I guess that I have to say you told me so.
"You told me so."
Blog readers who predicted that car smoking bans to protect children from secondhand smoke were merely a prelude to smoking bans in the home were apparently correct.
Earlier this week, health officials in the North West of England revealed that they are considering plans to push for a ban on smoking in homes with children, according to an article in the Liverpool Daily Post.
According to the article: "Californian-style bans on smoking in homes where young children live are being considered by North West health bosses, the Daily Post can reveal. A high-level conference with health and public sector officials has decided that action needed to be taken to protect children who are “forcibly exposed” to second-hand smoke. Having successfully led the way in campaigning for a national smoking ban in public places, influential figures from the North West have now turned their attention to the other areas where children inhale tobacco fumes. One option raised at the conference, held in Manchester last week, was to campaign for legislation which bans smoking in homes where young children live. ... Speaking at the conference, Beverley Hughes, minister for children, young people and families said: “We have achieved a lot with the introduction of smoke-free public places, but smoking is still a major cause of preventable illness and early death for the people of the North West. “We need to drive home the message that it is unacceptable to expose children and young people to second-hand smoke.”"
The Rest of the Story
I have to admit that my blog readers were right when they opined that the push to ban smoking in cars with children was just a prelude to a more profoundly intrusive effort - that to ban smoking in the private home with children. It appears that the California-style car smoking ban idea has spread internationally, and has expanded to now include a consideration of banning smoking not only in private vehicles with children, but in the home as well.
I also have to admit that anti-smoking advocates who support such a policy are acting in a more consistent and less hypocritical manner than those who merely support a ban on smoking in cars. If you believe that it is reasonable for the government to interfere with parental autonomy merely to protect children from the risk of adverse health outcomes, then there is no reason to stop at banning smoking in private vehicles. In fact, secondhand smoke exposure in the home is a far more serious public health problem; thus, it becomes incumbent upon you to also promote smoking bans in the homes of children.
Alas - this is a line that we should not cross. Once we accept the responsibility of taking over parental autonomy regarding the health risks to which children are exposed in their own homes, we essentially destroy the concept of parental privacy, autonomy, and freedom.
If you are willing to control the behaviors of adults in their private home merely in order to reduce health risks for their children, then there is a whole slew of regulation that you should be willing to support, including restricting the amount and type of foods which parents can give their children, restricting the provision of alcohol by parents to their children, regulating the amount of time that children can be allowed to watch television and play video games, restricting the decision of parents to allow their children to view R-rated movies, regulating the use of sunscreen by children, and regulating the use of a huge number of indoor and outdoor chemical products by parents, such as pesticides, weed controlling products, and pest control products.
As unfortunate as it might be that some parents choose to smoke around their children, it is also unfortunate that some parents choose to serve their kids fast food most days of the week, increasing their risk of obesity and long-term health problems. We simply don't intervene to prevent parents from doing these types of unfortunate things. That's part of what it means to live in a free country where we grant parents autonomy over raising their children.
Educational and persuasive interventions to encourage parents not to smoke around their children are entirely appropriate. But coercive interventions that control parental behavior to reduce health risks like those from secondhand smoke, fatty foods, and household chemical products are not.
The art of public health is knowing when it's time for education and persuasion, and when it's time for coercion. What's most unfortunate is that the anti-smoking movement appears to have lost its ability to choose the right type of intervention for the situation. Blindness to everything but the cause is the hallmark of a crusade.
(Thanks to GreatScot for the tip).
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
American Cancer Society Misleads Public Into Thinking that FDA Tobacco Legislation Puts Health Above Tobacco Company Profits
An advertisement sponsored by the Cancer Action Network of the American Cancer Society is misleading the American public into thinking that the FDA tobacco legislation being considered by Congress places health above tobacco company profits.
The ad bears a picture of a young girl and states: "You can put her health before tobacco company profits. Nine out of 10 adult smokers started smoking when they were kids. Congress must immediately pass FDA regulation of tobacco to stop marketing that targets children. With tobacco use being the number one preventable cause of cancer, ACS CAN is counting on lawmakers to protect all Americans and save lives. Because when our leaders make cancer a priority on the Hill, millions make progress at home."
The Rest of the Story
Actually, the legislation that the American Cancer Society is supporting puts Big Tobacco profits ahead of the public's health because it includes a number of loopholes that were specifically inserted for no other reason than to protect tobacco company profits. In fact, these provisions were inserted largely to appease the financial interests of Philip Morris, one of the groups at the negotiating table when the deal that led to this legislation was cut. It was apparently perceived that Philip Morris' support was essential to the bill's passage; thus, the health groups were asked to agree to a number of protective provisions. Lest they risk losing the support of the nation's top cigarette manufacturer, the health groups agreed to these protective provisions.
What the public needs to understand is that these provisions serve no public health purpose. The only purpose they serve is to protect tobacco profits.
Thus, the American Cancer Society's statement misrepresents the truth. The truth is, in fact, the exact opposite. The legislation in question puts tobacco company profits ahead of children's health.
How, I would ask, does a provision which precludes the FDA from increasing the age of sale of cigarettes above 18 protect the child pictured on this advertisement? It doesn't. Clearly, increasing the age of sale of tobacco to 21, like the age of sale for alcohol, would significantly decrease youth access to tobacco and would decrease smoking rates. This provision does nothing to protect the public health. It harms the public health. And all in order to protect tobacco company profits. There is no other explanation for why one would want to tie the hands of the FDA to regulate the sale of tobacco by increasing the legal age of sale of the product.
How, I would ask, does a provision that precludes the FDA from regulating the type of places at which tobacco can be sold protect the child pictured on this advertisement? It doesn't. Clearly, restricting the type of retail establishments where tobacco could be sold would significantly decrease youth access to tobacco and would decrease smoking rates. This provision does nothing to protect the public health. It harms the public health. And all in order to protect tobacco company profits. There is no other explanation for why one would want to tie the hands of the FDA to regulate the types of retail outlets where tobacco products can be sold.
For heaven sakes - this bill precludes the FDA from even banning the sale of tobacco at youth community centers or other places where youths gather. It prevents the FDA from banning the sale of cigarettes at convenience stores, which we found out yesterday are the chief culprits in selling tobacco to youths.
In fact, the two actions the FDA could take that would do the most to keep cigarettes out of the hands of our children are both precluded by the legislation. Clearly, this bill was crafted with more than just the public's health in mind. It was also crafted with the profits of tobacco companies in mind.
By the way, I'm not necessarily taking issue with the fact that the bill protects cigarette company profits. Cigarette companies are an important part of the economy and public health groups should be working to ensure that their profits do not go down. What I'm taking issue with, instead, is the statement that the bill protects the public's health at the expense of tobacco company profits. In fact, just the opposite is the case.
To add insult to injury, this bill also precludes the FDA from eliminating any particular type of tobacco product, eliminating the nicotine in cigarettes, and establishing a prescription-only system of access to tobacco products. It also gives Congress veto power over any significant FDA restrictions on tobacco, gives the tobacco industry a seat at the table in discussions about health regulations, and exempts menthol from the list of flavors that cigarette companies cannot add to their products. Each of these provisions harms the protection of the public's health specifically in order to protect tobacco company profits.
That may be a good thing. Do we really want tobacco profits to go down? Do we really want cigarette sales to fall substantially? How would we fund children's health insurance? How would we make sure that we have enough money in our state budgets to finance health care, build bridges, and maintain highways?
What I'm arguing for here is simply calling a spade a spade. You can sell me on protecting cigarette company profits. What you can't sell me on is the idea that this particular bill puts the public's health above those profits. It does nothing of the sort. In fact, it does the opposite.
If you want truth in advertising, I guess the tobacco companies aren't the only ones to avoid. This American Cancer Society advertisement is as misleading as any cigarette ad that I've seen for a long time.
The ad bears a picture of a young girl and states: "You can put her health before tobacco company profits. Nine out of 10 adult smokers started smoking when they were kids. Congress must immediately pass FDA regulation of tobacco to stop marketing that targets children. With tobacco use being the number one preventable cause of cancer, ACS CAN is counting on lawmakers to protect all Americans and save lives. Because when our leaders make cancer a priority on the Hill, millions make progress at home."
The Rest of the Story
Actually, the legislation that the American Cancer Society is supporting puts Big Tobacco profits ahead of the public's health because it includes a number of loopholes that were specifically inserted for no other reason than to protect tobacco company profits. In fact, these provisions were inserted largely to appease the financial interests of Philip Morris, one of the groups at the negotiating table when the deal that led to this legislation was cut. It was apparently perceived that Philip Morris' support was essential to the bill's passage; thus, the health groups were asked to agree to a number of protective provisions. Lest they risk losing the support of the nation's top cigarette manufacturer, the health groups agreed to these protective provisions.
What the public needs to understand is that these provisions serve no public health purpose. The only purpose they serve is to protect tobacco profits.
Thus, the American Cancer Society's statement misrepresents the truth. The truth is, in fact, the exact opposite. The legislation in question puts tobacco company profits ahead of children's health.
How, I would ask, does a provision which precludes the FDA from increasing the age of sale of cigarettes above 18 protect the child pictured on this advertisement? It doesn't. Clearly, increasing the age of sale of tobacco to 21, like the age of sale for alcohol, would significantly decrease youth access to tobacco and would decrease smoking rates. This provision does nothing to protect the public health. It harms the public health. And all in order to protect tobacco company profits. There is no other explanation for why one would want to tie the hands of the FDA to regulate the sale of tobacco by increasing the legal age of sale of the product.
How, I would ask, does a provision that precludes the FDA from regulating the type of places at which tobacco can be sold protect the child pictured on this advertisement? It doesn't. Clearly, restricting the type of retail establishments where tobacco could be sold would significantly decrease youth access to tobacco and would decrease smoking rates. This provision does nothing to protect the public health. It harms the public health. And all in order to protect tobacco company profits. There is no other explanation for why one would want to tie the hands of the FDA to regulate the types of retail outlets where tobacco products can be sold.
For heaven sakes - this bill precludes the FDA from even banning the sale of tobacco at youth community centers or other places where youths gather. It prevents the FDA from banning the sale of cigarettes at convenience stores, which we found out yesterday are the chief culprits in selling tobacco to youths.
In fact, the two actions the FDA could take that would do the most to keep cigarettes out of the hands of our children are both precluded by the legislation. Clearly, this bill was crafted with more than just the public's health in mind. It was also crafted with the profits of tobacco companies in mind.
By the way, I'm not necessarily taking issue with the fact that the bill protects cigarette company profits. Cigarette companies are an important part of the economy and public health groups should be working to ensure that their profits do not go down. What I'm taking issue with, instead, is the statement that the bill protects the public's health at the expense of tobacco company profits. In fact, just the opposite is the case.
To add insult to injury, this bill also precludes the FDA from eliminating any particular type of tobacco product, eliminating the nicotine in cigarettes, and establishing a prescription-only system of access to tobacco products. It also gives Congress veto power over any significant FDA restrictions on tobacco, gives the tobacco industry a seat at the table in discussions about health regulations, and exempts menthol from the list of flavors that cigarette companies cannot add to their products. Each of these provisions harms the protection of the public's health specifically in order to protect tobacco company profits.
That may be a good thing. Do we really want tobacco profits to go down? Do we really want cigarette sales to fall substantially? How would we fund children's health insurance? How would we make sure that we have enough money in our state budgets to finance health care, build bridges, and maintain highways?
What I'm arguing for here is simply calling a spade a spade. You can sell me on protecting cigarette company profits. What you can't sell me on is the idea that this particular bill puts the public's health above those profits. It does nothing of the sort. In fact, it does the opposite.
If you want truth in advertising, I guess the tobacco companies aren't the only ones to avoid. This American Cancer Society advertisement is as misleading as any cigarette ad that I've seen for a long time.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Is Using Crib Bumpers Child Abuse? Yes -- According to Reasoning of Some Anti-Smoking Groups
According to the reasoning used by several anti-smoking groups and a number of anti-smoking advocates to argue that smoking around infants and children is a form of child abuse, the use of crib bumpers (soft cushioning placed around the edges of a crib to prevent an infant from bumping or trapping their head against the crib bars) can also be considered to be child abuse.
A new study published in the Journal of Pediatrics has concluded that the use of crib bumpers significantly increases the risk of infant death by suffocation or strangulation. According to the researchers: "Many infants lack the motor development needed to free themselves when they become wedged between the bumper pad and another surface." The article reports that "soft bumpers meant to prevent babies from bumping or trapping their heads against the hard bars of a crib can strangle or suffocate the infants."
Some anti-smoking groups and advocates have argued that smoking around infants and children is a form of child abuse (post #1; post #2; post #3; post #4; post #5; post #6; post #7; post #8; post #9) because the secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of ear infections, respiratory infections, asthma and other respiratory problems, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
One of the most prominent national anti-smoking groups - Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) - states on its web site that smoking around children is "the most prevalent and dangerous form of child abuse."
Since the use of crib bumpers also significantly increases the risk of infant death, the reasoning used by these anti-smoking groups and advocates would also lead to the conclusion that using crib bumpers is a form of child abuse.
The Rest of the Story
This exposes the danger of confusing risk and harm, and of conflating with child abuse parental behaviors that merely increase the risk of an adverse health outcome, but do not cause direct and immediate damage.
Most of us (perhaps all of us) would acknowledge that using crib bumpers is certainly not equivalent to child abuse. Yet the reasoning that would support such a classification is precisely the same reasoning being used to support the classification of smoking around children as a form of child abuse.
This is yet another example of where anti-smoking groups have abandoned sound reasoning. It is another example of how the anti-smoking movement has been transformed into a crusade.
A new study published in the Journal of Pediatrics has concluded that the use of crib bumpers significantly increases the risk of infant death by suffocation or strangulation. According to the researchers: "Many infants lack the motor development needed to free themselves when they become wedged between the bumper pad and another surface." The article reports that "soft bumpers meant to prevent babies from bumping or trapping their heads against the hard bars of a crib can strangle or suffocate the infants."
Some anti-smoking groups and advocates have argued that smoking around infants and children is a form of child abuse (post #1; post #2; post #3; post #4; post #5; post #6; post #7; post #8; post #9) because the secondhand smoke exposure increases the risk of ear infections, respiratory infections, asthma and other respiratory problems, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
One of the most prominent national anti-smoking groups - Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) - states on its web site that smoking around children is "the most prevalent and dangerous form of child abuse."
Since the use of crib bumpers also significantly increases the risk of infant death, the reasoning used by these anti-smoking groups and advocates would also lead to the conclusion that using crib bumpers is a form of child abuse.
The Rest of the Story
This exposes the danger of confusing risk and harm, and of conflating with child abuse parental behaviors that merely increase the risk of an adverse health outcome, but do not cause direct and immediate damage.
Most of us (perhaps all of us) would acknowledge that using crib bumpers is certainly not equivalent to child abuse. Yet the reasoning that would support such a classification is precisely the same reasoning being used to support the classification of smoking around children as a form of child abuse.
This is yet another example of where anti-smoking groups have abandoned sound reasoning. It is another example of how the anti-smoking movement has been transformed into a crusade.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Zogby International Survey Shows that Public Opposes FDA Tobacco Legislation; Reveals that Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' Polls Were Junk Science
According to a Zogby international poll released on Monday, nearly two-thirds of the public are opposed to the current proposal in Congress to have the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulate tobacco products.
The poll found that 65% of U.S. adults oppose the proposed legislation -- supported by Philip Morris and by anti-smoking groups such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TFK) -- which would give the FDA limited regulatory authority over tobacco products. Nearly half of the public (47%) stated that they strongly oppose the legislation.
The results of this poll conflict sharply with those of a poll commissioned by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which reportedly showed that 70% of American voters support the proposed FDA tobacco legislation.
Pollster John Zogby concluded: “These poll results show Americans want the Food and Drug Administration to concentrate not on tobacco, but rather on policing our food supply and our medicines. This is even more evident given that these poll results came before FDA Chairman Andrew von Eschenbach reiterated his opposition to FDA regulation of tobacco. At a time when a significant majority of American adults say they are unhappy about the direction of the nation and are questioning the competence of the federal government to carry out its current responsibilities, the poll shows little appetite among informed adults to make big changes to the tobacco regulatory scheme.”
The Rest of the Story
In several previous posts, I have explained why the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' poll represents junk science at its worst (post #1; post #2; post #3). Briefly, the TFK polls assessed general attitudes about the public's support for regulation of tobacco products, but did not measure actual support for the specific provisions in the actual legislation that is being considered. In particular, the TFK polls did not ask voters how they feel about the myriad provisions in the bill which limit the ability of the FDA to take action to protect the public -- provisions which were inserted specifically to protect the financial interests of Philip Morris, a key negotiator at the table when the deal was struck with TFK.
I previously opined that the TFK polls represented junk science, and that if questions were asked in a more complete and more specific way, vastly different responses would be obtained. The Zogby International poll confirms that this is indeed the case.
The Zogby poll didn't even inform voters about the specific provisions of FDA legislation. It obtained overwhelming opposition to the proposal merely by reminding the public that the FDA is charged with the responsibility to regulate the safety of the nation's food and drug supply. Can you imagine the results one would obtain if one were to actually inform people about the truck-size loopholes in the bill which are there for the sole purpose of protecting the financial interests of Philip Morris?
What I find so disturbing is not the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' support for this Philip Morris protection legislation, but its misrepresentation of the facts and its wildly misleading propaganda in support of the legislation.
By stooping to the level of junk science, the tobacco control movement has lowered itself to the level of the tobacco companies. And ironically, in a so-called effort to prevent misrepresentation of facts to the public, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is relying upon exactly that to promote the legislation.
I guess it goes to show: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
The poll found that 65% of U.S. adults oppose the proposed legislation -- supported by Philip Morris and by anti-smoking groups such as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TFK) -- which would give the FDA limited regulatory authority over tobacco products. Nearly half of the public (47%) stated that they strongly oppose the legislation.
The results of this poll conflict sharply with those of a poll commissioned by the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which reportedly showed that 70% of American voters support the proposed FDA tobacco legislation.
Pollster John Zogby concluded: “These poll results show Americans want the Food and Drug Administration to concentrate not on tobacco, but rather on policing our food supply and our medicines. This is even more evident given that these poll results came before FDA Chairman Andrew von Eschenbach reiterated his opposition to FDA regulation of tobacco. At a time when a significant majority of American adults say they are unhappy about the direction of the nation and are questioning the competence of the federal government to carry out its current responsibilities, the poll shows little appetite among informed adults to make big changes to the tobacco regulatory scheme.”
The Rest of the Story
In several previous posts, I have explained why the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' poll represents junk science at its worst (post #1; post #2; post #3). Briefly, the TFK polls assessed general attitudes about the public's support for regulation of tobacco products, but did not measure actual support for the specific provisions in the actual legislation that is being considered. In particular, the TFK polls did not ask voters how they feel about the myriad provisions in the bill which limit the ability of the FDA to take action to protect the public -- provisions which were inserted specifically to protect the financial interests of Philip Morris, a key negotiator at the table when the deal was struck with TFK.
I previously opined that the TFK polls represented junk science, and that if questions were asked in a more complete and more specific way, vastly different responses would be obtained. The Zogby International poll confirms that this is indeed the case.
The Zogby poll didn't even inform voters about the specific provisions of FDA legislation. It obtained overwhelming opposition to the proposal merely by reminding the public that the FDA is charged with the responsibility to regulate the safety of the nation's food and drug supply. Can you imagine the results one would obtain if one were to actually inform people about the truck-size loopholes in the bill which are there for the sole purpose of protecting the financial interests of Philip Morris?
What I find so disturbing is not the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids' support for this Philip Morris protection legislation, but its misrepresentation of the facts and its wildly misleading propaganda in support of the legislation.
By stooping to the level of junk science, the tobacco control movement has lowered itself to the level of the tobacco companies. And ironically, in a so-called effort to prevent misrepresentation of facts to the public, the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids is relying upon exactly that to promote the legislation.
I guess it goes to show: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Anti-Smoking Advocate Quoted as Saying that It Doesn't Reflect Well on the Community for People to See Smokers
The tobacco prevention coordinator at the Richland County Health Department in North Dakota was quoted as saying that it doesn't reflect well on the community for people to see people smoking in that community.
According to an article in the Wahpeton Daily News (North Dakota), Richland County tobacco prevention coordinator Jason Bergstrand was at the campus of North Dakota State College of Science to promote a 100% smoke-free campus policy. Such a policy would ban smoking throughout the campus, not only indoors and in surrounding outdoors or crowded outdoors areas.
According to the article: "A timely matter continues to present itself to the North Dakota State College of Science campus. Many campuses in the state of North Dakota as well as several state universities in Minnesota have gone smoke-free or tobacco-free. Jason Bergstrand, tobacco prevention coordinator at the Richland County Health Department, presented a slideshow on campus Wednesday on the benefits of having a smoke-free or tobacco-free campus. ... Tobacco use is also the No. 1 preventable cause of death and disability in the United States. More than 430,000 die annually. "Secondhand smoke is equally dangerous," Bergstrand said. ...
"Bergstrand said more often than not, in driving by campus, students or others are standing outside smoking and 'it doesn't reflect very well on the community as a whole,' he said. Benefits of going to a tobacco-free campus include a cleaner and healthier campus, an improved social and community reputation and 'I'm almost positive you'll see a less burden to your student health service,' Bergstrand said.
"In addition, the campus would more then likely see improved student health with increased class attendance and better academic comprehension by the students. Also, because many employers are seeking workers who don't smoke, a campus that promotes no smoking would ultimately provide more marketable students to enter the workforce."
"The last of the benefits Bergstrand included, although there may be many more, was a no tobacco use policy would cause less exposure to secondhand smoke."
The Rest of the Story
If quoted correctly, what this anti-smoking advocate appears to be saying is that it doesn't reflect well on a community for people to be driving by and to see smokers.
I wonder if the same sentiment holds for people driving by and seeing fat people. Do people who are fat reflect poorly on the community as well?
Perhaps the North Dakota State College of Science could present a better front to the community if it also banned the ingestion of fatty foods and severely limited the total number of calories that could be consumed each day on campus. People driving by would be less likely to see fat people.
Seeing people using illicit drugs, having public sex, or walking around nude on campus would legitimately reflect poorly on the community (although it might increase applications to the college). But there is a major difference between public sex, drug use, and nudity on the one hand and smoking on the other. The former are seen as violating well-established public morals. It is viewed as a moral affront for people to be engaging in illicit drug use, sex, or nudity in public.
So what Bergstrand is actually saying here is that he sees smoking in public not as a health issue, but as a moral issue. Smoking in public is a moral affront to the community.
This is why it seems offensive to most of us to hear someone suggest that fat people don't reflect well on a community. Because such a statement gives moral value, not just health value, to being thin or "normal" weight. Most of us do not believe that weight carries with it any moral value. Decisions about not exercising or eating lots of high-fat foods may not be healthy; but as of yet, they are not viewed as immoral. These decisions may be poor for your health, but they are not viewed as violating community morals.
Not so, apparently, with smoking. The issue here seems clearly to be more than merely the health consequences of smoking. It is all about the moral value of not smoking. Smoking carries with it a lack of moral value. The decision to smoke is not only an unhealthy one, it is also viewed as immoral. Such a decision is not only bad for your health, but it is also viewed as violating community morals.
This is where I must jump in and vehemently take issue with the statement and perspective illustrated by that statement. Smoking is a health behavior decision -- just like not exercising, eating poorly, or not putting on sunscreen. It is not a moral issue.
To suggest otherwise is not only foolish; it is also dangerous. We do not want society to start making moral judgments based on people's lawful health behavior decisions. It will lead down the road to discrimination and intolerance.
Another part of this story that is problematic is the assertion that secondhand smoke exposure is "equally dangerous" as active smoking. There is no need to exaggerate the health effects of secondhand smoke (or downplay the health effects of active smoking, whichever you want to call it) in order to promote all-out smoking bans on college campuses.
On second thought, it is necessary to exaggerate the effects of secondhand smoke, because we all know that the effects of momentary exposures as one might encounter with a policy that restricts smoking to certain designated outdoors locations away from buildings and crowded areas are just not substantial enough to justify an all-out outdoors smoking ban. So it is no wonder that this anti-smoking advocate has to exaggerate the scientific evidence and suggest that secondhand smoke is as dangerous as active smoking.
As far as making students more marketable to enter the workforce, I would ask: "How does whether a person smokes outdoors on campus affect his or her employability?" While it is unfortunately becoming true that smoking is a factor in employment decisions, the consideration is whether or not someone smokes, not whether or not they smoke in remote outdoors locations while on a college campus.
As far as the argument that complete smoking bans will cause smokers to quit, I would first of all say that I'm not sure that is the case. These extreme policies could just as well make smokers angry and feel persecuted and not tolerated and therefore cause them to smoke more (albeit not on campus). However, even if true, this is an example of unjustified paternalism.
You don't ban smoking in order to force smokers to quit. You ban smoking in order to protect nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. If you are willing to do the former, then there is no reason not to also ban the consumption of fatty foods on campus and to limit the overall intake of calories while on campus.
Interestingly, protecting people from secondhand smoke was the last of the benefits listed by the anti-smoking advocate supporting this policy. However, it really is the only benefit that would justify the policy. And in this particular case, one would need to make the case that a ban on smoking in all indoor areas, outdoor areas near buildings, and outdoor areas which are crowded or where people congregate is not enough to protect nonsmokers from significant secondhand smoke exposure.
I don't think one can compellingly make that argument. Which I guess is all the more reason to rely upon exaggerating the science beyond recognition, calling on intrusive paternalism, and making the anti-smoking movement into an all-out moral crusade.
According to an article in the Wahpeton Daily News (North Dakota), Richland County tobacco prevention coordinator Jason Bergstrand was at the campus of North Dakota State College of Science to promote a 100% smoke-free campus policy. Such a policy would ban smoking throughout the campus, not only indoors and in surrounding outdoors or crowded outdoors areas.
According to the article: "A timely matter continues to present itself to the North Dakota State College of Science campus. Many campuses in the state of North Dakota as well as several state universities in Minnesota have gone smoke-free or tobacco-free. Jason Bergstrand, tobacco prevention coordinator at the Richland County Health Department, presented a slideshow on campus Wednesday on the benefits of having a smoke-free or tobacco-free campus. ... Tobacco use is also the No. 1 preventable cause of death and disability in the United States. More than 430,000 die annually. "Secondhand smoke is equally dangerous," Bergstrand said. ...
"Bergstrand said more often than not, in driving by campus, students or others are standing outside smoking and 'it doesn't reflect very well on the community as a whole,' he said. Benefits of going to a tobacco-free campus include a cleaner and healthier campus, an improved social and community reputation and 'I'm almost positive you'll see a less burden to your student health service,' Bergstrand said.
"In addition, the campus would more then likely see improved student health with increased class attendance and better academic comprehension by the students. Also, because many employers are seeking workers who don't smoke, a campus that promotes no smoking would ultimately provide more marketable students to enter the workforce."
"The last of the benefits Bergstrand included, although there may be many more, was a no tobacco use policy would cause less exposure to secondhand smoke."
The Rest of the Story
If quoted correctly, what this anti-smoking advocate appears to be saying is that it doesn't reflect well on a community for people to be driving by and to see smokers.
I wonder if the same sentiment holds for people driving by and seeing fat people. Do people who are fat reflect poorly on the community as well?
Perhaps the North Dakota State College of Science could present a better front to the community if it also banned the ingestion of fatty foods and severely limited the total number of calories that could be consumed each day on campus. People driving by would be less likely to see fat people.
Seeing people using illicit drugs, having public sex, or walking around nude on campus would legitimately reflect poorly on the community (although it might increase applications to the college). But there is a major difference between public sex, drug use, and nudity on the one hand and smoking on the other. The former are seen as violating well-established public morals. It is viewed as a moral affront for people to be engaging in illicit drug use, sex, or nudity in public.
So what Bergstrand is actually saying here is that he sees smoking in public not as a health issue, but as a moral issue. Smoking in public is a moral affront to the community.
This is why it seems offensive to most of us to hear someone suggest that fat people don't reflect well on a community. Because such a statement gives moral value, not just health value, to being thin or "normal" weight. Most of us do not believe that weight carries with it any moral value. Decisions about not exercising or eating lots of high-fat foods may not be healthy; but as of yet, they are not viewed as immoral. These decisions may be poor for your health, but they are not viewed as violating community morals.
Not so, apparently, with smoking. The issue here seems clearly to be more than merely the health consequences of smoking. It is all about the moral value of not smoking. Smoking carries with it a lack of moral value. The decision to smoke is not only an unhealthy one, it is also viewed as immoral. Such a decision is not only bad for your health, but it is also viewed as violating community morals.
This is where I must jump in and vehemently take issue with the statement and perspective illustrated by that statement. Smoking is a health behavior decision -- just like not exercising, eating poorly, or not putting on sunscreen. It is not a moral issue.
To suggest otherwise is not only foolish; it is also dangerous. We do not want society to start making moral judgments based on people's lawful health behavior decisions. It will lead down the road to discrimination and intolerance.
Another part of this story that is problematic is the assertion that secondhand smoke exposure is "equally dangerous" as active smoking. There is no need to exaggerate the health effects of secondhand smoke (or downplay the health effects of active smoking, whichever you want to call it) in order to promote all-out smoking bans on college campuses.
On second thought, it is necessary to exaggerate the effects of secondhand smoke, because we all know that the effects of momentary exposures as one might encounter with a policy that restricts smoking to certain designated outdoors locations away from buildings and crowded areas are just not substantial enough to justify an all-out outdoors smoking ban. So it is no wonder that this anti-smoking advocate has to exaggerate the scientific evidence and suggest that secondhand smoke is as dangerous as active smoking.
As far as making students more marketable to enter the workforce, I would ask: "How does whether a person smokes outdoors on campus affect his or her employability?" While it is unfortunately becoming true that smoking is a factor in employment decisions, the consideration is whether or not someone smokes, not whether or not they smoke in remote outdoors locations while on a college campus.
As far as the argument that complete smoking bans will cause smokers to quit, I would first of all say that I'm not sure that is the case. These extreme policies could just as well make smokers angry and feel persecuted and not tolerated and therefore cause them to smoke more (albeit not on campus). However, even if true, this is an example of unjustified paternalism.
You don't ban smoking in order to force smokers to quit. You ban smoking in order to protect nonsmokers from exposure to secondhand smoke. If you are willing to do the former, then there is no reason not to also ban the consumption of fatty foods on campus and to limit the overall intake of calories while on campus.
Interestingly, protecting people from secondhand smoke was the last of the benefits listed by the anti-smoking advocate supporting this policy. However, it really is the only benefit that would justify the policy. And in this particular case, one would need to make the case that a ban on smoking in all indoor areas, outdoor areas near buildings, and outdoor areas which are crowded or where people congregate is not enough to protect nonsmokers from significant secondhand smoke exposure.
I don't think one can compellingly make that argument. Which I guess is all the more reason to rely upon exaggerating the science beyond recognition, calling on intrusive paternalism, and making the anti-smoking movement into an all-out moral crusade.
Monday, October 29, 2007
National Tobacco Control Conference Sacrifices Scientific and Moral Integrity for Money
The 2007 National Conference on Tobacco or Health was held late last week in Minneapolis. According to the conference literature, a major purpose of the conference was to "Learn the latest evidence on what works in tobacco control and how to apply current research findings." However, far from being an objective source of scientific information, the conference prostituted itself - in my opinion - by accepting sponsorship funding from Pfizer, a pharmaceutical company that manufactures a smoking cessation drug which was discussed at the meetings.
A major topic of the conference was "cessation, nicotine, and the science of addiction." In a conference sponsored by Pfizer, one cannot expect to have an objective presentation of this topic. After all, Pfizer is the manufacturer of Chantix (varenicline), which the company is heavily promoting as a smoking cessation aid.
In fact, one of the "scientific" sessions - which could better be called a "marketing" session for Pfizer - discussed the use of Chantix for smoking cessation. The acknowledged learning objective for this session was to "understand the newly-approved smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, varenicline (Chantix)."
There is nothing wrong with discussing the use of Chantix at a scientific conference. However, when that conference is sponsored by the manufacturer of Chantix, it ceases to be an objective scientific meeting and instead becomes a pharmaceutical marketing tool. Essentially, Pfizer paid for the marketing of its drug at this conference.
To make matters much worse, the financial connections between the investigators presenting the Chantix data and Big Pharma are not disclosed on the conference web site. Among the scientific presenters of the Chantix data listed on the website are Dr. Jon-Jar Zubieta, and Dr. Douglas Jorenby.
What is not revealed on the website is that:
For example, I doubt that they discussed research, such as that by Robert West and Taj Sohal at University College London and published recently in the British Medical Journal, which finds that a substantial proportion of successful quitters do not make a planned quit attempt, but quit spontaneously, a fact which suggests that the obsessive focus on pharmacotherapy is misplaced. With its pharmaceutical company sponsorship, there is simply no way that the conference could present a scientifically objective perspective on the role of pharmacotherapy as part of smoking cessation strategy.
As a Silver sponsor, here is what Pfizer also received from the National Tobacco Control Conference:
The prostitution of the tobacco control movement's national conference -- seeking money and forsaking scientific objectivity -- is just another example of the loss of scientific integrity in the tobacco control movement.
When money becomes more important than scientific integrity, that's when you leave the realm of a science-based movement and enter the realm of an all-out crusade.
A major topic of the conference was "cessation, nicotine, and the science of addiction." In a conference sponsored by Pfizer, one cannot expect to have an objective presentation of this topic. After all, Pfizer is the manufacturer of Chantix (varenicline), which the company is heavily promoting as a smoking cessation aid.
In fact, one of the "scientific" sessions - which could better be called a "marketing" session for Pfizer - discussed the use of Chantix for smoking cessation. The acknowledged learning objective for this session was to "understand the newly-approved smoking cessation pharmacotherapy, varenicline (Chantix)."
There is nothing wrong with discussing the use of Chantix at a scientific conference. However, when that conference is sponsored by the manufacturer of Chantix, it ceases to be an objective scientific meeting and instead becomes a pharmaceutical marketing tool. Essentially, Pfizer paid for the marketing of its drug at this conference.
To make matters much worse, the financial connections between the investigators presenting the Chantix data and Big Pharma are not disclosed on the conference web site. Among the scientific presenters of the Chantix data listed on the website are Dr. Jon-Jar Zubieta, and Dr. Douglas Jorenby.
What is not revealed on the website is that:
- Zubieta's research has been supported by Pfizer and Zubieta has received lecture fees from a number of other pharmaceutical companies; and
- Jorenby has received "research support from Pfizer, Nabi Biopharmaceutical, Sanofi-Aventis and consulting fees from Nabi Biopharmaceutical."
- Dr. Rigotti has received "research grant funding and consulting fees from GlaxoSmithKline, which markets smoking cessation medications, and Pfizer and Sanofi-Aventis, which are developing smoking cessation medications. Dr Rigotti also reported receiving consulting fees from Merck, which is developing smoking cessation medications;" and
- Dr. Ellerbeck has participated in research funded by Pfizer.
- Dr. Fiore has "served as a consultant for, given lectures sponsored by, or ... conducted research sponsored by Ciba-Geigy, SmithKline Beecham, Lederle Laboratories, McNeil Consumer Products, Elan Pharmaceutical, Pharmacia, and Glaxo Wellcome."
For example, I doubt that they discussed research, such as that by Robert West and Taj Sohal at University College London and published recently in the British Medical Journal, which finds that a substantial proportion of successful quitters do not make a planned quit attempt, but quit spontaneously, a fact which suggests that the obsessive focus on pharmacotherapy is misplaced. With its pharmaceutical company sponsorship, there is simply no way that the conference could present a scientifically objective perspective on the role of pharmacotherapy as part of smoking cessation strategy.
As a Silver sponsor, here is what Pfizer also received from the National Tobacco Control Conference:
- Recognition as Major Sponsor in all materials
- Recognition as Major Sponsor on Program back cover
- Recognition as Major Sponsor in Participant Directory
- One free standard exhibit booth space
- 15% discount on premium exhibit space
- Free half-page Program ad
- Highlighting of exhibit booth on Program map
- Participant mailing list (1 free use, pre- or post-conference)
- 5 free full Conference registrations
- 6 free Exhibitor passes
- Inclusion on signage in MCC [Minneapolis Convention Center]
- Web site listing as Major Sponsor with hotlink
The prostitution of the tobacco control movement's national conference -- seeking money and forsaking scientific objectivity -- is just another example of the loss of scientific integrity in the tobacco control movement.
When money becomes more important than scientific integrity, that's when you leave the realm of a science-based movement and enter the realm of an all-out crusade.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Anti-Smoking Group Claims that 390,000 Youths Die Each Year Due to Smoking in Movies
The same anti-smoking group which is publicly claiming that 340 young people die each day from smoking is also claiming that 390,000 youths die each year due to smoking in movies.
On its web site, Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trials asks: "Considering the fact that 1,070 youth die each day due to smoking in movies: Should youth be allowed to view films with excessively glamorized tobacco use?"
In other words, Breath California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is stating to the public that it is a "fact" that "1,070 youth die each day due to smoking in movies." That is: 390,000 youths die each year due to smoking in movies.
The Rest of the Story
This claim is obviously false. There are just over 390,000 total deaths each year attributable to smoking. This means that for the claim to be correct:
1. Every death that occurs due to smoking must occur in a youth. In other words, all 390,000 people who die each year due to smoking are youths.
AND
2. Every person who smokes must smoke because they were exposed to smoking in movies.
The claim also implies that if smoking in movies were eliminated, there would be no more deaths due to smoking.
In fact, there are only 26,000 total deaths due to all causes among youths (ages 1-19) annually in the United States. So it is mathematically impossible for smoking to be a cause of 390,000 annual deaths among youths.
The interesting question to me is whether we can write this off by stating that it is simply a mistake. I tend to think not. First of all, this mistake was pointed out to the anti-smoking group, but they still have not changed the site. Secondly, this errant "fact" is on the very same web page that states: "More than 1,000 teens will start smoking today because of what they saw on screen. 340 of them will die early from a smoking related disease."
In other words, it is very clear that the organization is aware that their claim is false. It is clear that they are aware that 340 young people do not die each day from smoking, but that 340 young people will eventually die from smoking, if the cited research is correct (and I do not believe it is anyway). But stipulating that the research is correct, the organization clearly understands that it is not youth who are dying from smoking.
Why is this important? It is important because it suggests that the organization knows that the public statement they are making is wrong. And this would turn a simple error into what I would call a lie.
To be lying, one could argue that you have to know that what you are stating is incorrect, but state it anyway. And here, we have strong evidence that Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails knows that 390,000 youths do not die each year from seeing smoking in movies. In fact, I'm quite sure that Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is aware of the fact that 390,000 youths do not die each year. And I'm quite sure they are aware of the fact that the total annual mortality attributable to smoking is on the order of 390,000.
The Encarta dictionary defines lying as "deliberately saying something that is untrue." It appears unquestionable that the group is deliberately making the statement that 1,070 youths die each day from seeing smoking in movies. They put too many statistics on the website to believe that they have simply not thought this out at all. It also seems unquestionable that what they are saying is untrue. It is not true that 1,070 youths die each day from any cause, much less from seeing smoking in movies.
The Encarta dictionary also defines lying as "being deceptive" or "giving a false impression." By that definition, what Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is doing clearly seems to meet the definition of lying.
I am still willing to give Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails one final benefit of the doubt. I am willing to entertain the remote possibility that somehow, this claim on the website escaped their careful scrutiny and they just made a mistake. If this is the case, however, I would expect that the mistake would be corrected immediately upon finding out about it, which is right now, since they are receiving this blog post by email.
I am willing to give them the weekend to think this over and correct it. But by Tuesday morning, if this is not corrected, I will have no choice but to conclude that this statement is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by making a claim that the organization knows is not correct. In other words, to conclude that an anti-smoking group is lying to the public.
I have avoided jumping to such a conclusion, despite the widespread untruths being spread by many anti-smoking groups, because I don't want to believe that it is true. But honestly, I'm down to my final breath here. There's only so much that I can rationalize these actions as being some sort of innocent mistake.
Now is the time for a definitive resolution of this. I'll report back on Tuesday morning - hopefully, with the news that the organization has acknowledged and corrected the mistake and apologized for misleading the public.
(Thanks to James Austin for the tip).
Two quick additional points:
1. Because the claim is being made on the web page, and not in some sort of linked PDF document, it should be an easy matter to correct the false and misleading statement.
2. While the "definition" of "young people" may be somewhat subject to interpretation, the definition of "youth" seems far less subject to interpretation. Moreover, even if we consider anyone up to age 50 to be a "youth," which is absurd, the claim being made is still false on its face.
On its web site, Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trials asks: "Considering the fact that 1,070 youth die each day due to smoking in movies: Should youth be allowed to view films with excessively glamorized tobacco use?"
In other words, Breath California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is stating to the public that it is a "fact" that "1,070 youth die each day due to smoking in movies." That is: 390,000 youths die each year due to smoking in movies.
The Rest of the Story
This claim is obviously false. There are just over 390,000 total deaths each year attributable to smoking. This means that for the claim to be correct:
1. Every death that occurs due to smoking must occur in a youth. In other words, all 390,000 people who die each year due to smoking are youths.
AND
2. Every person who smokes must smoke because they were exposed to smoking in movies.
The claim also implies that if smoking in movies were eliminated, there would be no more deaths due to smoking.
In fact, there are only 26,000 total deaths due to all causes among youths (ages 1-19) annually in the United States. So it is mathematically impossible for smoking to be a cause of 390,000 annual deaths among youths.
The interesting question to me is whether we can write this off by stating that it is simply a mistake. I tend to think not. First of all, this mistake was pointed out to the anti-smoking group, but they still have not changed the site. Secondly, this errant "fact" is on the very same web page that states: "More than 1,000 teens will start smoking today because of what they saw on screen. 340 of them will die early from a smoking related disease."
In other words, it is very clear that the organization is aware that their claim is false. It is clear that they are aware that 340 young people do not die each day from smoking, but that 340 young people will eventually die from smoking, if the cited research is correct (and I do not believe it is anyway). But stipulating that the research is correct, the organization clearly understands that it is not youth who are dying from smoking.
Why is this important? It is important because it suggests that the organization knows that the public statement they are making is wrong. And this would turn a simple error into what I would call a lie.
To be lying, one could argue that you have to know that what you are stating is incorrect, but state it anyway. And here, we have strong evidence that Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails knows that 390,000 youths do not die each year from seeing smoking in movies. In fact, I'm quite sure that Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is aware of the fact that 390,000 youths do not die each year. And I'm quite sure they are aware of the fact that the total annual mortality attributable to smoking is on the order of 390,000.
The Encarta dictionary defines lying as "deliberately saying something that is untrue." It appears unquestionable that the group is deliberately making the statement that 1,070 youths die each day from seeing smoking in movies. They put too many statistics on the website to believe that they have simply not thought this out at all. It also seems unquestionable that what they are saying is untrue. It is not true that 1,070 youths die each day from any cause, much less from seeing smoking in movies.
The Encarta dictionary also defines lying as "being deceptive" or "giving a false impression." By that definition, what Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is doing clearly seems to meet the definition of lying.
I am still willing to give Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails one final benefit of the doubt. I am willing to entertain the remote possibility that somehow, this claim on the website escaped their careful scrutiny and they just made a mistake. If this is the case, however, I would expect that the mistake would be corrected immediately upon finding out about it, which is right now, since they are receiving this blog post by email.
I am willing to give them the weekend to think this over and correct it. But by Tuesday morning, if this is not corrected, I will have no choice but to conclude that this statement is a deliberate attempt to mislead the public by making a claim that the organization knows is not correct. In other words, to conclude that an anti-smoking group is lying to the public.
I have avoided jumping to such a conclusion, despite the widespread untruths being spread by many anti-smoking groups, because I don't want to believe that it is true. But honestly, I'm down to my final breath here. There's only so much that I can rationalize these actions as being some sort of innocent mistake.
Now is the time for a definitive resolution of this. I'll report back on Tuesday morning - hopefully, with the news that the organization has acknowledged and corrected the mistake and apologized for misleading the public.
(Thanks to James Austin for the tip).
Two quick additional points:
1. Because the claim is being made on the web page, and not in some sort of linked PDF document, it should be an easy matter to correct the false and misleading statement.
2. While the "definition" of "young people" may be somewhat subject to interpretation, the definition of "youth" seems far less subject to interpretation. Moreover, even if we consider anyone up to age 50 to be a "youth," which is absurd, the claim being made is still false on its face.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
Tobacco Control Activist Responds to Revelation of Incorrect Data on Website: I Don't Care; Anti-Smoking Group Apparently Decides to Retain Inaccuracy
An anti-smoking activist has responded to my revelation on Monday of an incorrect (and blatantly false) assertion on a tobacco control web site by admitting that he really doesn't care. My email to him on Monday alerted him to the presence of this incorrect statistic on the SceneSmoking.org web site. His response: "I don't waste my time on you and your blog any more."
The anti-smoking group which is posting the incorrect information also doesn't appear to care about its accuracy. The organization responsible for this error - Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trials - has apparently decided to retain the mistake because after reading my email and the blog post on Monday, it has failed to correct the problem. As of the writing of this post, Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is still maintaining that smoking in movies "kills about 340 young people a day."
Background
According to the SceneSmoking.org web site, 340 young people die every day from seeing smoking in movies. SceneSmoking.org is a web site dedicated to the effort to get smoking out of movies seen by young people, and is run by Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails.
At the bottom left corner of the home page, you'll see a statistic given in the form of a movie ratings label. The label is "SK-340." It reads: "Viewers Strongly Cautioned. Smoking Kills About 340 Young People A Day. Smoking in Movies is Not Cool, Healthy Nor Needed."
Presumably, what the statistic intends to communicate is that 340 young people die each day from the depiction of smoking in the movies. It appears that the support for this statistic comes directly from a paper by Dr. Stanton Glantz which was published in the journal The Lancet in July 2003 ("Smoking in movies: a major problem and a real solution").
According to that article: "In the USA, about 2050 adolescents (age 12–17) start smoking every day and about 32% of these people—660 a day—will die prematurely because of smoking. Assuming that the 52·2% attributable risk observed by Dalton and colleagues applies to this whole group, smoking in movies is responsible for addicting 1080 US adolescents to tobacco every day, 340 of whom will die prematurely as a result."
So according to this paper, 340 young people become addicted to smoking each day due to seeing smoking in movies and will eventually die prematurely as a result.
On its face, the claim by this anti-smoking group is absurd. There are not 340 deaths among young people each day due to smoking, much less due to smoking that was caused by exposure to smoking in movies.
In fact, according to the CDC, there are no (ZERO) deaths attributable to smoking among persons under age 35. The reason is quite simple: it is rare for young people to die from smoking.
Now of course one could argue about what is meant by "young people." If one argues that anyone under age 65 is a "young" person (a definition that becomes increasingly appealing to me each year), then perhaps this claim is no longer absurdly false. But it would then be terribly misleading, because I doubt that anyone reading the web page is thinking of 40 and 50 and 60-year-olds when they read that "Smoking [in Movies] Kills 340 Young People A Day."
For the purposes of its smoking-attributable death calculations, the CDC defines middle-age as starting at age 35. I've never heard public health scientists referring to an age group above age 35 as representing what they mean when they talk about "young people."
Now I've already explained why I don't believe it is accurate even to claim that exposure to smoking in movies causes 340 young people to eventually die prematurely from smoking. But to state that 340 young people die each day because of exposure to smoking in movies is ludicrous. And patently false.
I really don't understand this need to lie to the public, or to stretch the truth beyond recognition, in order to make a point to the public. Forgetting about my argument that there is no valid scientific support for the claim that smoking in movies kills 120,000 people each year, if SceneSmoking.org wanted to accept this statistic from this one author, then what would the problem have been in stating that 340 young people will eventually die prematurely due to smoking in movies?
The problem, as far as I can see, is that it would not have been sensational enough. Apparently, it is no longer enough to tell the truth in tobacco control. It is not good enough to accurately represent the science.
The Rest of the Story
Today, the story gets more revealing. Based on the response of the anti-smoking activist who is largely responsible for this statistic, this is not merely a careless error. In fact, it does not appear that he, nor the group making the claim, care about the accuracy of the claim. They are neither willing to defend the claim or to remove or correct it.
There are really only two reasonable responses to my email:
1) Sorry Mike. You are wrong. And here is why; or
2) Thanks Mike. You are right. We'll fix it.
But instead, from the anti-smoking activist I get:
"I don't waste my time on you and your blog any more."
And from the group making the claim, I get:
bupkes.
It really does appear, then, that this deception by an anti-smoking group is not merely some sort of careless mistake. It certainly appears that it is a calculated decision to deceive the public. In other words, this appears to be intentional deception.
I am willing to reconsider my opinion that this anti-smoking group is willfully deceiving the public. But first, I need to see documentation of the "fact" that 340 young people die each day from smoking.
So I challenge Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails to provide documentation that there are 120,000 young people who die each year from smoking.
Given the fact that I have been in the position of generating the nation's statistics on the age-specific mortality from smoking (as an epidemiologist at the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health), I can tell you that the annual number of deaths from smoking among young people (even if we define young as less than 40 years of age) is nowhere near 120,000. Not even close. Not remotely close.
But I am still willing to see documentation to the contrary.
I'm anxiously awaiting it.
I'll let you know tomorrow whether I get it. But I can tell you that if I don't, it's going to be very difficult to continue to maintain my position that the anti-smoking groups are not deliberately lying to the public.
The anti-smoking group which is posting the incorrect information also doesn't appear to care about its accuracy. The organization responsible for this error - Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trials - has apparently decided to retain the mistake because after reading my email and the blog post on Monday, it has failed to correct the problem. As of the writing of this post, Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails is still maintaining that smoking in movies "kills about 340 young people a day."
Background
According to the SceneSmoking.org web site, 340 young people die every day from seeing smoking in movies. SceneSmoking.org is a web site dedicated to the effort to get smoking out of movies seen by young people, and is run by Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails.
At the bottom left corner of the home page, you'll see a statistic given in the form of a movie ratings label. The label is "SK-340." It reads: "Viewers Strongly Cautioned. Smoking Kills About 340 Young People A Day. Smoking in Movies is Not Cool, Healthy Nor Needed."
Presumably, what the statistic intends to communicate is that 340 young people die each day from the depiction of smoking in the movies. It appears that the support for this statistic comes directly from a paper by Dr. Stanton Glantz which was published in the journal The Lancet in July 2003 ("Smoking in movies: a major problem and a real solution").
According to that article: "In the USA, about 2050 adolescents (age 12–17) start smoking every day and about 32% of these people—660 a day—will die prematurely because of smoking. Assuming that the 52·2% attributable risk observed by Dalton and colleagues applies to this whole group, smoking in movies is responsible for addicting 1080 US adolescents to tobacco every day, 340 of whom will die prematurely as a result."
So according to this paper, 340 young people become addicted to smoking each day due to seeing smoking in movies and will eventually die prematurely as a result.
On its face, the claim by this anti-smoking group is absurd. There are not 340 deaths among young people each day due to smoking, much less due to smoking that was caused by exposure to smoking in movies.
In fact, according to the CDC, there are no (ZERO) deaths attributable to smoking among persons under age 35. The reason is quite simple: it is rare for young people to die from smoking.
Now of course one could argue about what is meant by "young people." If one argues that anyone under age 65 is a "young" person (a definition that becomes increasingly appealing to me each year), then perhaps this claim is no longer absurdly false. But it would then be terribly misleading, because I doubt that anyone reading the web page is thinking of 40 and 50 and 60-year-olds when they read that "Smoking [in Movies] Kills 340 Young People A Day."
For the purposes of its smoking-attributable death calculations, the CDC defines middle-age as starting at age 35. I've never heard public health scientists referring to an age group above age 35 as representing what they mean when they talk about "young people."
Now I've already explained why I don't believe it is accurate even to claim that exposure to smoking in movies causes 340 young people to eventually die prematurely from smoking. But to state that 340 young people die each day because of exposure to smoking in movies is ludicrous. And patently false.
I really don't understand this need to lie to the public, or to stretch the truth beyond recognition, in order to make a point to the public. Forgetting about my argument that there is no valid scientific support for the claim that smoking in movies kills 120,000 people each year, if SceneSmoking.org wanted to accept this statistic from this one author, then what would the problem have been in stating that 340 young people will eventually die prematurely due to smoking in movies?
The problem, as far as I can see, is that it would not have been sensational enough. Apparently, it is no longer enough to tell the truth in tobacco control. It is not good enough to accurately represent the science.
The Rest of the Story
Today, the story gets more revealing. Based on the response of the anti-smoking activist who is largely responsible for this statistic, this is not merely a careless error. In fact, it does not appear that he, nor the group making the claim, care about the accuracy of the claim. They are neither willing to defend the claim or to remove or correct it.
There are really only two reasonable responses to my email:
1) Sorry Mike. You are wrong. And here is why; or
2) Thanks Mike. You are right. We'll fix it.
But instead, from the anti-smoking activist I get:
"I don't waste my time on you and your blog any more."
And from the group making the claim, I get:
bupkes.
It really does appear, then, that this deception by an anti-smoking group is not merely some sort of careless mistake. It certainly appears that it is a calculated decision to deceive the public. In other words, this appears to be intentional deception.
I am willing to reconsider my opinion that this anti-smoking group is willfully deceiving the public. But first, I need to see documentation of the "fact" that 340 young people die each day from smoking.
So I challenge Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails to provide documentation that there are 120,000 young people who die each year from smoking.
Given the fact that I have been in the position of generating the nation's statistics on the age-specific mortality from smoking (as an epidemiologist at the CDC's Office on Smoking and Health), I can tell you that the annual number of deaths from smoking among young people (even if we define young as less than 40 years of age) is nowhere near 120,000. Not even close. Not remotely close.
But I am still willing to see documentation to the contrary.
I'm anxiously awaiting it.
I'll let you know tomorrow whether I get it. But I can tell you that if I don't, it's going to be very difficult to continue to maintain my position that the anti-smoking groups are not deliberately lying to the public.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Tobacco Control List-Serve Admits that It Expelled Rest of the Story Author Because He Was Critical of Anti-Smoking Groups and Expressed Disagreement
It is now official. McCarthyism is alive and well in the anti-smoking movement.
Yesterday, the list-serve which expelled me for what I claimed was my gall to express disagreement with the established wisdom of the tobacco control movement has publicly acknowledged that the reason I was expelled was that I had the gall to express disagreement with the established wisdom of the tobacco control movement.
Back in December 2005, I wrote - in response to my expulsion - that: "the tobacco control movement simply cannot tolerate any dissent. ... in response to speaking out to suggest that perhaps some of the things we are doing are not appropriate, the movement resorts to attacking the messenger, and now censoring that individual's free expression of opinion. ... What is really being said is that I disagreed with some of the dogmatic views of the movement. In this case, that's what interference means: disagreeing with the mentality of the movement. There clearly is no room for dissent in the tobacco control movement, and dissent is met not only with personal attacks, but now, with outright censorship."
It turns out that what I opined was exactly correct, and the list-serve has now publicly acknowledged that. In a message sent to the list-serve today, an administrator wrote that I was expelled from the list-serve for two reasons:
(1) for criticizing health organizations for misrepresenting scientific evidence about the risks of brief secondhand smoke exposure; and
(2) for criticizing health organizations for supporting various policies, such as firing all smokers at workplaces and making smoking around children a form of child abuse.
The administrator wrote: "Mike Siegel has misrepresented his expulsion from tp-talk as due solely to his criticism of health organizations for misrepresenting scientific evidence about short term 2nd hand smoke risks, when Mike's expulsion from tp-talk was also due to Mike's ad hominem attacks on health organizations for merely not agreeing with Mike's adamant opposition to:
- smokefree workplace laws that exempt even one workplace (i.e. every smokefree workplace law),
- outdoor smokefree laws for playgrounds, parks, beaches, near building entrances, etc.,
- laws and other public policies that protect children from tobacco smoke pollution exposure,
- cigarette tax hikes, and
- smokefree hiring/firing policies adopted by employers. "
The Rest of the Story
So my expulsion from the tobacco control list-serve was not only for my "criticism of health organizations for misrepresenting scientific evidence about short term 2nd hand smoke risks."
Which means that my expulsion from the tobacco control list-serve, according to the list-serve itself, was in part due to my "criticism of health organizations for misrepresenting scientific evidence about short term 2nd hand smoke risks."
So let's get this straight. You can participate on a tobacco control list-serve and take part in discussions all you want; however, you are not free to criticize any health organizations, even if they are misrepresenting scientific evidence to the public.
That bears repeating, especially because these are the admitted sentiments of the tobacco control list-serve administration, not my own: You can participate on a tobacco control list-serve and take part in discussions all you want; however, you are not free to criticize any health organizations, even if they are misrepresenting scientific evidence to the public.
The other admitted reason for my expulsion was that I expressed disagreement with and criticized health organizations for supporting certain policies, including policies by which employers fire all their smokers and refuse to hire any smokers and policies by which parents who smoke around their children are treated as child abusers.
So let's get that straight. You are not free to disagree with the policies being supported by anti-smoking groups. You have to agree with everything they do. You have to support every policy they support. Or at least keep quiet if you disagree.
That bears repeating, especially because these are the admitted sentiments of the tobacco control list-serve administration, not my own: You are not free to disagree with the policies being supported by anti-smoking groups. You have to agree with everything they do. You have to support every policy they support. Or at least keep quiet if you disagree.
Clearly, there is no room for dissent in tobacco control. Certainly not on its list-serves.
Disagreeing with anti-smoking organizations and their policies is not allowed. Criticizing tobacco control groups is not allowed.
You have no choice but either to go along with the established wisdom of the movement or to be quiet. If you express a difference of opinion, you are - in the eyes of the movement - subject to expulsion and therefore, to censorship.
The rest of the story is that the list-serve from which I was expelled has now publicly admitted that it committed outright censorship: I was kicked off the list-serve because I was expressing criticism of anti-smoking groups and opposition to certain [arguably radical] anti-smoking policies.
Interestingly, the main focus of my criticism of anti-smoking groups was that they are misrepresenting scientific information, which I view as a violation of the most basic ethical principle of public health.
The main focus of my criticism of tobacco control policies was that they represented discrimination against smokers and undue invasion of individual employee privacy. I also dared to suggest that smoking around children is not the same thing as physically or sexually abusing a child.
Apparently, if you believe that there is a major difference between exposing a child to secondhand smoke and smacking that child repeatedly so that you break his ribcage, you are simply not welcome in the tobacco control movement. You are, after all, expressing opposition to a policy intended to protect children from secondhand smoke.
Actually, the above statement is wrong. If you believe that there is a major difference between exposing a child to secondhand smoke and smacking that child repeatedly so that you break his ribcage, you are welcome in the tobacco control movement. You are welcome as long as you keep that opinion to yourself. If you express it publicly, then you are subject to censorship and expulsion from the movement.
The administrator of one of the largest and most important tobacco control list-serves has now publicly admitted to outright censorship.
This is McCarthyism in action. Quelling debate. Stifling opposition. Expelling and blacklisting anyone who dares express dissent.
No wonder the tobacco control movement has gone off the deep end in its fanaticism. Anyone who tries to stop it knows that they will be censored or expelled. You have no choice but to go along with the groupthink.
So now we know The Rest of the Story.
Yesterday, the list-serve which expelled me for what I claimed was my gall to express disagreement with the established wisdom of the tobacco control movement has publicly acknowledged that the reason I was expelled was that I had the gall to express disagreement with the established wisdom of the tobacco control movement.
Back in December 2005, I wrote - in response to my expulsion - that: "the tobacco control movement simply cannot tolerate any dissent. ... in response to speaking out to suggest that perhaps some of the things we are doing are not appropriate, the movement resorts to attacking the messenger, and now censoring that individual's free expression of opinion. ... What is really being said is that I disagreed with some of the dogmatic views of the movement. In this case, that's what interference means: disagreeing with the mentality of the movement. There clearly is no room for dissent in the tobacco control movement, and dissent is met not only with personal attacks, but now, with outright censorship."
It turns out that what I opined was exactly correct, and the list-serve has now publicly acknowledged that. In a message sent to the list-serve today, an administrator wrote that I was expelled from the list-serve for two reasons:
(1) for criticizing health organizations for misrepresenting scientific evidence about the risks of brief secondhand smoke exposure; and
(2) for criticizing health organizations for supporting various policies, such as firing all smokers at workplaces and making smoking around children a form of child abuse.
The administrator wrote: "Mike Siegel has misrepresented his expulsion from tp-talk as due solely to his criticism of health organizations for misrepresenting scientific evidence about short term 2nd hand smoke risks, when Mike's expulsion from tp-talk was also due to Mike's ad hominem attacks on health organizations for merely not agreeing with Mike's adamant opposition to:
- smokefree workplace laws that exempt even one workplace (i.e. every smokefree workplace law),
- outdoor smokefree laws for playgrounds, parks, beaches, near building entrances, etc.,
- laws and other public policies that protect children from tobacco smoke pollution exposure,
- cigarette tax hikes, and
- smokefree hiring/firing policies adopted by employers. "
The Rest of the Story
So my expulsion from the tobacco control list-serve was not only for my "criticism of health organizations for misrepresenting scientific evidence about short term 2nd hand smoke risks."
Which means that my expulsion from the tobacco control list-serve, according to the list-serve itself, was in part due to my "criticism of health organizations for misrepresenting scientific evidence about short term 2nd hand smoke risks."
So let's get this straight. You can participate on a tobacco control list-serve and take part in discussions all you want; however, you are not free to criticize any health organizations, even if they are misrepresenting scientific evidence to the public.
That bears repeating, especially because these are the admitted sentiments of the tobacco control list-serve administration, not my own: You can participate on a tobacco control list-serve and take part in discussions all you want; however, you are not free to criticize any health organizations, even if they are misrepresenting scientific evidence to the public.
The other admitted reason for my expulsion was that I expressed disagreement with and criticized health organizations for supporting certain policies, including policies by which employers fire all their smokers and refuse to hire any smokers and policies by which parents who smoke around their children are treated as child abusers.
So let's get that straight. You are not free to disagree with the policies being supported by anti-smoking groups. You have to agree with everything they do. You have to support every policy they support. Or at least keep quiet if you disagree.
That bears repeating, especially because these are the admitted sentiments of the tobacco control list-serve administration, not my own: You are not free to disagree with the policies being supported by anti-smoking groups. You have to agree with everything they do. You have to support every policy they support. Or at least keep quiet if you disagree.
Clearly, there is no room for dissent in tobacco control. Certainly not on its list-serves.
Disagreeing with anti-smoking organizations and their policies is not allowed. Criticizing tobacco control groups is not allowed.
You have no choice but either to go along with the established wisdom of the movement or to be quiet. If you express a difference of opinion, you are - in the eyes of the movement - subject to expulsion and therefore, to censorship.
The rest of the story is that the list-serve from which I was expelled has now publicly admitted that it committed outright censorship: I was kicked off the list-serve because I was expressing criticism of anti-smoking groups and opposition to certain [arguably radical] anti-smoking policies.
Interestingly, the main focus of my criticism of anti-smoking groups was that they are misrepresenting scientific information, which I view as a violation of the most basic ethical principle of public health.
The main focus of my criticism of tobacco control policies was that they represented discrimination against smokers and undue invasion of individual employee privacy. I also dared to suggest that smoking around children is not the same thing as physically or sexually abusing a child.
Apparently, if you believe that there is a major difference between exposing a child to secondhand smoke and smacking that child repeatedly so that you break his ribcage, you are simply not welcome in the tobacco control movement. You are, after all, expressing opposition to a policy intended to protect children from secondhand smoke.
Actually, the above statement is wrong. If you believe that there is a major difference between exposing a child to secondhand smoke and smacking that child repeatedly so that you break his ribcage, you are welcome in the tobacco control movement. You are welcome as long as you keep that opinion to yourself. If you express it publicly, then you are subject to censorship and expulsion from the movement.
The administrator of one of the largest and most important tobacco control list-serves has now publicly admitted to outright censorship.
This is McCarthyism in action. Quelling debate. Stifling opposition. Expelling and blacklisting anyone who dares express dissent.
No wonder the tobacco control movement has gone off the deep end in its fanaticism. Anyone who tries to stop it knows that they will be censored or expelled. You have no choice but to go along with the groupthink.
So now we know The Rest of the Story.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
A Salvo of Articles Directing Public Attention to the Widespread Misrepresentation of Science by Anti-Smoking Groups
Today, I highlight three articles - one from a scientific journal, one from a newspaper, and one from a magazine - which expose the misrepresentation, by anti-smoking groups, of the scientific evidence about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke.
1. POST #1: In his commentary published today in the journal Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, Dr. Carl Phillips, a professor at the University of Alberta and an editor of the journal, warns that "Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science." The commentary accompanies two pieces - one by me and one by Dr. James Enstrom - which highlight the anti-tobacco movement's attack on researchers who dared to publish findings which could be construed as unfavorable to the movement.
2. POST #2: In an article in the current issue of Skeptic magazine, Sidney Zion highlights the absurd claims that anti-smoking groups are making about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke.
3. POST #3: In an op-ed piece published today in the New York Post, Jeff Stier - associate director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) - highlights the misrepresentation of the acute effects of secondhand smoke by a large number of anti-smoking groups.
The Rest of the Story
I and The Rest of the Story blog played a substantial role in bringing this issue to media and public attention. The New York Post piece is based largely largely on my article published this week in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations. The journal itself today published a commentary which highlights not only my own story, but a similar story of Dr. James Enstrom, whose character has also been attacked by anti-smoking activists because he produced results unfavorable to them. Sidney Zion's article is based heavily upon his interview with me, in which I revealed the widespread misrepresentation of the science about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke and the fanatical agenda that has recently been adopted by many tobacco control groups.
It is exceedingly difficult to get this story out to the media and to the public. It is thus very satisfying to have such a salvo of public attention to this important issue within a single week.
While my hope would be that the tobacco control groups take a step back and re-examine the public statements they are making, I am well aware that will not happen. The end is the only thing that matters. While it is intolerable for the tobacco companies to lie to the public, it is perfectly acceptable for anti-smoking groups to mislead the public, as long as the end goal is a good one. You can't lie to sell cigarettes; but it is OK to lie if it is for the children.
1. POST #1: In his commentary published today in the journal Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, Dr. Carl Phillips, a professor at the University of Alberta and an editor of the journal, warns that "Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science." The commentary accompanies two pieces - one by me and one by Dr. James Enstrom - which highlight the anti-tobacco movement's attack on researchers who dared to publish findings which could be construed as unfavorable to the movement.
2. POST #2: In an article in the current issue of Skeptic magazine, Sidney Zion highlights the absurd claims that anti-smoking groups are making about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke.
3. POST #3: In an op-ed piece published today in the New York Post, Jeff Stier - associate director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) - highlights the misrepresentation of the acute effects of secondhand smoke by a large number of anti-smoking groups.
The Rest of the Story
I and The Rest of the Story blog played a substantial role in bringing this issue to media and public attention. The New York Post piece is based largely largely on my article published this week in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations. The journal itself today published a commentary which highlights not only my own story, but a similar story of Dr. James Enstrom, whose character has also been attacked by anti-smoking activists because he produced results unfavorable to them. Sidney Zion's article is based heavily upon his interview with me, in which I revealed the widespread misrepresentation of the science about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke and the fanatical agenda that has recently been adopted by many tobacco control groups.
It is exceedingly difficult to get this story out to the media and to the public. It is thus very satisfying to have such a salvo of public attention to this important issue within a single week.
While my hope would be that the tobacco control groups take a step back and re-examine the public statements they are making, I am well aware that will not happen. The end is the only thing that matters. While it is intolerable for the tobacco companies to lie to the public, it is perfectly acceptable for anti-smoking groups to mislead the public, as long as the end goal is a good one. You can't lie to sell cigarettes; but it is OK to lie if it is for the children.
New York Post Op-Ed Highlights Anti-Smoking Groups' Misrepresentation of the Acute Cardiovascular Effects of Secondhand Smoke
In an op-ed piece published today in the New York Post, Jeff Stier - associate director of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) - highlights the misrepresentation of the acute effects of secondhand smoke by a large number of anti-smoking groups. Stier's article, which was prompted by the publication of my study on this topic this week in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, argues that by overstating the case, anti-smoking groups are actually doing great harm to the larger public health movement.
In the column, entitled "Smoke & Mirrors: Butts, Lies, and Public Health," Stier writes of the irony that the days of deception about the health effects of tobacco smoke are not over, but not due to the re-emergence of tobacco industry propaganda. Instead, "it's anti-smoking advocates spreading the disinformation - overstating certain risks. But - because such deception undermines the credibility of all public-health work - they're being called on it by one of their own."
In the column, entitled "Smoke & Mirrors: Butts, Lies, and Public Health," Stier writes of the irony that the days of deception about the health effects of tobacco smoke are not over, but not due to the re-emergence of tobacco industry propaganda. Instead, "it's anti-smoking advocates spreading the disinformation - overstating certain risks. But - because such deception undermines the credibility of all public-health work - they're being called on it by one of their own."
"A startling study by Dr. Michael Siegel of Boston University's School of Public Health is pointing the finger at the well-intentioned likes of Action on Smoking and Health, the politically powerful Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and New York City's Department of Health. In a study published this week in the journal Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, Siegel warns that these groups are wildly inflating the health risks of exposure to second-hand smoke. In doing so, they tarnish the very credibility that the public-health community must have in order to save lives."
"Siegel is no friend of Big Tobacco - he's a vocal opponent of smoking and a supporter of smoke-free workplace rules. Indeed, it was his place as a leading member of the tobacco-control community that compelled him to publish his findings that some groups are harming the movement's credibility by overstating the dangers of short-term exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)."
"There is evidence that long-term, high-dose ETS exposure increases the risk of heart disease and heart attack. And there is speculation that even short-term exposure may be unsafe to those with severe coronary artery disease. But the evidence does not support the claim that more than 100 groups are wantonly making - which is that acute, transient exposure to ETS increases heart-attack risk in healthy individuals."
"The lack of evidence hasn't stopped Commissioner Thomas Frieden at the city Health Department, which is buying ads in The New York Times claiming that "just 30 minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke produces some of the same physical reactions that would occur from long-term smoking, and increases the risk of heart disease in non-smokers."
"The "evidence" behind that assertion is so flimsy that it would be laughed at if it supported the finding that smoking is less dangerous than we once thought. The clear implication is that some anti-smoking activists have adopted an "ends justifies the means" approach in pursuit of their noble cause."
"This is what makes Siegel's report so troubling. No longer can we rely on the public-health establishment for scientifically accurate information. They'll fudge the numbers if they have to, so long as it promotes their overall agenda - in this case, the drive to outlaw smoking in all public places."
"Even more disturbing is that some in the tobacco-control community are attacking those raising questions. Siegel was banned from the primary tobacco listserv for simply sharing his dissenting views."
Stier concludes: "Cigarette smoking is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States and needs our urgent attention. Overstating the case may help the advocates win this political battle but at significant cost to the overall public-health war."
Article in Skeptic Magazine Highlights Absurd Claims of Anti-Smoking Groups
In an article in the current issue of Skeptic magazine, Sidney Zion highlights the absurd claims that anti-smoking groups are making about the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke (see: Zion S. Science and Secondhand Smoke: The Need for a Good Puff of Skepticism. Skeptic 2007; 13[3]:20-27). In doing so, Zion draws heavily upon his interview with me.
He writes: "Dr. Michael Siegel was ex-communicated in late February 2006. A momentous event in the annals of anti-smoking militancy, for Siegel was a pioneer in the long fight to bar smoking in restaurants. He's a physician and a professor in Boston University's School of Public Health. If the Movement had a College of Cardinals, he'd have been among the first to wear the red hat. These credentials availed him nothing, for he committed the Mortal Sin of Criticism against the Infallible ASH and its pontiff, John Banzhaf."
"What brought Siegel to the apostasy was his revulsion at ASH's "fanatical" positions: that outdoor smoking should be banned, that companies should fire all smokers, that cities that permitted outdoor smoking would likely be sued by nonsmokers who keeled over from heart attacks, and for boasting that they were going to break the final frontier, by banning smoking in private homes."
"The means to these ends was ASH's claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke could cause fatal heart attacks in otherwise healthy nonsmokers. "In science and medicine," Siegel wrote in his blog, "we have a technical term that can be used to describe such a contention: a bunch of crap."
"Since ASH was promoting this line in the context of outdoor smoking, I asked Siegel if he thought they were right about half-hour heart attacks from indoor smoking. 'Of course not,' he said. 'As for outdoor smoking, I've never seen a credible study that [it] has ever killed anybody in any amount of time. If 30 minutes can cause fatal heart attacks, we'd have noticed it. People would be dying like flies.'"
In a piece that provides somewhat of a counter-point (in terms of the effects of chronic exposure to secondhand smoke), Dr. Harriet Hall, a physician who has no connection to the anti-smoking movement (at least not that I am aware of) expresses her agreement that the anti-smoking movement is seriously overstating its case. This is an important development, because it gives some indication of what a "neutral" physician believes and how she views this debate (see: Hall H. Clearing the Air: What Does Science Really Say About Secondhand Smoke? Skeptic 2007; 13[3]:28-31).
Dr. Hall writes: "Sidney Zion is right about one thing: anti-smoking activists have overstated the evidence against secondhand smoke. ... Hysterical anti-smoking activists have gone overboard, using this uncertainty [about whether there is a threshold below which secondhand smoke is absolutely innocuous] alone to support their demands for total bans. ... Common sense tells us that a low level of exposure is innocuous enough for practical purposes. Common sense tells us that judges should not be taking children away from parents just because the parents smoke."
He writes: "Dr. Michael Siegel was ex-communicated in late February 2006. A momentous event in the annals of anti-smoking militancy, for Siegel was a pioneer in the long fight to bar smoking in restaurants. He's a physician and a professor in Boston University's School of Public Health. If the Movement had a College of Cardinals, he'd have been among the first to wear the red hat. These credentials availed him nothing, for he committed the Mortal Sin of Criticism against the Infallible ASH and its pontiff, John Banzhaf."
"What brought Siegel to the apostasy was his revulsion at ASH's "fanatical" positions: that outdoor smoking should be banned, that companies should fire all smokers, that cities that permitted outdoor smoking would likely be sued by nonsmokers who keeled over from heart attacks, and for boasting that they were going to break the final frontier, by banning smoking in private homes."
"The means to these ends was ASH's claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke could cause fatal heart attacks in otherwise healthy nonsmokers. "In science and medicine," Siegel wrote in his blog, "we have a technical term that can be used to describe such a contention: a bunch of crap."
"Since ASH was promoting this line in the context of outdoor smoking, I asked Siegel if he thought they were right about half-hour heart attacks from indoor smoking. 'Of course not,' he said. 'As for outdoor smoking, I've never seen a credible study that [it] has ever killed anybody in any amount of time. If 30 minutes can cause fatal heart attacks, we'd have noticed it. People would be dying like flies.'"
In a piece that provides somewhat of a counter-point (in terms of the effects of chronic exposure to secondhand smoke), Dr. Harriet Hall, a physician who has no connection to the anti-smoking movement (at least not that I am aware of) expresses her agreement that the anti-smoking movement is seriously overstating its case. This is an important development, because it gives some indication of what a "neutral" physician believes and how she views this debate (see: Hall H. Clearing the Air: What Does Science Really Say About Secondhand Smoke? Skeptic 2007; 13[3]:28-31).
Dr. Hall writes: "Sidney Zion is right about one thing: anti-smoking activists have overstated the evidence against secondhand smoke. ... Hysterical anti-smoking activists have gone overboard, using this uncertainty [about whether there is a threshold below which secondhand smoke is absolutely innocuous] alone to support their demands for total bans. ... Common sense tells us that a low level of exposure is innocuous enough for practical purposes. Common sense tells us that judges should not be taking children away from parents just because the parents smoke."
Commentary in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations Highlights Threats to Science from Anti-Tobacco Activism
In his commentary published today in the journal Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, Dr. Carl Phillips, a professor at the University of Alberta and an editor of the journal, warns that "Anti-tobacco activism may be hazardous to epidemiologic science." The commentary accompanies two pieces - one by me and one by Dr. James Enstrom - which highlight the anti-tobacco movement's attack on researchers who dared to publish findings which could be construed as unfavorable to the movement. Dr. Phillips adds his own story: he, too, was ex-communicated from the tobacco control movement because he suggested that a harm reduction strategy, rather than a risk elimination strategy, be considered.
Speaking about all three cases, Dr. Phillips writes: "The three cases (including my own experience, described below) involve scientists whose careers are substantially devoted to the anti-smoking cause, but who have been viciously attacked by anti-tobacco advocates for not adhering 100% to the party line. These attacks are examples of the threat to honest science by powerful organized interests, a threat to which the science of epidemiology seems particularly vulnerable [3,4]."
Importantly, my case adds an example of someone who has not received funding from tobacco companies but has been treated in the same way as those who have. As Dr. Phillips points out: "Many of the attacks against Enstrom and me, though clearly directed at the content of our research, have been rationalized based on it being partially funded by unrestricted grants from the tobacco industry. The evidence that this is a rationalization can be found in the similarly vehement attacks on those who defied the orthodoxy but have not received industry funding, including Siegel."
Speaking about my own case, Dr. Phillips writes: "The accompanying article by Michael Siegel [1] recounts a particularly egregious misrepresentation of epidemiologic research by self-styled public health advocates. This might not be considered newsworthy, except for the fact that Siegel – a respected researcher and writer, and well-known anti-smoking advocate in his own right – actively attempted to correct the misrepresentation and was attacked for this. Indeed, Siegel's defenses of epidemiologic evidence, which anti-tobacco advocates preferred to ignore or misrepresent, resulted in him being "excommunicated" (there is really no other word that captures it) from the anti-smoking activists' inner circles." ...
"Readers of the Siegel article may find his story less surprising, given how common it is for activists of various stripes to casually misconstrue epidemiologic findings to support their political ends. But the full story is really more disturbing than that: Almost no other researchers have joined Siegel in pointing out the errors in the claims he brought to light, even though the claims in question were not remotely plausible. Moreover, respected organizations that are the face of epidemiology to most of the public (in particular, the major player of the Enstrom story, the American Cancer Society (ACS)), organizations that claim scientific authority, have joined the chorus that makes the ridiculous claim that Siegel has critiqued. (Several new chapters of this story have been written since Siegel finalized this manuscript [5-7], and they can be found in his blog [8], which is the best source of honest, scientifically-sophisticated, up-to-date analysis on matters related to tobacco policy.)" ...
"Readers interested in further distortions of science relating to ETS research should read Siegel's blog entries that mention the Helena, Montana study or the recent reports from New York. It was claimed by authors who positioned themselves as epidemiologists that ETS exposure in public places causes 10%, or perhaps 40%, or maybe even 60% of all heart attacks. It is difficult to understand how such patently absurd claims can be made without an outcry from legitimate scientists."
Speaking about all three cases, Dr. Phillips writes: "The three cases (including my own experience, described below) involve scientists whose careers are substantially devoted to the anti-smoking cause, but who have been viciously attacked by anti-tobacco advocates for not adhering 100% to the party line. These attacks are examples of the threat to honest science by powerful organized interests, a threat to which the science of epidemiology seems particularly vulnerable [3,4]."
Importantly, my case adds an example of someone who has not received funding from tobacco companies but has been treated in the same way as those who have. As Dr. Phillips points out: "Many of the attacks against Enstrom and me, though clearly directed at the content of our research, have been rationalized based on it being partially funded by unrestricted grants from the tobacco industry. The evidence that this is a rationalization can be found in the similarly vehement attacks on those who defied the orthodoxy but have not received industry funding, including Siegel."
Speaking about my own case, Dr. Phillips writes: "The accompanying article by Michael Siegel [1] recounts a particularly egregious misrepresentation of epidemiologic research by self-styled public health advocates. This might not be considered newsworthy, except for the fact that Siegel – a respected researcher and writer, and well-known anti-smoking advocate in his own right – actively attempted to correct the misrepresentation and was attacked for this. Indeed, Siegel's defenses of epidemiologic evidence, which anti-tobacco advocates preferred to ignore or misrepresent, resulted in him being "excommunicated" (there is really no other word that captures it) from the anti-smoking activists' inner circles." ...
"Readers of the Siegel article may find his story less surprising, given how common it is for activists of various stripes to casually misconstrue epidemiologic findings to support their political ends. But the full story is really more disturbing than that: Almost no other researchers have joined Siegel in pointing out the errors in the claims he brought to light, even though the claims in question were not remotely plausible. Moreover, respected organizations that are the face of epidemiology to most of the public (in particular, the major player of the Enstrom story, the American Cancer Society (ACS)), organizations that claim scientific authority, have joined the chorus that makes the ridiculous claim that Siegel has critiqued. (Several new chapters of this story have been written since Siegel finalized this manuscript [5-7], and they can be found in his blog [8], which is the best source of honest, scientifically-sophisticated, up-to-date analysis on matters related to tobacco policy.)" ...
"Readers interested in further distortions of science relating to ETS research should read Siegel's blog entries that mention the Helena, Montana study or the recent reports from New York. It was claimed by authors who positioned themselves as epidemiologists that ETS exposure in public places causes 10%, or perhaps 40%, or maybe even 60% of all heart attacks. It is difficult to understand how such patently absurd claims can be made without an outcry from legitimate scientists."
Monday, October 22, 2007
Anti-Smoking Group Claims that 340 Young People Die Each Day from Seeing Smoking in Movies
According to the SceneSmoking.org web site, 340 young people die every day from seeing smoking in movies. SceneSmoking.org is a web site dedicated to the effort to get smoking out of movies seen by young people, and is run by Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails.
At the bottom left corner of the home page, you'll see a statistic given in the form of a movie ratings label. The label is "SK-340." It reads: "Viewers Strongly Cautioned. Smoking Kills About 340 Young People A Day. Smoking in Movies is Not Cool, Healthy Nor Needed."
Presumably, what the statistic intends to communicate is that 340 young people die each day from the depiction of smoking in the movies. It appears that the support for this statistic comes directly from a paper by Dr. Stanton Glantz which was published in the journal The Lancet in July 2003 ("Smoking in movies: a major problem and a real solution").
According to that article: "In the USA, about 2050 adolescents (age 12–17) start smoking every day and about 32% of these people—660 a day—will die prematurely because of smoking. Assuming that the 52·2% attributable risk observed by Dalton and colleagues applies to this whole group, smoking in movies is responsible for addicting 1080 US adolescents to tobacco every day, 340 of whom will die prematurely as a result."
So according to this paper, 340 young people become addicted to smoking each day due to seeing smoking in movies and will eventually die prematurely as a result.
The Rest of the Story
On its face, the claim by this anti-smoking group is absurd. There are not 340 deaths among young people each day due to smoking, much less due to smoking that was caused by exposure to smoking in movies.
In fact, according to the CDC, there are no (ZERO) deaths attributable to smoking among persons under age 35. The reason is quite simple: it is rare for young people to die from smoking.
Now of course one could argue about what is meant by "young people." If one argues that anyone under age 65 is a "young" person (a definition that becomes increasingly appealing to me each year), then perhaps this claim is no longer absurdly false. But it would then be terribly misleading, because I doubt that anyone reading the web page is thinking of 40 and 50 and 60-year-olds when they read that "Smoking [in Movies] Kills 340 Young People A Day."
For the purposes of its smoking-attributable death calculations, the CDC defines middle-age as starting at age 35. I've never heard public health scientists referring to an age group above age 35 as representing what they mean when they talk about "young people."
Now I've already explained why I don't believe it is accurate even to claim that exposure to smoking in movies causes 340 young people to eventually die prematurely from smoking. But to state that 340 young people die each day because of exposure to smoking in movies is ludicrous. And patently false.
I really don't understand this need to lie to the public, or to stretch the truth beyond recognition, in order to make a point to the public. Forgetting about my argument that there is no valid scientific support for the claim that smoking in movies kills 120,000 people each year, if SceneSmoking.org wanted to accept this statistic from this one author, then what would the problem have been in stating that 340 young people will eventually die prematurely due to smoking in movies?
The problem, as far as I can see, is that it would not have been sensational enough. Apparently, it is no longer enough to tell the truth in tobacco control. It is not good enough to accurately represent the science.
You need to lie in order to sensationalize your message. You need to misrepresent the facts. Otherwise I guess you're not doing your job.
By the way, have you ever wondered what those movie theater ushers do during the ten minutes in between movie showings? They're not just cleaning up spilled popcorn and candy. They're picking up the dead bodies of the young people who died from seeing the smoking in those movies. No wonder that job never appealed to me.
(Thanks to James Austin for the tip).
At the bottom left corner of the home page, you'll see a statistic given in the form of a movie ratings label. The label is "SK-340." It reads: "Viewers Strongly Cautioned. Smoking Kills About 340 Young People A Day. Smoking in Movies is Not Cool, Healthy Nor Needed."
Presumably, what the statistic intends to communicate is that 340 young people die each day from the depiction of smoking in the movies. It appears that the support for this statistic comes directly from a paper by Dr. Stanton Glantz which was published in the journal The Lancet in July 2003 ("Smoking in movies: a major problem and a real solution").
According to that article: "In the USA, about 2050 adolescents (age 12–17) start smoking every day and about 32% of these people—660 a day—will die prematurely because of smoking. Assuming that the 52·2% attributable risk observed by Dalton and colleagues applies to this whole group, smoking in movies is responsible for addicting 1080 US adolescents to tobacco every day, 340 of whom will die prematurely as a result."
So according to this paper, 340 young people become addicted to smoking each day due to seeing smoking in movies and will eventually die prematurely as a result.
The Rest of the Story
On its face, the claim by this anti-smoking group is absurd. There are not 340 deaths among young people each day due to smoking, much less due to smoking that was caused by exposure to smoking in movies.
In fact, according to the CDC, there are no (ZERO) deaths attributable to smoking among persons under age 35. The reason is quite simple: it is rare for young people to die from smoking.
Now of course one could argue about what is meant by "young people." If one argues that anyone under age 65 is a "young" person (a definition that becomes increasingly appealing to me each year), then perhaps this claim is no longer absurdly false. But it would then be terribly misleading, because I doubt that anyone reading the web page is thinking of 40 and 50 and 60-year-olds when they read that "Smoking [in Movies] Kills 340 Young People A Day."
For the purposes of its smoking-attributable death calculations, the CDC defines middle-age as starting at age 35. I've never heard public health scientists referring to an age group above age 35 as representing what they mean when they talk about "young people."
Now I've already explained why I don't believe it is accurate even to claim that exposure to smoking in movies causes 340 young people to eventually die prematurely from smoking. But to state that 340 young people die each day because of exposure to smoking in movies is ludicrous. And patently false.
I really don't understand this need to lie to the public, or to stretch the truth beyond recognition, in order to make a point to the public. Forgetting about my argument that there is no valid scientific support for the claim that smoking in movies kills 120,000 people each year, if SceneSmoking.org wanted to accept this statistic from this one author, then what would the problem have been in stating that 340 young people will eventually die prematurely due to smoking in movies?
The problem, as far as I can see, is that it would not have been sensational enough. Apparently, it is no longer enough to tell the truth in tobacco control. It is not good enough to accurately represent the science.
You need to lie in order to sensationalize your message. You need to misrepresent the facts. Otherwise I guess you're not doing your job.
By the way, have you ever wondered what those movie theater ushers do during the ten minutes in between movie showings? They're not just cleaning up spilled popcorn and candy. They're picking up the dead bodies of the young people who died from seeing the smoking in those movies. No wonder that job never appealed to me.
(Thanks to James Austin for the tip).
Saturday, October 20, 2007
IN MY VIEW: Why Has The Tobacco Control Movement Lost Its Scientific Integrity?
In this post, I address two questions that have been asked by a number of readers and by several reporters since the publication of my article in Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations, which concludes that many anti-smoking groups are misrepresenting the acute cardiovascular health effects of secondhand smoke:
1. Did this misrepresentation of the science just start, or has it been going on for some time?
2. If the misrepresentation of the science has been increasing over time, why?
My answer to the first question is that while some misrepresentation of the science may have been occurring for some time, there has, without a doubt, been a dramatic increase in the amount of this misrepresentation. Without question, it is over the past six years, from 2001 forward, that I have observed a complete loss of scientific integrity within the tobacco control movement.
My answer to the second question is that the loss of scientific integrity in tobacco control coincides perfectly with the abdication by the tobacco industry of its role as a watchdog for "anti-tobacco industry" statements and communications.
In essence, the role that I am now playing is one that the tobacco industry used to play, albeit for a different reason. The tobacco industry played a watchdog role because they wanted to discredit tobacco control and undermine its public credibility. I am now playing this watchdog role because I want to restore the scientific integrity of the movement and save its public credibility. Nevertheless, the role that I am playing is very similar to what the tobacco industry used to do.
To some extent, it is surprising to me that the tobacco companies have not made more of a public display over the outright misrepresentation of science by anti-smoking groups. I suppose they feel that if they just lay back, the movement will destroy its own credibility. This may be a wise strategy, since it seems that every day, the claims get more and more absurd (wait until you read Monday's post).
First it was 30 minutes of secondhand smoke being fatal, then 20 minutes, then 5 minutes, and then basically instantaneous death from a trace of secondhand smoke.
First it was Helena, then Pueblo, then Piedmont, then Bowling Green, and now Scotland and Ireland.
First it was 120,000 deaths from exposure to smoking in movies and now it's 120,000 deaths from exposure to even a single depiction of smoking in movies.
If left to their own devices, it appears that the tobacco control movement will continue to spiral out of control in their misrepresentations of science, and eventually, they will go too far and lose public credibility. It's a good thing that somebody is trying to hold the movement accountable for its statements.
I remember, back before 2001, that whenever we wanted to make a public statement, we would quake in our boots over what the tobacco industry's reaction might be. We pored over every word of every statement we made because we were scared. We were scared of being nailed by the tobacco industry. The industry was watching every word we said and they would nail us to a tree if we took any mis-steps. So we were exceedingly careful.
Around the year 2000 or so, coinciding with the change in the public position of the tobacco companies over the health effects of smoking, the implementation of the Master Settlement Agreement, the Engle decision and the tobacco industry's attempt to portray itself to the jury in a new light, the dissolution of the Tobacco Institute, and the attempt of the tobacco industry to create a new public image in light of damaging publicity from lawsuits, it appears to me that the industry made a decision to lay off its constant vigilance over the communications of anti-smoking groups.
Gone were the days of constant FOIA requests to anti-smoking groups, which had gotten us to watch every word we said, even in non-public communications. Gone were the days of having to worry about actually being held to our public statements. Gone were the days of having to actually defend our statements publicly, and to take public responsibility for them.
This is the new era of tobacco control - sans industry oversight.
And it has truly become a free-for-all for anti-smoking organizations.
Imagine this: the anti-smoking groups can actually claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure is enough to cause hardening of the arteries. They can actually claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases your risk of a fatal heart attack to the same level as that of an active smoker. They can actually claim that 2 hours of secondhand smoke increases your risk of sudden death from a cardiac arrhythmia.
And they can get away with it.
That's why I think the anti-smoking groups have lost their scientific integrity. Because they can get away with it.
1. Did this misrepresentation of the science just start, or has it been going on for some time?
2. If the misrepresentation of the science has been increasing over time, why?
My answer to the first question is that while some misrepresentation of the science may have been occurring for some time, there has, without a doubt, been a dramatic increase in the amount of this misrepresentation. Without question, it is over the past six years, from 2001 forward, that I have observed a complete loss of scientific integrity within the tobacco control movement.
My answer to the second question is that the loss of scientific integrity in tobacco control coincides perfectly with the abdication by the tobacco industry of its role as a watchdog for "anti-tobacco industry" statements and communications.
In essence, the role that I am now playing is one that the tobacco industry used to play, albeit for a different reason. The tobacco industry played a watchdog role because they wanted to discredit tobacco control and undermine its public credibility. I am now playing this watchdog role because I want to restore the scientific integrity of the movement and save its public credibility. Nevertheless, the role that I am playing is very similar to what the tobacco industry used to do.
To some extent, it is surprising to me that the tobacco companies have not made more of a public display over the outright misrepresentation of science by anti-smoking groups. I suppose they feel that if they just lay back, the movement will destroy its own credibility. This may be a wise strategy, since it seems that every day, the claims get more and more absurd (wait until you read Monday's post).
First it was 30 minutes of secondhand smoke being fatal, then 20 minutes, then 5 minutes, and then basically instantaneous death from a trace of secondhand smoke.
First it was Helena, then Pueblo, then Piedmont, then Bowling Green, and now Scotland and Ireland.
First it was 120,000 deaths from exposure to smoking in movies and now it's 120,000 deaths from exposure to even a single depiction of smoking in movies.
If left to their own devices, it appears that the tobacco control movement will continue to spiral out of control in their misrepresentations of science, and eventually, they will go too far and lose public credibility. It's a good thing that somebody is trying to hold the movement accountable for its statements.
I remember, back before 2001, that whenever we wanted to make a public statement, we would quake in our boots over what the tobacco industry's reaction might be. We pored over every word of every statement we made because we were scared. We were scared of being nailed by the tobacco industry. The industry was watching every word we said and they would nail us to a tree if we took any mis-steps. So we were exceedingly careful.
Around the year 2000 or so, coinciding with the change in the public position of the tobacco companies over the health effects of smoking, the implementation of the Master Settlement Agreement, the Engle decision and the tobacco industry's attempt to portray itself to the jury in a new light, the dissolution of the Tobacco Institute, and the attempt of the tobacco industry to create a new public image in light of damaging publicity from lawsuits, it appears to me that the industry made a decision to lay off its constant vigilance over the communications of anti-smoking groups.
Gone were the days of constant FOIA requests to anti-smoking groups, which had gotten us to watch every word we said, even in non-public communications. Gone were the days of having to worry about actually being held to our public statements. Gone were the days of having to actually defend our statements publicly, and to take public responsibility for them.
This is the new era of tobacco control - sans industry oversight.
And it has truly become a free-for-all for anti-smoking organizations.
Imagine this: the anti-smoking groups can actually claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure is enough to cause hardening of the arteries. They can actually claim that 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure increases your risk of a fatal heart attack to the same level as that of an active smoker. They can actually claim that 2 hours of secondhand smoke increases your risk of sudden death from a cardiac arrhythmia.
And they can get away with it.
That's why I think the anti-smoking groups have lost their scientific integrity. Because they can get away with it.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Cigarette Tax Increase to Fund SCHIP Expansion is Dead
Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives failed (by 13 votes) to override President Bush's veto of a proposal that would have increased the federal excise cigarette tax by 61 cents per pack to fund an expansion of the SCHIP children's health insurance program.
My argument against the use of cigarette tax revenues to fund health insurance for children was highlighted by a Cybercast News Service article today. The article notes that more than 9 million new smokers would have been needed in the next 5 years in order to keep the program fully funded.
My quotes from the article:
"I don't dispute the idea that increasing the cigarette tax will reduce smoking. I don't think there's any question about that. But it doesn't make sense to me to permanently tie the financial solvency of children's health insurance to the need to continually increase the number of smokers."
"It's the most politically expedient solution. Clearly, to expand the program, you've got to get the revenue from somewhere, and I think that this is just the most politically easy target, because it's popular to go after smokers."
"Dr. Siegel disagreed [that declining cigarette consumption would not be a problem for program funding], explaining that tobacco taxes were effective when used to fund anti-smoking prevention programs, for which the need would diminish as the number of smokers decreased. But to fund a federal healthcare program, Congress was better off using another tax, he said."
"This is a situation where you're advocating a specific amount of money to a program based on cigarette revenue. So if that cigarette revenue falls, by definition, the revenue available to the program is going to fall."
My argument against the use of cigarette tax revenues to fund health insurance for children was highlighted by a Cybercast News Service article today. The article notes that more than 9 million new smokers would have been needed in the next 5 years in order to keep the program fully funded.
My quotes from the article:
"I don't dispute the idea that increasing the cigarette tax will reduce smoking. I don't think there's any question about that. But it doesn't make sense to me to permanently tie the financial solvency of children's health insurance to the need to continually increase the number of smokers."
"It's the most politically expedient solution. Clearly, to expand the program, you've got to get the revenue from somewhere, and I think that this is just the most politically easy target, because it's popular to go after smokers."
"Dr. Siegel disagreed [that declining cigarette consumption would not be a problem for program funding], explaining that tobacco taxes were effective when used to fund anti-smoking prevention programs, for which the need would diminish as the number of smokers decreased. But to fund a federal healthcare program, Congress was better off using another tax, he said."
"This is a situation where you're advocating a specific amount of money to a program based on cigarette revenue. So if that cigarette revenue falls, by definition, the revenue available to the program is going to fall."
Blowing Secondhand Smoke: New Research Uncovers False Claims Spread by Anti-Smoking Groups (Press Release Sent Out Today to Major Media Outlets)
Blowing Secondhand Smoke:
New Research Uncovers False Claims Spread by Anti-Smoking Groups
A new study published this week in the journal Epidemiologic Perspectives & Innovations reveals that many anti-smoking groups are deceiving the public by exaggerating the acute cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke. The study’s author, Dr. Michael Siegel – a professor at Boston University School of Public Health – is a long-time anti-smoking advocate, researcher, and a supporter of workplace smoking bans who believes that many anti-smoking groups are acting unethically by misrepresenting the facts about secondhand smoke to the public and that this may harm their credibility and effectiveness in future efforts. The study, which provides a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence regarding the cardiovascular effects of brief exposure to secondhand smoke, is available on the journal’s web site at:
http://www.epi-perspectives.com/content/4/1/12/abstract.
The article provides a comprehensive review of the scientific evidence relevant to the acute cardiovascular health effects of secondhand smoke. It then evaluates claims made by at least 100 anti-smoking groups that brief exposure to secondhand smoke causes a number of severe health effects - including atherosclerosis, reduced coronary artery flow, heart damage, heart disease, heart attacks, fatal and catastrophic arrhythmias, and strokes - in otherwise healthy individuals (those without severe, pre-existing coronary artery disease).
The article concludes that: "Based on the analysis, it appears that a large number of anti-smoking organizations are making inaccurate claims that a single, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke can cause severe and even fatal cardiovascular events in healthy nonsmokers. The dissemination of inaccurate information by anti-smoking groups to the public in support of smoking bans is unfortunate because it may harm the tobacco control movement by undermining its credibility, reputation, and effectiveness. Disseminating inaccurate information also represents a violation of basic ethical principles that are a core value of public health practice that cannot and should not be sacrificed, even for a noble end such as protecting nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure. How the tobacco control movement responds to this crisis of credibility will go a long way towards determining the future effectiveness of the movement and its ability to continue to save lives and protect the public's health."
Among the groups implicated in making inaccurate and/or misleading health claims are Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights (ANR), Action on Smoking and Health (ASH), Smoke-Free Ohio, the New York City Department of Health, the Montana Tobacco Advisory Board, TobaccoScam, and the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids (TFK).
The article goes on to explain that provision of accurate health information to the public is a core ethical principle of public health practice. The right of the public to accurate and non-misleading health information is supported by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
The paper's final conclusion is as follows:
"While there is ample evidence that chronic exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of cardiovascular disease, and therefore heart attack risk, and there is some suggestive evidence that acute exposure to secondhand smoke may present some degree of risk to individuals with existing severe coronary artery disease, there appears to be no scientific basis for claims that brief, acute, transient exposure to secondhand smoke increases heart attack risk in individuals without coronary disease, that it increases such risk to the level observed in smokers, that it can cause atherosclerosis, that it can cause fatal or catastrophic cardiac arrhythmias, or that it represents any other significant acute cardiovascular health hazard in nonsmokers."
"In light of this, the claims that are being widely disseminated by a large number of tobacco control groups appear to be scientifically unjustified and inaccurate."
"The dissemination of inaccurate information by anti-smoking groups to the public in support of smoking bans is unfortunate because it may harm the tobacco control movement by undermining its credibility, reputation, and effectiveness."
"While anti-smoking groups may provide a utilitarian-based argument that these inaccurate and/or misleading communications are doing more good than harm in the long run because they are helping to promote smoke-free policies which will protect the public's health and save lives, the problem is that even if this were true, disseminating inaccurate information represents a violation of basic ethical principles that are a core value of public health practice that cannot and should not be sacrificed. The ends do not justify the means, especially when those means are violating principles of autonomy and self-determination that form the essential bases for free societies. These are values which cannot and should not be trodden upon by public health organizations simply to promote a favored policy."
Examples of Inaccurate and Misleading Claims by Anti-Smoking Groups,
with Links to Active Websites Containing these Claims
Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights: "Even a half hour of secondhand smoke exposure causes heart damage similar to that of habitual smokers. Nonsmokers’ heart arteries showed a reduced ability to dilate, diminishing the ability of the heart to get life-giving blood." [LINK]
Coalition for a Tobacco-Free
Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids: "as little as 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can trigger harmful cardiovascular changes, such as increased blood clotting, that increase the risk of a heart attack." [LINK]
DuPage County Health Department: "30 minutes exposure = stiffened, clogged arteries" [LINK]
Tobacco Public Policy Center: " A recent study completed by Japanese researchers concluded that just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke can lead to hardening of the arteries in nonsmokers." [LINK]
University of North Carolina Department of Family Medicine: "30 minutes of exposure = stiffened, clogged arteries" [LINK]
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene: "Just 30 minutes of exposure to second-hand smoke produces some of the same physical reactions that would occur from long-term smoking, and increases the risk of heart disease in non-smokers." [LINK]
Clean Air for Everyone (C.A.F.E.)
Washington State Department of Health: "Only 30 minutes of secondhand smoke exposure may cause heart damage similar to that of regular smokers. This exposure can reduce the ability of the arteries close to the heart to expand, which reduces the ability of the heart to receive life-giving blood." [LINK]
Campaign for a Healthy and Responsible Tennessee: "The Journal of the American Medical Association reports that just 30 minutes of exposure to secondhand smoke changes blood chemistry and increases the risk of heart disease in non-smokers." [LINK]
Tobacco Free Coalitions of
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Anti-Smoking Groups Insisting on Different Treatment of Smoking in Movies from Alcohol, Violence, and Sex
Not satisfied with the Motion Picture Association of America's (MPAA) decision to consider smoking in movies as a factor in movie ratings, anti-smoking groups, led by the SmokeFree Movies Campaign, have taken out another advertisement insisting that any non-historically correct depiction of smoking trigger an automatic R-rating.
The policy adopted by the MPAA states: "All smoking will be considered and depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other
mitigating context may receive a higher rating...Additionally, when a film's rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, that rating will now include phrases such as 'glamorized smoking' or 'pervasive smoking'."
The policy that anti-smoking groups are calling for states that: "Any film that shows or implies tobacco should be rated 'R.' The only exceptions should be when the presentation of tobacco clearly and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences of tobacco use or is necessary to represent the smoking of a real historical figure."
The Rest of the Story
Two things don't make sense about the anti-smoking groups' desired policy.
First, why should smoking in movies be treated completely differently from alcohol, violence, nudity, and sex? The depiction of alcohol use in movies does not trigger an automatic R rating. The depiction of violence, nudity, or sex in movies does not trigger an automatic R rating. So why should the depiction of smoking?
I could understand the initiative better if it aimed to clear non-R movies of all smoking, alcohol use, nudity, sex, and violence (Of course, who would want to go to such a movie?). If the principle is that any depiction that could have adverse health consequences for children by demonstrating or glamorizing unhealthy behaviors should not be allowed in films that children can view on their own, then why single out smoking as the sole depiction that requires an automatic R rating? This doesn't make any sense.
Second, why should the historical correctness of smoking give it an exemption from the policy? If the depiction of smoking is going to kill 120,000 kids every year, then it is going to kill them whether the smoking is fictional or historical. Why would one exempt depictions of historically correct smoking if such depictions are going to contribute to 120,000 deaths per year? This doesn't make any sense.
Can you imagine a similar policy for violence? Any film that contains violence will receive an R rating. However, if a film contains violence that actually occurred, it may still be rated G, PG, or PG-13.
How about a similar policy for sex? The MPAA will not increase the rating of a movie that contains sex if that sex actually occurred.
I have come to the conclusion that this is all a bunch of mishegas and that the anti-smoking groups are out of touch with any semblance of reason. But as I am learning, the policies advocated by anti-smoking groups do not need to make sense. They only have to be intended to save the children.
The policy adopted by the MPAA states: "All smoking will be considered and depictions that glamorize smoking or movies that feature pervasive smoking outside of an historic or other
mitigating context may receive a higher rating...Additionally, when a film's rating is affected by the depiction of smoking, that rating will now include phrases such as 'glamorized smoking' or 'pervasive smoking'."
The policy that anti-smoking groups are calling for states that: "Any film that shows or implies tobacco should be rated 'R.' The only exceptions should be when the presentation of tobacco clearly and unambiguously reflects the dangers and consequences of tobacco use or is necessary to represent the smoking of a real historical figure."
The Rest of the Story
Two things don't make sense about the anti-smoking groups' desired policy.
First, why should smoking in movies be treated completely differently from alcohol, violence, nudity, and sex? The depiction of alcohol use in movies does not trigger an automatic R rating. The depiction of violence, nudity, or sex in movies does not trigger an automatic R rating. So why should the depiction of smoking?
I could understand the initiative better if it aimed to clear non-R movies of all smoking, alcohol use, nudity, sex, and violence (Of course, who would want to go to such a movie?). If the principle is that any depiction that could have adverse health consequences for children by demonstrating or glamorizing unhealthy behaviors should not be allowed in films that children can view on their own, then why single out smoking as the sole depiction that requires an automatic R rating? This doesn't make any sense.
Second, why should the historical correctness of smoking give it an exemption from the policy? If the depiction of smoking is going to kill 120,000 kids every year, then it is going to kill them whether the smoking is fictional or historical. Why would one exempt depictions of historically correct smoking if such depictions are going to contribute to 120,000 deaths per year? This doesn't make any sense.
Can you imagine a similar policy for violence? Any film that contains violence will receive an R rating. However, if a film contains violence that actually occurred, it may still be rated G, PG, or PG-13.
How about a similar policy for sex? The MPAA will not increase the rating of a movie that contains sex if that sex actually occurred.
I have come to the conclusion that this is all a bunch of mishegas and that the anti-smoking groups are out of touch with any semblance of reason. But as I am learning, the policies advocated by anti-smoking groups do not need to make sense. They only have to be intended to save the children.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)