Ban would backfire in Pa

To the editor:

I am responding to your Aug. 18 "My Side" column, in which the writer supports a ban on smoking in Pennsylvania's public facilities.

To state that there will be health care savings as a result of smoking bans is misleading. According to the New England Medical Journal, there may be a short-term reduction, but in the long term there will be a cost increase.

The American Cancer Society has noted that the decline in the smoking rate has stalled since the advent of smoking bans. Seeing as the normal decline in the smoking rate is one percent to three percent per year, it would appear that the smoking bans have caused fewer people to quit smoking.

Similarly, the smoking rate in Canada has only declined a total of one percent in the threeyear period that smoking bans have been in effect (2004- 2006).

There is not any "undeniable evidence" of harm from second-hand smoke. Actually, all you have is a theory or rumor. As the evidence supporting harm is merely statistical and given that you cannot show causation using statistical science, that is what you are left with. There are about 40 years' worth of studies stating that there isn't any statistical risk from second hand smoke to consider.

Smoking bans have huge costs. Other politicians/ governments have acknowledged this cost. I would be suspicious of any that do not. Evidence to the contrary is simply "cherry picked."

Carcinogens are found in nearly everything. Many of the constituents of tobacco smoke actually have not been physically found. They are merely thought to exist because of their chemical "smell." This technique could be used to make almost anything appear dangerous.

By the way, if you are concerned with asthma then stop giving antibiotics to babies and children. Research shows this to be a major cause.

Vince Harden Winnipeg, Manitoba

Canada