Sir, - James Repace's article "Right to live overrides right to smoke" (Opinion, February 11th) needs a little more clarity, both in respect to the author and the science he used to support his views, before your readers can begin to take a view on whether it is sensible to ban smoking in public places.
James Repace is an American who advocates banning smoking in public places as a way to get smokers to stop. He has undertaken a few studies, but these were highly controversial as he typically found levels of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) 10 to 100 times higher than other researchers.
He was involved, tangentially, in a US Environmental Protection Agency report on passive smoking and lung cancer that was thrown out by a US Federal Court Judge in 1998 for being extremely flawed. He was also part of the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration consideration of whether to introduce federal smoking bans in the workplace - an effort that resulted in that administration failing to find enough scientific support to introduce a law.
In short, the assertions advanced by Mr Repace - particularly his scaremongering "estimate" that approximately 150 bar staff lose their lives each year due to ETS - have not been backed up by any independent objective scientific research to justify such claims and it is misleading for Mr Repace to contend otherwise.
The science on passive smoking has developed over the past 20 years. It is primarily comprised of statistical studies or epidemiology that overwhelmingly find no statistically significant increase in the risk for chronic diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. The largest study conducted by the World Health Organisation reported no meaningful increase in lung cancer risk for adult non-smokers working, living or socialising with smokers. More information about ETS, and the potential risks ETS poses for young children is available on our website - http://www.pjcarroll.ie.
Given the available scientific evidence, Carrolls believes that the extreme measures posited by Mr Repace are unwarranted. Instead, there should be a sensible accommodation between the legitimate rights of smokers and non-smokers. Carrolls believes (and has proposed to the Government) that the Irish Government, public health groups and the tobacco industry should work together to ensure:
that only adults smoke;
that the public are appropriately informed of the risk;
that smokers are informed of the varying levels of risk and are therefore encouraged to smoke fewer cigarettes, smoke lighter cigarettes and quit smoking altogether;
that the desires of non-smokers to avoid the annoyance of smoke be accommodated;
that the effort to both research and develop lower risk cigarettes and also communicate these developments to consumers be encouraged and supported, unencumbered by opportunistic criticism.
On any proper standards of regulatory process, pub smoking bans could not be introduced on the basis of the scientific evidence now available.
However, as we all know, smoke can be annoying, and can exacerbate the symptoms of asthmatics. Accordingly, reasonable restrictions on where smoking is allowed are sensible. But blanket pub bans, as proposed by James Repace, are not.
That is the view of most other European governments. We shall see whether similar, common-sense approaches will apply here. - Yours, etc.,
PHIL MASON,
Managing Director,
P.J. Carroll & Co Ltd.,
Dublin.