Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutA024 - Letter from Peter Sherman, Boheme 3j,9-Ia I T - To:Ames City Council MAR "r 12001 .� From:Peter Sherman,Owner of Boheme,ISU Professor of Statistics Subject: Proposed Smoking Ban = Date 1 March 2001 CITY CLERK CITY OF 4MES,IOWA � The intent of this letter is to encourage the ACC to reconsider its stand regarding the proposed smoking ban.Reasons for reconsideration include the following: 1. The stated reason for the ban is that it is in the public health interest.But all of the published studies regarding ETS which have demonstrated any significant increased risk have related to the home and the workplace.Not a single study has found an increased risk due to exposure in bars and restaurants. Professor John Lowe,who is the head of the Department of Community and Behavioral Health at the University of Iowa stated to me in a phone conversation(2/28/01)that,as an international expert on ETS,he could not and would not support the claim that ETS in bars and restaurants poses a significant increased risk of lung cancer.And in relation to the outdoor clause in the ordinance,there have not even been any studies conducted,much less found to be inconclusive. Such a clause cannot but cause one to seriously question the honesty of the claim that the ordinance is in the interest of public health. 2. When the experts do not do not concur with the reasoning of the ACC then it is incumbent on the latter to reevaluate its stance base on such reasoning.If it ignores the factual information,it is neglecting a major function,which is to be a deliberative body which bases its decisions on pertinent information, as opposed to the wishes of special interest groups.Furthermore,it demeans the reputation of that body and any who might serve on it. 3. The ACC is being carefully observed by other cities in this matter(Iowa City and Cedar Rapids,to name a few).Thus,it should take extra care to address this proposed ordinance is a manner befitting a city council.To decide to table the vote on this issue in order to have time to collect more pertinent information,while perhaps may be considered"waffling"by some,is,in fact an intelligent and responsible action when it is based on the desire to become better informed.I would strongly encourage the ACC to conduct a more thorough investigation of the facts pertinent to the proposed ban,and to talk to the experts in the field.By proceeding in such a manner it does indeed become a model for other city governments.By not doing so,at the risk of a bruised ego by being labeled indecisive or"waffling",it offers a dangerous precedent-not only in relation to the proposed ordinance,but to all types of issues that cities might address at one time or another. 4. Being a professor of statistics,I am very sensitive to the adage"There are 3 types of lies:white lies, lies,and statistics."The statistics that have been quoted in support of the ordinance in relation to public health,are not pertinent to the proposed ordinance.(See 1. above).The appearance that they are pertinent is an example of the above adage.By recognizing as pertinent,statistics which the experts in the field acknowledge are not,the ACC adds fodder to the above adage,and thus places the field of statistics in further ill-repute.It is natural for the non-experts to grab onto statistics which have little or no bearing on the problem at hand in order to achieve their goal.As a statistician I find this irresponsible.But when they become better informed and persist in arguing for the validity of such statistics,I can only view this as lying with statistics.In the interest of the reputation of the field of statistics and those who dedicate their lives to its use in an objective and honest fashion,I would ask the ACC to be sensitive to this point. 5. Mr Quirmbach's claim that when it comes to the rights of the smoker vs.the nonsmoker he believes that of the latter should prevail is reasonable in such public places as both rights have some validity.It fails in the case of the ordinance,since the rights of both are superceded by the right of the business owner to operate his/her business in any legal manner he/she sees fit.If,as a cafe owner,I choose to allow certain patrons to smoke and other not to,that is my right.There are no state or federal laws which state that I must not discriminate on the basis of smoking preference.In fact,it is a privilege for both parties to be allowed into my establishment.It is not their right to enter. 6. There are indeed pertinent statistics related to the impact of smoking bans in various cities.However, each city is different.And it appeared that the ACC was oblivious to the statement of the owner of the Ames Pizza Hut that his business dropped by 25%after he implemented a nonsmoking policy,and that he has not regained that percentage in 5 years.This is an Ames business that ran the experiment and realized a significant financial penalty.While it may happen that,on the average,businesses will not be hurt,it is reasonable to assume that some businesses might be destroyed by the ordinance.(This relates,again,to the use of statistics.One can quote all the statistics one wants.But I wonder how many of those who quote them in support of the ordinance would use such statistics if it were their business and livelihood that was at stake.Even if the majority,such as 2/3 of businesses see no sizeable drop,what about the 30+%that do.)It seemed that the ACC was,and continues to be insensitive,if not oblivious to the fact that a sizeable number of businesses could be destroyed.At the very least,the ACC should obtain more quantitative information related to this issue and, consequently,demonstrate reasonable sensitivity. Finally,I would like to say to the ACC that I would be happy to help in any manner the ACC deems appropriate concerning the collection and interpretation of factual pertinent statistics related to this or other community issues.And I hope that this memo has helped to provide the ACC with a more well informed perspective on the consequences of not duly deliberating this issue prior to final consideration of the proposed ordinance. herry"af1 lcishzfP— , ectt'4- G• Dt�� 3 - 5 -&VO. V 1 . M Sr,,,1 ►