There are many people in America whose agenda is to condemn smoking. Now, it's not debatable that smoking is unhealthy, but when people start bringing up second-hand smoking, that is completely different. The whole idea of second-hand smoking has never been proven, and although it is a possible hypothesis, some people have completely overreacted. For instance, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle outlawed smoking in every Wisconsin restaurant because he believes that smoking is not only harmful to those who smoke but also to people in the same environment. I believe that second-hand smoking is a myth, and it annoys me how people hype it up.
I read an article from ABC News entitled "Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is a Killer" written by John Stossel. According to the article, "[T]hey studied people who were exposed to lots of smoke, often shut in with chain smokers for years in claustrophobic situations like homes and cars. Even then, some of the studies found no effect. Nevertheless it's been enough to launch a movement to ban smoking most everywhere". Clearly, although few people may have been affected by second-hand smoking, there is not enough scientific data to prove that it's harmful in general. And, just like anything in life, there are people who exaggerate the dangers and actively try to ban smoking in public places. To support this assertion with specific studies, I read another article written by Michael Shaw entitled "Up In Secondhand Smoke: What Does Science Tell Us?". Scientists conducted a 39-year study on second-hand smoking, which involved 118,094 adults. They focused on over 35,000 who never smoked themselves but had a spouse with known smoking habits. And according to the article, the scientists concluded that "the results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality". The article also stated that the relation between exposure to smoke and heart disease and lung cancer "may be considerably weaker than generally believed".
I admit that smoking is unhealthy. But, as the evidence presented in this blog supports, it is unfair to ban smoking in public places because of the belief that smoking has a powerful effect on those in the vicinity. I think that second-hand smoking is largely a myth and that it's unfair of Doyle to ban smoking in restaurants in Wisconsin.
What do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't know much about second hand smoke but I've read things like this:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/09/22/moh.healthmag.smoking.heart/index.html
"Nonsmokers have a 25 percent to 30 percent higher risk of heart attack if they inhale smoke at home or at work, and smoke has been shown to affect heart health within minutes, says Meyers."
"They found at least a 15 percent decline in heart-attack hospitalizations in the first year after smoke-free legislation was passed, and 36 percent after three years. The National Cancer Institute funded the study."
And I haven't read really much of this: http://www.iarc.fr/en/publications/pdfs-online/prev/handbook13/handbook13-2.pdf but it comes from a fairly reputable source. Pages 6-10 talk about lung cancer's link to second hand smoking.
"The range of the nine estimates [in one study], covering both never smokers and former smokers, was from 58 to 8124 lung cancer deaths for the year 1988, with an overall mean of 4500 or 5000... The 1992 estimate of the EPA...about 3000, including aproximately 1500 and nd 500 deaths in never smoking women and men, respectively."
So while it may not be black and white, and there may be some bias/overexaggerations, I think there's actually a lot of evidence that is contrary to both of the sources you cited. I'm not convinced there is "no effect" of Second hand smoke on nonsmokers, if evidence suggests otherwise.
Nick,
ReplyDeleteI think that this is a good debate to have because real science is so often lost when it is used to change public policy. First of all, you say, "there is not enough scientific data to prove that it's harmful". In science, there is no such thing as proof. Hypotheses can only be disproved. As a politician, it is impossible to wait for proof before acting.
Also, I would caution against quoting data from articles that are quoting data as well. Michael Shaw did not even include a source in his article; he only said that it was "The biggest study on this topic". Quoting without looking into the source is how questionable data becomes viewed as credible.
I have read your evidence, so I would ask that you read a couple of these state, national, and international studies.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke:
A Report of the Surgeon General.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking (Also Known as Exposure to Secondhand Smoke or Environmental Tobacco Smoke--ETS).
California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part B Health Effects, 2005.
International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Tobacco Smoke and Involuntary Smoking.
Whether second-hand smoking is scientifically proven or not, I like the ban of smoking in public places. Personally, when I'm at a restaurant, I don't want to be sitting next to a person smoking a cig. It's just annoying. If I'm having a meal I don't want to be bombarded by smoke. It's fine if people smoke in their own homes or outside a public place, but inside everyone should be able to be comfortable, not just the smokers.
ReplyDeleteHi Nick.
ReplyDeleteI picked this post because I didn't see another one specified and I know you have a lot of passion for this issue.
I love the amount of analysis your peers have added to you writing. I won't continue on that level. But it would be great if you could include links to the articles you have cited so others can look at them critically.
Even if you don't buy the science, it strikes me that you would be most convinced by ZoZo's sentiment: the right not to be bothered and how a business owner would respond to that market demand since the minority of Americans smoke tobacco.
The study which I believe was being refered to (39-year study on second-hand smoking) is a legitimate one. Anyone who wished to check its validity can see the paper published on the BMJ website:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057
The health lobby is patently open to ignoring science when it suits their view. Does the means justify the ends ? Twisting, or in this case ignoring the truth, can never be right, even if you believe in your cause.