Jump to full article: South China Morning Post, 2004-04-10
Author: THOMAS M. DOLEZAL, Pokfulam
Intro: Your concern about the rigour and objectivity of economic impact studies is to be applauded ('Why this opposition to a ban on smoking?', April 6).
I would have hoped the concern applies equally to research sponsored by Hong Kong's Catering Industry Association and the tobacco industry, as well as papers put forward by anti-tobacco activists. It is disappointing, however, that you abandon the principle almost as soon as you invoke it. You dismiss the integrity of industry-sponsored impact studies solely on the basis of who the sponsors are.
I am not a tobacco industry profiteer or someone working for Hong Kong's catering industry, just a casual smoker who is tired of being hounded by anti-smoking activists . . .
There are two - and only two - exhaustive studies ever conducted on second-hand smoke; one was sponsored by WHO and the other by the University of California. Both studies have (independently) shown that secondary smoke has no impact on the rates of lung and related diseases; both were suppressed by their sponsors. The Post could do worse than obtain them.
Jump to full article » |