| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | COVER ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
|
|
|
||||||||
|
||||||||||
Comments to:
|
|
Comments posted:
![[Read Comment]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif){kind=icon}
Getting the Facts Right--Reply to Hass
Nice try
|
|
|||
|
Michael Eriksen, ScD, Director and Professor Institute of Public Health, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, Frank Chaloupka, PhD, Distinguished Professor, Health Policy Center and Department of Economics, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL
Send comment to journal:
alhmpe{at}langate.gsu.edu Michael Eriksen, ScD, et al.
|
Mr. Hass questions our objectivity in coming to the conclusion that “the vast majority of scientific evidence indicates that there is no negative economic impact of clean indoor air policies” in our recent article in CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians. As we describe in the paper, the many studies on this issue use differing data and a variety of approaches to assessing the economic effects of these policies. Studies based on subjective data (e.g. restaurant or bar owners’ perceptions) produce mixed evidence, with these studies much more likely to have been funded by the tobacco industry and not published in peer-reviewed journals. In contrast, studies based on objective data (e.g. sales tax revenue or employment data) that include appropriate control groups (such as communities with no policy changes) and cover a period before and after the policy change consistently find that there is either no impact or a small positive effect of smoking bans on economic activity in the establishments affected by the policies. Mr. Hass states that our conclusion is biased because we have received support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which he suggests benefits from its funding of tobacco control research. Our conclusion, however, is totally consistent with that of the country’s leading public health authorities, including the Surgeon General and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services and is based on an objective review of the research on this issue. While the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was created by an endowment from Robert Wood Johnson, one of the founders of Johnson & Johnson, the Foundation operates completely independently from Johnson & Johnson and does not profit from the tobacco control research it supports. The one thing the Foundation does have in common with the Surgeon General, the Task Force, and every other public health and medical organization in the United States and around the world is its goal of improving health by preventing the death and disease caused by tobacco use—an objective we hope we can all agree upon. Michael Eriksen Frank Chaloupka |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Daniel Hass, Retired None
Send comment to journal:
unklscrufy{at}chartermi.net Daniel Hass
|
It's rather disingenuous for Michael Eriksen and Frank Chaloupka to cite as scientific evidence any research conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. It's certainly surprising that they would base any conclusions on such research and then insinuate that those conclusions are above reproach simply because they aren't based on research conducted by the tobacco industry. The insinuation is clearly that bias only exists on one side of the debate regarding smoking bans, which is ridiculous. There probably isn't an organization in the world more closely associated both financially and idealogically with the anti-tobacco industry than the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The pharmaceutical industry profits from the sale of "nicotine replacement therapy" like gum and patches. No other industry stands to profit more by enticing or even coercing smokers to try quitting, even though their products have a failure rate well above 90%. There is little surprise then that research conducted by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation would find no financial impact from smoking bans. Any research conducted by or paid for by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is clearly suspect at best. Bias is bias. Next time Eriksen and Chaloupka should try a little harder to hide theirs. Daniel Hass |
|||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | COVER ARCHIVE | SEARCH |
Comments: