Passive smoking - another of the Nanny State's big lies

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...ates-big-lies/

Passive smoking - another of the Nanny State's big lies

Not Polly Toynbee

Passive smoking doesn't give you lung cancer. So says a new report publicised by the American Cancer Institute which will come as no surprise whatsoever to anyone with a shred of integrity who has looked into the origins of the great "environmental tobacco smoke" meme.

It was, after all, a decade ago that the British Medical Journal, published the results of a massive, long-term survey into the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. Between 1959 and 1989 two American researchers named James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat surveyed no few than 118,094 Californians. Fierce anti-smoking campaigners themselves, they began the research because they wanted to prove once and for all what a pernicious, socially damaging habit smoking was. Their research was initiated by the American Cancer Society and supported by the anti-smoking Tobacco Related Disease Research Program.

At least it was at first. But then something rather embarrassing happened. Much to their surprise, Kabat and Enstrom discovered that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ie passive smoking), no matter how intense or prolonged, creates no significantly increased risk of heart disease or lung cancer.

Similar conclusions were reached by the World Health Organisation which concluded in 1998 after a seven-year study that the correlation between "passive smoking" and lung cancer was not "statistically significant." A 2002 report by the Greater London Assembly agreed. So too did an investigation by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee.

Yet between 2006 and 2007 smoking was banned in all enclosed public places throughout the United Kingdom largely on the basis of the claim – widely promulgated by bansturbating politicians and kill-joy activists – that it was necessary to protect the health of non-smokers. On the basis, in other words, of a blatant and scientifically demonstrable lie.

It's not just British health Nazis who like to promulgate this myth. Here's what America's Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has to say on the subject:

Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 3,400 lung cancer deaths among U.S. nonsmokers each year.

The actual number, Jacob Sullum argues at Reason, is "probably closer to zero."

So why does the medical establishment pretend otherwise? Sullum quotes a doctor who comments on the latest study's findings. The doctor observes primly:

"The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm."

Aha. Now we're closer to the mark. What the doctor is showing here are the classic symptoms of "freedom of choice is far too dangerous for the little people" syndrome.

[I hope I don't need to draw the parallels here with the similarly scientifically unfounded excuses being advanced to justify all sorts of regulatory and confiscatory activity to do with "climate change"]

Was the smoking ban a good idea? Arguably, in some ways. It means that when you come home from a crowded gig or club, now, your hair and clothes no longer smell of stale smoke; it forces smokers to smoke less than they might otherwise have done because nipping outside for a *** is so inconvenient.

Against that, though, you have to set the enormous damage which has been done to the pub industry – and indeed to the atmosphere within pubs and clubs. More worrying still, though, is the ugly precedent it has set for the arbitrary confiscation by the State of property rights.

It should have been left up to individual institutions – private members clubs especially, but pubs and restaurants too – whether or not they wished to allow smoking on their premises. Punters would then have been free to choose whether or not they wished, on any given evening, to sacrifice their unalienable right not to be exposed to other people's deadly tobacco smoke.

That is how free societies work. Free people make free choices.

In 2006 and 2007 in Britain – and at various other dates in other countries around the world – the forces of authoritarian government took away those rights. On the basis of a massive lie.

Good article by Delingpole exposing what Christopher Booker has written about before, that it's one big con. But you know, no matter where you stand on smoking - I personally have never tried a cigarette on the basis of principle, even when drunk - it shouldn't matter. What should matter are property rights, which are the basis of a free society and a wall against a big state. In other words, if you don't like people smoking around you then don't go into a property which permits smoking on the premises. It's really that simple.

Thoughts?

[FlyingJesus]

Smoke is no longer a carcinogenic wooo brb gonna go put a bag over my head since carbon dioxide isn't damaging

[Chippiewill]

I think I'll trust the opinion of the WHO and many heavily cited articles over a single study with a single author published barely 3 weeks ago.

[The Don]

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make, the title and article you’ve linked suggest this thread has been made in an attempt to disprove second hand smoking, whereas your comment at the bottom suggests you’re arguing about whether smoking in public places should be legal. If it’s the first option, and that you do believe second hand smoking is a lie I will be more than willing to post a longer response to this, if it’s the latter that I will refrain from commenting as we’ve had this discussion before and it went round in circles.

[Inseriousity.]

Lung cancer is very specific so saying passive smoking is completely harmless seems a bit of an overstatement. Despite that, I wouldn't mind if the smoking ban was lifted. Personally, I've never been able to smell cigarette smoke, probably because I've been surrounded by it my whole life.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don’t understand what point you’re trying to make, the title and article you’ve linked suggest this thread has been made in an attempt to disprove second hand smoking, whereas your comment at the bottom suggests you’re arguing about whether smoking in public places should be legal. If it’s the first option, and that you do believe second hand smoking is a lie I will be more than willing to post a longer response to this, if it’s the latter that I will refrain from commenting as we’ve had this discussion before and it went round in circles.

I do believe second hand smoking is a lie, or certainly overexaggerated yet I have no wish to debate that just as I no longer debate global warming as many simply trust scientists blindly and will not listen to the counter evidence (also from scientists) because it dares threaten their unquestioning faith in science, despite the fact that scientists are often as prone to telling lies and corruption as politicians are - http://nypost.com/2013/12/26/profess...ium=SocialFlow

No, my point is simply that wherever you stand on the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, just as wherever you stand on the dangers of certain sexual practices - mainly gay sex - it shouldn't matter as in a free society the state shouldn't have any say in these matters and individuals should be in control of how they manage or balance these issues. Point being, think fizzy drinks have too much sugar in? Don't drink them. Think gay sex is risky in terms of disease and health effects? Don't engage in it. Think smoking is stupid, pointless and foolhardy? Don't smoke. Think second hand smoke is a risk to your life? Then don't go into a property which permits smoking indoors.

Myself, I drink whatever but don't smoke and don't engage in those sexual practice. Second hand smoke? I don't mind as I don't judge it to be a risk. Point being that I am capable of making these decisions, as are you, without the state instructing us what to do/what not to do.

[The Don]

I do believe second hand smoking is a lie, or certainly overexaggerated yet I have no wish to debate that just as I no longer debate global warming as many simply trust scientists blindly and will not listen to the counter evidence (also from scientists) because it dares threaten their unquestioning faith in science, despite the fact that scientists are often as prone to telling lies and corruption as politicians are - http://nypost.com/2013/12/26/profess...ium=SocialFlow

No, my point is simply that wherever you stand on the dangers of smoking and second hand smoke, just as wherever you stand on the dangers of certain sexual practices - mainly gay sex - it shouldn't matter as in a free society the state shouldn't have any say in these matters and individuals should be in control of how they manage or balance these issues. Point being, think fizzy drinks have too much sugar in? Don't drink them. Think gay sex is risky in terms of disease and health effects? Don't engage in it. Think smoking is stupid, pointless and foolhardy? Don't smoke. Think second hand smoke is a risk to your life? Then don't go into a property which permits smoking indoors.

Myself, I drink whatever but don't smoke and don't engage in those sexual practice. Second hand smoke? I don't mind as I don't judge it to be a risk. Point being that I am capable of making these decisions, as are you, without the state instructing us what to do/what not to do.

What about the people that do judge it to be a risk? All the other things you've mentioned don't directly affect people not partaking in those activities, whereas smoking does.

I also wanted to point out the how bias and flawed your original article is...

It quotes the doctors as saying

"The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm."

It fails to mention the other half of the quote which is

Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer," said Patel. "The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm."

I guess they just forgot to add that bit in?

[Chippiewill]

I no longer debate global warming as many simply trust scientists blindly and will not listen to the counter evidence (also from scientists) because it dares threaten their unquestioning faith in science, despite the fact that scientists are often as prone to telling lies and corruption as politicians are .

What's more likely, that 90% of scientists are perpetuating a lie that takes a massive chunk out of the economy and threaten growth and progression of society as a whole for no legitimate reason or big oil companies have bribed 10% of scientists so that they can solidify their position and massive profits against potentially more profitable, down the line, renewable or alternative energy sources?

[FlyingJesus]

You thinking that inhaling smoke isn't unhealthy doesn't make it so, and the difference between that and your examples are that fizzy drinks and gay relations don't affect anyone outside of those involved. When one freedom comes at the expense of another (ie freedom to smoke infringing on freedom to not be placed in harm simply by being somewhere, or freedom to stab people infringing on freedom to stay alive) then clearly the harm principle needs to come into effect or you have 100% anarchy which inevitably leads to tyranny of whoever has the biggest guns

[The Don]

As for climate change @-:Undertaker:-;