The worm turns

Well, well, well. An anti-smoking advocate takes his counterparts to task for abandoning sound science? (H/T Swiftee)

"CDC Defends Surgeon General's Statement that Brief Exposure to Secondhand Smoke Causes Lung Cancer
Rather than correcting the misrepresentation of science by the Surgeon General in his press release announcing the publication of the 2006 report on secondhand smoke, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is apparently defending the Surgeon General's statement.Here's the story:In June 2006, the U.S. Surgeon General released a comprehensive report on the health effects of secondhand smoke which concluded that chronic exposure to tobacco smoke causes heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers.However, in the press release accompanying the report, the Surgeon General claimed that: "Even brief exposure to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and increases risk for heart disease and lung cancer, the report says."On June 28, I wrote on this blog that the Surgeon General had misrepresented the findings of the report, since the report mentioned nothing about brief secondhand smoke exposure causing heart disease and lung cancer. Further, I noted that the statement in the press release flies in the face of common medical sense, since we know that heart disease takes many years of exposure to develop, even in an active smoker. So how could a brief exposure to secondhand smoke cause heart disease in a nonsmoker?Moreover, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes lung cancer in nonsmokers."

What do you know? There is a little honesty left to be had in the smoking argument. ALA Bob (frequent MOB commenter Bob Moffit of ALAMN) are you paying attention?

"It truly appears that CDC is indeed defending the statement that brief secondhand smoke exposure causes lung cancer in nonsmokers.And they are doing it based on the possibility that a small amount of exposure could potentially damage a single cell.By this reasoning, any exposure to any carcinogen could be said to increase the risk of cancer. By this reasoning, the CDC should also be warning the public that:
A single chest X-ray causes cancer.
Being in the sun for thirty seconds causes cancer.
Breathing in diesel fumes for ten seconds causes cancer.
Eating peanut butter causes cancer.
Eating a single char-broiled burger causes cancer.
Drinking a sip of chlorinated water causes cancer. In fact, just the process of living every day could be said to cause cancer, since there is always damage being done to our cells that could potentially trigger cancer. The body has defense mechanisms that repair this damage constantly. This is the reason why it takes more than a single exposure to cause cancer. The exposure has to overwhelm the body's ability to repair the damage."

Sanity and common sense - something that has been sorely lacking in this discussion. What a breath of fresh air. Sadly, not everyone appreciates the authors thoughtful take on the issue.

"After Sunday's InsideBayArea.com and Contra Costa Times articles exposed the weakness of anti-smoking groups' argument that complete outdoor smoking bans are necessary because even a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can cause heart disease or cancer, it appears that their arguments in support of Calabasas and Belmont-type (complete) outdoor smoking bans are rapidly deteriorating.On an international list-serve discussion forum regarding secondhand smoke, one advocate argued that despite the lack of evidence that complete outdoor smoking bans are necessary to avert a substantial public health hazard, they are still justified because government also routinely bans outdoor behavior that is considered "intrusive, corruptive of minors, or offensive." The advocate wrote: "Some examples of these banned or heavily restricted activities include touching another person without their permission, nudity, overt sex, urinating, defecating, spitting, playing loud music, drinking alcohol, smoking marijuana, injecting heroin, snorting cocaine, etc."Another advocate argued that these complete outdoor smoking bans are justified because outdoor levels of smoke can be quite high.Another advocate addressed neither the science issue nor the offensiveness of public smoking issue, resorting instead to the old ad hominem attack: "I suggest the only credibility we are supposed to have lost is caused by Siegel and Chapman." [Dr. Simon Chapman was quoted in the article as also opposing most broad outdoor smoking bans because they are not justified based on scientific evidence of a severe and unavoidable public health hazard.]The title of this particular discussion forum message had nothing to do with the substantive topic at hand. Instead, it was simply: "Michael Siegel, again."

One of the (many) things that bothers me about this whole discussion is that no one discusses it from any level other than the emotional level. When the anti-smoking zealots (like ALA Bob) argue for it, the argument comes from the heart, not the head. At least when those who are opposed to smoking bans (like Sue Jeffers) argue the issue it is an argument based on the Constitution and the rule of law. I would rather discuss this issue with someone like Mr. Siegel, who is using fact and logic as the basis of his conclusions than I would someone like ALA Bob. With Mr. Siegel, you at least get an honest, well thought out argument. I don't necessarily agree with all of Mr. Siegel's conclusions, but it is so very nice to see someone who is willing to look at the science behind smoking regulation as opposed to the emotion of smoking bans. It's a pity that those who share his desire can't do the same.