The risks of smoking are greatly exaggerated
In response to my post yesterday on the Norwegian government's plans to ban smoking in public places, Todd LaClair was kind of enough to send this argument my way. Eric Boyd, a Canadian who has "management exerience across a wide range of sectors" (code for "I'm a PR consultant for Philip Morris"?), clearly feels that the anti-tobacco lobby is a misguided lot out to rob us of our civil liberties.
Too much is made of the 4,000 chemicals in tobacco smoke. We're told these chemicals are so harmful that they are responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. Untold in this "war on tobacco" is that each of the plants we consume consists of an equally daunting thousands of chemicals many of which are recognized poisons or suspected cancer-causing agents.
Cayenne peppers, carrots and strawberries each contain six suspected carcinogens; onions, grapefruit and tomato each contain five -- some the same as the seven suspected carcinogens found in tobacco.
High-heat cooking creates yet more dietary carcinogens from otherwise harmless chemical constituents.
Left unstated in Mr. Boyd's arguments is that carrots and strawberries are not addictive and generally not consumed in the quantities or with the frequency that cigarettes are. If you took this argument to it's logical consclusion, EVERYTHING one could eat could be found to have some sort of harmful chemical present. In this case a simple risk-benefit analysis would seem to be in order. Does the nutritional value of a strawberry outweigh the risks of any potentially harmful chemicals? I think most of us would probably say yes. Could the same be said for cigarettes? I didn't think so....
The 1993 bellwether study by the Environmental Protection Agency that selectively combined the results of a number of previous studies and found a small increase in lung cancer risk in those exposed to environmental tobacco smoke has been roundly criticized as severely flawed by fellow researchers and ultimately found invalid in a court of law.
In 1998, the World Health Organization reported a small, but not statistically significant, increase in the risk of lung cancer in non-smoking women married to smokers.
Despite these invalidating deficiencies, the Environmental Protection Agency and World Health Organization both concluded tobacco smoke causes lung cancer in non-smokers.
Mr. Boyd, in spite of your clearly pro-Tobacco sentiments, do you really think that these studies were the ONLY ones used by EPA and WHO in reaching their conclusions? Or are you so blinded by your prejudice and righteous indignation that you're willing to twist whatever evidence is available to support your tenuous position?
The link between tobacco smoke and lung cancer has been accepted by the scientific community for years. Of course, when you're trying to sort out lies, damn lies, and statistics, you can make a set of numbers support most any argument if you're creative enough. Clearly, Mr. Boyd is a very creative individual.
When confronted with the scientific uncertainty, the inconsistency of results and the incredible misrepresentation of present-day knowledge, those seeking to abolish tobacco invoke a radical interpretation of the Precautionary Principle: "Where potential adverse effects are not fully understood, the activity should not proceed."
This unreasonable exploitation of the ever-present risks of living infiltrates our schools to indoctrinate trusting and eager minds with the irrational fears of today. Instead of opening minds to the wondrous complexities of living, it opens the door to peer ridicule and intolerance while cultivating the trendy cynics of tomorrow.
In my mind, given the addictive and carcinogenic nature of cigarettes, exercising the "Precautionary Principle" is both prudent and reasonable. If cigarettes are not a significant health risk, why do we limit the sale of them to adults? If your argument, Mr. Boyd, is that cigarettes pose no real health risk, why do we not put vending machine in our schools?
At some point, an individual must make use of the empirical and anecdotal evidence available to him or her in making a decision. Cigarettes are clearly highly addictive and demonstrably dangerous instruments. The reason we do not make cigarettes widely available to children is the knowledge of the very real risks involved.
If we continue down this dangerous path of control and prohibition based on an unreliable or remote chance of harm, how many personal freedoms will remain seven generations from now?
Mr. Boyd, this is the only point in your argument that doesn't make me suspect that you're on the payroll of a tobacco company. It is a good question, but let me ask you this. Why do we ban driving on the wrong side of the freeway? Why do most government bodies ban the carrying of firearms in public? Why do arenas and stadiums ban the use of firecrackers? It's because of the risks involved. Some may consider these things to be personal freedoms, but the reality is that the practice of these "freedoms" places other individuals at a greater risk of harm.
My point is that we as a society must draw the line somewhere. As far as cigarettes go, your right to smoke is trumped by my right to breathe clean air. If you choose to smoke and assume the risks associated with it, that is your choice as an adult. If the exercising of that "freedom" places me at greater risk, your "right" to exercise that "freedom" ends. Period.
Personally, Mr. Boyd, I find your argument objectionable, disingenous, and dishonest in the extreme. I'm wondering why you did not bother to disclose whether or not you were paid by a tobacco company for this propaganda piece?
Oh, and another thing, Mr. Boyd. Have you ever watched anyone die from emphysema or lung cancer?
