Almost Had Me

After the incredibly fun week of back and forth over Global Warming, my arch nemesis Orac posted a follow-up, in regards to my question on Second Hand Smoke. He wrote:

“Certainly indoor smoking bans at workplaces and in restaurants and bars are defensible on a scientific and public health basis.”

In full disclosure, I’ve been opposed to smoking bans, since day one. I’ve got myself in trouble a couple times being civilly disobedient, and once I even made the 10:00 News in Minnesota, leading a smoking rally. (BTW: I will be back in Minneapolis October 2 - 6, the week after the Minnesota State ban goes in effect .,.. Stay Tuned!). I also tend to spend more time talking politics with right wing people (since all my leftist friends refuse to do it anymore). My slant is admittedly going to be on the side of the tobacco companies. At least,I admit my bias.

It always frustrates me when people only see that bias. Of course there is the corporate position. A company that has enriched itself providing a legal product that people enjoy, is going to take the side of themselves and their customers. And people DO want cigarettes. There is this peculiar notion, that every person who smokes is hopelessly addicted, and would quit tomorrow if it were possible. That is simply not true. Some people just like smoking. They know its unhealthy, but which of us non-smokers is completely guiltless when it comes to other self destructive behaviors, like drinking, overeating, and a negligent exercise schedule?

On the other side of the debate, is a motivation far more insidious. It is a desire for power. Many people who see the debate as manipulated solely by tobacco money, never look at that angle, nor recognize that for some, power is far more seductive than profit. There was a very power-hungry person, who once advocated smoke free workplaces. He is the one who cannot be named. (Not because there are dark powers associated with the name, it is because current protocol dictates that the first person to invoke his name, automatically loses the debate ... spend a little time playing with you Googler, and I’m sure you’ll figure it out.) But I think it’s no coincidence that one of the worlds’ most infamous megalomaniacs, didn’t want people smoking around him.

The reason why I am suspicious of things like Second Hand Smoke, and Global Warming is not because I am anti-science. I actually enjoy science. I spent some time in college studying it, (and if I hadn’t decided I like beer and girls better, I might be studying it still.) Actually, I am anti regulation, and anytime somebody tells me that science has proven a need to regulate my life, I get really suspicious. When I asked Orac if he could send me some links to prove the negative health consequences of smoking, I was genuinely curious. He wasn’t the first person I asked. However he was the first person who provided me with some.

I stayed in the background throughout the debate, because I didn’t want to embarrass myself again. I also didn’t have to join in. Somehow, from out of ether, came a swarm of angry bloggers, ready to call Orac on the carpet. He had to write two follow-ups, one on relative risk, and another on the famous Helena Study. He even did a fourth article on the effects of smoking on Parkinson’s Disease. I looked at what he had to say, and what his multitudinous opponents had to say in return. It was highly educational.

Here’s what I learned: There are studies that suggest a health risk from second hand smoke. The risk factor depends on whether you’re looking at lung or cardiovascular, and whether the person lived with a smoker, or worked around a lot smokers. It varies from 1.2 to 1.3. (Notice, that there is no study to indicate that standing next to someone smoking at a bus stop, or in the house next door, will have ANY impact on your health.)

I had known that somewhat. But from what I had been told, any risk under 2.0, is negligible. Orac corrected those who suggested such a thing. Apparently there is no practice within epidemiology (the study of stuff like this) to discount such statistics. According to him, there has been a propaganda campaign (most probably orchestrated from inside the tobacco companies) to discredit SHS studies, and a list of suspicious quotes discrediting epidemiological studies under 2.0, has been circulating the Internet. I had to throw in the towel at this point. I’ve never studied Epidemiology, and I have to take his word for it. If he says a risk below 2.0 is significant, it is significant. I guess I was wrong.

I was going to write him a note telling him so, until I ran across this. Apparently, a recent study found there is an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease for people who drink a can of pop every day. And look at that risk rate. Over 1.4. Now granted this is just one isolated study, and Orac stressed the need to look at isolated studies without a biologically plausible mechanism skeptically, but it really puts things in perspective. Apparently the risk of getting heart trouble from second hand smoke, is almost identical to drinking a can of pop every day. So working in a smoky bar, is as bad for you as a can of pop. In fact, since most people who work in bars have access to the soda gun, there is a good chance that every non-smoker in those SHS studies, drank a glass or two of pop every single day.

So have I changed my mind? Yes and no. I can no longer defend the statement; “There is no science finding adverse health consequences from second hand smoke.” But is there enough danger in second hand smoke, to pass sweeping legislation? Not really.

Especially since that legislation has resulted in the bankruptcy of hundreds of small business owners. I honestly don’t understand why every bar has to be non smoking. I think that owners, customers and employees are all capable of making such a decision on their own, whether they want to subject themselves to a slightly elevated risk of cancer and heart disease. Certainly when smokers were forced to decide between drinking at home, or going to a non-smoking bar, they just opted to stay home.

But I wouldn’t expect Orac to understand. Some people just don’t care about the plight of the average Joe. To them it’s just about the numbers. It’s why I often find myself butting heads with Statists. I care more about the impact of Global Warming legislation on the economy today, than I worry about a projected 23 inches of ocean rise. I am more concerned about the real loss incurred by bar owners, than some mythological non-smoking waitress, who couldn’t find work anywhere else. But these people let their egos run out of control, and presuppose they know more than the individual business owners.

Orac wrote: “ There's nothing inherent in the work required in bars or restaurants that demands exposure to SHS, other than tradition.”

It’s beyond tradition, it’s why many people go into a bar in the first place. A place to smoke and drink. What he said is almost as ridiculous as as saying: “There is no reason to add Tequilla to a Margarita, other than tradition.” or “I just don’t see why exotic dancers need to take all their clothes off.”

This whole argument started over a bit I did, about how scientists probably got beat up on the dodgeball court when they were kids. I was trying to illustrate how some nerdy kids will grow up bitter with a disregard for humanity, and they disguise this disregard as logic. Orac started this thread disputing my allegation.

He might think that a bar should be able to survive, just by providing a place to drink, but statistics prove otherwise. At least a hundred families in Minnesota have lost their life investment, and at least a thousand more people are now out looking for work. Meanwhile there has been a recession in the various industries surrounding food and beverage in the Twin Cities.
How could anyone think that is, an acceptable sacrifice? Or maybe nobody really does. Maybe they are just getting even for Dodgeball.

entire post