I like this:
the majority in the room – some of them offering a standing ovation – won the battle. Many said they didn’t believe studies that showed the harms of secondhand smoke, noting some of them are sponsored by foundations that oppose smoking.
Some criticized doctors and the medical community for taking a position on the issue. Ban critic Charlie Coleman, a county resident for more than 60 years, drew raucous applause when he compared anti-smoking efforts to tactics used by dictators such as Hitler.Good to see that 'vested interests' are acknowledged to exist in tobacco control. As for the comparisons with Hitler, I'm not up on the historical detail. But it is clear that a persecution mentality exists within tobacco control, as is evident from Michael Seigel's post on US medical establishments refusing employment to anyone with nicotine traces in their system: whether from cigarettes, secondary smoke or even from nicotine patches or e-cigarettes from people who are attempting to quit smoking. Such bans on employing (passive or ex-) smokers are even too much for the New York Times.
We are told that “At least 88 people … could die, or will die, in 2011” from secondary smoke exposure as a direct result of the vote against the ban. The population of Cincinnati is over 333,000. Any speculation identifying the cause of any death as secondary smoke exposure has to be very tenuous. Why don't they campaign against the war in Afghanistan instead?