Smoking reduction isn't an overnight thing.

Houston enacted a similar ban on smoking in bars in restaurants recently. Some restaurant owners near jurisdictions that permit smoking claimed that their business would be hurt, but I haven't heard whether that was the case.

I will say, as a nonsmoker, that it is nice to be able to go to a bar and not reek of smoke when I get home.

Smoking is still allowed on patios at restaurants and bars here. Some anti-smoking advocates didn't even want to leave this small amount of free space. I think we have reached the limit on how far you can reasonably push the rights of non-smokers.

All I care about is that I can go to any bar or restaurant when I'm home in Ohio and not leave smelling like smoke.

"Why should we care if people smoke?"

People care because of two reasons: (1) paternalism ("I know what is right for you and you should do what is right") and (2) healthcare costs. The second reason is what is scary about the prospect of universal healthcare. Many people believe in aspects of Mill's harm principle. With the socialization of health care costs, however, activities that once were thought of as harmless to others (e.g., smoking, riding a motorcycle without a helmet) are now activities that inflict tangible harm on others (i.e., this activity is dangerous to you health, and when you are injured, my costs go up as well--thus, i am harmed by your act). Thus, universal healthcare brings within the scope of "legitimate" government regulation (according to Mill) acts which harm nobody but the individual taking part in the act.

I'm not a smoker, but I can't imagine there are very many people who think "I can't smoke in restaurants any more, so I might as well just quit."

Michigan is now considering the same ban. As much as I personally always swim in the non peeing part of the pool, I can't help but see this as nanny state legislation. Why can't the legislators simply manadate insurance companies to set health care premiums for smokers and non smokers? Isn't that the market approach that should be embraced and, even if ineffective to stop some from smoking, would be effective in fairly passing on the costs to those that chose to engage?

I've always been shocked that a system of licensing hasn't been adopted. Create a limited number of "smoking licenses," let bars &restaurants bid on them for the initial distribution, allow resale, and then let the market sort it out.

Just because I'd be happier if a certain class of people or to be free from a certain sort of behavior doesn't mean the law should guarantee that.

While I was initially skeptical of the results, the evidence that secondhand smoke in indoor environments is harmful is now solid (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18262402). It's dangerous, as well as distasteful, particularly to those that work in those environments. Free expression does not include releasing toxic chemicals into the environment, damaging the lungs of strangers.

> I've always been shocked that a system of licensing hasn't been adopted. Create a limited number of "smoking licenses," let bars &restaurants bid on them for the initial distribution, allow resale, and then let the market sort it out.

As we've recently seen in the FBI bust of MA state reps Wilkerson and Turner, the whole point of licensing is to give politicians political power to reward their friends, punish their enemies, and extort rents from everyone else.

Statists hate markets because it means that politicians lose power.

How about an "opt-out" system for Medicare/Medicaid? Smokers sign an agreement that they will never collect benefits and are issued a license. Stores are then required to check the license for anyone buying cigarettes.

Or after some 400 lb. person refuses to lose weight, issue them a similar card denying them benefits.

Of course, I'm of the opinion that if I'm paying for someone's health care, I get the right to tell them to quit smoking and maintain a healthy body weight. Let those who wish to destroy their health do so on their own dime.

Because we the people pay for the diabetes, heart disease and cancer caused by the behavioral choices of smokers. Better question is why we have Medicaid and Medicare.

CC, diabetes, I would think, is more likely to result from diet (especially highcarb, high glycemic foods, with high fructose corn syrup being a leading offender), weight and lack of exercise. Genetics also plays a role, and women who experienced gestational diabetes are at higher risk.

Also, is it not true that by dying earlier, smokers may actually reduce insurance costs that would have been incurred had they lived longer? End of life care is always expensive, but non-smokers need expensive end of life care, too.

The real answer is the first one that you cited.

I'm a former smoker that has always been partial to the smoker's lobby arguments (let the market sort it out), but ultimately sided with the anti-smokers side. Results matter.

I was one of those smokers that smoked outside (except in bars), no matter the weather, so I didn't think it too high a price to pay. Too cold outside? Bundle up or skip the cig.

Yah, and I'd like to be able to go to clubs and not have to see any fat/ugly/bald/whatever people. Or if you prefer an activity based law we could outlaw bad dancing and lame pickup lines.

none of these things would harm you. smoking will.

The Economist has repeatedly pointed out that smokers cost the health care system less than non-smokers, because they die younger and faster, while non-smokers tend to linger on.

Old33:

All I care about is that I can go to any bar or restaurant when I'm home in Ohio and not leave smelling like smoke.

I agree, smoke is stinky.

However, in states like California [and in many localities], when these laws were first mooted the bar owners pleaded that they should be allowed to designate their establishments as either smoking or non-smoking. Failing that, they asked that they be allowed to have a separate smoking room with adequate ventilation separate from the building's main HVAC system.

But the Nanny State libs -- knowing full well what is good for everyone -- rammed through their laws making a legal substance illegal in the entire bar/restaurant establishment.

They should walk the walk with that precious tolerance they're always talking about. But they only talk the talk.

[IANAS.]

Hmmm, it seems that Mr. Adler's former employer was funded in part by our friends in the tobacco industry, per Wikipedia:


# 1991 - $10,000 donation to CEI from Philip Morris (PM) [7]
# Feb. 9, 1993 - letter from Fred Smith of CEI to Thomas Borelli at PM thanking PM for support.[8]
# 1995: PM gives $200,000 grant to CEI for "general operating support" [9]
# 1995 : PM gives another $10,000 to CEI [10]
# 1997: PM gives $120,000 to CEI [11]
# 1998 PM Public Policy Contributions list. Says PM paid CEI $25,000 via check no. 390006 [12]
# (Non-financial item) 1998: Activity Report of Beverly McKittrick of PM states, "Worked on plan for mobilization of third--party conservative groups. Met with CSE, ATRA, Chamber of Commerce,Frontiers of Freedom, and Competitive Enterprise Institute." [13]
# 1999 Public Policy Contributions (PM): $5,000 paid via check No. 20601 [14]
# 1999 Activity report of PM's Thomas Borelli states: "Secured policy group committee funding to support the Competitive Enterprise Institute dinner" [15]
# Undated Brown &Williamson document listing pro-business organizations BW contributes to. CEI is on the list: [16] (see top of page 5, "Policy Organizations :Total $325,000")
# In 1999 PM budgeted $25,000 for CEI

Hmmm, it seems that Mr. Adler's former employer was funded in part by our friends in the tobacco industry, per Wikipedia:

What's your point?

Can we make a parallel between laws banning smoking and those banning abortion?

in seeing the statistics of bars'/restaraunts' profits decreasing since the ban was passed. They strongly opposed the ban because they said that it would cut into their business. Of course, with so many anti-growth policies being enacted in Ohio over the past few years, it would be hard to determine the cause/effect of any particular policy.

My guess as to what gives (a low minded response after all this policy talk...):

When smokers go outside to smoke, their non-smoking friends often follow them out. These non-smoking friends get bored (can't bring their alcohol outside, at least where I live), so they have a smoke. I've seen it a million times. It almost always starts off as a social thing (much to the dismay of those who think that Camel Joe is to blame).

Then again, could just be a statistical aberration.

In Massachusetts, there was a drop in lung cancer, mostly among nonsmokers, after no-smoking-in-bars rules went into effect. I haven't studied the study to see if it was statistically flawed or funded by people looking for that particular result. Maybe somebody can check the stats for Ohio.

One would think that getting lung cancer, beating it by having a lung removed would act as a deterrent to further smoking-- especially when that person is a doctor. No way. Said person continued to chain smoke. One would think a famous statistician who did studies on the effects of air pollution on respiratory health would also not smoke. No way.

Tobacco smoke is one of the very few, if not the only drugs that can simultaneously pep you up and calm you down. A lot of people like that and won't give it up. So I'm not surprised at all that we don't see a reduction. BTW I am not and have never been a smoker of anything including tobacco.

Does second hand smoke actually cause health problems for the majority of people? The evidence seems to point in this direction, but are inconsistent with the dose-response models for ordinary smoking. SHS seems to be actually more potent than direct smoking once you adjust for concentration. This make no sense.

It is a highly twisted logic that asserts that the costs of smoking are actually lower because people die at a younger age. That smokers die at a younger age demonstrates, if anything, that smoking is a "choice deserving of less deference.

First of all, this ignores the cost of a shorter life. I am not sure how one goes about assigning a monetary value on years of life (I don't necessarily think this is a sensible thing to do) but certainly this is a factor that weighs heavily in favor of smoking bans.

Second, the whole idea that people "choose" to live shorter lives is utter nonsense. People will always talk about so-and-so who lived to age 90 and smoked like a pipe. People just are not always too rational about things.

Most people don't look at actuarial tables when choosing to take up smoking. And even if they did, most would be in denial that this will apply to them. They are more likely too irrationally think they will be just like so-and-so who lived to age 90.

Third, once you are addicted to cigarettes, it is not fully a "choice" anymore whether to smoke them. Yes, some people are successful in quitting. But it takes a tremendous amount of will power and it is a truly uphill battle for many people to quit. I have seen people quit again, only to keep on falling into the same habit as soon as some stressful event enters their lives.

What this comes down to is that we as society should not give as much deference to the "choice" (really, the addicted compulsion) to smoke. We should tax cigarettes more heavily. And it is just fine to ban smoking in all sorts of public areas.

I don't care if people smoke in bars and restaurants, I just want an easy way to determine in advance which ones do, so I can avoid the eye-watering stench. To a non-smoker, it's disgusting.

Generally speaking, the stated reason for smoking bans is not to protect consumers, who have a choice about where they dine, but to protect workers, who have less of a choice.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If nonsmoker consumers live longer lives and get lung cancer less often, that is surely a benefit that matters. Any sort of algorithm that denies this is a benefit is a little ridiculous.

The idea that consumers always have total control over where they end up also ignores social dynamics. But, even if they do make this choice, there is nothing wrong with making it easier to make better choices.

Seriously, what nonsmoker would "choose" to go into a smoke filled bar over an identical non-smoke filled bar? Probably not too many. Why do they go anyway? I say social dynamics. It would be nice if doing the right thing (i.e. staying away from second-hand smoke) had lower social costs. And it does, just as soon as your ban smoking in bars and restaurants.

A bar is not a "public place."

A bar is not a private residence either. A bar is a place of public accommodation. You cannot refuse to serve someone because of race.

Are smoking restrictions in public places really so incompatible with libertarianism? I mean if you accept that second hand smoke is harmful, then smokers in bars, etc., are committing acts of violence on those around them. Isn't that one of the few times the state is supposed to step in?

Only if you believe libertarianism would demand the prohibition of boxing or soccer. I'm not a libertarian, but my understanding of the matter is that libertarians believe that you should be allowed to consent to things. Willingly and of your own power entering a room where you understand something with a known value of harm is means that you consented to exposure to that value of harm.

It's not like there's a lack of non-smoking services before such an act.

For those who really want to be tweaked by the Ohio statistics, remember that people who work in those banned areas are more likely to smoke than the average portion of the populace (between one in four and one in three, depending on what statistics you use). Despite working in a location where they can not smoke indoors, they still overwhelmingly tend to stick with the habit.

Fun stuff.

without infringing on the property rights of the establishment's owner

Does the fire code, which limits the number of people who can freely consent to enter a bar, also violate the property rights of an owner?

Answer: No. Because the property rights of an owner do not include using the property to break the law.

Second point: Human life is something that some people think is as important as property rights. If a ban on smoking in bars and restaurants reduces the incidence of lung cancer among smokers and non-smokers, that surely weighs heavily in favor.

Brian Mac,

What is a public house?

I'm not a libertarian, but my understanding of the matter is that libertarians believe that you should be allowed to consent to things. Willingly and of your own power entering a room where you understand something with a known value of harm is means that you consented to exposure to that value of harm.

I get that angle, and see that it's logically consistent. But the problem is that large majorities of people don't know the harm associated with SHS.

If smoking once you have the habit is essentially involuntary, what's the point of taxing tobacco heavily, apart of course from the handy revenue stream? Jacking up the price of a product whose consumers are disproportionately poor and who are physically addicted to it seems to me like an unusually cruel sort of regressive tax.

it increases the incentive to quit at the margin for those inclined to do so and it will make it more expensive to start smoking in the first place. teenagers often do not have that much money.

Does the fire code, which limits the number of people who can freely consent to enter a bar, also violate the property rights of an owner?

Answer: No. Because the property rights of an owner do not include using the property to break the law.

You are begging the question. In this scenario, we are trying to determine if law X violates property right Y. In making your argument, you assume that the very existence of law X negates the possibility of a violation of property right Y. This is a logical fallacy.

Also, by this logic, the act of walking home alone on a dark night implies a consent to being exposed to the possibility of rape, robbery, assault, and so on. But I don't think that the libertarian platform calls for those crimes to be taken off the books.

This is a bad analogy. If the person walking home decided to walk onto privately-owned property that had a sign saying "you will be forced to have sex with a stranger if you trespass," then there is an argument for implied consent. Similarly, if one walks into a privately-owned area knowing that others will be smoking, then there is an implied consent to this harm.

By your logic, it is permissible to prohibit individuals from smoking in their homes because guests will be harmed by such second-hand smoke.

Brian Mac wrote at 12.4.2008 2:19pm:

But the problem is that large majorities of people don't know the harm associated with SHS.

Or perhaps some people think that those harms are bogus or misleading claims that rely on junk science.

This is a bad analogy. If the person walking home decided to walk onto privately-owned property that had a sign saying "you will be forced to have sex with a stranger if you trespass," then there is an argument for implied consent. Similarly, if one walks into a privately-owned area knowing that others will be smoking, then there is an implied consent to this harm.

From what I see, you've made two points there.

The first is the public/private distinction. This does somewhat undercut my point, although in my mind bars are quasi-public places.

Your second point was that entering a bar carries with it a consent to experiencing a known harm, whereas walking home on a dark night only carries a consent to a risk of harm. But that distinction is false: the link between exposure to second hand smoke and harm is stochastic, as is the link between walking alone on a dark night and getting raped.

By your logic, it is permissible to prohibit individuals from smoking in their homes because guests will be harmed by such second-hand smoke.

Not necessarily - the balancing act between private liberties and the public good is obviously pretty different in that case. It's his house after all, not a public house.

Considering the number of people addicted to far more expensive (and illegal!) substances, I don't think that cost is going to add much more "will power" than fear of lingering, gruesome, painful death already supplies.

I disagree. You have to understand how people are irrational.

Smoking provides short-term benefits. The real costs (other than the cost of the cigarettes themselves) do not manifest themselves, if at all, except in the long-term.

People are in denial about the long-term. They think they will be like their uncle Joe, who smoked like a chimney and lived until he was 90. They don't look at actuarial tables. They don't think they are just like everyone else.

Increasing taxes will add some short-term costs to smoking. Something that can be felt immediately. It will thus contribute to people making better decisions about smoking. But, it certainly is no silver bullet.

I doubt that anyone takes up smoking with the idea that s/he won't be able to stop, or calculates in advance of the habit what three packs a day for life will run.

Exactly. And this is one the problems that increasing taxes on cigarettes seeks to partially address. I will concede that it isn't a perfect solution. But it is better than nothing.

Or perhaps some people think that those harms are bogus or misleading claims that rely on junk science.

The tobaccco industry pretty succesfully peddled that line when the debate was over first hand smoking. Sadly for them, the vast majority of peer reviewed studies (which admittedly doesn't include those published on the fox news website) find that SHS is a significant risk factor for lung cancer in non-smokers (increasing it by around 20-30% over the baseline risk).

It was interesting anecdote where I live. We passed a city-wide smoking ban in restaurants and bars. The bar owners were up in arms claiming they'd lose revenue. What actually happened was the opposite: bars and restaurants got MORE patrons and revenues jumped by double digits within months of the ban.

Turns out, families like to eat at restaurants too.

It also turned out that crime rates around bars went down slightly too. Seems that some of the smoking patrons of the bars didn't stay as long and tended to drink a little less. This sounds bad at first for revenue, but actually turn-over went up.

There were some "fringe" bars and restaurants in neighboring locals that did see an increase in traffic from smokers leaving the city, but that was offset by patrons leaving those other locales to come to the smoke-free establishments.

Fact is, this might be one of those instances where regulation does BETTER than the markets.

People are in denial about the long-term. They think they will be like their uncle Joe, who smoked like a chimney and lived until he was 90. They don't look at actuarial tables. They don't think they are just like everyone else.

From what I have read most people, including reenager smokers, tend to think smoking is more dangerous than it really is, as in they think it is more likely to give them lung cancer than the average rate for smokers really is. The ones that smoke value the short term pleasure over the long term costs. Here is the abstract from one paper about this by Petter Lundborg and Björn Lindgren.

Brian, the large majority of teenagers cannot buy cigarettes legally. And the price of a single pack isn't prohibitive, anyway; it's buying them daily once hooked that's expensive. I doubt that anyone takes up smoking with the idea that s/he won't be able to stop, or calculates in advance of the habit what three packs a day for life will run.

how do you think teenagers get cigarettes? either someone buys them for them or someone gives them to them. either way someone is paying for the cigarettes...either the teen themselves or the 3rd party. both events are less likely as the price of a pack rises. you can't get addicted to something you have no access too. and yes, as the cost of addiction rises, less teens will be able to afford the addiction. this should be common sense when one considers that most teens do not have an unlimited supply of money.

however, people do take into effect the long term opportunity costs when deciding when to quit. hence the second part of my post which you conveniently ignored.

We're talking about a country in which there are masses of people addicted to substances banned by law and quite a bit more expensive than tobacco will ever be short of outright prohibition or a tax sufficient to produce an organized black market. If cost (legal and monetary) were an effective barrier, there'd be no coke or heroin addicts.

this argument is a nonstarter. how many people smoke cigarettes? how many people shoot up heroin? given that heroin is vastly more addictive, why don't more people use heroin vs. cigarettes? statistics obviously are not your friend.

(cost can also never deter absolutely everyone)

Violent criminal acts differ from second hand smoke (and similarly, from the serving of trans-fatty foods to patrons) in that they are serious harms, and private protection would be much more costly on the whole than collective state protection.

By this reasoning, if there was a subculture of people who thought that the perfect accompaniment to a meal was to slap a random bystander in the face, the government would have no business stopping them. After all, slaps don't cause serious harm. And surely the free market would eventually lead customers to flock to restaurants where the owner forbids slapping other customers--there's really no reason to get the government involved, is there?

Michelle,

Very interesting points.

I'm just trying to point out the tension in the argument for high tobacco taxes. The more addictive nicotine is, the more insidious the tobacco trade is. But the stronger the addiction, the more clearly a high tax is going to do no more than punish further a bunch of wretched addicts who have no choice but to pay whatever they have to to get the fix. If the tax actually results in lots of people quitting, OTOH, it's evidence that this isn't a consuming addiction, but rather the sort of habit easily broken by a modest financial incentive.

One thing is that from my experience (I don't smoke, but I have family members and friends that do) the level of addiction varies a lot from person to person.

I have a friend who smokes only when we go out to a bar or a club and he drinks. He doesn't smoke at other times. I have family members who smoke much more often, especially when they are stressed out about something.

So, I don't think we can proceed with a model that assumes that everyone will respond in an identical way to taxes.

Some people will not change their consumption of cigarettes at all in response to higher taxes. Some people will finally decide to quit. Some people will reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke.

Some people who smoke are quite addicted. Others who smoke are not as strongly attached to smoking (i.e. my friend who only smokes when he drinks).

If cost (legal and monetary) were an effective barrier, there'd be no coke or heroin addicts.

I am not sure what you mean by the phrase "effective barrier." Can a barrier be effective if it merely reduces the consumption of a substance, or must it eliminate it entirely?

My own view is that reducing the amount of smoking that occurs is a good thing and that cigarette taxes are likely to have that effect. I do not think that taxes will entirely eliminate smoking.

The second reason is what is scary about the prospect of universal healthcare. Many people believe in aspects of Mill's harm principle. With the socialization of health care costs, however, activities that once were thought of as harmless to others (e.g., smoking, riding a motorcycle without a helmet) are now activities that inflict tangible harm on others (i.e., this activity is dangerous to you health, and when you are injured, my costs go up as well--thus, i am harmed by your act).

This same logic applies to private insurance as well. It also applies if no one has insurance and everyone pays everything out of pocket.

Smokey: "...It's the cigarette smell that gets into clothes and hair that is objectionable to most folks...."

and THAT is why I smoke cigars! :)

Brian Mac wrote at 12.4.2008 3:20pm:

...the vast majority of peer reviewed studies (which admittedly doesn't include those published on the fox news website) ...

Of course no such study was published on the Fox News link I provided. Nor did I say one was. The Fox News website published a report of a bogus study by a government funded anti-smoking zealot, which was presented to the American College of Cardiology, then disappeared from circulation when its validity was questioned.

Smokey,

First of all, it probably is not a good idea to have a discussion about cigarette use with someone who calls themselves "Smokey." =)

Second, have you heard of a Pigovian tax? I think that, all things being equal, it is better to raise tax revenue by taxing things that are bad (i.e. smoking), than things that are good (i.e. income from working).

Of course, Pigovian taxes can be criticized on the grounds that they are somewhat regressive. I think we should take that criticism seriously, but I do not think it is a decisive criticism in many cases.

You write:

If tobacco is so evil, then abolish it completely.

This is a silly argument. First, abolishing cigarettes completely might result in an illegal trade that has all sorts of unintended consequences. Second, one need not choose between two extremes. Would I be happy if everyone quit smoking tomorrow? You bet. But, I think the more prudent course might be to take actions to encourage better behavior rather than force it.

When humans started living under shelter and discovered fire, indoor smoke was heavy and pervasive. Chimneys were not even invented until the Middle Ages, but people constantly used indoor fires for cooking and warmth. Breathing smoke was a routine, every day occurrence.

as expected from smokey, this is a very poor argument. what was the average lifespan when humans lived in caves? what is the average lifespan now? what is the average age that people are diagnosed with lung cancer?

Re: Only the rich will be free in the future. The masses will be controlled and most will like it.

I rather doubt it. The long history of morals legislation, from Augustus' sex laws to medieval sumptuary laws to America's Prohibition fiasco, is that such laws are mainly honored in the breach. People just tend to thumb their noses when they are directed from on high to better their lives.

Re: Better question is why we have Medicaid and Medicare.

Because there's no such thing as unpaid bill (that's as close to an ironclad law as you are likely to find in economics). If people can't pay their healthcare bills then the rest of us will be paying them one way or another.

I mean if you accept that second hand smoke is harmful

The matter is degree. If second hand smoke at work is less dangerous to your health than your commute to work then a ban for health reasons is BS.

In Minnesota a lot of working class mom and pop beer joints went el foldo after the ban. Doubly safe now, no smoke and no commute.

This is an extremely easy thing for modern day forensic archeologists to determine as long as the lungs are still present to some degree.

this is a rather big assumption as lungs are tissue and tissue degrades fairly quickly. but your argument also rests on the assumption that lung cancer is present when they die at a relatively young age. it most likely isn't. and if it is, it is likely very small which would be difficult to detect on partially decomposed lungs. same goes for COPD/asthma changes.

People back then, despite their exposure to large amounts of smoke on a fairly regular basis, don't seem to have died from that.

of course not. my point was they typically died at a younger age of other causes than they would have died from smoking complications.

Ok, that is valid, but YOUR car gives off more CO in 1/8 of a second than a pack of cigarettes does..... Doesn't this beg a question or two? How about the sheer number of carcinogens that are present in car exhaust? You breathe this 24/7....... not just while you are present in a bar.

and coal power plants have them all beat. but how many people do you see wrapping their mouth around a cars exhaust pipe to breath? (and yes, the contents of a cars exhausts are regulated to some extent to decrease toxicity).

Just some food for thought
and yet i'm still quite hungry.

This doesn't make any sense to me. If nonsmoker consumers live longer lives and get lung cancer less often, that is surely a benefit that matters. Any sort of algorithm that denies this is a benefit is a little ridiculous.

I realize that I'm talking to the same person who think it's somehow respectful of someone's dignity to ignore what they want, so it's therefore a waste to respond, but what the heck.

Any "algorithm" that substitutes your preferences for those of the person involved is a lot ridiculous.

And your paean to life is rather belied by your preference for letting people die rather than allowing organs to be sold.

Just wanted to point out that smokers and the obese cost less in health care costs over their lifetime than non-smokers.

Citation: van Baal PHM, Polder JJ, de Wit GA, Hoogenveen RT, Feenstra TL, et al. (2008) Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure. PLoS Med 5(2): e29 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050029

Is it Brian K, M.D., or Prof. of Statistics Brian K?

I just want to know, to be sure you're not peddling *ahem*... well, you know.

And I'm real sorry that the planet isn't cooperating with the globaloney contingent.

Is someone seriously arguing that the campfire smoke our ancestors presumably inhaled in a cave is equivalent to cigarette smoke with its hundreds of ingredients and additives?

I'm a pathologist. I hate cigarette smoke because it inflames my sinuses and irritates my eyes. Despite my dislike of cigarettes, I state here that second-hand does not increase the risks of lung disease, lung cancer, or heart disease. None of those claims has ever been proved (though there were many badly designed studies in this field that said otherwise), even for nonsmoking spouses who lived with smokers for decades. The only proven health risk for second-hand smoke is that it irritates the lungs in asthmatics and can trigger an acute need for inhaled medications.

Given the lack of proof that second-hand smoke is dangerous (as opposed to annoying), I see no compelling reason for governments to ban smoking within private businesses such as stores, restaurants, malls, bars, conference centers, etc.

Brian Mac wrote at 12.4.2008 3:20pm:

The tobaccco industry pretty succesfully peddled that line when the debate was over first hand smoking. Sadly for them, the vast majority of peer reviewed studies (which admittedly doesn't include those published on the fox news website) find that SHS is a significant risk factor for lung cancer in non-smokers (increasing it by around 20-30% over the baseline risk).

So what? In risk analysis, baseline matters. In fact, risk probability increase of less than 100% percent is often inconsequential, and can be entirely meaningless when considered alongside competing risks.

For example, a friend of mine just decided not to endure months of agonizing chemotherapy following removal of a non-metastatic but malign tumor (unrelated to smoking).

The docs told him that based on currently accepted statistics, without chemotherapy there is a 5% probability that a tumor of the same type will recur within 5-10 years. But he would reduce the risk to 3% by enduring chemotherapy, puking his guts out several times a day, losing muscle tone and hair, and feeling like he's in a centrifuge all day for 6 months.

The untreated risk probability is 1.66 times the treated risk. That's a 66% increase. So, the doc urged him to endure chemo.

My friend said his decision to halt chemotherapy was a no-brainer.

Let's try that again since the built in link feature didn't seem to do what I thought it would.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGJrlFH_qTg&feature=related

Crichton Link relevant to smoking bans