I am very surprised your paper printed the letter from Alison Prange stating "The smoke-free law represents the will of the people."
Ms. Prange is a paid employee of the American Cancer Society.
My view of the will of the people is that we do not want big brother to guide our affairs.
Historically, the best brains in the world thought the earth was flat at one time. They were wrong.
This argument is not much different. Certainly, I admit smoking is a disgusting habit, and that many or most object to it. That it breeds contempt and loathing and is the most degrading habit that has afflicted humanity in living memory. All of this I grant.
The big problem is that the statistics of health risks are under intense scrutiny and the risks from second-hand smoke are severely questioned. So this is not the time to enact laws which may be popular in some quarters but unpopular in others when the very basis is uncertain.
There seems to be no doubt that inhaling asbestos is harmful. Nor that sweetening your tea with arsenic is unwise. So, if second-hand smoke is bad, why doesn't it stick out from all studies like a sore thumb and be beyond discussion? Well, it does not.
Readers who are interested in the validity of this argument are strongly advised to go to Web site Forces International which is very well constructed.
Indeed, it was from my own teaching hospital in London that the original papers by Doll and Hill linking smoking to lung cancer came from. These papers were immediately attacked as being poorly constructed, but nobody now wants to hear the criticisms but only the flawed message.
As a matter of fact there seems to be mounting evidence that lung cancer comes from background irradiation, which hits us all, whether we be saints or sinners. And that explains why your aunt Mabel who never smoked a cigarette in her life got lung cancer.
Just suppose that these do-good people might choose to attack a better known health risk factor than smoking! Why don't they attack obesity? This risk is recognized as being real and costly.
Why is there not a Wisconsin law for restaurants to have a scale at the doorway and a chart and have the potential diners limited to 500 calories if they exceed the normal values? Can you hear the screams?
Editor's Note: It was clearly identified in Ms. Prange's letter that she is the Wisconsin Government Relations Director of the American Cancer Society.
Ms. Prange is a paid employee of the American Cancer Society.
My view of the will of the people is that we do not want big brother to guide our affairs.
Historically, the best brains in the world thought the earth was flat at one time. They were wrong.
This argument is not much different. Certainly, I admit smoking is a disgusting habit, and that many or most object to it. That it breeds contempt and loathing and is the most degrading habit that has afflicted humanity in living memory. All of this I grant.
The big problem is that the statistics of health risks are under intense scrutiny and the risks from second-hand smoke are severely questioned. So this is not the time to enact laws which may be popular in some quarters but unpopular in others when the very basis is uncertain.
There seems to be no doubt that inhaling asbestos is harmful. Nor that sweetening your tea with arsenic is unwise. So, if second-hand smoke is bad, why doesn't it stick out from all studies like a sore thumb and be beyond discussion? Well, it does not.
Readers who are interested in the validity of this argument are strongly advised to go to Web site Forces International which is very well constructed.
Indeed, it was from my own teaching hospital in London that the original papers by Doll and Hill linking smoking to lung cancer came from. These papers were immediately attacked as being poorly constructed, but nobody now wants to hear the criticisms but only the flawed message.
As a matter of fact there seems to be mounting evidence that lung cancer comes from background irradiation, which hits us all, whether we be saints or sinners. And that explains why your aunt Mabel who never smoked a cigarette in her life got lung cancer.
Just suppose that these do-good people might choose to attack a better known health risk factor than smoking! Why don't they attack obesity? This risk is recognized as being real and costly.
Why is there not a Wisconsin law for restaurants to have a scale at the doorway and a chart and have the potential diners limited to 500 calories if they exceed the normal values? Can you hear the screams?
Editor's Note: It was clearly identified in Ms. Prange's letter that she is the Wisconsin Government Relations Director of the American Cancer Society.
