My take on Second Hand Smoke
I've never smoked in my life. The only time I ever put a cigarette in my mouth is to light them by puffing on it so I could then remove the filter and place the cigarette on the fuse of an M80 as a makeshift timer back when I was young and childish. All in all, you can call me a non-smoker.
As a matter of fact, I hate smoke. I hate the way it smells, the way it permeates my clothes, the way it seems to make my eyes water, and, well, basically, I hate the very concept of smoke. Anyway, there are many reasons to hate second hand smoke.(SHS). Now, as much as I hate SHS, I also hate the battlecry anti-smokers use against SHS, that it is dangerous to non-smokers' health and gives you cancer.
What does that mean? It means this rant speaks in favor of smokers. This rant is probably going to get a lot of anti-smokers angry, but it doesn't bother me at all. I'm hoping that, despite this rant making anti-smokers angry, it would also many of them think, that, perhaps, there is more truth to what I'm writing than what they have been taught by so many in society.
I've had many debates with people about SHS smoke, most of them ending with similar results, the people getting angry at me and simply dismissing me. Gee, nothing seems to solidify one's belief like the casual dismissal of anyone willing to argue against you.
It seems odd, that I, a person that hates the very concept of smoking, would speak in favor of smoking in this instance. However, because I'm always in a never ending quest for knowledge, I've checked into the effects of SHS and realized that the facts indicate that the effects of SHS have been grossly exaggerated.
Most people believe it's common knowledge that second hand smoke causes cancer. You can basically walk up to some random person and ask them about what the dangers of SHS are, and they will probably tell you it will give you cancer. Even though it seems like common knowledge, as a person who would always question everything, I came to question that very belief. From my point of view, the authority of the many (the millions in this case) doesn't necessarily outweigh the reasoning of one.
The main battlecry of anti-smokers is 'I don't care if you smoke. I care when you're imposing the risks of your smoking upon me through your second hand smoke'. However, have you guys every taken a step back and wondered if that battlecry actually holds any water? To see if what they say is actually true?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did a study on the effects of SHS back in 1993. The study told of how approximately 3,000 non-smokers die from lung cancer which is attributed to SHS. That result was basically the catalyst that opened the floodgates for anti-smokers to scream for regulations against smoking.
Here's something you might find interesting. In 1998, the United States Federal Court threw out those test results, stating that it 'cherry picked' its data and that it didn't follow scientific procedures to come out with an objective result. Basically, the EPA lied about their results and the Federal Court found out and threw out those results. In a sense, to refer to SHS causing cancer is basically referring to test results thrown out in courts.
When the results of the EPA came out back in 1993, the public believed it. Afterall, why shouldn't we believe the EPA? This is the same association that regulates the food we eat. Then again, this is also the same EPA that claimed the air around the post-9/11 World Trade Center was breathable so workers could go back to ground zero to start cleaning up the debris and are now suffering from respiratory problems several years later. Anyway, because everyone believed what the EPA said, anti-smoking groups now have a battlecry and have been using this battlecry before the Federal Court finally came in and threw out those findings.
Did that do anything? No. Why? Because the damage has been done. For the 5 years from when the test results were announced to the time it was thrown out in court, we have been bombarded with the belief that SHS causes cancer. This belief has been instilled upon us that SHS is dangerous for us. Basically, even though evidence shows that SHS is statistically insignificant, this belief has been instilled upon to such an extent that we most likely refuse to believe otherwise. Bottom line is that the Federal Court's intervention came too late. The damage was done.
The damage that has been done is no different than, say, the Michael Jackson case. Even though he was acquitted of charges that he molested that boy, people still consider him a child molester. Think of it, the prosecution could not prove that he molested that boy, but people are still convinced otherwise, believing that the prosecution didn't do a thorough enough investigation. To all the people that believe this, it's too bad they weren't on the prosecution's team because it seems like they knew that one piece of damaging evidence, possessed the ability to see the truth that no one else on the team could, that would have put Michael Jackson away. Unfortunately, because they weren't part of the prosecution team, Michael Jackson went free, right? Anyway, it doesn't really matter that Michael Jackson was acquitted. The fact of the matter is is that even though he was acquitted, the damage was done and will most likely never go away. If you make a decision based on evidence, or lack of evidence, it's understandable that he should be acquitted. The same would apply to the Kobe Bryant's rape case. Even though he was acquitted, people will still believe he raped that woman and disregard those acquittal charges. I guess they fail to recall that, in court, you're innocent until proven guilty. If Michael Jackson is innocent until proven guilty, and he couldn't be proven guilty, doesn't that mean he's innocent?
I'm sure you guys are wondering if I think Michael Jackson did it or not. All I know is that I couldn't care less if he's innocent or not. I can entertain the belief that he's guilty as well as the belief that he's innocent. I simply don't care about either beliefs. I just know I like some of his songs. To me, that's all that matters.
Anti-smokers will argue that there are associations out there like the American Heart and Lung Association and the American Cancer Society and such that adamantly tell you that SHS causes cancer. Surely, they're associations you should believe in because they have no reason to lie to you, right? Well, didja know that these associations use the results of the EPA as their primary source, the SAME result that was thrown out in Federal Court?
It's tantamount to me lying to someone about a fact and that person relaying that fact to you. Down the line, you find out that I lied but don't care. Why? Because you're being told the same fact from someone else, the person I originally lied to.
Should you believe something like the American Cancer Society, where they have claimed up to 53,000 lives attributed to SHS? I doubt it considering they came upon that figure not through testing but through an anti-smoker 'spokesman' named Stanton Glantz. Who is Stanton Glantz? He's the founder of Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights, an avid anti-tobacco spokesman. Hm, do you think the American Cancer Society might have some kinda anti-smoking agenda considering it gets its figures from the founder of an anti-smoking association? I wonder what figures the American Cancer Society would use if they used figures from a pro-smoker founder of a pro-smoking association?
I was talking to someone recently about SHS and he brought up a point that it's been a long time since 1999 (The time since the Federal Court's dismissal of the EPA's test results), that surely there have been tests done since then that had shown a link between SHS and cancer. Well, I took this to heart and decided to do some more research. Maybe the person has a point, that I'm behind on the times, that more recent tests have been performed that proved the connection between SHS and cancer. What I found seems to indicate otherwise.
There was a massive study done on SHS and its link with cancer and heart disease. It was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology. The study covers 37 years of testing where thousands of flight attendants were followed and monitored for cancer. Before you go "WTF? Smoking is banned on airplane flights! That will skew the resulte" you should also know that airplane flights permitted smoking all the way until the mid-90s. So, if you want to talk in terms of numbers, since it's been many years of non-smoking on airplane flights, then that means these flight attendants were exposed to SHS for around 30 years of the 37 year testing. This doesn't even take into account that not all chartered flights have banned smoking.
The test wasn't based on questionnaires like 'Does anyone in your family smoke?' nor was it started and finished within the span of a few months. This was an extensive test. The study was funded by neither tobacco companies nor anti-smoking associations nor public health funds. Basically, it was funded by nothing that would sway the results in favor or against SHS.
One may try and link that SHS exposure and breast cancer. Afterall, there has been studies that shows a link between SHS and breast cancer in women. Unfortunately, after a bit of digging, it seems like these studies were funded by none other than American Cancer Society, the same society funded by Anti-Smoking organizations. The only thing the anti-smokers can do against something like that is to claim that the test done proving there is no connection between SHS and breast cancer was funded by tobacco companies. Too bad that that won't work as tests points toward there being no link.
To me, anti-smokers shitting on smokers and banning smoking is tantamount to anti-teenagers shitting on all teenagers and upping the minimum requirement for driving. Afterall, SHS cancer can be prevented by the removal of smoking. Preventable vehicle deaths could be prevented by the removal of teenage drivers. Granted, people would argue that they have nothing in common since driving is a privilege and smoking is a right, but one should also take into consideration that there are tests that prove teenagers are more likely to cause accidents so upping the age limit will result in decreased vehicular deaths dramatically. The same can't be said for banning of smoke and the decrease of cancer with SHS as it hasn't been proven that there is a major concern between SHS and cancer.
The dangers of SHS is statistically insignificant and the battlecry that anti-smokers use against smoking, that it causes cancer, is an outright lie if you work out the numbers. More people die because of driving while on the cellphone than from SHS. If people want to complain about something more dangerous, then they should spend more time banning driving while on a cellphone, right?
The banning of smoke is not out of concern over one's own welfare due to SHS. The banning is because of our dislike of the smell of smoke. Since the thought of banning something because of its smell seems completely idiotic, that's why anti-smokers rely upon the belief that it gives cancer. It holds more weight. Think of how idiotic you would sound presenting a bill banning smoke by saying "I wish to pass a bill banning smoking in public places because many non-smokers don't like the smell of it" People will just laugh at you. I'm sure because such a justification to pass a bill like that would never occur, that's why anti-smokers go with the 'It causes cancer' spin on things. "I wish to pass a bill banning smoking in public places because it is a health hazard and causes cancer due to second hand smoke". Now that sounds a whole lot better even though evidence indicates that it's untrue.
One might argue that having no smoke around does lessen your risk of cancer, that even a miniscule decrease in risk of cancer should be good enough. The problem is that if you want to go down that approach, you should contemplate legislating to have all stores have closed shades on their front windows to prevent the chance of skin cancer for the customers inside since there has been linked results between the sun and skin cancer. Afterall, the amount of money a store loses in paying to put in curtains is a lot less than the amount of money a restaurant loses because smokers can't smoke there.
Exposure to second hand smoke in homes raised the risk of lung cancer to 1.16 which represents a 16%. (1.00 means no risk) Granted, 16% seems like a significant percentage to the everyday person, but what you need to take into consideration is that the admitted margin of error is so wide--0.93 to 1.44--that the true risk ratio could be less than one, making second-hand smoke a health benefit. It might make sense as tests showed that there is a 22% DECREASE in lung cancer with children exposed to SHS. Granted, while 16% and 22% are of no real significant value, if you want to disregard that and pretend those numbers mean something, then the 22% decrease is more significant than the 16% increase you're so concerned about. With tests like these, only upwards of 200% risk increase are considered worthy of concern. I dunno about you, but 16% seems like nothing if 200% is the number we should be looking for. It's like you needing me to give you two dollars to buy something and I can only come up with sixteen cents.
If people truly believe SHS causes cancer, then it shouldn't be so hard to provide the name of a couple of people that have 'Second Hand Smoke' as the cause of death on their death certificates. Afterall, lung cancer is the number one cancer causing death. There are, what, over 150,000 people that die of lung cancer a year, right? And there are around 40,000 people that die of breast cancer. Well, with that many deaths, you should be able to pick out a person or two that had died of SHS from a list of around 190,000 cancer deaths.
I like to believe I have great integrity. As much as I dislike something, that being smoke, I believe I have enough integrity to see through the lies and be able to act accordingly with the information I have come across. I'm not the kind of person that will readily accept something as truth just because someone says so. When I see someone making the claim that SHS causes cancer, it leads me to believe that these people are simply spewing out the what they have been told believe. Afterall, if you just believe in something you're automatically told, it's much easier since you won't have to go through the work of looking things up, comparing notes, and then coming to a conclusion based on the information you dug up on your own.
Granted, SHS probably does cause cancer, but it is so marginally insignificant that if you worry about SHS to such an extent, then I suggest you start bitching at people to turn off their loud music because it damages your hearing. Also, to help put things in perspective, Japan has the highest smokers prevalence at around 59%. They also have the highest life expectancy, coming in at around 76.5. Even though there are other factors that could mean for higher life expectancy, the numbers are there for everyone to speak. The common belief that smoking and SHS decreases your life expectancy seems false if you just look at the numbers. How can a country that has more than double the percentage of smokers than that of the USA have a higher life expectancy? Granted, it mostly has to do with their eating habits, but still, how come there aren't people dropping left and right from cancer due to SHS?
I'm sure anti-smokers will be angry at me because I am now giving very solid arguments against their belief that SHS causes cancer. Let it be known that I will agree with you about how much SHS sucks. I just don't agree with you when you decide to use the cancer bit as a reason to hate SHS.
Based on the facts, SHS is insignificant and not a health risk. The problem is that anti-smokers are using this health risk to hide behind the real reason they want to get rid of smoking, because they don't like smoke. To ban something because someone doesn't like it is wrong. It's no different than seeing me legislating to ban button-mashers from gamerooms because they mess up my pace if they ever play against me.
Anyway, that's my take on second hand smoke.