Second Hand Smoke Scam

Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[CSM]

I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city

[aruanan]

It just might clear up the smoke they’re blowing in our eyes.

I don't think that's where they've been blowing the smoke. For another good read and some fascinating history of anti-tobacco zealotry, see Jacob Sullum's For your own good : the anti-smoking crusade and the tyranny of public health.

[Lee'sGhost]

"It is also clear that people breathing "second hand smoke" are subjected to far lower concentrations of smoke {and presumably carcinogens) simply because the primary source of the smoke is directed directly to the smokers lungs, not to other people."

So, like, what's filtering the smoke that comes out of the lit end of the cigarette that's spends half its time in someone's hand or in the ashtray?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Well I would agree.

But I think that's where the differences are at. People who smoke choose to do so. And, not all who smoke contract ailments that smoking can cause, such as emphysema or lung cancer.
On the other hand, those who choose not to smoke are subjected to the same ailments as those who choose to do so, though not all second-hand smokers do not contract the ailments smoking causes. Why should they be? It is this group that I think the law is trying to protect. If restricting the locations where second hand smoke can cause damage without stopping the smoker from smoking altogether, then would it not be a win-win situation?
If not, then I would suggest it is not the non-smoker, but the smoker who is imploring the Nazi tactics of enforcing the harmful choices they make onto the lives of others. (No offense intended).

I doubt seriously anyone who opposes laws restricting second hand smoke has ever been thru chemo.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Can't, sorry.

[r9etb]

did you ever approach your employer along these lines prior to the smoking ban being put in place at your workplace?

Nope -- didn't have to, as it turned out. And people were better off for it.

At any rate, that's not at all my point. Milloy's article appears to go beyond this one flawed study, to imply that there is no harm from second-hand smoke.

My anecdotal example suggests that it is at least possible that smoke-free buildings are "healthier" than ones where smoking is permitted. I suggested a study that would provide evidence one way or the other -- for all I know, it's even been done by one insurance company or other.

Perhaps Milloy has covered it elsewhere, but I find it rather telling that did not see fit to even consider the question of whether second-hand smoke causes health issues.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Woops.

"though not all second-hand smokers do not contract the ailments smoking causes" should read

"though not all second-hand smokers contract the ailments smoking causes"

[RedBloodedAmerican]

When I got life insurance, they asked me if I or anyone in my house smoked. Why?

[William Tell]

r9etb said: "Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects, which is nearly as dishonest as the claim he's addressing here. "

Really?

Could you point out where that claim is made?

I don't see it. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

The author is pointing out that there is an absence of evidence that reduction of SHS in Helena caused a reduction in heart disease. Pointing out that science has not been done does not constitute science in and of itself. The burden is squarely on those who claim to have proven a connection.

[Mears]

They asked you if anyone smoked because they have bought the whole ETS thing. They never asked that 20 years ago and with all their resources and actuarial charts they would have seen a relationship to illness and ETS at that time.

[Lee'sGhost]

Thought it might be interesting to actully post the article that is being referenced.
Not that it will matter to some.

The Secondhand Smoking Gun

October 15, 2003
By ROSEMARY ELLIS





Six months into New York City's smoke-free ordinance, there has been a spate of criticism about the wisdom of sticking
by such a ban. The most notable came in a roundabout swipe
from none other than former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who declared during a trip to Ireland last month that Irish
citizens should have the choice to smoke in public places.
(Mr. Giuliani later tried to distance himself from his
comments.)

But if New York - as well as other cities and
municipalities - is ever tempted to rescind its smoking
ban, it should look at the goings-on in Helena, Mont. The
citizens of Helena voted in June 2002 to ban smoking in all
public buildings - including restaurants, bars and casinos.
Soon after, doctors at the local hospital noticed that
heart-attack admissions were dropping. So they, in
conjunction with the University of California, San
Francisco, did a study to measure the potential short-term
effects of a smoking ban.

Helena is a perfect place for such a study: relatively
isolated, with enough people in the region (66,000) for a
meaningful population sample, and only one cardiac-care
hospital within a 60-mile radius. So it was easy to control
the study sample and methodology: if you get a heart attack
in Helena, there's only one place to go for treatment.

The study showed two trends. First, there was no change in
heart attack rates for patients who lived outside city
limits. But for city residents, the rates plummeted by 58
percent in only six months.

"We know from longer-term studies that the effects of
secondhand smoke occur within minutes, and that long-term
exposure to secondhand smoke is associated with a 30
percent increased risk in heart attack rates," says Stanton
Glantz, a professor of medicine who conducted the study's
statistical analysis. "But it was quite stunning to
document this large an effect so quickly."

It was also stunning to witness what happened next. The
Montana State Legislature, under pressure from the Montana
Tavern Association and tobacco lobbyists, rescinded the ban
in December. The result: heart-attack rates bounced back up
almost as quickly as they dropped.

The bottom line of Helena's plummeting, then soaring, heart
attack rate is painfully obvious: secondhand smoke kills.
Only 30 minutes of exposure to it causes platelets in the
bloodstream to become stickier. When that happens, blood
clots form more easily, which can block arteries and cause
heart attacks.

Dr. Richard Sargent, one of the study's authors, points out
that eight hours of working in a smoky bar is equivalent to
smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. In such an environment,
other studies have shown, workers more than double their
chances of developing cancer and asthma, and pregnant
workers put themselves at risk for miscarriage and
premature delivery.

clip . . . .

rest of article at http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/15/opinion/15ELLI.html?ex=1067214074&ei=1&en=e01a598f2c9a097b

[RippleFire]

Maybe Elvis was there

[Old Professer]

I would disagree with the article. I guess mainly from the fact I had a family member die at OHSU of cancer and the cause was second hand smoke.

The cause was cancer, period.

This whole notion that cancer is caused by environmental factors is very thin science except in the case of radiation poisoning and massive doses of strong carcinogens such as that observable in laboratory animals.

Most of the rest is due to advancing age, hormonal changes and predisposition.

[CSM]

"When I got life insurance, they asked me if I or anyone in my house smoked. Why?"

Because the government has given them a great excuse to charge more for a specific group of people.

[Age of Reason]

The best advice is to not smoke

If sex were as dangerous to one's health as smoking, would you then advise we not have sex?

[r9etb]

I said "seems to be," which was a caveat (in case you missed it).

My comment was an inference from the tone of the article which, as you'll no doubt agree, is generally dismissive of SHS research in general. (And at least some of it is, in fact, quite poor.)

The meaning of the very last line, that SHS research is just "blowing smoke in your eyes," is ambiguous, but easily interpreted as a claim that SHS research is junk science: that there are no ill effects from it. Hence my comment.

There are no doubt data available -- for example, correlations of the absences or medical costs -- that would show whether or not there was a significant difference between when smoking was, and was not, allowed in the workplace.

[aruanan]

However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

That may, in part, be true. However, the minuscule amount of smoke that most people encounter in environmental smoke is so small as to be statistically meaningless. Those smoking below five or ten cigarettes per day show a relative risk ratio that is no different from that of non-smokers. This doesn't mean that there cannot be an effect, but that the effect is too small to be statistically apparent. And this is for a number of cigarettes actually smoked every day. The total amount of smoke inhaled by most who encounter environmental smoke is on the level of a couple of cigarettes per year. For that matter, most studies attempting to uncover increased health risk to people who live with smokers have not found an increase in lung cancer among them (one of them that did find a slight increase was later discovered to have failed to control for "non-smoking" spouses who lied about their own smoking). Some of these studies have actually shown a reduction in relative risk, indicating a protective effect of exposure. This is not surprising since this has been found to be true of exposure to radiation as well as to other toxic substances.

[r9etb]

When I got life insurance, they asked me if I or anyone in my house smoked. Why?

You'd have to ask their actuaries. I'd say it's because their statistics show that smokers, and relatives of smokers, die sooner, so they need to charge more.

[aruanan]

If sex were as dangerous to one's health as smoking, would you then advise we not have sex?

The use of bad reasoning is just as dangerous.

[Mears]

Smokers die,as they all do,and it's considered a smoking related death.

Non smokers die,as they all do,and it's what?????? A non-smoking related death?

How ridiculous the whole anti-smoking thing is.Non smokers don't like the smell of cigarettes,no problem with that,but to make it the worst health scourge of the last 50 years is a bit much.

[Old Professer]

The building would be healthier if everyone quit exhaling their germs as well but it would also be emptier.

If you never requested a reprieve from all the ETS you say you were exposed to then I can only conclude that you are either very timid or prone to exaggeration.