In day 2 of legal hearing to overturn extensions to a county smoking ban, the court heard – and saw – how studies designed to justify smoking bans can be linked to Pharmaceutical interests. The makers of alternative nicotine delivery devices (or nicotine replacement therapy – NRT) get ever-richer as the number of places in which smokers can comfortably smoke rolls inexorably down to nowhere at all.
Summing up, Attorney Bruce Munson said, ‘his clients shouldn’t have to risk losing employees, profits or their entire businesses based on studies that are:
…so scientifically flimsy.
Science ought to be about evidence. Not about who doesn’t like that evidence.
We must wait until the end of the week for Judge Marianne Vorheese’s ruling.
Is this the first time that anti-smoking junk science has been questioned in a court of law?