But my favorite event must be the response of the defense in the Zeno’s sace as this could have national implications. For those that don’t know this case is about the smoking ban and is being heard next month in the Ohio Supreme court. What I love about it is they couver most of the points that most of us have been making for years. To read the entire brief it can be found here.

To start off with, just what is the intent of the Constitution. To Libertarians like myself its intent is clear, it is to protect and codify the rights of the individual against the government and the tyranny of the majority but I have written on this subject many times Here is just one. Now if you read Page 9 of the brief it bares this out.

ii. Majority tyranny must be restrained.
Moreover, the procurement of benefits for some at the expense of others, through a simple majority
vote, warrants special scrutiny. This state’s authority to regulate property “was never meant to be a vehicle to
enforce the personal taste of one on another.”28 To that end, it “is not to be inferred * * * whenever a
momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of [the people], incompatible with the provisions of
the existing Constitution, [the people or the Court] would on that account, be justified in a violation of those
provisions.”29 Put more strongly:
[W]ritten Constitutions have heretofore been framed chiefly to protect the weak from the
strong, and to secure to all the people “equal protection and benefit.” They have been
constructed upon the theory that majorities can and will take care of themselves; but that the safety and happiness of individuals and minorities need to be secured by guaranties and
limitations in the social compact, called a”constitution.”3o
Thus, special care must be taken to ensure that the momentary passions of voters in November of 2006 are
compatible with Zeno’s longstanding and sacrosanct property rights.

Then there is the concept of volenti non fit injuri (Assumption of risk) This is brought up on page 16

This Court, in assessing the reasonableness of this regulation, should apply a legal principle
frequently applied in negligence actions: “a premises owner owes no duty to persons entering the premises
regarding dangers that are open and obvious.”62 This Court has explained that “the open and obvious nature
of the hazard itself is the warning, and an owner or occupier may reasonably expect persons entering the
premises will discover the dangers and take appropriate measures to protect themselves.”63

They even bring up the questionable science behind the ban. Page 14 & 15

And smoking rates amongst Ohioans have risen each full year that the ban has been in effect, even
though they have declined nationally.54
The only evidence in this case, from Zeno’s tobacco policy expert, is that indoor smoking bans at
bars have never been demonstrated to improve “public health for nonsmokers :’55 Moreover, in the absence
of smoking bans, bars cater to their clients, with some bars being smoking bars, some being non-smoking
bars, and others offering accommodations to both.56 Finally, the record demonstrates that brief, acute,
transient exposure to secondhand smoke – the type experienced by bar patrons and employees – do not causes
increased health risks 57 This is reflected in the fact that workers’ compensation premiums have not decreased
since the ban was implemented;58 and only one claim for secondhand smoke related occupational disease has
ever been filed: it was denied 59 Finally, many other states, even without Ohio’s stricter protection of
property rights, adequately “protect the public health” by making distinctions between liquor-oriented
establishments and other businesses 60 Thus Ohio’s all-out ban in bars, even in separately ventilated rooms, is
not narrowly-tailored, and there is no evidence before the Court that the ban substantially advances public
health, if at all.
ii. Imposition of the ban on bars is not reasonable.
Further, ODH likens imposition of the ban on bars to legitimate child labor laws, minimum wage
laws, and “laws affecting occupational safety.” However, to analogize the curtailment of smoking a cigar in a
bar environment to child labor laws is incredulous – - the coercion of children into factory labor bears no
54 Unpaid smoking.

I could go on and on but I think I hit the most important points, this is a great piece of work.

P.S. I forgot to mention the main argument that of property rights, namely the Fifth amendment in the federal Constitution and also the property rights in the states constitution. Elliquently put on page 13.

Finally, ODH urges that the caveat “subservient to the public welfare” trumps the protection of
private property rights expressed in the primary clause of Section 19, Article I, i.e. “Private property shall
ever be held inviolate.i46 However, the right to own property is hollow and meaningless if one does not have
considerable autonomy to gainfully use that property. This Court has implicitly acknowledged as much,
affirming in Norwood that the Ohio Constitution’s protection of private property contains “Lockean
notions.”47 As to the police power and property rights, Locke was clear that government, and the police
power in particular, were instituted to secure, rather than to imperil, property rights: the power exists to
secure rights rather than to provide public goods, and its use is only legitimate insofar as it does so, while
leaving citizens with the enjoyment of “their properties in peace and safety.”48

Of course this is why we see the mad scramble by Anti-smoking activist to show no economic harm as it weighs heavily in property rights cases as can be seen here.

While this may be true it painfully ignores the economic reality that most bartenders in smoking ban areas can attest. Their smoking customers my still come but they do not stay as long and when they leave they take many of the non-smoking customers with them. The economic numbers do not lie.

Casino Revenue Growth

SOURCE: State gaming boards of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa and Missouri.

, taken from his letter to The New England Journal of Medicine, 338 (1998), 62, in response to letters regarding LeLorier et al. (1997), “Discrepancies Between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials”, NEJM, 337, 536-542 and his (Bailar’s) accompanying editorial, 559-561:

My objections to meta-analysis are purely pragmatic. It does not work nearly as well as we might want it to work. The problems are so deep and so numerous that the results are simply not reliable. The work of LeLorier et al. adds to the evidence that meta-analysis simply does not work very well in practice.

He is so renowned that he is quote in the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. But why would he say such a thing. Well for one thing there is no standard as to how much weight to give similar studies much less different studies. it gives the author far too much power to inject his or her personal bia or advvocacy a pointed out by “Beware of Meta-analysis Bearing False Gifts.”

Meta-analyses performed by strong advocates of a particular position in an ongoing controversy are at higher risk for bias. . . .The interpretation of a meta-analysis is potentially subject to an author’s bias by what inclusion and exclusion criteria is selected, the type of statistical evaluation performed, decisions made on how to deal with disparities between the trials, and how the subsequent results are presented.

Gerard E. Dallal, Ph.D. concurred with Dr Bailers assessment and also brought up the problems with publication bias.

Meta analysis always struggles with two issues:

publication bias (also known as the file drawer problem) and
the varying quality of the studies.

Publication bias is “the systematic error introduced in a statistical inference by conditioning on publication status.” For example, studies showing an effect may be more likely to be published and written up and submitted for publication more promptly than studies showing no effect. (Studies showing no effect are often considered unpublishable and are just filed away, hence the name file drawer problem.) Publication bias can lead to misleading results when a statistical analysis is performed after assembling all of the published literature on some subject.

Now publication bias became so prevalent in the drug industry that the medical journals took action.

In September 2004, editors of several prominent medical journals (including the New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, Annals of Internal Medicine, and JAMA) announced that they would no longer publish results of drug research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies unless that research was registered in a public database from the start.[13] Furthermore, some journals, e.g. Trials, encourage publication of study protocols in their journals.

In the case of smoking ban advocates the “publication bias” was intentional not accidental as pointed out by Dr Enstrom

., and the 1992 EPA Report
One might wonder how omissions, distortions, and exaggerations like those pointed out above could occur in a document as important as a Surgeon General’s Report on ETS. To better understand this phenomena one must realize that Samet has dealt with the ETS issue in this manner for many years. In particular, he played a major role in the epidemiologic analysis for the December 1992 report on Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders: The Report of the United States Environmental Protection Agency . . . . The epidemiologic methodology and conclusions of the EPA report have been severely criticized. One of the harshest critiques is the 92-page Decision issued by Federal Judge William L. Osteen on July 17, 1998, which overturned the report in the U.S. District Court [121]. For instance, in his conclusion Judge Osteen wrote: “In conducting the Assessment, EPA deemed it biologically plausible that ETS was a carcinogen. EPA’s theory was premised on the similarities between MS [mainstream smoke], SS [sidestream smoke], and ETS. In other chapters, the Agency used MS and ETS dissimilarities to justify methodology. Recognizing problems, EPA attempted to confirm the theory with epidemiologic studies. After choosing a portion of the studies, EPA did not find a statistically significant association. EPA then claimed the bioplausibility theory, renominated the a priori hypothesis, justified a more lenient methodology. With a new methodology, EPA demonstrated from the 88 selected studies a very low relative risk for lung cancer based on ETS exposure. Based on its original theory and the weak evidence of association, EPA concluded the evidence showed a causal relationship between cancer and ETS. The administrative record contains glaring deficiencies. . . .”

Jonathan M. Samet, M.D was the lead author of the 2006 Surgeon Generals Report does he deny these claims, NO! buried on page 21 is an admission of these facts.

Judge William L. Osteen, Sr., in the North Carolina Federal District
Court criticized the approach EPA had used to select
studies for its meta-analysis and criticized the use of 90
percent rather than 95 percent confidence intervals for
the summary estimates (Flue-Cured Tobacco Cooperative
Stabilization Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, 857 F. Supp. 1137 [M.D.N.C. 1993]). In
December 2002, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals
threw out the lawsuit on the basis that tobacco companies
cannot sue the EPA over its secondhand smoke
report because the report was not a final agency action
and therefore not subject to court review (Flue-Cured
Tobacco Cooperative Stabilization Corp. v. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-2407
[4th Cir., December 11, 2002], cited in 17.7 TPLR 2.472
[2003]).
Recognizing that there is still an active discussion
around the use of meta-analysis to pool data
from observational studies (versus clinical trials),
the authors of this Surgeon General’s report used
this methodology to summarize the available data
when deemed appropriate and useful, even while
recognizing that the uncertainty around the metaanalytic
estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated
by conventional statistical indices, because of
biases either within the observational studies or produced
by the manner of their selection.

So is Meta-analysis science or a tool for advocacy?

People who own guns are twice as likely to binge drink and to drink and drive, compared with those who don’t own firearms, a new study finds.

Researchers at the University of California, Davis found that heavy alcohol use was most common among firearm owners who also engaged in behaviors such as carrying a firearm for protection against other people, and keeping a firearm at home that was both loaded and not locked away. The study included the results of a telephone survey of more than 15,000 people in eight states.

But don’t be afraid of those beer guzzling, gun toting “Tea Party Activist”. But be afraid of activist in scientific clothing using science by political agenda and passing it off as sound science. We have seen this continually throughout the Progressive era where wish to control the people and use what they call “legitimate science” as justification. The most egregious of this was obviously the so called “science of eugenics”

Eugenics, the attempt to improve the human species socially through better breeding was a widespread and popular movement in the United States and Europe between 1910 and 1940. Eugenics was an attempt to use science (the newly discovered Mendelian laws of heredity) to solve social problems (crime, alcoholism, prostitution, rebelliousness), using trained experts. Eugenics gained much support from progressive reform thinkers, who sought to plan social development using expert knowledge in both the social and natural sciences. In eugenics,

These Progressives as they like to call themselves want to control all aspects of your life and back in the eugenics days that included whether or not you could mate, who you could mate and there ware even forced sterilization to prevent reproduction. All of course for “greater good” Hitler was a huge proponent of eugenics and exterminated millions using science as a justification.

Like Progressives of old, the modern day progressives want to control all aspects of your life, and like Progressives of old they are manufacturing science to do this. The smoking ban is but one example of this. The low statistical numbers associated with second hand smoke have never been considered proof of anything and they had to cheat and use the questionable methodology of Meta-analysis to get those numbers. Like Progressives of old they want to even control your behavior and will use studies like this to demoralize and demonize the opposition. Make no mistake, a modern day prohibition is here and the agenda is clear, that is control. So yes be afraid, be very afraid!

The award is given annually to recognize and honor dedicated members of ABL’s affiliates. Phil Bradley, CEO of the Kansas Licensed Beverage Association (KLBA), an ABL affiliate, said he nominated Martin because she is an extraordinary example of people sacrificing their own resources to help defend the rights of others.

Yesterday police arrested Iloune Driver, a 19-year-old East New York man with nine prior busts for gun, drug and robbery charges. Driver, whom police say is a Crips gang member, was collared while working at a Checkers restaurant in his neighborhood. He’s been charged with second-degree murder and assault with intent to cause serious physical injury. Investigators are still on the hunt for at least one other shooter suspected in the Thursday shooting, which they believe was sparked after someone broke a bottle over someone’s head on the hottest day of the year.

For decades we have seen the exact same phenomenon as it relates to any substance of abuse or addiction, whether it be tobacco, alcohol or illicit drugs.
Why is this?
I think it pertains to the dynamic of denial and the self-protection that is part and parcel of any addiction. This self-protection mechanism is how an addiction survives. Challenge any kind of
addiction in any way and you can expect a strong, passionate (for lack of a better word) response.

But more interesting were his comments on greed.

It doesn’t necessarily mean that those who support efforts to address addictions are less passionate, it’s just that there is not such an immediate or close perception of attack on something they want or need to perpetuate.
Same thing essentially pertains to greed. Attack greed and see what happens. The individual who has greed and feels they have something to lose (that being money) is likewise going to push back if you do anything that might in any way cause them to have or generate less money. Protect the supply applies here, as well.
I would say there are three basic groups or ‘types’ of individuals who are going to protest smoke-free efforts, that would be:

1) those addicted to nicotine
2) those who make money off of those addicted to nicotine
3) those individuals who genuinely feel their overall ‘rights’ are being attacked (although it’s obvious some of the addicted or those making money off the addicted will use the ‘rights’ ploy as a means to gen up rancor and support).

To which I submitted the following video of Phil Donahue intervening Milton Friedman.

To which Mr Duncan responded,

Well, if either you or Friedman really don’t understand what greed is I think most would agree it would be defined as an excessive desire for wealth; an example of excessive being wealth accumulated at a cost to or detriment of others. I think an example of this is those who make money off the production and sales of tobacco and fight any restrictions thereof…their actions over the years have laid out a very clear picture. They operate out of greed, plain and simple.

Now personally I think Milton Friedman has a firm grasp on the definition of greed let’s see what Mr Webster has to say on the subject. “A selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed.” Well excessive is a subjective term, who decides what is excessive. Every one is a bit selfish and looks out for their self interest. I would submit that in fact that it is the anti-smokers that are greedy. They demand through force of that all business cater exclusively to them and their lifestyle and desires to the exclusion of all others. They do not want me as a smoker to have a right to tailor my business to cater to like minded individuals. To me that fits the definition of both excessive and GREEDY. Now Mr Pion attempts to dismiss this as smokimg is not job related.

mogasp response: Where to begin? Your arguments bear little or no relationship to reality. Smoking is not part of any job description of which I’m aware. Tell me one?

To which I responded:

There is an inherent risk with all Jobs. You can argue what is necessary but then the same argument can be made that nothing is necessary. That ozone emitting photocopier and laser printer is not necessary in the office environment. Bars are there to cater to those willing to take the health risks involved in drinking alcohol. Those employees are at much greater risk from intoxicated patrons then they ever would be from second hand smoke.

Furthermore the low risk ratios associated with second hand smoke are so small that no substance in history has been considered toxic at such levels. Care to name a few? There are none.

mogasp response: If the risk is job-related that is one thing, but an employee behavior which puts fellow employees at risk, or creates significant indoor air pollution, is another entirely. And it IS significant for some individuals, so don’t try and dismiss it because it doesn’t bother you.

I have repeatedly shown Mr Pion studies that show cooking fumes have the same risks, is public cooking really necessary. I submit that the invention of the wheel is the greatest risk known to man. The wheel has caused more deaths that active smoking ever will. I propose that anything with equal or greater risk as that of second hand smoke be banned outright and if any of any of the anti-smoking activist disagree they are being hypocritical and greedy. They want it their way. This is not about health concerns, They use very weak statistical findings and claim a health risk. This is not a new tactic. Mark Twain wrote a piece on the subject over 100 years ago. “The Moral Statistician ” Originally published in Sketches, Old and New, 1893

While on the subject of GREED, the anti-smoking activist do not donate their own money to fund these efforts. They demand shares of the MSA (Master Settlement Agreement) and they also expect a share of the cigarette taxes to fund their efforts. I found one in particular quite humorous. Smoke Free Wisconsin was trying to claim that the cuts in funding resulted in a higher smoking rate but what the graph showed is as funding fell so did smoking rates. It was when funding stabilized that smoking rates increased.

Of course I commented on their lack of ability to read a graph, I also pointed out that taxing smokers to fund the anti-smoking groups is akin to taxing blacks to fund the KKK. Of course my comment will never appear. Of course Mr Pion also dismisses Big Pharma’s involvement.

mogasp reply: My point was that these real issues or words have been misappropriated. The “Big Pharma” argument appears to be propaganda, pure and simple, generated to counter “Big Tobaccos” efforts spanning decades.

Of course I have many blog entries on the subject two of the more memorable ones were on J&J and the RWJF and where I exposed them of creating fake grass root groups. And Mr Pion is on the shadow panel with Dr Michael Siegel who has written many times on Big Pharma influence. Dr Epstiene exposes big pharmas influence on the American Cancer society in his book. and in his blogpost on theAmerican Cancer Society: The World’s Wealthiest “Nonprofit” Institution So if the anti-smoking activist want to talk about greed they need look no further then their own closet, they will find many skeletons there.

A statewide poll commissioned by the American Cancer Society shows support has increased eight points to 74 percent since a similar poll was conducted in March 2009.Conducted by EPIC-MRA, the poll of 600 likely or registered voters was taken between May 9 and May 11. It had a margin of error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Of course everyone knows how a poll can be skewed simply by the wording.

While the freedom fighters over at Protect Private Property Rights in Michigan (P.P.P.R.M.) issued this press release.

For Immediate Release:

PPPRM invites American Cancer Society/Campaign for Smokefree Air director Judy Stewart to pub’s last night in business

Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-The PPPRM has invited American Cancer Society and Campaign for Smokefree Air director Judy Stewart to join Royal Oak residents in saying goodbye to Four Green Fields Irish Pub on Saturday night.

In an email PPPRM executive director Steve Mace issued the following:

To: Judy Stewart, Director of State Government Relations-American Cancer Society/Managing Director, Campaign for Smokefree Air
From: Steve Mace, Executive Director, Protect Private Property Rights in Michigan

May 19th, 2011

Dear Ms. Stewart,

On behalf of our members, I would like to extend an invitation to you and your associates to come ‘raise a glass’ to the owner and workers of Four Green Fields Irish Pub in Royal Oak on Saturday May 21st, 2011.

We will be celebrating Four Green Field’s 31 years of contributions to the Royal Oak Community. Contributions that will be ending at 2am that night. We will be there to say ‘goodbye’ and thank-you for 31 years of business in Royal Oak. As well as to offer our most sincere well wishes to the workers in their pursuit of other employment.

Since the proprietor has specifically cited the private property tobacco use ban as a major factor for the closing of his establishment; we felt this may provide you an opportunity to offer some clarity to the owner and his soon to be unemployed workers on how the ban did not actually affect his business whatsoever. This opportunity may even offer clarity to hundreds of other small business owners and workers, across the state, whom claim their businesses and incomes are suffering due to the law you lobbied, speak and organizationally claim victory for.

We felt this would be a sound opportunity for you to refute, in person, the claims that the law is harming small businesses; as you do via the media.

While we are uncertain of any official time table of events for that evening; might we suggest coming to enjoy the evening entertainment and enjoy the musicians whom will no longer have Four Green Fields as a venue in which to perform — and if time permits you, attending the ‘final last call’; which is planned for 1:30am.

Of course the Nannies frequently put out fluff pieces talking about how wonderful the ban is and how everyone is eager to comply.

The smoke has cleared on Michigan’s year-old ban on lighting up in places where food and drink are served, and those who work in some of the Plymouth area’s bars and restaurants aren’t seeing a lot of down side.

“It hasn’t affected us at all,” said Sam Khashan, owner (with brother Kevin) of Sean O’Callaghan’s pub in downtown Plymouth. “I think more people are happy.”

“I don’t think it’s had much of an impact,” said Kevin Montagano, owner of the Rock Bar and Grill, across Penniman from O’Callaghan’s. Montagano added that he hasn’t given much thought to the law since it took effect in May 2010.

Khashan said the ban requires more effort from his staff, which provides outdoor receptacles for cigarette butts, tries to keep the sidewalks free of litter and monitors O’Callaghan’s interior for scofflaw smokers. But he hasn’t seen the backlash from smokers that he expected, he said.

SMOKERS COMPLY

“I expected a lot more complaints, a lot of trouble policing it,” he said, “and we don’t encounter that.”

But as we all know there is fluff, and then there is reality!

DETROIT — According to a survey conducted by the Michigan Department of Community Health, Michigan’s smoking ban did not keep people from smoking in bars.

In its first year, the statewide smoking ban at restaurants and bars was violated nearly 1,500 times, the MDCH survey said.

Two establishments were ordered to shut down until they met regulations.