Passive Smoking Doesn't Cause Cancer

By Victoria Macdonald, Health Correspondent

 

THE world's leading health organisation has withheld from publication a study which shows that not only might there be no link between passive smoking and lung cancer but that it could even have a protective effect.

 

The astounding results are set to throw wide open the debate on passive smoking health risks. The World Health Organisation, which commissioned the 12-centre, seven-country European study has failed to make the findings public, and has instead produced only a summary of the results in an internal report.

 

Despite repeated approaches, nobody at the WHO headquarters in Geneva would comment on the findings last week. At its International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France, which coordinated the study, a spokesman would say only that the full report had been submitted to a science journal and no publication date had been set.

 

The findings are certain to be an embarrassment to the WHO, which has spent years and vast sums on anti-smoking and anti-tobacco campaigns. The study is one of the largest ever to look at the link between passive smoking - or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) - and lung cancer, and had been eagerly awaited by medical experts and campaigning groups.

 

Yet the scientists have found that there was no statistical evidence that passive smoking caused lung cancer. The research compared 650 lung cancer patients with 1,542 healthy people. It looked at people who were married to smokers, worked with smokers, both worked and were married to smokers, and those who grew up with smokers.

 

The results are consistent with their being no additional risk for a person living or working with a smoker and could be consistent with passive smoke having a protective effect against lung cancer. The summary, seen by The Telegraph, also states: "There was no association between lung cancer risk and ETS exposure during childhood."

 

A spokesman for Action on Smoking and Health said the findings "seem rather surprising given the evidence from other major reviews on the subject which have shown a clear association between passive smoking and a number of diseases." Roy Castle, the jazz musician and television presenter who died from lung cancer in 1994, claimed that he contracted the disease from years of inhaling smoke while performing in pubs and clubs.

 

A report published in the British Medical Journal last October was hailed by the anti-tobacco lobby as definitive proof when it claimed that non-smokers living with smokers had a 25 per cent risk of developing lung cancer. But yesterday, Dr Chris Proctor, head of science for BAT Industries, the tobacco group, said the findings had to be taken seriously. "If this study cannot find any statistically valid risk you have to ask if there can be any risk at all.

 

"It confirms what we and many other scientists have long believed, that while smoking in public may be annoying to some non-smokers, the science does not show that being around a smoker is a lung-cancer risk." The WHO study results come at a time when the British Government has made clear its intention to crack down on smoking in thousands of public places, including bars and restaurants.

 

The Government's own Scientific Committee on Smoking and Health is also expected to report shortly - possibly in time for this Wednesday's National No Smoking day - on the hazards of passive smoking.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive/1998/03/08/wtob08.html

 

 

 

 

I just received an e-mail asking me to sign a petition to ban smoking in a public places and all businesses in the state of Wisconsin. I could not be more furious…

 

 

While "Second-hand smoke" sounds terrible, and indeed cigarette smoke is certainly not the healthiest thing in the world, here are several reasons why a state-wide smoking ban is an absolutely terrible idea. While a ban of smoking on airplanes and in the office aren't the worst thing in the world (although I would argue completely unnecessary because of the free-market), a smoking ban on restaurants and taverns would be an absolute travesty. Here is why:

 

 

1) We (allegedly) live in a free country. Up until recently, property owners have had the freedom to make their own rules for what people can and cannot do on their property. This would include businesses such as restaurants and bars.

 

2) The slippery-slope argument. It might sound cliché, but... if you allow government to ban smoking completely, then what's next? They're already banning trans-fats in some cities, and other politicians are talking about banning fast-food altogether. Do we really need the government to tell us what to eat? How about what to drive? What to wear? Where to live? So much for a "free" country.

 

3) Any time you enable the government by giving it more power and authority, you therefore strip away the rights of the individual citizens. One of the reasons America is the greatest country in the world is because we are free here. Free from government intrusion in our lives. Free to make our own decisions. Do you really want the government to protect us from failure and danger? If people aren't free to fail, then they aren't free to succeed.

 

Liberals support bans and taxes as a means to justify the ends. Liberals, Socialists, and Communists want equality for everyone. This sounds great. Everyone is equal. But what this means is that you can never be better than anyone else. You can never make more money, get a bigger house, a nicer car than anyone else. Why? Just so that people who aren't as successful have just as much wealth as those who are successful. This is the liberal definition of fair.

 

The conservative definition of fairness is providing every single American an equal opportunity to succeed. Liberals want the game to end in a tie. Conservatives want both teams to start with the same score. Think about that a few more times.

 

 

4) I personally think that smoking is gross and I certainly don’t enjoy second-hand smoke. But I don’t force my will on everyone else. That's why instead of pushing a smoking ban, I simply ask to sit in the non-smoking section. Some people claim this isn't good enough. You know what? Tell the manager; they will move you to the far corner of the restaurant. The brilliance of the free market is that it always works, unlike government mandates. As more and more people dislike smoking, restaurants (private businesses and property owners) will THEMSELVES elect to go smoke-free.

 

5) Until that time, however, these business owners derive a significant amount of income from clientele who come to socialize and smoke. Banning smoking in these types of environments will just kill those businesses. Most restaurants will suffer considerably, and many--if not most--bars will be critically damaged. Cutting even 10% or 20% of the income to a business is usually enough to kill it.

 

6) In the event that these businesses do start to lose customers because of a government ban, they will either go out of business or raise money. Who benefits in those situations? The workers who they were trying to protect from evil smoke are now unemployed. The customers now have nowhere to go to socialize and spend their money which would have helped grow the economy to keep our country prosperous.

 

7) Now these workers will be collecting unemployment in an ever-less-prosperous country. The government not only gains authority by banning things that are bad for us, but now they are responsible for paying our unemployment when they kill our jobs. Is there anything that the government DOESN'T do???

 

8) What about the people who work outside in the sun all day, the people who develop back problems from physical stress, or the people who have to lift heavy objects, etc.? Should not the government, by the same logic, protect these workers from these conditions? Why not? You may think that smoking is different. But how? At this rate, there will come a time when the government will ban people from working outside more than 4 hours a day and ban people from lifting objects heavier than 20 pounds. So much for freedom.

 

9) In the end, all of these workers are free to quit if they don't like the smoke. All of these customers are free to avoid the tavern if the smoke bothers them. And as more and more people do this, the business owner will, ON HIS OWN, change his policies. This is the beauty of the free market. It doesn't guarantee "equality of outcome", but it does ensure freedom and liberty by empowering the people. Some people don't like to be empowered because it comes with more responsibility. They'd rather the government run and insure their lives. But this lifestyle is not for me. No thank you.

 

10) Lastly, and perhaps most importantly: Think of the hundreds of thousands of war vets out there, from WWII to Vietnam and beyond. They are all getting very old. They want to enjoy what is left of their lives. They want to go out at night and on the weekends with their friends and have a good time. They want to go out and play cards, or if possible, they want to go bowling or golfing. They want to have a drink or a beer while doing this. And they want to have a smoke or enjoy a cigar. I have no doubt that for countless thousands of war vets, this is one way that they enjoy their lives. Now the pretentious, arrogant, know-what's-good-for-you, government steps in and tells these brave men, "Sorry, you can't smoke here. Smoking is banned in all taverns. I know it's 11:30 PM and everyone at this bar wants to smoke, but the government thinks it's bad for you and your friends." or "I'm sorry sir, you can't smoke your cigar on this golf course because it's bad for the people you are golfing with and for the greens-keepers who could get second-hand smoke". Do you see the absurdity in that? Moreover, do you see how insulting it is to our veterans who have risked their lives, been injured, and who have seen their closest friends DIE, just to ensure that we remain a free country and so that we can keep our liberty???

 

These vets did a great job of protecting our country from FOREIGN governments. Too bad there's nothing they can do protect themselves from their OWN.