The EPA and Anti-tobacco Zealots Essay -- Smoking cigarettes Tobacco

The EPA and Anti-tobacco Zealots Tobacco smoking has been one of the hot controversies of our time. Many people find tobacco smoke annoying, smelly and just plain dirty and unpleasant. Some smokers themselves agree with that sentiment. Today's smoking restrictions, not to mention the attack on smokers and extortion of tobacco companies, could not have been engineered simply on the grounds that tobacco smoke is unpleasant. We needed another reason. So the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) literally manufactured, using bogus science, the finding that second-hand smoke is a class A carcinogen causing death and illness for tens of thousands of people who are simply around tobacco smoke. The major news media, along with anti-tobacco zealots, convinced us of the wisdom of the EPA report. They downplayed or ignored findings showing EPA science to be bogus and outright fraud. (1) The EPA and anti-tobacco zealots "proved" that tobacco smokers harmed other people. Stopping and preventing harm to others, especially to the nation's children, is something most Americans can wholeheartedly support. Thus, all manner of smoking regulations descended upon the nation from bans on smoking on airplanes, in airports and restaurants to bars, workplaces and even outdoor open air stadiums. Let's pretend that the EPA's bogus science about the harmful effects of secondhand smoke is legitimate and examine this business about harming others. The first thing we should acknowledge is that we live in a world of harms. The secondhand smoke from my cigarette might harm you. However, your being able to prevent me from smoking harms me; I have less enjoyment. We cannot say which person's harm is more important and should take precedence. The reason why is t... .... District Court Judge William L. Osteen found reason to nullify the EPA's 1992 report that claimed second-hand smoke to be a class A human carcinogen and cause of lung cancer. He found that the EPA knowingly, willfully and aggressively put out false and misleading information. 2. Michael Jacobson, director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, says about large food servings, "It's high time the [restaurant] industry begins to bear some responsibility for its contribution to obesity, heart disease and cancer." Dr. Ronald Griffiths, at Johns Hopkins University, concerned about coffee addiction says, "If health risks are well-documented, caffeine could be catapulted in public perception from a pleasant habit to a possibly harmful drug of abuse." Along with Michael Jacobson, he wants the FDA to regulate caffeine content in soda, coffee, tea and chocolate.