The Light of Reason discusses studies showing that secondhand smoke is harmless. One study, according to the Times of London, followed married non-smokers for 40 years, and found that being married to a smoker made no difference to their odds of developing lung cancer or heart disease.
One thing that strikes me is, if true, this is awfully good news. Isn’t it? I mean, a lot of people live with smokers (yours truly included). So shouldn’t we be happy?
Well, yes. But if it’s true that secondhand smoke is harmless, that will be an annoyance to all those anti-smoking groups, who’d hate having to admit that smokers are harming only themselves. And who have, it seems, uncritically pushed studies with questionable methodology and results.
Arthur Silber, the blogger at Light of Reason, is concerned that the various anti-smoking laws are a threat to “personal freedom.” I don’t know – in light of the draconian laws against drugs like pot, LSD and cocaine (drugs that are, by most accounts, a good deal more fun than tobacco), it’s hard for me to get worked up over the anti-smoking laws. Potheads and cokeheads are being threatened with jail; in contrast, the main thrust of anti-smoking regulations seems to be to annoy smokers to death..
Oh, I don’t know. I find all those cigarette butts tossed all over the sidewalk (usually within five feet of a trashcan) pretty damn annoying. :p
Wow, that’s a weird one. Maybe it’s just all those years of “secondhand smoke bad”
Regardless of how smokers feel annoyed about finding it inconvenient to smoke in public, they can’t be 1/10th as annoyed as non-smokers are to come in contact with their smoke. It’s no contest.
I find it hard if not impossible to believe it has no effect. No appreciable effect given the background levels of other carcinogens and pollutants, sure. And I do appreciate going to a bar and not coming out with a reeking wreath of stale smoke; one’s favorite goin’-out clothes inevitably end up going straight to the laundry after such a night, and then there’s the smell in one’s hair on the pillow. Sigh. (And non-smoking sections rarely do much beyond mitigating these effects slightly.)
But! The claims do o’erreach, and municipal bans on smoking in all bars and restaurants rankles. There is nothing so convivial as a cigarette and a beer with friends and loud, raucous conversation, unless one were to add some really good chips or onion rings or something. (Smell aside.) Options are always best. It’s good to have bars that have no smoke, and it’s good to have bars that have smoke.
–Though the bar that will let me smoke my preferred cloves on the premises is a rare one, indeed. (They’re too strong, I’m told. Ah, irony.) So I’m out no matter which way I turn. Especially since nobody in town is carrying the filterless cloves any more that I can find. Any Portlanders or Oregonians know what’s up with that, he asked, idly?
What everyone said. That might be a blow to that move to criminalize smoking in cars with children, since it seems the science suggests the smoke has no demonstrable health effect on them. We used to go for road trips with my dad when I was a kid, and he chain smoked. It was awful, but illegal is different.
I guess it’s hard to campaign to discourage that without a legal brickbat.
Cars are private, but the rest isn’t. I don’t mind seeing smoking banned in public places. Actually, I guess I do object to the state banning restaurants from allowing smoking, on no scientific basis, just because some folks don’t like it. Obviously I need to think more about this big news, as my ping-pong indicates.
Second-hand smoke isn’t harmless, even if it doesn’t cause cancer or heart disease. There is a pretty strong connection between smoking and asthma:
The study found the number of children who were diagnosed with asthma at age 6 or younger was twice as high if a family member smoked compared with those raised in nonsmoking families (6% vs. 3%).
Second-hand smoke is also a trigger for asthma attacks in those who already have asthma. Asthma is not usually a fatal condition (although it can be, in extreme cases) but it can be pretty incapacitating.
Yeah, but as you say, they’re annoying smokers to *death*. That’s pretty serious, doncha think? :))
I wouldn’t be all that surprised if they found 2nd hand smoke to not be as harmful as once thought.
But, one thought — it is harmful to cats. Not simply because they breathe it in, but because it accumulates in their fur, then when they clean themselves, they swollow it. The cancer rates for cats in smoking homes is significantly higher than in non-smoking homes.
And I only know this because my sister, the vet, is always harping on me about it — since I smoke in a home with cats.
Whether second smoke has any scientifically proven ill-effects should be immaterial when it comes to children. It is much better to err on the side of safety.
Having grown up in a household where both parents smoked I can give the anecdotal evidence of having constant bronchitis in my kiddie years, not to mention the fact that it took me forever to get over colds that I now get over in a matter of two days or so.
Quite frankly having lived through it, any parent who smokes around a child is guilty of child abuse as much as if they let the fist fly.
As for bars and such, while I prefer places with separate smoking rooms (a la Boulder, CO bars) secondhand smoke is a part of the experience. After all, you are putting poinson directly in your system when you drink a beer, why would a bit of smoke be any different?
(btw–even as an adult, spending an evening in a smoky bar can cause me to have sore throats and retard my recover from colds)
Smoking is not necessarily going to harm anyone (other than the smoker) in every possible instance, which is why I don’t have a gripe against all of the people who indulge. It’s the ones who are obnoxious about it that will feel my sword of righteous fury.
I was troubled by fits of asthma in my youth, and I know what it’s like to have to put up with the asses who insist on finishing their Camels before helping the kid next to them resume breathing properly. I’m not the sort of rabid zealot who would go so far as to require forcible testicle (or ovary) removal from such people as punishment. However, some of these goofballs are not motivated solely by the nicotine craving–I believe that they may take up smoking in order to easily repel non-smokers from the vicinity. That is to say, maybe they’re also addicted to being antisocial. The next time some jackass whips out a stogie and lights up right next to me, I will politely ask him or her to please take it somewhere else (and that better be an option). Should this request be ignored or ridiculed, I will provide a lesson to said jackass on how to smoke a cigar with one’s nose, and add in a few personal insults for good measure.
good post Lucius.
COW, good post too, except for:
any parent who smokes around a child is guilty of child abuse as much as if they let the fist fly.
This is just too extreme, to the extent it dampens the effect of your argument. Physical damage isn’t the reason why hitting a kid is wrong, since it’s seldom permanent – bruises heal – and kids are always going to get hurt anyway. The problem is hitting your kids will leave permanent emotional damage, which is worse than most non-fatal physical damage, including second-hand smoke. At worst, smoking with kids is a form of negligence, and that in itself is debatable. But then, what isn’t.
This study is interesting, but the general paradigm is that smoking causes lung cancer, so the burden of proof lies with those wishing to say it doesn’t. One study doesn’t prove non-causality, lots can go wrong with a statistical study, but it should open up more research. It is not beyond logic that the lungs and human body filter out enough of the toxins in tobbaco smoke as to make what’s left generally harmless.
Actually, technically LOR only discusses study, singular, while mentioning a single book. This doesn’t mean that secondhand smoke isn’t that bad for you, but if this post is any indication, they’re still going more on gut reaction than a clear preponderance of evidence.
I’m surprised no one commented on this, from the linked article:
“Amanda Sandford, from the anti-smoking group Ash, said: “The authors appear to be deliberately downplaying the findings to suit their tobacco paymasters.”
Regrettably, it does make a difference who funded the study. Can anyone remember any study funded by any industry that said anything other than what that industry wanted said?
“The problem is hitting your kids will leave permanent emotional damage, which is worse than most non-fatal physical damage, including second-hand smoke. At worst, smoking with kids is a form of negligence, and that in itself is debatable.” – Raznor
Raznor, what is your basis for assuming no emotional damage? I’m 54, my late parents didn’t beat me and I loved them dearly, but now, decades after they died, I’m still furious with them for the amount of smoke they subjected me to in small enclosed spaces. To his credit, my father relented in his old age.
“As for bars and such, while I prefer places with separate smoking rooms (a la Boulder, CO bars) secondhand smoke is a part of the experience. After all, you are putting poinson directly in your system when you drink a beer, why would a bit of smoke be any different? – Coalition
I love jazz, but I go to jazz venues infrequently because of the smoke. I find the smoke unpleasant; my girlfriend, who is seriously allergic, cannot hack it at all. Oops, bad choice of phrase! Even if the lack of cancer-causing effect were, to my great surprise, proved, there are still other demonstrable medical effects of second-hand smoke. As to the beer, those studies last year from Erasmus Institute, Netherlands, show it has a protective effect against future Alzheimer’s. Other studies show cardiovascular benefits. What exactly does smoking protect you against? Long life?
Contrary to what some smokers assert, this is not a moral issue with most nonsmokers I know. It’s a practical issue. About 30 years ago, I worked in a lab that did GC/MS measurements. Once, not as part of a formal study, we tested for nicotine in the blood of volunteers who worked in the lab, smokers and nonsmokers included. The director, at that time perhaps 65, never smoked in his life, but his nicotine results showed he “smoked” the equivalent of a cigarette a day. In fairness, some of the nicotine could have been pesticide residue. But it will be extremely difficult to persuade me that being around other people’s smoke is not a serious medical issue.
If this article was true, it would be good news. Unforutunately it probably is not:
If you go the comments section of the British Medical Journal that published this study – you will see what seems to me a very damning criticism. Most of the study took place during a period when there were no controls on second hands smoke. Meaning you were expoased to it in the workplace, when shopping in resteraunts. (The study began in 1959.) So the difference in exposure between those married to smoker and non-smokers was not that great.
At least one commenter seems to think that the BNJ has a problem with it’s peer review process – that it has a good internal process, but does not select well in external reviewers – that specifically this proposal while reviewed by an epidmemologist and statistical expert was not reviewed by anyone with specific expertise in smoking studies. Given that it was tobacco industry funded, there is a special obligation for careful peer review.
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32297
In fact the Ameircan Medical Association rejected the article on grounds of poor methodology
http://www.pmdocs.com/getimg.asp?pgno=0&start=0&docid=2065122062
So the news may not be as great as we would hope This study may cast no light whatsoever on the question of whther secondhad smoke kills.
These details about the study completely change my take on its conclusion. Yes, the onus is to prove that second-hand smoke has no effect, and no, I don’t find their study controls adequate, especially given their funding sources. I’ll continue to suspect that second-hand smoke causes cancer, etc.
I’m 54, my late parents didn’t beat me and I loved them dearly, but now, decades after they died, I’m still furious with them for the amount of smoke they subjected me to in small enclosed spaces. To his credit, my father relented in his old age.
Well, I think it’s about time you get over your anger. My god, it’s not like people knew about second-hand smoke that long ago. I doubt that your parents were doing that to purposely make you suffer.
Seems kind of pointless to remain “furious” for that long over something like that.
Bean,
I didn’t intend the exchange to become personal, but you have made it so. With all due respect… and based on your posts, that respect is considerable… are you, in telling me to just get over it, taking on the role of my shrink?
Of course my parents didn’t know it was harmful. That was never the issue. Raznor raised the issue of emotional harm, and damn it, I suffered emotional harm that affects me to this day. That’s a fact, and facts are not open to debate. This fact is simply a part of my permanent emotional makeup. Your “get over it” has no impact on it. You may as well just, ah, get over it.
By analogy, did I tell you, regarding your smoking, to just “get over it”? No, I didn’t, I don’t, I won’t, and I wouldn’t. We all have things we can’t change, and in addition to those, things we won’t change. I won’t hazard a guess which category your smoking falls into; it’s just not relevant, because it’s not my decision to make. And neither is my response to an unavoidable deep emotional reaction to my parents’ incessant smoking in confined areas your decision to make.
The main consequence of the emotional harm I suffered is the inner conflict I must engage in every time I try to be fair to smokers. And my sense of justice is so strong that, yes, I always try to be fair to smokers, even though I believe their smoking is manifestly harmful to other people’s health, notwithstanding this tobacco-industry-funded medical “research” paper. It’s not the smokers’ fault, any more than it was my parents’ fault. But neither you nor Raznor has any right to tell me, or anyone else, what emotions we can or cannot feel, or when we ought to get over something. It’s just not your call to make, anymore than your smoking is my call.
Steve
I apologize, Steve. I did not mean my comments to come off as “just get over it.”
Over the years, I’ve dealt with a lot of my own emotional hang-ups stemming from my relationship with my parents. My parents made a hell of a lot of mistakes — most parents do, especially when they’re too young to be having kids in the first place, as mine were. Some of those mistakes led to years of painful situations that I simply couldn’t get over.
That is, until I decided that I needed to two do things — simultaneously. 1) recognize the mistake my parents made, how that affected me and how I live my life and 2) recognize that my parents were doing the best they could and never meant to intentionally hurt me. By doing this, I’ve been able to overcome a lot of that pain, adjust my way of thinking, and in the end, still remain incredibly close to my parents. I learned that playing the blame game simply didn’t manage to help me or my parents. There are situations that I’m still dealing with — and may be doing so for years to come. I’m furious that those situations happened, but I’m not furious at my parents. I know if they knew the harm, they would have done things differently.
Now, I’m not trying to say that it’s either easy to do or that this is what you should do. Maybe that isn’t the right course of action for you. I just wonder what remaining mad at your parents for doing something they didn’t know was wrong is doing for anybody.
As for my smoking — I’ll admit it, it’s something I won’t change. I know the health risks, I know the cost, but I’m not at a point in my life where I want to bother quitting. I appreciate when non-smokers are kind to me, and in turn, I try to be kind to them. When I go out for drinks with Amy S. and Aaron, we usually go to a place that allows smoking. But, from time to time, Amy’s allergies are acting up, and she doesn’t want to be around smoke, so we go to a non-smoking place. I can’t drink alcohol if I can’t smoke, but I’m willing to drink coke and hang out with friends in a non-smoking atmosphere. When I visit my parents, if I smoke at all, it’s outside, at night, after they’ve gone to bed. I don’t bother going outside to smoke during the day, because when I come back in, I smell like smoke, and my parents absolutely hate that. So, whether I spend 2 days or 2 weeks with them, I only smoke one or two cigarettes at night — if that.
I have no idea whether this study is true or not (somehow, I think if has any truth to it, it’s simply that second-hand smoke is not as harmful as they thought, not that it’s not harmful). But, out of respect for non-smokers — for health reasons and other reasons — I try not to force my smoke on them. (Although, in all honesty, I do do that about twice a day — but that’s because I can’t smoke inside my work place, and I have to go outside — I stand away from the doors so that the smoke doesn’t go inside the building, but people walking by will still be around it, although temporarily. Hey, I’d go in a back ally if there was one, but since there’s not, I’m relegated to the street.)
Bean, your apology is accepted… if indeed one was even necessary. My slightly overheated response says more about how I read your post than how you wrote it.
“That is, until I decided that I needed to two do things — simultaneously. 1) recognize the mistake my parents made, how that affected me and how I live my life and 2) recognize that my parents were doing the best they could and never meant to intentionally hurt me.”
Indeed. I was very fortunate in the parent department, so I never questioned their good attitude toward me. And I knew their smoking was not personally directed at me. “Furious” was not the word I should have chosen. I’m just not sure what the right word is: I loved my parents, have many fond memories of them and miss them terribly, but I also have indelible memories of those smoky rooms and smoky cars.
“As for my smoking — I’ll admit it, it’s something I won’t change…”
I’d be very reluctant to give up strong coffee or cheap wine. :-) It’s not easy, and it’s an individual’s decision.
“I appreciate when non-smokers are kind to me, and in turn, I try to be kind to them.”
I can’t ask for more than that!
“I have no idea whether this study is true or not…”
I am no expert, no researcher myself, but I developed software for cancer researchers at various branches of the UT-Houston system for many years. Their consensus at the time was along the lines of earlier studies, not this one. Gar Lipov’s post seems very much to the point in its faulting of the methodology: regrettably, there is no population of Americans 50 to 30 years ago that was not exposed to lots of secondhand smoke, and that makes meaningful analysis of historical data very difficult. And there’s the matter of the funding… recently from tobacco companies. I doubt this article is a breakthrough. If it is or if it isn’t, we’ll surely see follow-up analyses of the same data.
“I stand away from the doors so that the smoke doesn’t go inside the building, but people walking by will still be around it, although temporarily. Hey, I’d go in a back ally if there was one, but since there’s not, I’m relegated to the street.”
FWIW, if no one in Houston smoked, it would still be risky to step outside and breathe! They don’t call the Pasadena – Deer Park industrial area (mostly refineries and chemical plants) “cancer alley” for nothing!
When I worked for the UT School of Public Health many years ago, a new dean banned smoking outside the school beside the main doors, not wanting to convey that image. Smokers were angry, and, to everyone’s surprise, so were many nonsmokers. It didn’t seem fair to say “you can’t smoke in the building” and also “you can’t smoke outdoors near the building.” The dean stuck to his ruling, but with a not-so-slight compromise: there is a very nice park beside the building; smokers could smoke there, not at the front door but not far from it.
As to music venues, I am constrained by Linda’s genuinely severe smoke allergy. Recently there were two events in town on one night: protest singer David Rovics and famed jazz pianist Stefan Karlsson (who BTW is moving to Texas). The decision was easy: we heard Rovics, because he performed in a smoke-free venue.
Houston has a reasonable smoking ordinance, and I think the fact that it is reasonable is why it is largely obeyed. Restaurants have two sections; bars are AFAIK all smoking-permitted. I agree that banning smoking in bars, as some locales have done, is pretty extreme. As C.o.W. points out above, we go there to pollute ourselves one way or another anyway…
Thanks for your kind reply. I knew I was a bit overstated in my earlier post, and I’m glad it was not taken wrong.
Sorry, sounds like crap to me. Smoke — off the end of a burning cigarette, a campfire, or a BarBQ — is harmful to the lungs. Breathing smoke is bad for you. Period. And no one should have to breathe anymore than they choose to.
As far as the laws go, they wouldn’t be necessary if smokers showed more discretion and courtesy. Smoking is not a right; it is a chosen habit.
I also grew up with parents who were both medium-to-heavy smokers, and suffered from frequent colds and bronchitis as a child. I only realized how much it affected me when I went to college and was around non-smokers most of the time, and my health got much better.
However, being in a smoke-filled environment was one of the least of my concerns about my upbringing. In fact, I think I rebelled as a teen by clean living and detesting smokers and smoking.
But what I see now is concern for health shown as classism on the part of Bobos in power….much of the time I see the problem with smoking isn’t that it’s unhealthy (for the smoker and for others), but that it’s declasse.
Not that it’s going to make me light up after nearly 33 years of not smoking, but I have changed my views in the past several years. I will tolerate smoke occasionally if the company, band, or atmosphere is good (that includes you, Bean…:)
Then again, if you’re under 60 and smoke cigars, not only are you probably an SUV-driving jerk, you also are caught on the tail end of a dying fad.
Beerzie Boy — you’re certainly entitled to your opinion, and you’re entitled to be an ass if you want. But I have to say, if I am around someone like Steve or Aaron, I’m going to go out of my way to be considerate — either by not smoking at all, or blowing my smoke away from them, or whatever. But, people like you, I couldn’t give a flying fig about, and would happily blow smoke right in your face, and chainsmoke just for kicks.
I agree with the author.
Oh come on your trying to tell me that it does no harm i just looked at 6 diffrent web sites they all said opposite i don’t no what your tying to pull but I know that every non-smoker out there is anoyed of all you people smoking. We would be walking behind a smoker and it will just fly in our faces and we cough but no it does no harm NOT!
Oh come on your trying to tell me that it does no harm i just looked at 6 diffrent web sites they all said opposite i don’t no what your tying to pull but I know that every non-smoker out there is anoyed of all you people smoking. We would be walking behind a smoker and it will just fly in our faces and we cough but no it does no harm NOT!
Man this is wack!!!!!!!! Im doing a report on why smoking should not be permitted in public places. So ive been to a kajillion sites. I lay my finger on this artical and BAM!! An non-harmful bomb explodes. This is a hard one…. who should I believe: a kajillion websites (against your statement) or you………
Im 1) With the Jake person. 2) with the kajillion websites.
YOU MAKE ME SICK :)
EVERYBODY ON THE DUDE WHO WROTE THIS”S SITE.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
:)=sign of laghter
*
**
***
****
*****
******
*******
*********
********
*******
******
****
***
**
***
***
****
*****
******
*******
********
*********
********
*******
******
*****
****
***
**
If EYED MADE this RIGHT it would be an illution BUTT its not.. :(
I formally agree with Missy and dub thyself Kidillutionist!
second hand smoke is booty
Pingback: cut on the bias
Another blow to freedom of choice by democrats sucking at the pharma teat. “We can make big money on smoking cessation products. We will gladly share this with you.”
Here’s a tip. If it annoys you or frightens you DON’T GO WHERE THE SMOKE IS.