Take heart, passive smokers

One of the things that has persuaded me to take a tough line on passive smoking is the evidence on heart disease, pressed on me by the British Medical Association, among others.

Now the New Scientist reports:

Washington DC-based Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) states in its promotional material that a single exposure to tobacco fumes lasting just 30 minutes can raise a "non-smoker's risk of suffering a fatal heart attack to that of a smoker".

The British Heart Foundation (BHF) makes similar claims.

Can the risks of such a brief exposure really be that high? Not according to tobacco researcher Mike Siegel of Boston University, who examined statements made by nearly 30 anti-tobacco groups including ASH (US) and the BHF, as well as clinical studies upon which the statements were based.

He believes the anti-tobacco groups distort the science to make their point (Epidemiologic Perspectives and Innovations, DOI: 10.1186/1742-5573-4-13).

Although a half-hour exposure does cause measurable changes in blood flow, the effects are only transitory and blood circulation returns to normal within hours, sometimes immediately, Siegel says.

There is no evidence that a single exposure causes any meaningful damage in the way that the groups claim. "It is certainly not correct to claim that a single 30-minute exposure to second-hand smoke causes hardening of the arteries, heart disease, heart attacks or strokes," he says.

How am I supposed to believe anything these people tell me in future?

Hat Tip: Mick Hume

Comments

[Simon Stephenson]

Ever since the appearance of

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/thunderer/article597646.ece

in The Times 2 years ago, I have been challenging the proponents of the smoking ban to supply me with clear, irrefutable evidence that passive smoking is a significant health hazard - this being the perception that the entire pro-ban lobby has left no stone unturned in seeking to promote. To date, there has been no such evidence forthcoming.

Being a universalist, the point that is most of concern to me is not that legislation has been brought in under popular support that has been generated by a lie. The central point is not that this has happened, but that we have a system that allows it to happen. What comment does it make about our democracy that due process now embraces, apparently, using blatant deception to persuade the non-questioning to support a "desired" course of action?

[Andy]

I'm not that bothered about passive smoking with respect to the health risks, however great they may or may not be.
I'm just glad that I can drink a pint, eat a meal, talk to friends - without the stink.
I still find it hard to see why there's such a lot of libertarian indignation about this when there must be a lot of more important things to get on your high horse about.
Of course it's completely unrelated to the fact that nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs around.

[Simon Stephenson]

Perhaps Andy would like to examine his own life, and see if he can identify anything that he does which, while not actually harmful to anyone else, annoys some people because they find it unpleasant.

Then imagine how he would feel if this group of activists, using the deceit that his activity was actually harmful to them and to others, managed to get it made illegal.

[Tony Francis]

The passive smoke argument has taken on the zeal of a religious movement. I saw an article some years ago that indicated a person's risk of developing cancer doubled simply by moving from the country to the city. When I go for a walk, I end up breathing all sorts of noxious vehicle exhausts. I don't know how these are separated from passive cigarette smoke in large epidemiological studies over many years. Still, I can't really condone passive smoke. Once away from it, smoke is irritating. In the US, the state attorneys general filed suit against the cigarette companies. The argument was "state tax dollars went to treat cigarette related illnesses." The settlement was in the billions. I was thinking I might get a refund from my previously paid tax, based on the argument. But that didn't happen. The money went to "stop smoking campaigns." North Carolina used its money to market tobacco. And the law firms got billions for all their work.

[Martin Dockrell]

Siegel's report says it is wrong to claim that 30 minutes of breathing secondhand smoke could cause a heart attack in otherwise healthy people. The ASH I work for has never made that claim, nor to the best of my knowledge have any UK health campaigners. We have quoted research by Otsuka and colleagues that finds that 30 minutes of smoke harms the coronary circulation in non-smokers. Google "otsuka passive smoking" and judge for yourself. Since then we have seen reductions in reported heart attacks of 10-25% following smokefree laws in Europe and the US. Smokefree legislation reduces heart attacks. End of story.

[Simon Stephenson]

I note that Martin Dockrell claims that ASH have "quoted research by Otsuka and colleagues that finds that 30 minutes of smoke harms the coronary circulation in non-smokers". I wonder if he could he tell me:-

1. Whether or not there are other studies of passive smoking that have failed to conclude that passive smoking is in any way a significant health hazard.

2. If so, what proportion of the total number of studies has identified passive smoking as a significant health hazard.

3. How many quotations has ASH used from studies finding no health hazard.

4. Whether ASH believes that its goal of reducing active smoking is of such importance that it justifies the use of lies and deception in creating a false perception of harm in order to foment an active campaign of harassment of smokers by non-smokers.

[Stuart]

I'm with Andy on this one. I don't believe that passive smoking is (generally) all that dangerous to me, but I cannot count the number of times where I've gone for a quiet drink and where a tiny minority indulging their habit have led to me having stinging eyes, often throat irritation and always stinking clothes and belongings. It's anti-social and there is no reason why the majority should have to put up with it. We've indulged these pathetic addicts too long.

[Andy]

Well, Simon, I suppose I might be a bit miffed if they banned farting in indoor public spaces, which is the nearest equivalent I can think of.
The fact is that I try not to, as I hope we all do, and I am not going to fight for my right to do so.
Then again, maybe we should...

"You gotta fight for your right to farty"

[Simon Stephenson]

Andy,

Just try to get your mind round the fact that there are some things that you do that you don't consider unpleasant, but that OTHER PEOPLE DO find unpleasant. There isn't some abstract universal definition of what is pleasant, and what isn't - it depends on the individual concerned.

So, however you live your life, there are going to be SOME things that you do that SOME people are going to find unpleasant.

Are you happy that these people are able to go to the law to prevent you from doing something that is of harm to them only in so much as they find it unpleasant? Do you think that this is a practicable principle upon which society should organise itself?

[Simon Stephenson]

Stuart,

OK, so going down to the pub now is, for you, a more pleasant activity than previously, when smoke in the atmosphere detracted from your enjoyment. Great!

Now, imagine, if you can, someone to whom the attraction of going down to the pub has been DECREASED by the fact that they are no longer allowed to smoke.

STOP! DON'T PUT THEM IN YOUR SHOES. RESPECT THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE THEIR OWN VALUE-SYSTEM.

Now, look at your own value-system. What has made you happy? That you have a pub environment in which you no longer have to breathe in smoke? Or that you have prevailed over a wrong-thinking minority so as to persuade them of the error of their ways? Have you improved a situation or merely won a battle? Is this about gaining personal satisfaction or about improving society?

Have you ever thought about the idea that whether or not people smoke in pubs may be less important than that they are encouraged to tolerate the differences of others? That it may in fact be more anti-social to FORCE people into conformity with majority values than it is to allow them to make up their own mind about what they should do, and what they shouldn't do?

[Andy]

So, to sum it all up, according to Simon - it's better to have a minority force its unpleasant ways on the majority than vice versa.

In answer to Simon's question "Is this about gaining personal satisfaction or about improving society":

it's about not stinking

[Simon Stephenson]

Andy

"So, to sum it all up, according to Simon - it's better to have a minority force its unpleasant ways on the majority than vice versa."

1. I think if you re-read my posts you will see that the idea of supporting anyone "forcing" their will on someone else is actually the exact opposite of what I propose.

2. From where do you get the idea that there is a huge majority of people in favour of preventing people from smoking in public places, because they find it unpleasant? Take away from the statistics all those who really couldn't care less what other people get up to, but support the ban because they have been conned into thinking that passive smoking is somehow harmful. What you are left with is a small group of people who are unable to consider matters other than at the particularist level. They support the ban because they find a smoky atmosphere unpleasant, but they are unable, or unwilling, to extend their thoughts beyond the immediate vicinity of this particular ban. They are, seemingly, unaware that in reality social rule-making follows universalist principles, so that if you justify a smoking ban because some people find smoke unpleasant, you are automatically creating as a consequence the principle that unpleasantness is a valid reason for illegalisation. Is this really the way you think we should operate?

[Meenakshi]

Well, it depends on individuals' concern. The regular user, who used to smoke regularly, may not find it unpleasant, while smoking at public places. Where some people who dont smoke may have such perception that smoking is unpleasant.

But in my opinion, apart from the thinking of both the group (who support the thought that smoky environment is unpleasant & other who deny), it is most important that what is best suits to the society!

Thanks
Meenakshi

[Andy]

You know, Simon, your case isn't that badly argued - why on earth do you have to choose something that's harmful, addictive, antisocial (or at the very best, just plain pointless) to support with your debating skill? Surely there must be more important issues than this?

[Andy]

Getting back to the original post - if you actually read it, all it says is that anti-smoking groups may have overstated the implications of this research: it has in no way refuted the assertion that passive smoking is harmful. It's getting hard to maneouvre around the issue because of all the straw men getting put up.

[Ian W. Platt]

I stopped smoking after 52 years on 11th July, 2007 at 1600. Yes, I finally gave up because I could no longer bear being treated as a pariah and a fool by the non-smoking fascists. What have I learnt? Quite apart from the lie about passive smoking, which has inspired the zealots, there are other lies: Sense of smell improvement -Rubbish, Sense of taste improvement - Rubbish, Breathing improved - Rubbish, General fitness improvement - Rubbish. Bank balance improvement - Yes, but imperceptibly.
The joke is that on all the GPs tables of risk, I've made an exponential leap on the life expectancy table. What a joke. The risk of me being beaten to death by a drug crazed gang of youths is now much greater than me dying prematurely of heart failure. Mind you, that was probably the case anyway.
If the lie is big enough and it enables governments to tell you how to run your lives to the greater good, as they define it, of those who might vote for them, then bring it on. Oops! was that my globe warming? What a farce. Sleepwalking to Totalitarianism.
Ian Platt.

[Simon Stephenson]

Andy

1. You, like virtually everyone else, seem to think that the considerations comprising this discussion can be ring-fenced into a small restricted area in the immediate vicinity of smoking. So that it's quite correct practice to ignore anything that isn't directly related to smoking. This, not to put too fine a point on it, is ridiculous. In this country, we seem to have completely lost sight of the fact that the goodness/badness of a particular policy comes from judging the contributions to this of ALL the consequences, not just the ones at which the policy is specifically directed.

I don't really care that much about smoking, as such. I'm an ex-smoker who, when a smoker, was always meticulous about the consideration I showed to other people in my immediate surroundings. In return, I expected other people to be as meticulous in the consideration they showed me. So that if I asked them if they minded me smoking, I really didn't expect them to say "yes" unless they really believed that the disutility to them of me smoking was greater than the disutility to me of me NOT smoking. If they had a REAL problem with second-hand smoke then not only would I be quite happy to refrain, but I'd see it as my duty of consideration to do so.

I really believe that trying to improve behaviour through legislation is very, very much the poor relation of working to develop the self-legislation that comes from prioritising consideration for others. In fact, I think that top-down legislation actually destroys any possibility of nurturing consideration for others.

2. The burden of proof is with the instigators, not the sceptics. If, with all its resources, the massive anti-smoking lobby is unable to produce a damning argument other than by misrepresenting the evidence, then I'm afraid that I'm unable to conclude otherwise than that there is no real evidence in support of their case, and that the entire brouhaha about passive smoking is something that has been deceitfully generated to further a cause that is completely different - that of seeking to reduce ACTIVE smoking.

Which is the very point I've been trying to make all along - that the point at issue is not specifically to do with smoking; it's to do with whether or not it's correct for legislation to be brought in on the back of misrepresentation and fabricated evidence. Is the adult population so incapable and ill-informed that it is impossible to govern adequately without treating it as though it is a class of 5-year olds?

[Martin Dockrell]

Simon
The studies ASH cite are in line with the scientific consensus but you (and anybody else) can easily check that out by going to PubMed Central http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed and running a search on "Environmental Tobacco Smoke" or "Passive Smoking". This will search a huge database of scientific journals.

You will find few studies if any showing no harmful effects of secondhand smoke. Of course it is difficult for any scientist to get research published which finds "no link" on whatever issue, this is a problem in all fields of modern research.

The notable exception is research funded by industry (in this case the tobacco industry) which should be read with caution, especially when it runs counter to independent studies.