Undoubtedly, many people are probably tired of hearing of proposed smoking bans. Two factions have been formed: the pro-liberty and the pro-health factions; it would be difficult to persuade the other side to change their mind using the rhetoric already in play.

So what is the point of addressing the issue if it has already played out? Simply put, as happens in many cases, one side has been demonized. This often happens in these types of debates, where the media decide it is their duty to play an active role in furthering what it considers to be good social policy.

I refer you to the Feb. 8 issue of the News-Gazette, which ran a front page story on an endorsement of smoking restrictions by a committee in the Illinois House of Representatives. The story cites a doctor at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, saying that second hand smoke kills 500,000 people a year. This statement was corrected on page two of Friday’s edition of the News-Gazette (attributing the error to the AP), but nonetheless some healthy journalistic skepticism would have let editors see this was an incorrect figure.

The Illinois Public Interest Research Group estimates the number at, “at least 53,000 nonsmokers a year,” with 3,000 succumbing to lung cancer and 35,000 to heart disease. The American Lung Association agrees with the latter two figures. The News-Gazette put the number at 10 times that of associations that could be safely classified at anti-smoking.

Of course, even the estimates by the American Lung Association need to be called into question over the issue of second hand smoke. The idea behind this issue has been browbeaten into the American public through aggressive ad campaigns (such as Truth). Second hand smoke kills, or, so says the EPA.

It’s important to note here that I do not smoke cigarettes, nor do I consider it healthy to smoke cigarettes. It’s important, however, to bring some facts to the debate over smoking in restaurants and bars. Before we allow anti-smoking advocates to drive the practice out of this city, state, country, etc., we must realize that they are oftentimes not being completely honest.

The EPA report was not a new study on the issue. Instead, it was a meta-study: a study that combines data from past studies to create one giant study. Meta-studies can be incredibly useful but also incredibly deceiving. The various epidemiological studies that had been done on second hand smoke had results all over the map. Because of this fact, a meta-study that left out certain studies could be skewed to achieve a certain conclusion.

In any case, the EPA study sampled 30 studies, only six of which found a statistically significant increase in lung cancer among those exposed to second hand smoke. In the end, the EPA only based their data on 11 studies and could still find no statistically significant increase at the 95 percent confidence level. In order to hit their target of 3,000 deaths, the EPA doubled their margin of error.

The Congressional Research Service reviewed this report in 1995 and was highly critical of the EPA report. A federal judge vacated the study in 1998, saying that the EPA “cherry-picked” its data (this ruling was overturned on the basis of jurisdiction by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, which did not comment on the validity of the study). Both of those reports are available online.

A report by the World Health Organization in 1998 found that there was no statistically significant increase in risk of lung cancer to those living or working with smokers. It also said “public indoor settings did not represent an important source of ETS (environmental tobacco smoke) exposure.”

Oops. That’s egg on the face of anti-smoking advocates trying to bring their iron fist down on private establishments. I’m not trying to say that second hand smoke should now be considered a public good, but sensationalistic reports on its dangers should be viewed with skepticism. And to anyone who still considers it a nuisance and health threat at public places, we have an answer for you too: leave.

John Ostrowski is a junior in communications. His column appears on Tuesdays. He can be reached at [email protected].