With the stroke of this writer's pen, most likely by mistake, the truth slips out.

     And thus the anti-smoking agenda at the root of this bill is exposed by this Freudian slip.  No matter how much the members of the anti-smoking community would like you to believe that fire reduction is their goal by pushing this bill, it has less to do with that than it does finding another way to reduce smoking by force.  Remove our choices by mandating that only a subpar product be allowed to be purchased and they believe that smokers will quit.

     Under the guise of fire safety, this bill is their latest endeavor in imposing their will on the unsuspecting public.

     When their original attempts at getting people to quit smoking didn't seem to work, they produced a new scheme.  This scheme involved scaring non-smokers into believing they were being harmed by secondhand smoke, also referred to as Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS), thus creating an army of concerned citizens to do their bidding.  Non-smokers, believing their health is in jeopardy, are making those who smoke around them feel guilty because of it.  Greater success in striving for a smoke-free society was achieved through so many voices they never had before and never could have advanced their goals without them.

     This new and improved attack on smokers was sheer genius except for one problem that will haunt them.  It's based on lies, exaggeration and propaganda.  It involves groups and individuals who believe it is their duty to infringe on the liberties of others in order to "protect" the public because they "know better" and will stop at nothing to promote their morally righteous encroachment on this lifestyle choice.

     It is human nature to believe lies that are told long and loud enough, especially when no opposing views or facts are made available for comparison.

     Anti-smokers are exaggerating smoking risks and outright lying to the public about the danger of secondhand smoke.

     In order to quickly explain the science of epidemiology which has produced studies linking ETS to cancer, I offer a quote by a respected member of the scientific community.

     In an October 11, 1995 New York Times article Dr. Charles Hennekens of the Harvard School of Public Health said, "Epidemiology is a crude and inexact science.  Eighty percent of cases are almost all hypotheses.  We tend to overstate findings, either because we want attention or more grant money."  With this in mind you need to note that epidemiology has a standard by which they define the importance of their findings.  This is called a relative risk factor.  In other words, the statistical chance of what may happen when "X" impacts "Y."  To illustrate the relevance of the risk factor association, the National Cancer Institute explains, "Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret.  Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors (other possibilities) that are sometimes not evident."  Epidemiologists actually look for a risk factor of 3 or better to support their studies.

     In the case of ETS and cancer the Environmental Protection Agency arrived at a relative risk of 1.19.  According to their standards, it means they have failed to prove a link.  As a matter of fact, in 1998, the EPA study was invalidated and vacated by a judge who ruled that the study showed flagrant disregard for scientific standards and procedures in their attempt to manipulate the findings to fit their preconceived conclusions.  They knew what they wanted to find before they even started their work and presto, they found it!  The judge went so far as to state that the EPA study was designed "to influence public opinion."  Smokers have been forced outside based on fraud.

     More than 75 percent of all epidemiological studies fail to link ETS with cancer.

     Due to this agenda, a 1998 report by a World Health Organization subgroup called the International Agency on Research on Cancer was quickly buried.  Luckily, the British press caught wind of the study - the largest ever and best formulated study on ETS - and hounded them for weeks until they finally relented and released the results.

     The study concluded that no significant risk existed for nonsmokers who either lived or worked with smokers.

     The secondhand smoke issue is a scam.  That being the case, as an adult who chooses to smoke and who has to put up with politically correct discrimination borne of lies, I'm not about to stand around and allow the anti-smoking propaganda continue to breathe life uncontested.  If I did that, I'd be guilty of holding the door open for these nannies to regulate what I eat next (they've already started on that road).  Nonsmoking readers should be likewise concerned.  Actually, you should be scared.

     They can claim to have The Truth all they want.  Demand the facts.

     Audrey Silk is president of NYC C.L.A.S.H. (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment), an independent citizens group for smokers' rights.