Quote:
Originally Posted by 1069  All of that might (or might not) be relevant, if in fact there were any credible studies whatsoever indicating that secondhand smoke is dangerous.
Now that this debate has forced me to examine the issue more closely, I've made some very interesting discoveries.
The World Health Organization conducted a comprehensive study on the effects of secondhand smoke in 1998.
It yielded unexpected results; WHO responded by doing a second, skewed study, a meta-analysis* (See footnote), which enabled them to slant the facts and extract the results they wanted.
Here is a pdf file of the 1998 WHO study on the effects of secondhand smoke, a case control study using a large sample size. link
The purpose of the study was to provide a more precise estimate of risk, to discover any differences between different sources of environmental tobacco smoke, and the effect of environmental tobacco smoke exposure on different types of lung cancer.
The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years; the participants consisted of 650 patients with lung cancer and 1542 control subjects.
Three of the study centers interviewed family members of the participants to confirm the subjects were not smokers.
The study found no statistically significant risk existed for non-smokers who either lived or worked with smokers.
The only statistically significant number in the WHO survey was a decrease in the risk of lung cancer among the children of smokers (the study shows that children raised by smokers were 22% less likely to get lung cancer).
Obviously, these findings did not fit with their agenda; displeased, they followed up with a slew of meta-analysis studies (see footnote) "proving" that secondhand smoke was carcinogenic or otherwise harmful. Later WHO studies with obvious, politically-motivated anti-tobacco bias
WHO later tried to blame the results of the 1998 study on a small sample size. However, in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, where the results were published, the researchers clearly state: "An important aspect of our study in relation to previous studies is its size, which allowed us to obtain risk estimates with good statistical precision."
Anyway, before I could even consider secondhand smoke as a civil rights or workers' rights issue (setting aside the fact that workers implicitly consent to and accept the risk when they apply for employment in a workplace that allows smoking; it's not like there aren't other, smoke-free environments they could seek employment in, if cigarette smoke bothers them), I'd have to see a credible scientific study (as in, a Cohort or Case Control study, not a meta-analysis) by a reputable organization that is not driven by a blatant political agenda.
I challenge you to produce such.
Until such time as valid scientific studies are conducted to prove that exposure to ambient tobacco smoke has a detrimental effect on nonsmokers, I see no reason- no justification- for the government to take drastic measures such as enacting sweeping legislation banning smoking in privately-owned businesses.
It violates the rights of all Americans, and goes against everything this country stands for.
* Meta-Analyses are analyses of existing studies. The researcher gathers data from other studies, picks the appropriate ones, pools the results and extracts his data.
It is extremely difficult to do this with any degree of accuracy, and extremely easy to twist the results to a predetermined outcome. Simply leaving out one or two studies can skew the data dramatically in one direction or the other. |
Well that's all fine and good, but the center for disease control, second hand smoke, defined as "a complex mixture of gases and particles that includes smoke from the burning cigarette, cigar, or pipe tip (sidestream smoke) and exhaled mainstream smoke." And the effects of this smoke are "heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmoking adults. Nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke at home or work increase their heart disease risk by 25–30 percent and their lung cancer risk by 20–30 percent. Secondhand smoke exposure has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system." citing
this report. From the same report we get that "Secondhand smoke causes sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more frequent and severe asthma attacks in children. Secondhand smoke exposure causes respiratory symptoms in children and slows their lung growth." and "There is no risk-free level of secondhand smoke exposure. Even brief exposure can be dangerous."
And from
this report from the California environmental protection agency we get that "secondhand smoke exposure causes approximately 3,400 lung cancer deaths and 22,700–69,600 heart disease deaths annually among adult nonsmokers in the United States." and from
this report from the EPA we get "Secondhand smoke exposure is responsible for an estimated 150,000–300,000 new cases of bronchitis and pneumonia in children aged less than 18 months, resulting in 7,500–15,000 hospitalizations."
Now this debate is at a cross roads. We can go down the road of the statistical ******* match, and spend the rest of this debate just looking up various sources and having a statistical ******* match, or we can take what logic would dictate, which is there's a lot of poison in the smoke going into the lungs, and thus logic would dictate that the smoke coming out would be, at the very least, bad for you, unless you'd like to maintain that every single bit of poison exits the smoke while in the lungs.
We can either have another typical global warming debate of "It's not happening!" "Yes it is!" "Nuh uh" "Uh huh!", or we can have a debate where we come to the reasonable conclusion that second hand smoke is moderately bad for you, it certainly ain't nuclear fallout, but cetaris paribus your lungs are better off with you standing outside of a smokey bar rather than inside of it.
And that's the point, there are a precious few reasons we can use to justifiably limit the public use of a legal substance, but a threat to the public health is one of these. Now it is certainly possible to go to far with limiting freedom to protect the public health, but doing government properly involves walking a thin line, and eliminating smoking from public establishments is the right step along those lines, because there is no real cost.
Cause what is the cost of banning smoking from enclosed public spaces? You have to step outside to have a smoke? You can't have a cigarette on an airplane? Cry me a river! The cost is nothing, and the benefit is that people who made the smart life decision in NOT smoking get to receive the benefit of their smart decision, which is to be able to live their lives comfortably without having to inhale any of the poisons in cigarette smoke.