A Pack of Lies - The surgeon general hypes the hazards of secondhand smoke.

Reason ^ | July 5, 2006 | Jacob Sullum

[neverdem]

The surgeon general hypes the hazards of secondhand smoke.

According to Surgeon General Richard Carmona, secondhand smoke is so dangerous that you'd be better off if you stopped going to smoky bars and started smoking instead. "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke," claims the press release that accompanied his new report on the subject, "has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer."

Among smokers, these diseases take many years to develop. So if you got your health tips from the surgeon general, you'd start smoking a pack a day as a protective measure.

But you may want to look elsewhere for medical advice. Carmona is so intent on promoting smoking bans—a key element of the government's campaign to reduce cigarette consumption—that he absurdly exaggerates the hazards of secondhand smoke, hoping to generate enough public alarm to banish smokers from every location outside the home.

As the report itself makes clear, there is no evidence that brief, transient exposure to secondhand smoke has any effect on your chance of developing heart disease or lung cancer. The studies that link secondhand smoke to these illnesses involve intense, long-term exposure, typically among people who have lived with smokers for decades.

Even in these studies, it's difficult to demonstrate an effect, precisely because the doses of toxins and carcinogens bystanders passively absorb are much smaller than the doses absorbed by smokers, probably amounting to a fraction of a cigarette a day. Not surprisingly, the epidemiological studies cited by the surgeon general's report find that the increases in lung cancer and heart disease risks associated with long-term exposure to secondhand smoke are small, on the order of 20 to 30 percent. Among smokers, by contrast, the risk of heart disease is between 100 and 300 percent higher, while the risk of lung cancer is about 900 percent higher.

Because the associations found in the secondhand smoke studies are so weak, it's impossible to rule out alternative explanations, such as unreported smoking or other lifestyle variables that independently raise disease risks. Although the surgeon general's report concludes such factors are unlikely to entirely account for the observed associations, the truth is we don't know for sure and probably never well, given the limitations of epidemiology and the difficulty of measuring low-level risks.

Reasonable people can disagree about the meaning of these ambiguous data, and it's not surprising that supporters of smoking bans like Carmona are inclined to see a clear causal relationship, while opponents (like me) are inclined to be more skeptical. But there is no excuse for the kind of scare mongering in which Carmona engaged when he implied that you could drop dead from the slightest whiff of tobacco smoke.

Even supporters of smoking bans, such as longtime anti-smoking activist Michael Siegel, faulted Carmona for gilding the lily (blackening the lung?) by saying things such as, "There is NO risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure." This position contradicts the basic toxicological principle that the dose makes the poison. Since it's hard to measure even the health consequences of heavy, long-term exposure to secondhand smoke, how could one possibly demonstrate an effect from, say, a few molecules? "No risk-free level" is an article of faith, not a scientific statement.

Speaking of which, Carmona was at pains to say he was merely summarizing the science, not making policy recommendations, even though he emphasized that smoking bans are the only way to eliminate the "serious public health hazard" posed by secondhand smoke. He is right about this much: The issue of what the government should do about secondhand smoke is independent from the issue of exactly how risky it is. Whether smoking bans are a good idea is a question not of science but of values, of whether we want to live in a country where a majority forcibly imposes its preferences on everyone else or one where there is room for choice and diversity.

© Copyright 2006 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason. His weekly column is distributed by Creators Syndicate. If you'd like to see it in your local newspaper, please e-mail or call the editorial page editor today.

[Gabz]

"It stinks" is the biggest single complaint from non-smokers who aren't yet on the warpath but I would think that the stench that accompanies a fireworks display might mask the smell just a bit.

At least the smell (stink, or stench if you so desire) of tobacco smoke washes off - unlike that of the nanny state control freaks - that stench is bone deep.

[Skooz]

Well, too bad you had to move to accommodate someone else's rude behavior.

You can't legislate manners, I suppose.

[JLGALT]

In many ways tobacco helped to finance America's beginnings. It was one of the first exports. (Why aren't the Indian's blamed for this product?) So it's damaging to ones health. I had a doctor tell me that just living in southern California does as much damage as smoking one pack a day. When will they have warning signs on city signs here exclaiming the danger?

The UN study proved that second hand smoke was just BS! In fact it also proved that children raised in a smoking environment rarely had asthma! Maybe this is why the incidence of asyhma is rapidly increasing among our children?

[Madame Dufarge]

but it's the logical conclusion to the path on which we've embarked.....

There have been cases of AIDS-infected people being charged with attempted murder for knowingly infecting others.

AIDS and attempted murder charges

I see it as no great stretch for the hysterics to view second-hand smoke the same way, mentally unhinged as they are to begin with.

[Madame Dufarge]

Outdoors, from 20 feet away you could smell the smoke?

What, are you all part bloodhound?

[Texas Federalist]

It stinks and is disgusting. Whose got the rights in this case? Public-park and I'd rather not inhale 2nd hand smoke, versus public-park and I'm a smoker?

I hate it when people wear cheap perfume or after shave. It stinks and is disgusting. We should ban the wearing of any perfume under $50 a bottle in public (or just perfume I just plain don't like). Who has the rights in this case? Public park and I'd rather not inhale cheap perfume vs. public park and I wear Aqua Velva?

How about people who go out in public with colds and the flu? Should they be ordered to stay in the home? I guarantee there are more deaths from the flu each year than second hand smoke and catching a cold is much more irritating than inhaling second hand smoke. Where are my rights not to be subject to sneezing people on the subway or an elevator?

[Texas Federalist]

At least the smell (stink, or stench if you so desire) of tobacco smoke washes off - unlike that of the nanny state control freaks - that stench is bone deep.

I don't even like smoking. I smoke just to spite those people.

[billhilly]

An addict and a mind reader. That's a combination not often found. Maybe someone can get it written up in a medical Journal.

[mad puppy]

Poor baby. The smokers are taxpayers, just like you.

But I wonder your problem, watching fireworks, with the likelihood of smelling them, yet complaining about folks smoking cigarettes.........you've got issues.

Smokers pay taxes? Really? Brilliant insight.

In Colorado, where I live, a law recently went into action that makes smoking illegal in "public places" like bars and restaurants. I truly have mixed feelings about it because while the smell of smoke makes me gag, the idea that the Gov't would tell a business owner they can't allow smoking makes me gag as well. If pushed I'd not have the law and let the business continue to decide.

We sat far enough away from the launch area that we didn't smell the fire works, thanks for your concern. I believe your name calling etc. on such a trivial thread speaks volumes about you. Smoker or not, you have my sympathy.

[mad puppy]

Smoking is a very difficult addiction to break. Good for you. My mother started smoking while still in her teens and after major harassment from her kids (lead by me) we got her to quit several times before finally giving it up for good. I'd like to think her quitting bought her a couple extra years, but the stomach cancer got her about 10 months ago. She frequently said she enjoy being able to smell things again once she quit.

[mad puppy]

Outdoors, from 20 feet away you could smell the smoke?

What, are you all part bloodhound?

No. Just a non-smoker. But I apparently have "issues" according to another poster, so who knows?

[bfree]

Don't need to be a mind reader, just a reader, to tell YOU are a whiner.

[bfree]

I agree with the other poster, you do have some issues.
You don't want the government to dictate what businesses do, but you want to dictate what others do.

[Madame Dufarge]

But I apparently have "issues" according to another poster, so who knows?

Well, I think that would be obvious to even the casual observer.

[steve-b]

He is right about this much: The issue of what the government should do about secondhand smoke is independent from the issue of exactly how risky it is.

That's ridiculous. If secondhand smoke were highly likely to kill or seriously injure anyone exposed to it, the government would have a legitimate reason to regulate or prohibit it (just as it legitimately regulates or prohibits drunk driving, toxic-waste dumping, etc).

The issue rests entirely on whether or not there is, in fact, any real likelihood of direct harm to nonconsenting bystanders.

[mad puppy]

I hate it when people wear cheap perfume or after shave. It stinks and is disgusting. We should ban the wearing of any perfume under $50 a bottle in public (or just perfume I just plain don't like). Who has the rights in this case? Public park and I'd rather not inhale cheap perfume vs. public park and I wear Aqua Velva?

How about people who go out in public with colds and the flu? Should they be ordered to stay in the home? I guarantee there are more deaths from the flu each year than second hand smoke and catching a cold is much more irritating than inhaling second hand smoke. Where are my rights not to be subject to sneezing people on the subway or an elevator?

perfume: funny thing... when we were walking back to the car about 4 college aged males were in front of us and they smelled like they had bathed in after-shave. I don't take that seriously at all though.

Now, the coming to work when you have a cold or the flu, or sending your kids to school when they are OBVIOULY sick, that pisses me off. I didn't say anything to the (imo) inconsiderate park-smokers, but I have and will continue to speak up when obviously sick people show up to work. If some people weren't so (@#$@#@) self absorbed the other people would have a much tougher time getting the gov't to pass stupid laws to protect them.

When someone farts in an elevator, most have the decency to be embarrassed.

[billhilly]

Sorry about your mother. Actually, I loved smoking and if I were to get a prognosis of imminent death, I would start smoking again.

I just love to rub salt into the thin skin of people like bfree. What he/she does not know about life is writ large in the juvenile postings here.

[mad puppy]

My Mom said the same thing, but something about the cemo treatments apparently made that less appetizing.

As for bfree and the others, I really didn't start off trying to be antagonistic, but once I realize their charged nature, well, I guess I reached for the salt as well. Kind of fun in a jr. high sort of way. I've never had such a response to a posting before. Guess I finally found an issue where those on the other side don't recognize there even is another side. My x-wife was like that too. Miserable way to be.

[BigSkyFreeper]

In an act of desperation, the issue has now sunk to fearmongering and scare tactics.

[BigSkyFreeper]

If anyone is blowing smoke, it's the Surgeon General.