The Michigan Militia Corps'

Weekly Update
Internet Edition

Volume 4, Issue 22

Week of June 23, 1997

Is "Garbage Science" Advising Government?

Elected Officials Misled by Bogus Study Did Stanton Glantz, hero of the anti-smoking movement, lie? Did he intentionally set out to mislead public officials? Is a man of his reputation simply mistaken? Is a "yes" answer to any of these questions acceptable?

Elected officials considering restaurant smoking bans are routinely asked to rely on a 1994 study saying "100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances" have no negative economic impact on the restaurant economy. New evidence clearly shows that the study is so deeply flawed as to be unusable and appears to have been designed to mislead elected officials.

Stanton A. Glantz and Lisa R. A. Smith, the authors of that widely cited study of the economic impact of smoking bans on restaurants, misrepresented data and reached an unwarranted conclusion that has misled public officials and the restaurant industry for several years.

Dr. Michael K. Evans, clinical professor of economics at the Kellogg School, Northwestern University, and one of the nation's most respected economists, reaches these conclusions in a formal review commissioned by the National Smokers Alliance.

Glantz and Smith claimed to have compared 15 California and Colorado cities with "100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances" (language used repeatedly in the study) against 15 "control" cities that allowed smoking in restaurants. "Glantz and Smith misconstrued or misunderstood the smoking conditions in fourteen of the cities cited as having a smoking ban, and in a majority of the cities chosen for 'control' cities," Dr. Evans said.

Dr. Evans finds that, "These distinctions are fundamental for accurate, objective economic analysis and have been misleadingly applied in the scant and poorly designed research published to date," a category in which Dr. Evans includes the Glantz/Smith study.

In conclusion, Dr. Evans said: "The differences in our results from those of Glantz and Smith are striking. When all cities are classified correctly, the correct dates for smoking restrictions are utilized in the study, account is taken of the temporary nature of some ordinances, and correct data are used, we find that in virtually every city where Glantz and Smith alleged a smoking ban was imposed, there was a significant decline in sales of eating and drinking establishments." "Stanton Glantz knew or should have known that he was misrepresenting the cities he studied as having '100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances' when, in fact, they did not. This leads us to conclude that his study was designed to mislead public officials," said Thomas Humber, president of the National Smokers Alliance.

"The economic consequences to America's $100 billion full-service restaurant industry are too great to allow the Glantz study to stand uncorrected," Humber said.

Humber said he has asked both the American Journal of Public Health, which published the Glantz study, and the University of California, which funded Glantz's study with cigarette taxes paid by smokers, to undertake an immediate investigation of the Glantz work.

"No matter how worthy the university, the editors and the peer reviewers believe the cause of smoking prohibition may be, there is no excuse for not having examined Glantz's premises. Had that occurred, this study would never have been published," Humber said.

In his letter to the University of California, Humber said that "questions have been raised by Dr. Evans' review that are serious enough to warrant seeking the return of taxpayer dollars from the authors of the study." Humber also has asked the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which haws retained Dr. Glantz as a consultant, to sever its relationship with Glantz. Even though the NSA has exposed the false claims made by University of California researcher Stanton Glantz, the Glantz study continues to be used nationwide by anti-smokers in their push for total smoking bans. Recently in San Antonio, Texas, where the city council considered a smoking ban in most public places, the Glantz study was actually referenced in the proposed ordinance as a justification for the ban.

At Issue: What We Mean by Restaurant

Stanton Glantz insists that when the restaurant economy is measured for the possible impact of smoking bans that all food service be included, and he uses "aggregated sales tax data" as the measuring device.

The kind of food-service operation described in the industry as "quick service" includes McDonald's, Domino's and delicatessens and sandwich shops -- even the deli counter at a supermarket.

At the fast-food burger shops and chicken places, even where there is a dining area, fully two-thirds of the patron visits are for drive-through or for takeout, situations where smoking is obviously not an issue.

Joe's Grill is different. One sits at a table or counter or bar, orders food from a waiter or waitress, which is brought to the diner and may or may not be preceded by a drink or an appetizer or salad and completed with a dessert and, perhaps, coffee. A check is brought, a check is paid, and most often, a tip is left. Joe's Grill is a full-service restaurant, having far more in common with The Four Seasons, for example, than with McDonald's.

For at least 25 percent of the customer base (the percentage of adult Americans who smoke, but not counting their spouses and friends who may dine with them), having the freedom to smoke somewhere at Joe's Grill and others of its kind can be and most often is a significant issue. When smoking bans are imposed, these individuals may well decide to exercise their option to dine in another restaurant in another jurisdiction, may choose to order in or drive through for carryout or purchase prepared foods for home consumption. Joe's Grill may raise its prices to make up for loss in volume, further skewing the aggregated sales tax base and true understanding of the impact.

The economic impact of a smoking ban on the restaurant community can be measured only by looking at the full-service restaurants and taverns, at whatever level of price or quality.

At Issue: The Meaning of "Smoke-Free"

At the heart of Dr. Stanton Glantz's study, "The Effect of Ordinances Requiring Smoke-Free Restaurants on Restaurant Sales," are Glantz's repeated assertions throughout the paper of "100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances" in his 15 test cities.

For the lay person, whether a restaurateur or an elected official, common sense and common experience would accept "100% smoke-free restaurant" to mean there is no smoking permitted anywhere on the premises.

Indeed, Dr. Glantz, Americans for Nonsmokers Rights (an activist group of which Glantz was a co-founder) and the many others who use the Glantz study as the standard reference in pressing for restaurant smoking bans around the country make no suggestion to those they are trying to persuade that "smoke- free" means anything other than that. In fact, during the periods of Dr. Glantz's study, in 14 of his 15 test cities with "100% smoke-free ordinances," one could have a meal and enjoy a cigarette perfectly legally in hundreds of restaurants in those cities. That remains true for most of his test cities three years after the study was published. Smoking was restricted but smoking sections were available.

Public officials and restaurateurs are being deceived by both the language of Glantz's study and those who use it to promulgate restaurant smoking bans into believing that "100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances" will have no adverse effect on restaurant sales or sales tax revenue generated by those sales.

Since the Glantz study was published in a well-recognized journal that lay persons would ordinarily have no reason to question, the statements in the study and statements by those pushing the study are often accepted at face value. The restaurant industry, public officials and the general public are being misled. Anti-smokers [Ed. Note: Just like anti-gunners] are well-organized and well- funded. They will say and do anything to achieve the results they want. Only when there is resistance will elected officials act in more reasonable ways. Don't let them get by with using bogus studies.

Just what is the scope of the problem of having public officials rely on bad studies as they consider "100% smoke-free restaurant ordinances" for their cities, counties and states? What is the scope of the problem if the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) relies on a groundless study as part of deliberations that could result in a nationally mandated smoking ban in all restaurants and bars?

The National Restaurant Association, for example, has estimated that the food-service industry will lose more than $18 billion in sales if the proposed OSHA rules become law. A recent survey of bar and restaurant owners sponsored by the National Licensed Beverage Association found that 83 percent of bar owners and nearly half of restaurant owners and managers expect a loss of revenue if OSHA has its way.

Smoking bans would have the greatest impact on the category of full- service restaurants, including taverns, where food is an integral part of the service. The National Restaurant Association defines the full-service category as those establishments in which wait staff serves the food and beverages, in which patrons are seated and in which patrons pay after dining. The National Restaurant Association projects that 1997 food and drink sales in the full- service category will total more than $104 billion, an increase of more than 4 percent from the projected 1996 figures. Wages paid to employees in the full- service category are estimated at $35 billion in 1996.

The scale of the economy involved here is enormous. Even small percentage losses could result in billions of dollars in lost sales and massive disruptions in the work force.

Policy decisions of this magnitude must be made on the basis of sound data.

What Happened to Them?

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British traitors and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons in the Revolutionary Army, and another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or the hardships of the Revolutionary War. They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners, men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the sea by the British navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions wee taken from him and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers or both looted the properties of Ellery, Clymer, Hall, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the Battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr. noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. The owner quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his grist mill were laid waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart.

Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates.

Such wee the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more.

Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: "For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of the Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor." They gave us an independent America.


Author Unknown

Mingling With Power

Taken From CWA Web Site

The abortion industry has gained momentum since 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v. Wade. Now that abortion has become big business in America, the industry is pumping funds into political campaigns. Dr. George Tiller, a late-term abortionist, made numerous donations to Democratic campaigns winning him an invitation to a White House coffee with the President. Dr. Tiller specializes in an especially brutal form of late-term abortion. A poison filled needle is injected into the living baby's heart. Laminaria (seaweed) packs are then inserted into the cervix of the mother. A dose of labor inducing drugs eventually causes the mother to give birth to a dead baby on the fourth or fifth day. The final process of disposing of the baby's remains is almost reminiscent of World War II death camps. The remains of the dead baby are placed into a crematorium. Most abortionists rid themselves of the babies' remains by throwing them into the trash. CWA's Family Voice magazine exposed Dr. Tiller's practices in 1991.

M. Luhra Tivas, handled the medical records for each of Mr. Tillers patients in 1988. She reported that on average 10-20 late term abortions are performed at the clinic each week. This figure is in stark contrast to the 20 total abortions Tiller claimed the clinic performed each year.

Abortions, especially late term abortions, bring significant profits. Thus, Dr. Tiller was able to be overwhelmingly gracious with his money to the Clinton administration, leading to the invitation to join the President for coffee in 1996. Sources from the Federal Election Commission give us a glimpse as to how Dr. Tiller's abortion money has been spent.

1. $25,000 donated to the Democratic National Committee on March 4, 1996 2. $1,000 to the Clinton-Gore '96 Primary Committee 3. $4,300 to the Kansas Democratic State Committee 4. $4,795 to pro-choice Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) for a failed presidential campaign (the money was returned) Dr. Tiller's presence in the White House testifies as to exactly what kind of abortion policies this administration advances.

If you would like to submit an editorial, commentary, or news story from your perspective on something you have been keeping an eye on, please e-mail it to xxx and it will be evaluated for entrance. Thanks.

To subscribe to the Weekly Update, put out weekly by Michigan Militia Corps 5th Division command, simply send a message to majordom@lists.cns.netwith the phrase "subscribe militia" in the BODY of the message. The Weekly Update is archived at the Michigan Militia Corps web page at: