Posted on 07/05/2006 10:41:15 AM PDT by 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.
ping
*ping*
Come on people, the very future of the planet is at stake here. You light up, it could be TEOTWAWKI!
If it's so damn dangerous why don't they outlaw it?
A federal court already told the AG's office and EPA once before that picking the parts they like from questionable "studies", and ignoring the parts they don't like constitutes fraud.
It's certainly not science!
Where did the UN WHO study go?
The one rare, long-term, multithousand person second-hand smoke truly scientific study...
Isn't the SG wife some major player in smoking preventative drugs or something? No conflict of interest if it is "for the children", I suppose.
By insisting that second-hand smoke is a killer, how will they react to someone who uses deadly force against a smoker?
Look at the bright side!
If the gummint allowed deep pockets "Big Tobacco" to get sued for trillions after warnings on packages of cigarettes for over 30 years, think of the bonanza coming soon...
I will love the even deeper pockets of Uncle Sam and the most stupid bureaucrats and activists on the planet, endlessly warning us that second-hand smoke is the greatest threat to humanity, and simultaneously failing to outlaw the most dangerous substance on earth!
Worse than asbestos... Alar... Agent Orange... you name it.
I plan to be rich!
When govts at all levels have tax benefits from tobacco companies locked in to NOT sell cigarettes in the US, then they will allow it to become an illegal product here. I believe that is what the states AG lawsuits were all about, securing a revenue stream for the future, outside of sales activity.
NANNY STATE PING.....................
Jacob Sullum once again NAILS it!!!!!
Dr. Michael Siegel and I have very differing views regarding smoker bans, however, to give credit where credit is due, the good doctor has openned his eyes to the true evil that constitutes the smoker control industry. (although he still insists on calling it tobacco control)
Well, there is this article from 1998.
http://www.forces.org/articles/files/passive1.htm
I don't know, but Fumento's article, "Killing the passive smoking debate ," prompted me to find this one, "Environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality in a prospective study of Californians, 1960-98." It's quite interesting. Fumento also makes the point that no new studies were included in the latest press release from the Surgeon General.
I am really tired of this issue. The hell with it.
HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM..........that may explain some of the comments I've been reading elsewhere about the SG getting money from the anti-smoker groups.
You moved, that's the correct thing to do. That or stay home.
When the smoker, oops I mean smoking, ban went into effect in Delaware, the Chief of the Dover Police Department issued a press release telling everyone to NOT call them....they would not respond for a smoking violation unless it involved a criminal event such as assault.
According to my sources the majority of arrests that have been made in Dover (and Delaware in general) regarding smoking ban violations have been of anti-smokers physically attacking smokers.
Wouldn't be able to heavily tax it if they outlaw it. How could they continue to waste all that money without the revenues from cigarettes?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.