I refer to the report quoting "health officials" about the so-called dangers of environmental tobacco smoke.

It is fascinating how in this debate use is made by the proponents of bans of scientific findings (if one can so describe them) that in any other branch of research would be dismissed as inconclusive. The anti-tobacco lobby even resorts to anecdotal, headline grabbing stories, such as the one about non-smoker Roy Castle dying of lung cancer, as if that unfortunate gentleman's death is proof written in stone that environmental tobacco smoke kills people. This anecdote simply does not prove the case, however much the anti-tobacco lobby repeats itself about it.

A further demonstration of the antis' desperate use of science to baffle is the way the "percentage increase in risk" numbers are bandied about. Just to illustrate the way figures can be used to say anything you like, simply consider the odds if you buy two Super Five lottery tickets instead of one. You have increased your chances of winning by 100 per cent but does this mean that you are 100 per cent certain to win? I don't think so.

The same sort of argument applies when you take into account the figures cited by my old friend, Mario Spiteri, about the estimated (repeat estimated: that's the best that can be said) 20 or 30 or whatever per cent increase in risk. The epidemiology shows a very low risk, to start with (something the antis conveniently forget to make clear) and the increase identified by some, and not all, studies, is therefore small to the point of statistical insignificance, as is the original risk in the first place.

I know the preceding paragraph sounds confusing and that's precisely because evidence on which the antis rely is so scant that they have to use smoke and mirrors to make an argument that sounds scientifically plausible.

Of course, I am fully aware that there is a very good chance that it will be pointed out that what I say about anything to do with tobacco is tainted by the fact that I am a spokesman for the industry. I would point out with all due respect that in this context consideration should also be given to the fact that the companies that produce alternate nicotine delivery systems are very active in funding research that is used by the anti-tobacco lobby.

I might, in closing, surprise readers by agreeing with Martin Balzan, secretary general of the Medical Association of Malta. When Dr Balzan appealed for people to be courteous and said that smokers should think of non-smokers who could be bothered by cigarette smoke, he was merely echoing the position of the tobacco industry, expressed consistently for many years. His point that, on the other hand, courtesy should also be used when asking someone to refrain from smoking was also well made.

It is a real pity that the ministry and the anti-tobacco lobby refuse to take Dr Balzan's point.