California's much-reviled total smoking ban in bars and restaurants was based on claims by anti-smoking activists that the state had a duty to "protect" workers from exposure to secondhand smoke. But comprehensive new scientific data from U.S. Department of Energy indicates California now has another duty to protect its hospitality industry from junk science claims that have wreaked havoc on many businesses' bottom line.

On February 2 the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) released a new study showing bartenders, servers and other staff are exposed to far less secondhand smoke than the public presumes. The Oak Ridge lab's measurements are considerably below air quality limits established for workplaces by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). In fact, only one-seventh of OSHA's maximum allowable level was detected.

"It's pretty clear that environmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for most people," said ORNL's Roger Jenkins, who oversaw the study.

Taking advantage of sophisticated new air-sampling monitors, government scientists closely tracked 173 non-smoking restaurant and bar employees in Knoxville, TN who worked at least four hours per day. A previous study measured secondhand smoke in bars and restaurants by tracking 1500 people in 16 cities, who wore high-tech devices 24-hours a day; at work, at home and everywhere in-between. That study also determined air quality levels in establishments where smoking was allowed was far below OSHA maximum allowable level.

The new Oak Ridge study result should change the course of future bar and restaurant smoking ban legislation. Perhaps even help rescind heavy-handed laws like California's that were rushed onto the books soon after America's great tobacco debate ignited. But it won't.

Even though the Department of Energy's best efforts indicate there's no need or basis for banning smoking in bans in bars or restaurants, the current public mindset in California is tainted against tolerance - at least for right now.

Ironically, the case against public smoking bans continues to strengthen. The Oak Ridge study comes on the heels of a U.S. federal court invalidating the unscientific claims made in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) now infamous secondhand smoke study. The federal judge who ruled the EPA study "null and void" stated in his decision that EPA "acted illegally and corrupted science to engage in a campaign of misinformation."

In a less politically correct world, this indisputable, scientifically verified "one-two punch" would legally knockout the smoking bans that have done nothing but choke off business. A KPMG Peat Marwick study conducted for the American Beverage Institute found that after California's statewide smoking ban took effect on January 1, 1998, bars experienced an average sales decline of 26%. Of those surveyed, 81% of freestanding bars and taverns reported a decrease in business, while 66% of nightclubs and 44% of hotel and restaurant bars also saw a decrease.

California's smoking ban even proved to be inhospitable to overall business operations and customer comfort. More than half of the bars responding reported an increase in customer complaints. A review of nightly tips proved that; 59% reported a loss of gratuities for the bar and serving staff -- all because of alarmist, bogus activist claims now contradicted by hard scientific data.

California legislators' main justification for imposing the ban -- to protect workers from risk -- is completely without foundation. Unless you're hermetically sealed in a Plexiglas bubble, no one on earth can live or work risk-free, nor should one expect to. Every job poses some risk. The U.S. government's most recent data shows many outdoor jobs, like timber-cutting and fishing, actually involve a great deal of risk, with approximately 140 fatalities per 100,000 employed. Airline pilots and navigators also assume very high risk, at 80 fatalities per 100,000. Farm workers, construction workers, oil riggers and taxi drivers all assume fatality risks that exceeds 40 deaths per 100,000.

Government data shows bars and restaurants are one of the safest places to work with 1.6 fatalities per 100,000 for the folks waiting tables or behind the bar and less than one fatality per 100,000 if you're in the kitchen.

Only in the emotionally charged political chaos within California's attack on tobacco could so unrealistic an argument as total risk-avoidance possibly take hold. Why was law applied in California so unfairly? Can you imagine lawmakers banning farming in the Imperial Valley because the risk of death is 40 times higher than waiting tables?

Now that the Oak Ridge data confirming air quality conditions in bars and restaurants to be well below OSHA's maximum allowable levels, shouldn't lawmakers move to protect these businesses with at least one-seventh of the speed they applied to "protecting" the businesses' workers?

No doubt some bars and restaurants in the Golden State will choose to remain smoke-free, law or no law. That's fine! They know their clientele and the ambiance that best suits their business. On the other hand, there are many bars and restaurants up and down the California coast anxious to return to business-as-usual, with smoking customers spending and tipping in numbers not seen since the smoking ban clobbered them in January, 1998.

It's time to repeal an unjustified smoking ban.