Some of the language in the piece is very "interesting":
EPA Administrator Carol Browner: "We believe the health threats to children and adults from breathing second had smoke are very real."
NOT that it has been proved or is a fact... it's just what we believe.
HHS's Donna Shalala: "No one wants to go back to smoking in airplanes, smoking in restaurants."
(Oh? I know plenty of people who want to go back to those things.)
"The government must look at very carefully the relationship between the scientific evidence and the conclusions of the EPA''s 1993 report.
Exactly! Someone must. The anti-smokers certainly haven't.
Attorney Stanley Rosenblatt: "There is no legitimate question in the scientific community that secondhand smoke is a Class A carcinogen. For a judge to come along years later and decide that it's not or is still an open question is a sad commentary."
Really? If there is no legitimate question, then what does he think the argument is all about? Talk about a sad commentary. I hope he prepares better for his cases than he did for that statement.
As usual the anti-smoking ostriches keep their heads in the sand. No wonder they manage to be so consistent.