TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online
Secondhand Facts Drive Smoke Bans
ADVERTISEMENT
Published: May 18, 2008
You may have seen the public service commercial. A woman brings her young daughter out to the car and straps her into a car seat. The announcer reminds us that 37,000 Americans are killed every year in automobile accidents, which made me think it was sponsored by the National Safety Council or a seat-belt advocacy group.
Then the mother gets in the driver's seat and lights a cigarette. We are then told that 38,000 Americans die every year from secondhand tobacco smoke, and that the commercial was sponsored by a group called Tobacco Free Florida.
Thirty-eight thousand people a year die from secondhand smoke? I found that hard to believe, so I called and talked to a spokesperson for the group who then sent me a link to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention report which read:
"Tobacco use is the leading preventable cause of death in the United States. Cigarette smoking causes an estimated 438,000 deaths, or about 1 of every 5 deaths, each year. This estimate includes approximately 38,000 deaths from secondhand smoke exposure."
Wouldn't Hold Up In Court
The CDC is not the first group to make such claims about breathing - not inhaling - the smoke from cigarettes. In 2006, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona released a report that said "secondhand smoke is a major cause of disease, including lung cancer and coronary heart disease, in healthy nonsmokers."
Here's the problem with such claims: None of them would pass muster in a court of law. Most of the research cited in the surgeon general's report was thrown out by a federal judge in 1993 when the Environmental Protection Agency tried to classify secondhand smoke as a carcinogen. The same would likely happen with the CDC's data if it had to stand up to legal and scientific scrutiny.
The judge in the 1993 case said the EPA cherry-picked studies to support its claims and failed to honor scientific standards. They probably wouldn't use, for instance, a 2003 study done on spouses of smokers that appeared in the British Medical Journal which found that "the results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."
Smoking Bans Getting Out Of Hand
Nevertheless, bogus claims of the effects of secondhand smoke are the drive behind the numerous public and workplace smoking bans passed by city councils and state legislatures over the last decade, and the long arm of government is intruding ever farther. Since the beginning of the year in California, motorists can be hit with fines up to $100 for smoking in a vehicle containing a child.
Ironically, many Republicans who talk the "smaller government, more freedom" talk stand on the sidelines and allow these intrusive bans to become law, saying in effect, "I don't smoke, so it won't affect me."
But these laws do affect the rights of bar and restaurant owners to allow a legal, highly taxed activity in their privately owned businesses. I've never smoked and never will, but I'm bothered by these assaults on property rights based on faulty science.
So, I asked the Tobacco Free Florida spokesperson, will we soon have a law in Florida that makes smoking with children in the car a crime?
She couldn't say, but don't say you didn't see it coming.
Joseph H. Brown is a Tribune editorial writer.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)
* Keep it clean
* Respect others
* Don't hate
* Don't use language you wouldn't use with your mom
* Use "Report Inappropriate Comments" link when necessary
* See Member Agreement for details
TBO.com - Tampa Bay Online Member Agreement | Privacy Statement | Work With Us
Reader Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on May 18, 2008 at 7:24 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Joseph,
Being a former smoker I can sympathize with folks' dogged attempts to socialize smoking.
I WOULD like you to describe the process you call "breathing," as in "breathing the smoke from cigarettes" WITHOUT inhaling. IF you "breathe" something, Joseph, you DO inhale it.
PERIOD.
So, that is a distinction without a difference.
As far as secondhand smoke goes: If it is nothing else, it is obnoxious and, for those of us who don't smoke, it is an unacceptable imposition of others' habit into our (often public) space and (NOT public) physiology.
Since there is no known method of confining sidestream smoke it is fitting, since the majority of us don't want to breathe smoke, that smokers not fire those things up where their unintended but inevitable byproduct is going to unavoidably end up in OUR lungs.
It isn't a matter of property rights or of government expansion. It is a matter of courtesy and public health. If you invite the public into your private establishment, you have to comply with certain requirements regarding public safety and even comfort. You must provide specific types of exits and mark them in specific ways, you must provide certain kinds of restroom facilities, you are limited to the number of people you can invite into your private space. Limiting the MAJORITY of the public's exposure to the MINORITY'S tobacco smoke, whether it is actually a carcinogen or merely an irritant, is appropriate.
Of course, you could only open your private space to those who smoke:
Smoking Required!
Otherwise,
Step outside with those things.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( gertken23 ) on May 18, 2008 at 10:36 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Great article, Joseph!
With all due respect, JackNelsonSteward, I would have to disagree. First, the public is not invited into one's car. And I think it's interesting that there are those that are concerned about a parent smoking with the child in the car, in spite of the fact that driving is risky. I would argue that the child is much more likely to be hurt by a car crash than by some second-hand smoke.
You also describe smoking as "obnoxious" and "unacceptable", and you state that smoking should be banned as a "courtesy". You may not agree, but I don't think laws should be created to enforce courtious behavior. I believe that would only lead to a very intolerant society.
I also believe in the US Constitution, which protects certain rights, and does not promote "mob rule", which would allow the majority to take away the rights of the minority. However, many bars in my state of Minnesota are hurting financially, because the majority of their customers are/were smokers.
The 5th amendment of the US Constitution states, "...nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." None of these business owners who are now losing their businesses (which were previously successful) have been compensated in any way, shape, or form from our government.
Shawn
www.freedomfight08.com
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LittleCaesar ) on May 18, 2008 at 4:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
As usual, Mr. Brown hits the target dead center in the bull's eye.
If you're open to the FACTS, have a look at http://www.davehitt.com/facts/
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( framis ) on May 18, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I question the credibility of anything that comes from the smoking ban advocates. The CDC says 38,000 deaths are due to secondhand smoke. This news report at http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20060509/cut-secondhand-smoke-cut-heart-death says
eliminating SHS could prevent 6,400 heart disease deaths per year,
although it would take 25 years to get there. Since the vast majority of the 38,000 deaths is said to be from SHS caused heart disease, why does eliminating SHS only stand to prevent 6,400 heart disease deaths in the latest study?
Even the Surgeon General's 2006 report, Ch. 8, says that heart disease deaths from workplace exposure to SHS is estimated at only 1,710 per year. That statistic also seems to be a poor fit for the CDC's 38,000 over-all figure. Of course, the smoking ban zealots deal with that inconsistency simply by never mentioning the 1,710 figure. I believe a good deal of their support is due to their skill at using misleading information to manipulate public opinion. If the zealots had a law for enforcing anti-cancer diets, they would be arresting mothers for not force-feeding little Johnny his broccoli.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on May 18, 2008 at 10:38 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
OK, gertken … yes a child in a vehicle is subject to the dangers of the road. If, however, the driver of that vehicle KNOWINGLY, DELIBERATELY and UNNECESSARILY exposes the child to additional dangers, there may be criminal charges. Sealing a child in a car with a smoker does just that. Children of smokers have much more tonsillitis, earache, and respiratory infection than those of non-smokers. That makes it a public health issue.
Just for precision, I described second hand SMOKE as obnoxious and, for those of us who don’t smoke and don’t want to inhale smoke, unacceptable, and I never said smoking should be banned as a courtesy. I maintained that protecting the majority of the nonsmoking public from the obnoxious and dangerous products of the minority who smoke is a matter not ONLY of courtesy but of PUBLIC HEALTH. Lots of stuff is regulated for public health reasons, courtesy quite aside.
Democracy can easily be interpreted as “mob rule.” Lots of monarchs have described it as such I’ll bet, as well as communists, fascists and other authoritarian types. The fact is that, in a democracy, when the majority says something is a certain way, it often is. If the majority of us who don’t smoke don’t want to inhale your sidestream smoke, we will probably take measures to see to it that we don’t. It’s one of the downsides of minority status in a democracy. What you seem to be advocating is that a majority of citizens continue to put up with dangerous health challenges based on the rights of a minority of citizens to kill themselves slowly over decades.
I my opinion your reach for the 5th amendment is tortuous. If I have a business washing mountainsides into rivers to get gold, and the State outlaws the practice for the public good, does the State owe me compensation for my loss of business? My guess is, “No!”
I don’t have problems with businesses being designated as smoking locations. That way I have a choice as to whether or not I want to go in there. I DO have problems with being in a place of business open to the public and, because I am unable to cease respiration for extended periods of time without unpleasant side effects, being forced to inhale smoke that I know is bad for my health. One guy fires up a cigarette in there and EVERYONE in the place becomes a smoker.
Nope.
And, uh … BTW … I’m not for a smoking BAN. If you want to do that, fine. I did it myself for years and years. I think, personally, that saving over seventeen hundred lives in a year by regulating the reach of the smoke from the tobacco you guys are smoking is fine. You got a right to do that if you want, but you got no right to force me to. I also think that if you deliberatley do that you might be cut off from the public money that you may seek to pay for your extended and serious illnesses later in your life. Ya knew what you were doin', and ya did it anyway, dude.
I don't wanna pay for it.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( gertken23 ) on May 19, 2008 at 2:11 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Little Caeser--the EPA 93 "study" is referenced in that link you provided. The EPA study was flawed, as determined by Judge Osteen. However, the Surgeon General and the anti-smoking industry have continued to propogate the message that SHS kills 3000 people a year.
Recent more thorough studies have shown that the threat that SHS poses is rather insignificant; however, the anti-smoking industry tries to keep the studies quiet.
The point of this article is that we've been lied to. There's no reliable evidence that SHS has killed one person. And I would like to re-iterate that Joseph Brown has a well-written, well-researched article, and should be complimented for being brave enough to voice this unpopular truth.
Shawn
www.freedomfight08.com
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LittleCaesar ) on May 19, 2008 at 6:40 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
gertkin23, you are to be commended for actually LOOKING at that information. Most wouldn't do that, and just "parrot" what they have heard.
My point was exactly that Mr. Brown has, as he always does, taken a stand that, while not "popular" is exactly on target. He is not afraid to contradict conventional "wisdom".
We HAVE been lied to. Don't rely on those who spread the lies to admit to their errors - these are closed minds, and don't intend to do the research required to find the facts.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( ohiobarowner ) on May 20, 2008 at 10:45 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Thank GOD someone with testicular fortitude who is an EDITOR who writes & prints the truth!! Could you teach the Columbus Dispatch those ethics? Want to know who is behind the bans? Ask yourself who profits? Those who sell the patches, gum & antidepressants. Who paid $446,398,054 in grants for smoking bans? A "non" profit foundation created by the late Robert Wood Johnson (of Johnson & Johnson). This "non" profit foundation owns 40+ MILLION SHARES of JnJ stock. JnJ SELLS Nicoderm CQ, Nicorette, Commit, etc. JnJ posted a 40% profit 1st Q of 2008 over 1st Q of 2007. They sold 1,000,000 boxes of NRT in January alone. Does this sound legal to ANYONE? How can a "non" profit pay, in grants, to create a situation in this country for which they've got the "cure"? Here's their grant summary: http://www.rwjf.org/files/publications/books/2005/chapter_01.pdf (scroll to pgs 5 & 6) Look it up yourselves! Guess who created and funded Tobacco-Free Kids @ $84,000,000? Yep! How has this been allowed to happen? Who is asleep at the wheel? Isn't someone supposed to protect us from this kind of fraud?
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( History_Buff ) on May 20, 2008 at 11:17 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It is nice to see someone who can see thru the 'paste'.
Researching on my own, I've found that the RWJF is behind more than the smoke issue! They want to control EVERYTHING we put in our body including vitamins AND they will launch the 'Official Alcohol Bans' in 2009. That makes you begin to wonder just what are the smoke bans for as it closes many establishments that serve alcohol.
Although they are NOT a government branch, they have THEIR EYES in our medical records and ARE the big push behind a national insurance to mandate THEMSELVES (J&J and its 260 pharmaceuticals owned) as the drug supplier! What an outrage.
Just think how much they could make if they got vitamins into the 'by prescription only' catagory. They are also pushing 'Obese' and they own Splenda.
'We the People' will not stand for their deceits any longer. It is time they pay for the damage they have done to so many with their lies and for their SCAMS. They ARE the biggest cancer this world has ever seen.
Free Choice, Free Enterprise and signs is a wonderful invention - Made in the USA.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( History_Buff ) on May 20, 2008 at 11:33 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Does everyone know that tobacco is in the SAME FOOD GROUP as tomato, potato and green pepper!!! They ALL contain nicotine! So, when you hear someone complaining about cigarettes, tell them to be sure to eat all of their spaghetti and baked potato.
Concerning SHS: How did the baby boomers and their parents survive to such OLD AGES? Do we see them dropping dead in the streets?
I think the big problem is the anti-radicals have been eating and drinking things out of bad plastics. They’ve lost common sense, believe things without HONEST self research as to who funds their propaganda and they do not like a free country.
There was warnings about all those kids being raised in Nursery Schools years ago. They love the structure of Nursery School and want to put us all into it. It's to bad theirs failed!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on May 21, 2008 at 7:10 a.m. ( Suggest removal )
Just for clarity: Tomato and potato are in the nightshade family and the FRUIT or TUBERS of the plants (which are the parts we eat, aren't they?) don't contain ANYTHING. There are specific WARNINGS against eating the leaves or sprouted seeds of the plants and potatoes begin to contain a toxin when there is green on the skin.
There is NO NICOTINE in tomatoes or potatoes. You ever heard of anyone having a lifelong addiction to French fries? Struggling to but can't quit pizza?
Nicotine is medically more addictive than barbiturates.
Now take your cigarette and your O2 generator and get out of here!
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( LittleCaesar ) on May 26, 2008 at 3:12 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
It just doesn't pay to battle wits with an unarmed opponent......
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( JackNelsonSteward ) on May 27, 2008 at 8:27 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
I agree...
Go get yours and come back.
Report Inappropriate Comments
Posted by ( drdneast ) on June 4, 2008 at 12:32 p.m. ( Suggest removal )
Hear is what I know about cigarette smokers. They think it is ok to smoke where they want and think it is an affront to their freedom if not allowed to. But if I light up my cigar around them, 90 percent will start complaining and whining about the smell. Guess what folks, that's how nonsmokers feel about your cigarette. Shutup and respect others and don't be rude. By the way, Joe, thanks for questioning statistics and how they are used. There is also one out there right now about sexual assaults aginst teens that I also feel is suspect and is used to just scare people.
Report Inappropriate Comments