3~s~ is`~~:i: 1~<#'~:# a bzf~_~~ 's`ki` r~'a~s{s{#sc~~~ '£G~'FA ~~~;s33`s~y :#3sa.:'pis."{' ~3'ry#~;'::a~s~~ Lfi~3~~ I~:se~~~<~.~ "€a`~ar F~-:~~-: 2 of ~ to corns to contrast a~ ~:~~:z-,i ;;<t~fi big t~a~lor~s. Oiar r~a~' stye aid no-noa~scnsc ;naayo~ his surveyed ~c scene, po€~s~ss~-~d 41~e 1;:;~.~~-#~:apc, and corm up evath his ;~~~;r: fan all 5nrtol~ng in b rs. 1n bars, t~~r~;rc tlac pcopl~ ~=c force oi~t of our busi.ccs<~ or~iccs seek rzfugc! Ira bars, v~-17ea~ half of us plan to ::~cnd our 1~4~ 1:~:ors a.~e~ f~~,~,a tries to tie aut Tics Stp.#.~rc:. In bars, e .last p~zblic pl~.i~, jou s~~ <b to 1sc a ~:<:~~P.~~~F, a ~rt~~x.o~tfoa~2ist, rifusc2aa~, a ~zric r>~ ~f::r, a bole$a~, a hider ~ r~:alaty, a ls~sa , a r<,:b:', a bore, a h, ~¢hcn. The la: public place ita ~~l~~i~:~li you e~~ ;rcalfy st~allo=~~ in }~o~~r czar, arid. s~~siss. Tl° la,t place .~Fl~er~ you cap ;Mill ralcc t <..< ire that grc~t :~~~crican ~d~~~~~, l{~z~~~~s~ <~ss cg ms~shg soldiers of c)tali out:~i to go il%s~, ;.it t'~r r3 N~:, rctr~:;~:~ ~ {:d ha.vc a ¢~~nl~ and fire ~.~p 2i l~~ll~sro and t8;~.' , fat~~i.~=, s~ay~irc:rn, 1<=~tL~ t~ Stc~ty ~~br? Si.: h~~ay revel iu your icr.~r~tud~, Play tl~;; l~rurcn :~"lise~y Sccr~ in tt€e ~2ovi~ of yo~.~r lifs, nett a girl, erect a €~Y, a girl ~~vho's a guy.1`~c last public place yoit could go to t~ ~:xn, ~~~:c irg, .-1rz-gyp out aid lig?~t aap. Na nacre, sags our;r_~yor. 1:'.~.cl~~n! In ~i~ ~loonaberg exhibits for ~c f~~t tic a bad ca,;,s of mayoral rx~~'F~#al ill~ss. ~~?;~=<thin~ .about fs~:;rtg zrnayor of l~le~x= Yorl~ znal~~:s yoga, ult-;~~,hcly, nuts. In I2avid l~i~.l~i~n it n3anif~,° #~d ifi,~'f tl;a,~ ~~°~y: Facimg deep ~-eccs:~Ron, ~s~~~ c ~~cl uniorF 3~ife 1?sx> }~=€~ulrl co~4~:pl~t~; >>~.~r p~-~~bl~., <~~~1 then call ~o eerY Pr~3s conf~ec to anou•~c l~.i~ :~~<~~cr. Thy c~~<• of 'irr~~~~ he vrould say, v=iii n~o lc~nge~• da b€~ssss e~~ith tl~c ra~,is gs~v~~o~t of Sou~:l~ ~'i{~~s:~: o ~,udy ~iuliani's cage it vaa` govcrlarre~t by noz~ ;~cya~iar-sgov~:r~a~c<~~ by >:?~-x~~~o~c ~3,ho nced~ an eve~-it as drau~atic as 911 l to provide a fac ?~s big as .leis ag,~<wsion. For l~"lr. l~loorg ~;ovr, it is Illocrsa~rg 1I;~~ I3eer~:ed. Mr. ~loozr~berg da~:.r~'t ~.llosv snna~.ing in his c~Ht side tt~=b~~I~a~ c, I~r. I'~>:ar,~~hcrg g=ill not allow it a~y-~vlz,~re ire laTe~,~ Yo.;~, Tl~o~c c~.assty .,~,orkia~g~c? z~~ f~sk ~lha .still ;~~•::1:~ on ~^a~~er ~dc~s zvlailc s~rillirtg Duds d~sill bc. put dog. I~lool~rg c~ccs. ~.;fh~.t an idiot. What a billiQrfaaa~ snob buliyboy. A short ~~~s~ard on .s~ol~:rs, 3`b4;~ aze pap"~~ 4~~~a've rr~ade a dew'. fillcy arc o1cl--f~~hior~cd, a-nd it's an old=f~;~:"ais~ acd de~:l. Their ~.s~ rc of la~`e i:c ~~~Lntially caraFative: They it is shark, tl~cy x-no~~~ lA of how you ~~y the=~l~: you f##°3r i~ is t~~ really feel t~ a€~~~ c~joy it, ~ t'€~~ l~o~~ tctis life isn't she o:.:~ ~~zrCu~Skr ant j:~~p~z :drat one. you'll be living. ~~el~crs are ds~roportian~$ely C~s.laolic, did you l~~ t~€a€~? Tl~}<:y kz:~~~.- ~;1,~ evcnttually so~cing ~=all bill <he~?. Ti lacy ascepi clcat:l~ ~~ntl il~°~~~, a~ p srt of tla~.~ e~~~~~~o:~., ~_ba:y love s~~skir€g so such, it sa c~h ~~c~s tlncir :njo~~t ofeac?~ ca.~~y, t't tl~<::y'41 ~~:bl~, of t"~~, ~;~~y k~zov;, ..ill dig; s~~ a..~r ~ceident ~sext je, so ft b~aon't ~~ter if ts:~Sy;:Y sn~rxl~cd; ~.vill die of old age at 97; sorry ~;.ill ge ~:n-apl~y~esa or l~~~g at SJ ~.ra~l pay t)1^ pr€ee.1%irge. Yo=.a b~sys your €na~ ~ s f Isl. talcs you~- cb:ar~ces. This is a l~~sdy and., as I said, a~d,::lash~aaacd ~,aach to life. It ~ not;rnodcrz~. "blade~n p::aplc think has if they're tidy, floss .~scl ~>ac f:~ne'. thcY"11 never dies ar€.d if they get sick t?a~:y'll clone t13 t~l'ia.s ~:~at~. y~;ys':t Z'~:%`Yl, Ss>':}';£:S r~_orc JtaaG ~#°s'8d S~•~P~£:38~'s~l, `I~y E~G~.~'t's~3.~3t to b~; cloned, thr~ ~~a~t t~q go 4o ha~.~c£~ :r;~~€l :~<ee gr>~~da:, I uaadc tip tl~e p~~.~t ao~at h•~°~~~ txh~.y're di~pgopo~ion~~'>Iy C'atl~~•r bust I l~~=t it's true a:Tid ira any case ley sl~aulcln't I ~~.~v~"i phaa~y facts? The other side does. V °rs? 3 of 4 No, I don't stx~olCe. I ~~~>yd to. I ~ta.ll h~vc Borne feeling for ~y old r~acs~i~r, more ana~laic ;elf, but nog=. I clor~'t lira. tt~e stall of ;~:c~~~ ~~¢:l don't ~hit~ I'Il ever go beck to it. I3~t tl~~t doesn't mean no o~~e el~.e c~.r~. And it (:~~?s~a.#"e't r„~<~n I Don't let you light up. bY'e should 1<.t F:~-Re sok~:~s 1?tek ia:z~.de ::nd treat the az: if ey're k~u.<.:-~, beca~cse t?~ey ~=:c. Until tl~ I hopr the :oke~s'~~~~d.P~-d. t~~mtl:~~t in tie coIKI rcrali~e they're o=~t~.zd~, t~ca~a of tb,<, ~r~od~=~r+ i3lz~:~~':r;' <..~«:i~~:~~: i:~~~~, ~~~~;-gin, I Ia~ape th~;~ s~rga~i~~ b~~il~=<:Z to ~il~€.g ~ r~i~c ~e~rv~y to .£.gbt t-?c prc~~;~:~::=b~~3~tL,~ of politics, the I~Ioohe~-gs ybeir ilk, ~a'~o c~~'t beep you ~~f~: fry ~~~~gg~~,~ ~-?x ~~~t n~~'~_~s hart make belzV they"nr he:~~,~ ~Y~i:ctivc by k~::,~z~-S y©u safe, ;-o~-r~ a'~a"IerfY U3€°~,lig~=t. lei's. Noo~~n is a contr~~~~trng editor of The ~~all Sta-cct Journal. I~er n~c~¢ recent book, ;~v'h~;n Cb~r~:~€er ~~'~s ~.~ig: A. ?~>.-,r-jr of Ito.~l{~ ~eag~n," is puhli~bed by Vil~.ig I~'e~guirr. You can buy it x~`ii'oi'A7 tb~ ©pi,=£~x~Jo~~~>:~~,1 boc<x:stc~rc. Copyrivht da ZOQ2 Uo 6~i" Jones ~L C®~g~~nny, I~aG. All Ital;l~ts It~;~erved. 4 of 4