I would never argue that smoking is not distasteful ... Ok .. even disgusting to non-smokers. The ground swell of popular opinion to demonize smoking is justified, in so much as smoking has been demonstrated to pose significant health risks to smokers. These facts aren't in question. The question is should this distaste for cigarette smoking be translated to laws against it? Should non-smokers be given a legal redress to limit, or eliminate smoking all together and segregate and punish those who insist on continuing to smoke? There is only one standard which can answer this question in a supposedly free society. Does enviromental tobacco smoke, or second hand smoke, expose non-smokers to health risks they would not otherwise be exposed to?
The immediate answer is, of course, ABSOLUTELY! I mean it's obvious, right? How can breathing smoke be good for you? Unfortunately the question is not whether breathing second hand smoke is good for you, the question is whether or not breathing second hand smoke is demonstrably BAD for you. Listening to loud music is arguably not good for you, but except where the music is considered to be disturbing the peace, loud music is not illegal. Nor should it be. Drinking alcohol is clearly not good for you. Encouraging people to drink is tantamount to encouraging them to flirt with a dangerous addiction. Once again, it's not only legal to drink, it's legal to advertise it.
The smoking issue turns on one question, is second hand smoke dangerous to non-smokers? The first study which claimed that ETS (enviromental tobacco smoke, or second hand smoke) was a clear danger to the public was released by the EPA in 1992. This is literally the basis upon which the entire campaign against second hand smoke was started. There are several relevant facts about this study which should be scrutinized. First, the study was a "meta-study" which means it was not a study per se, but analysis of other studies which purported to support conclusions. Also, it's interesting to note that the EPA released the results before the study had even been completed.
More. The EPA study states that the data showed that nicotine measurements showed that non-smokers blood contained the equivalent nicotine level of one fifth of a cigarette per day. A later study using actual test subjects with nicotine monitors later adjusted the actual number to the equivalent of six cigarettes per YEAR. In 1995 the Congressional Research Service released a review of the EPA report in which it observed, "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies." Concluding that the results of the report should be considered suspect. The EPA report stated that second hand smoke was a class A carcinogen and further claimed that second smoke was responsible for 3000 deaths per year. When later asked to support the 3000 deaths claims with data, the EPA simply adjusted the statistical margin of error in the results to accomodate a possibility that the death data might be correct. There was no data available which actually supported the claim. In fact, as of this writing, there have no ZERO deaths anywhere on earth that have EVER been sourced directly to second hand smoke. There are many more examples that show that the study was, in fact, junk science but I won't burden you with them here. I wonder, given the timing of the study, if it was possibly influenced by the multi-billion dollar lawsuits making their way through the courts in those days. When a plaintiff suing a huge tobacco company was allowed to present an actual EPA study in support of it's claims, I assume that could have had a significant impact on the mindset of the jury. But that's just speculation.
So what do we know? Well, after the EPA study the World Health Organization conducted a study of it's own. This was an actual study which was conducted in seven european countries over a period of seven years. It included over 2100 actual test subjects including non-smoking members who lived within families that smoke. Some highlights of the WHO study:
- The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
- The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.
- The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means
• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.
-But-
• Because the Confidence Interval includes 1.0, The Relative Risk of 1.16 number is not statistically significant.
*This last fact is routinely ignored by anti-smoking activists.*
Once again I could continue to cite chapter and verse about the conflicts between the EPA study and the WHO study.
The fact is that irrefutable empirical data does not exist that proves that second hand smoke is an actual danger to anyone. Like it or not, those are the facts. Anti-smoking activists are desperate to come up with something but to what purpose? The dangers of smoking are real to the smokers and the notion that smokers should still exist in society is offensive.
There no logical basis for prohibiting offensive behavior. In fact the first amendment guarantees us the right to offend each other. Why else would the guarantee exist? To make sure that socially acceptable versions of speech and thought were protected?
I get that you find smoking offensive. I get that you find addiction repulsive. I understand that you don't want your precious children exposed to examples of human weakness and frailty. What YOU don't get is that I have every right to offend you and you have every right to leave my presence when you take issue with me. I don't not have the right to assault you. Since there is no evidence that my offensive habit poses an actual health risk to you .. you can't claim that I am assaulting you by smoking.
If you take your irrational mania to the next logical step you will ultimately create another non-winnable war. Just like alcohol and drugs. You cannot ever successfully prohibit personal choices that don't damage you directly. Suck it up and learn tolerance.
The immediate answer is, of course, ABSOLUTELY! I mean it's obvious, right? How can breathing smoke be good for you? Unfortunately the question is not whether breathing second hand smoke is good for you, the question is whether or not breathing second hand smoke is demonstrably BAD for you. Listening to loud music is arguably not good for you, but except where the music is considered to be disturbing the peace, loud music is not illegal. Nor should it be. Drinking alcohol is clearly not good for you. Encouraging people to drink is tantamount to encouraging them to flirt with a dangerous addiction. Once again, it's not only legal to drink, it's legal to advertise it.
The smoking issue turns on one question, is second hand smoke dangerous to non-smokers? The first study which claimed that ETS (enviromental tobacco smoke, or second hand smoke) was a clear danger to the public was released by the EPA in 1992. This is literally the basis upon which the entire campaign against second hand smoke was started. There are several relevant facts about this study which should be scrutinized. First, the study was a "meta-study" which means it was not a study per se, but analysis of other studies which purported to support conclusions. Also, it's interesting to note that the EPA released the results before the study had even been completed.
More. The EPA study states that the data showed that nicotine measurements showed that non-smokers blood contained the equivalent nicotine level of one fifth of a cigarette per day. A later study using actual test subjects with nicotine monitors later adjusted the actual number to the equivalent of six cigarettes per YEAR. In 1995 the Congressional Research Service released a review of the EPA report in which it observed, "The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, to determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies." Concluding that the results of the report should be considered suspect. The EPA report stated that second hand smoke was a class A carcinogen and further claimed that second smoke was responsible for 3000 deaths per year. When later asked to support the 3000 deaths claims with data, the EPA simply adjusted the statistical margin of error in the results to accomodate a possibility that the death data might be correct. There was no data available which actually supported the claim. In fact, as of this writing, there have no ZERO deaths anywhere on earth that have EVER been sourced directly to second hand smoke. There are many more examples that show that the study was, in fact, junk science but I won't burden you with them here. I wonder, given the timing of the study, if it was possibly influenced by the multi-billion dollar lawsuits making their way through the courts in those days. When a plaintiff suing a huge tobacco company was allowed to present an actual EPA study in support of it's claims, I assume that could have had a significant impact on the mindset of the jury. But that's just speculation.
So what do we know? Well, after the EPA study the World Health Organization conducted a study of it's own. This was an actual study which was conducted in seven european countries over a period of seven years. It included over 2100 actual test subjects including non-smoking members who lived within families that smoke. Some highlights of the WHO study:
- The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
- The only statistically significant number was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers.
- The study found a Relative Risk (RR) for spousal exposure of 1.16, with a Confidence Interval (CI) of .93 - 1.44. In layman's terms, that means
• Exposure to the ETS from a spouse increases the risk of getting lung cancer by 16%.
• Where you'd normally find 100 cases of lung cancer, you'd find 116.
-But-
• Because the Confidence Interval includes 1.0, The Relative Risk of 1.16 number is not statistically significant.
*This last fact is routinely ignored by anti-smoking activists.*
Once again I could continue to cite chapter and verse about the conflicts between the EPA study and the WHO study.
The fact is that irrefutable empirical data does not exist that proves that second hand smoke is an actual danger to anyone. Like it or not, those are the facts. Anti-smoking activists are desperate to come up with something but to what purpose? The dangers of smoking are real to the smokers and the notion that smokers should still exist in society is offensive.
There no logical basis for prohibiting offensive behavior. In fact the first amendment guarantees us the right to offend each other. Why else would the guarantee exist? To make sure that socially acceptable versions of speech and thought were protected?
I get that you find smoking offensive. I get that you find addiction repulsive. I understand that you don't want your precious children exposed to examples of human weakness and frailty. What YOU don't get is that I have every right to offend you and you have every right to leave my presence when you take issue with me. I don't not have the right to assault you. Since there is no evidence that my offensive habit poses an actual health risk to you .. you can't claim that I am assaulting you by smoking.
If you take your irrational mania to the next logical step you will ultimately create another non-winnable war. Just like alcohol and drugs. You cannot ever successfully prohibit personal choices that don't damage you directly. Suck it up and learn tolerance.
No comments:
Post a Comment