Second-hand smoke, real or just more crap?

Cato institute


September 28, 1998

The Second-Hand Smoke Charade
by Dominick Armentano

Dominick Armentano is professor emeritus in economics at the University of Hartford and an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute. He lives in Vero Beach, Florida.

Smoking tobacco products over a long period of time may entail significant health risks. Acknowledging those risks, millions of Americans have quit smoking because they estimate that the possible costs exceed any possible benefits. That's their right. Alternatively, millions of other Americans have voluntarily assumed the risks of smoking and they continue to puff away. And that's their right, too.

Or is it? One of the important arguments for restricting smoking is that it can endanger innocent nonsmokers who inhale environmental tobacco smoke (ETS). Indeed, many states (led by California and Florida) have decided over the last few years to severely restrict smoking in commercial establishments on the basis of a 1993 Environmental Protection Agency report that classified ETS as a "Group A Carcinogen," that is, as a significant risk to health.

It now turns out that the influential 1993 EPA report "Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer and Other Disorders" was as phony as a three-dollar bill. State officials and private businesses that believed that ETS was a public health danger (and not just a nuisance) were completely misled by the EPA. And, of course, so was main street American public opinion.

Are those the views of a vast right-wing conspiracy? Hardly. They are the sober conclusions of a gutsy federal district court judge in North Carolina named William Osteen, whose recent ruling invalidated the very foundation of the EPA report. Judge Osteen's views coincide with a Congressional Research Service analysis released in late 1995 that had serious reservations about the EPA report.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You don't have to be a fan of smoking to agree that the EPA is a regulatory renegade spinning wildly out of control on this issue. Even several veteran career employees of the agency have gone public recently to protest its "junk science" and its irrational environmental zealotry.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Osteen determined that the EPA had "cherry picked" its data and had grossly manipulated "scientific procedure and scientific norms" in order to rationalize the agency's own preconceived conclusion that passive smoking caused 3,000 lung cancer deaths a year. In addition, Osteen ruled that the EPA had violated the Radon Act, which was the agency's authority for disseminating its "de facto regulatory scheme" that intended to prohibit passive smoking. The agency responded, embarrassingly, with an ad hominem attack on the judge, not on the cold logic of his arguments.

As a result of the EPA report, many bans on smoking in public places have been introduced. One would think that any such ban would be based solidly on scientific studies of ETS exposure in public places. In fact, the EPA did not even evaluate the studies on smoking in public places. Instead, the EPA's analysis was based on 11 U.S. studies that examined the risks of contracting lung cancer to nonsmoking spouses married to smokers, a different matter altogether. Yet none of the studies in the original sample reported a strong relative cancer risk associated with ETS.

Still, the EPA was determined to prove that ETS was a serious carcinogen that justified stringent regulation. To do that, it simply set aside 19 of the original constellation of 30 ETS studies and then, defying all scientific standards, simply changed the "confidence levels" in the statistical analysis from 95 percent to 90 percent. When the highly manipulated smaller sample finally "confessed" that passive smoking was a health risk, the EPA proudly announced it had "proven" its preconceived conclusions.

 

This is how I understand it. If you are healthy, no asthma or anything like that, second hand smoke is harmless. However, if you do have any types of lung or respiratory problems, then second hand smoke can hurt you. If you are a child growing up in a house that smokes, then it is a mixed bag. Your lungs could get tougher and more resilient to air born crud, but it could also be too much, I am not sure. If you are in a poorly ventilated room with a bunch of smokers for most of your working life, I don't know how safe that is, but that has been gotten rid of today pretty much.

I don't have much proof for that except from reports I have read or have heard of in the past many years, some thought, and that I am healthy even after living with some considerable second hand smoke.

Problem is to find a non biased study and report. Both sides are trying to claim victory, but both cannot be right.

 

Yup, it's true.

Second hand smoke is only harmful if you are constantly around it, say living with a family member that smokes.

Otherwise, passing a smoker occasionaly on teh street is not going to adversely affect you.


Ciou-See the Sig

 

Do you think what states are doing about smokers is appropriate then?

 

Do you think what states are doing about smokers is appropriate then?

Yes. In public, there are people with respitory problems and kids. Even if second-hand smoke was totally harmless to anyone, it's a big annoyance to the people around the smoker.

 

Does that give people the right to dictate what is and isn't appropriate? I don't think it does. The kids thing I can understand, but then again I still don't think behavior should be legislated just because it's an annoyance.

 

A testimonial: If I am in a room with smokers, my breathing becomes incredibly restricted. If I'm forced to be in that situation for more than an hour, when I get home, my nasal mucus is actually greyish and I'll have a sore throat - frequently this precipitates several days of respiratory discomfort. I do not have asthma.

An opinion: I love being in CA where I can walk into any public restaurant or bar and not be made ill. Being in AZ currently, I live in a city with a smoking ban and avoid establishments that allow smoking or do not have adequate non-smoking sections in adjoining cities.

And a quibble: As a scientist, I do not look to the Cato Institute (or the EPA for that matter) to publish scientific studies. A quick search of JAMA and other medical journals show several studies supporting the danger of second-hand smoke.

 

I can assure you, it is a health risk to nonsmokers.

It exacerbates medical conditions already present in nonsmokers, leads to respiratory difficulties especially in children, and can cause cancer.

According to the American Lung Association:

Secondhand smoke contains over 4,000 chemicals; 200 are poisons; 43 cause cancer. Secondhand smoke has been classified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a known cause of cancer in humans (Group A carcinogen).

Secondhand smoke causes lung cancer and other health problems. The EPA estimates that secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in nonsmokers each year.

Secondhand smoke is especially harmful to young children. EPA estimates that secondhand smoke is responsible for between 150,000 and 300,000 lower respiratory tract infections in infants and children under 18 months of age annually, resulting in between 7,500 and 15,000 hospitalizations each year.

Secondhand smoke is harmful to children with asthma. The EPA estimates that for between 200,000 and one million asthmatic children, exposure to secondhand smoke worsens their condition.

Secondhand smoke can make healthy children less than 18 months of age sick; it can cause pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, coughing, wheezing and increased mucus production. According to the EPA, secondhand smoke can lead to the buildup of fluid in the middle ear, the most common cause of hospitalization of children for an operation.

Regular smokers should take a tour with me of ICU to see what happens to you. I'd be glad to show you how much more of a difficult time you will have recovering versus non-smokers.

 

Second hand smoke is dangerous to non smokers. Especially to small children, people who may have breathing problems (asthma) and dare I say people who have just recently quit smoking?

In all seriousness:
While I can't stand the smell of smoke, I have to put up with it. But, I know that after I've worked a long day (I'm a waiter at a restaurant and I tend to work near the smoking section), I can feel my lungs tensing up due to being around the smoke. While it barely effects me, I can only imagine what it does to those who have respitory problems. I remember having a customer once who had an asthma attack due to the second hand smoke.

While I don't care if you smoke or not, let alone care about banning smoking save from schools and anywhere else that children may be around (I firmly believe that it's unfair for a child to have to be put around something that may cause damage to their health as they're still growing), I think people ought to be more respectful about their habbit. Unfortunately, knowing how most people are, I doubt that'll ever happen.

*shrug*

 

I too have no respiratory problems per se, however, if I am around anyone who is smoking for more than a short period, my contact lenses fog over, my eyes start to water and I end up with a sore throat and thick mucus that lasts two days....

Not to mention my clothing and hair that stinks.

For me, it is more than simply an "annoyance."

The sad thing is, I am a teacher, and I can pick out my students who come from smoker families by scent alone. Some of them reek of smoke, poor dears!

 

IMO, smoking ANYTHING should be banned from public areas, nationwide. Perhaps to alleviate the addicts' needs, special "smoking areas" could be set up where the smokers can all hang out and relieve themselves, away from nonsmokers.

 

IMO, smoking ANYTHING should be banned from public areas, nationwide. Perhaps to alleviate the addicts' needs, special "smoking areas" could be set up where the smokers can all hang out and relieve themselves, away from nonsmokers.

Even outdoors?

 

I don't think smoking should be banned outdoors, but I do agree that it should be banned from restaurants, bars, etc.

 

What's the purpose of a bar? To relax, right? What if you're a smoker, and you go to the bar to relax but you're told you can't do that because you smoke? What would you do? I'd be angry, same goes with restaurants. I'm not saying that people shouldn't care, but second-hand smoke, despite the exceptions, isn't as hazardous as people make it seem.

 

From what I've read in studies I both trust and don't, is that second-hand smoking is dangerous. Now if you just breathe it a little, it won't do any hard, but if you're consistenly (at home, for instance) in a smoking environment, it will have a bad effect on your health.

So is smoking in public dangerous? For most people, no, unless they're consistently in a place where people smoke.

As a non-smoker, it's sometimes annoying to come home with my clothes and hair smelling like smoke. As someone with allergies, smoke can be an irritant to sensitive nasal passages.

It all comes down to common sense. Smokers should take care not to annoy or potentially harm (as in breathing problems) non-smokers. Non-smokers should recognize that smokers have the right to light up. But many people don't have common sense.
Thus I do think smoking should be restricted. Have a space where non-smokers can get away from the smoke. Or have a smoke-free environment. Public places should be smoke-free. Places like bars it should be left up to the propreitors.

 

FID - Just like to point out that your first article was written by someone who is discribed as being a "professor emeritus in economics"

I don't know about you, but I don't understand how someone with a degree in economics knows that much about the medical dangers of second hand smoke. Even if the EPA has handpicked its data to support its arguement (a trait that usually extends to far more organistaions then just the EPA) there are, as people have pointed out, plenty of other groups that back that up...as well as personal testimonials.

I think that banning smoking in public areas such as resturants and so forth is a good idea. Just because one person wants to smoke, does not mean that everyone else in the same room should be subjected to the smell and everything else that goes with it.

Kithera

 

Bars? Restaurants? No.

They are private establishments and the rules should be enforced by the owners. It should be courtesy from a buisness stand point to have a smoking and non smoking section at a restaurant though.

But in a bar, anything goes.

People like to go to bars to smoke and drink, there is a reason why most people are bars are smokers if you take notice.

My brother has a bar and me and him are in talks of starting up another bar but together.

There will not be smoking sections at all unless you go to the back room which would be the restaurant portion of the place. And that will be divided into sections, but the non smoking section will be smaller.

Why? Because it's a bar.

The main bar area, will be all smoking.

If a non smoker has a problem with my brother's bar or our bar we will be opening up, then they can go elsewhere to drink their booze.

 

I agree with that smoking should be banned in all indoor facilities, unless there is a clearly designated, seperate, well-ventilated smoking area. I have no problem with smoking in buildings if us non-smokers don't have to smell it and the people working there don't have to breathe it constantly. However, most establishments just make an invisible line down the middle of their establishment and say one side is non-smoking and the other smoking. Kind of defeats the purpose of seperate sections.

One thing I hate about trips to Vegas is that people smoke EVERYWHERE. It stinks, and there is always the chance you'll bump into someone's cig and burn yourself.

 

I support bans of smoking in restaurants and bars because of the inadequate "non-smoking" sections. I was once seated at a table at a restaurant with a crowd of smokers at the table right next to me. I asked to be moved to another table, and the waiter actually said, "Well, this table doesn't have an ashtray on it, so it's for non-smokers," I guess I just didn't realize I had been allergic to the glass ashtrays all these years.

If the sections were separate, well-ventilated, and I didn't have to pass through the smoking section to get to the non-smoking, I wouldn't have any problems at all. In fact, a local smoking ban makes exceptions for restaurants that have separate ventilating systems for each section. Fine with me. I also don't have a problem with restaurants that are "all-smoking", as long as they advertise themselves as such so I will know not to go there.

 

Hmm...just a question: How many support a ban of smoking because it's annoying? And how many support banning smoking because they really have medical problems that are enhanced when around smokers?

 

I have an issue with smokers because both of my brothers have chronic asthma and allergies and both could get an attack (or worse) if they had be be around chronic smokers.

Me. I sometimes find it hard to breath around large amounts of smoke. I also have issues because I worked in a cafe for many years and had many cases of people being rude to me if I asked the to smoke in the outdoor section of the cafe. We were a cafe attached to a library - so if they smoked inside then the smoke would go into the library as well. Not only that but putting cigerettes out in food, drinks, tables and underfoot is dirty and horrible to clean - especially when there are easily accessable ash-trays next to it.


I know most smokers aren't like this. More over I know that the second bit isn't to do with second hand smoke. However the main reasons why I don't like it is because my younger brothers can't breathe if there is large amounts of smoke and I find it rather hard to.

Kithera

 

Hmm...just a question: How many support a ban of smoking because it's annoying? And how many support banning smoking because they really have medical problems that are enhanced when around smokers?

Both. I often have a very difficult time breathing with smoke in the room (it also causes some really bad headaches if I'm exposed to it for too long). However, I also find it to be annoying. At my college, smoking is only allowed outdoors. Because of that, directly outside every entrance to every building there is a permanent, thick haze of smoke. I often have to hold my breath in order to pass it without spending several minutes coping with a headache and breathing problems.

Now, a question back for you, Fire_Ice_Death. Are you a smoker? If so, are you only complaining about it because you are not allowed to smoke wherever you want?

Kimball Kinnison

 

I'm not a smoker, tried it, hated it, have done it a couple times while drinking, but that's it. I just think this whole situation is crap, and yeah, I know people with respiratory problems have issues with smokers, and that's fine, but if someone wants to smoke then let them do it. There's no need to ban it from every frickin' place because people are afraid of getting cancer. In fact, I'm willing to bet that even without smoking or second-hand smoke that someone would get cancer regardless. Oh and filing lawsuits against tobacco companies is also BS. No one forced these people to smoke, and just because you got your genital looking camel, and your rugged outdoorsy cowboy, that doesn't mean that you were forced to smoke. Bah, stupid people, that's like those fat people suing fast food places because they're fat. Grrr...

 

Again, smoking should not be banned in bars or restaurants because they are privately owned establishments. That should be up to the owner.

I'm a smoker and my bar is going to be smoking allowed at all times, except in the non smoking area in the restaurant section in the back. And if non smokers don't like it, oh well. Go some place else. A bar is for smoking, drinking and socializing.

 

I just think this whole situation is crap, and yeah, I know people with respiratory problems have issues with smokers, and that's fine, but if someone wants to smoke then let them do it. There's no need to ban it from every frickin' place because people are afraid of getting cancer.

Do you agree with cities passing ordinances against other nuisances? For example, many places limit the sound level after 10pm because it annoys most residents. How about ordinaces that prohibit parking a car on your lawn, or requiring you to keep your grass shorter than a certain level? Yes, it's your private property, but there are still limits to what you can do.

except in the non smoking area in the restaurant section in the back.

Wouldn't it be a better idea to put the non-smoking area in the front? clear air doesn't tend to bother smokers, but smoke does tend to bother non-smokers. That way, the two never have to mix.

Kimball Kinnison