A DEMOS Op-ed on Science and Smoking Bans
March 25th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The folks at DEMOS, a think tank in London, continue to produce really thoughtful stuff. This short op-ed by Jack Stigloe is right on:
Two years ago, I was lucky enough to interview Professor Sir Richard Doll for a project on expertise.
Right up until his death last year at the age of 92 Doll worked tirelessly to convince the world of the dangers of smoking. Thanks to Doll and others we now know, and are constantly reminded by our cigarette packets, that smoking kills – active or passive.
Leaving aside any uncertainties that might blur its edges, this piece of knowledge has saved lives, and allowed policymakers to make better decisions. But, as David Hume told us long before the invention of the cigarette, you can’t get an ought from an is. Science can inform policy, but it can’t determine it. The issue of smoking in enclosed public places might look like a scientific one, but it is also deeply political. . .
As we have seen from media coverage of the issue, the question of whether we should allow or forbid smoking in pubs is about much more than what we know of its dangers. At the very least, it’s also about liberty, it’s about responsibility and it’s about economics.
We must acknowledge that, most of the time, science cannot tell us what to do. Science’s voice must be heard, but it must not drown out others. The smoking ban that disappeared and then reappeared is a political mess. But this should only come as a surprise to those people who thought that there was an easy answer.
March 25th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Funny, I don’t recall that scientists ever ended up in this kind of position here in California (the cutting edge of the smoking ban movement for those who don’t know). Is this because Stan Glantz and others never engaged in a public show of equivocation about the science (in large part because there’s nothing equivocal about it)? Perhaps there’s a lesson there.
BTW, the next step here is to institute a ban on smoking in vehicles carrying children, which given my childhood experiences I can say is a step long over-due. Being stuck in a car with a couple of chain smokers was no fun. Another step will be to clear smokers away from building entrances. Long-term, all of this will help promote the idea that the air, land and water we all share must cease to be cost-free dumping grounds for individuals or corporations.
March 25th, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Let me put this in crude terms: No one has the right to walk into a pub and piss on you. OTOH walking into a pub lighting up and infusing everyone else’s cloths and lungs with a noxious substance is a human right. See, it is simple.
March 26th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Steve Martin had an old bit on this subject.
“Do you mind if I smoke?”
“No, do you mind if I fart? It’s one of my habits. They have a special section for me on airplanes now. I tried to quit once, for about a year, but I gained a lot of weight. After sex I really like to light one up!”
Just as it’s not your “right” to pollute my lungs through your addiction, it’s not my “right” to foul your air through my bodily functions.
Best,
D
March 26th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
“Let me put this in crude terms: No one has the right to walk into a pub…”
People have the right to do whatever the pub owner finds acceptable. If you don’t like the pub owner’s rules, don’t go in his or her pub.
March 27th, 2006 at 7:08 am
When did the ban on farting go into effect?
March 27th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Arguments about patronization choices in my experience inevitably fail to include employees, the main reason for which bans are emplaced.
Best,
D
March 27th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Sorry Mark, that’s where the Libertarian arguement breaks down. The pub owner cannot just “find it acceptable” that patrons urinate on other patrons. Or that patrons snort lines on the tables (which would be far less of a disturbance to other patrons). Like or not, we have laws outlawing both behavoirs. Why would a law banning smoking be any different from a law banning coke-snorting, indecent exposure, public urination (assault with a deadly weapon??), etc.?
March 27th, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I echo Dano’s point that the motivation for smoking bans is primarily employee health considerations not public health in general. The libertarian will argue that the employee is free to work elsewhere but the point is that they shouldn’t have to make that choice.
The entire body of laws and regulations relating to workplace safety exist precicely because there will always be an incentive for owners (e.g. bars, factories, logging operations) to gain an edge in the marketplace by making their operations more ‘efficient’.
If we accept the libertarian view then *all* workplace safety laws are unjustified.
March 27th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
You nanny advocates must surely realize that you are having your fun victimizing smokers, by making it illegal for them to congregate together and perform an otherwise entirely legal act.
Why do I get the feeling that you are just venting your all too human propensity for using collective power to dominate others. I can’t shake the feeling that many of you who now demonize smokers would love to have the chance to demonize blacks, or Arabs. Since that course is now closed to you, you are ganging up on smokers, whom you can call names and segregate without the stigma of, say, keeping Africans out of your white bathrooms.
March 27th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Michael, you have every right to smoke all you want at home, what you don’t have the right to do is blow smoke in everyone elses face, no more than we have to spit in yours.
As to Mark, you might remember that pubs are licensed by the government, and the owner does not have the right to let anything she wants go on, on the premises.
March 27th, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Michael-
You might be right. We might all hate blacks and Arabs. And don’t forget the Jews. We might hate them, too!!!
On the other hand, a simpler explanation might be that we just hate cigarette smoke.
Then again, who could possibly believe that?? There’s no way that simple and sensible explanation could possibly be right when there’s a wacky and ridiculous one right next door. After all, I read something similar on the internet once — and if it’s on the internet, it must be right.
Regards.
March 27th, 2006 at 5:57 pm
No places are banning smokers, this would clearly be illegal. They are banning smoking, an activity. If somone cannot go for an hour or so without smoking this is a clear indication of drug addiction. The person needs medical treatment, not the “right” to pollute the air.
March 27th, 2006 at 6:54 pm
‘Nanny advocates’.
Hilarious! You can’t make this stuff up, really. No one would believe you if you said folks think this way.
Try ‘property rights advocate’: the property my lungs occupy have a right not to have addict’s smoke in them. Direct relationship – addict, smoke, property, my property rights are infringed upon.
Simple, yet complex. Or, some people want to complexify the issue to delay action. Sounds familiar…hmmmm…where have I seen that tactic before…hmmm…I wonder…
Best,
D
March 27th, 2006 at 8:26 pm
WRT what Andrew Dessler said
http://sniff.numachi.com/~rickheit/dtrad/pages/tiRIOTAFR.html
March 27th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Kevin Vranes writes, “Sorry Mark, that’s where the Libertarian arguement breaks down. The pub owner cannot just “find it acceptable” that patrons urinate on other patrons.”
So the many years I spent 5-10 hours every week in a smoky bowling alley, it was equivalent to being urinated on for 5-10 hours per week? That’s surprising.
And when Edward R. Murrow had a cigarette in his mouth pretty much every waking hour of his adult life, it was like he was urinating on everyone? That’s surprising, too.
“Or that patrons snort lines on the tables (which would be far less of a disturbance to other patrons).”
Yes, and cancer-stricken patients can’t smoke marijuana to ease their nausea enough to even attend the pub.
You’re telling me what THE LAW is. THE LAW has nothing to do with human rights. When it was U.S. law that people could be held as slaves, does that mean those people held as slaves didn’t have any rights? No, it means that the government didn’t protect their (inalienable) rights.
If you think the government creates rights, what do you think about this situation?
Loud noises hurt hearing. Can the government legitimately require that bands inside a pub play quietly (even if the noise doesn’t get outside the pub)? Or does the owner have the right to decide how loud bands can play?
“Why would a law banning smoking be any different from a law banning coke-snorting,…”
I don’t think laws that prohibit smoking in pubs, or cocaine snorting in pubs, or marijuana smoking in puts, are significantly different. All those laws do not respect: 1) the right of a property owner to decide what is appropriate on his/her property, and 2) the right of every adult to decide what is appropriate to put in his or her body.
March 28th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Wow. I only wish our blog attracted this amount of comment. In case anyone is interested, we’ll be developing arguments about expertise and policy for a pamphlet later this year. It’ll mostly present the British context, which, as you know is a particularly tricky one given BSE, GM etc, but I’d love to hear from anyone with something new to say on the subject.
As with our previous work, our aim is at least partly to find the really policy-relevant stuff from the great work that’s been going on in social science over the past couple of decades. We’ll also be looking for a fresh take on some of these things.
March 28th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
Ah yes, the passive aggressive blowing of smoke in everyone’s face. How friendly, and, of course if we don’t like it, we should move.
As a matter of fact Markie, piss is relatively clean, whereas sidestream smoke is full of PAH and other delightful carcinogens.
http://www.anamap.co.uk/pdf/CE_Pheno.pdf
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ahf/01066506-6531.html
http://tobaccodocuments.org/ahf/01066506-6531.html
March 28th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
“Ah yes, the passive aggressive blowing of smoke in everyone’s face. How friendly, and, of course if we don’t like it, we should move.
As a matter of fact Markie, piss is relatively clean, whereas sidestream smoke is full of PAH and other delightful carcinogens.”
The simple fact is, Eli (you lying jerk), when you go to a pub, it’s NOT ***your property***. You’re a guest. And if you don’t like what’s going on on the property, you should leave, rather than violating the owner’s property rights.
But I don’t suppose it ever occurs to you that anyone (except perhaps yourself) should have property rights that deserve to be respected.
Just like I don’t suppose you’ve ever heard the toxicological truism, “the dose is the poison.”
http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/TIB/dose-response.html
March 28th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
The dose is more than sufficient to be a poison,
“Results: Inhaled fresh sidestream cigarette smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram total particulate matter (TPM) than mainstream cigarette smoke. Sidestream condensate is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate by dermal application. The gas/vapour phase of sidestream smoke is responsible for most of the sensory irritation and respiratory tract epithelium damage. Fresh sidestream smoke inhibits normal weight gain in developing animals. In a 21day exposure, fresh sidestream smoke can cause damage to the respiratory epithelium at concentrations of 2 µg/l TPM. Damage to the respiratory epithelium increases with longer exposures. The toxicity of whole sidestream smoke is higher than the sum of the toxicities of its major constituents.”
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/14/6/396
Please explain to me again, why you have a right to poison those standing near you in any public accomodation.
March 29th, 2006 at 3:28 am
(Another turn of the screw pasted below. I predict California will have a complete ban on smoking anywhere [including all outdoor locations], the only exception being private homes or vehicles where children are not present, within ten years. Good for us.)
Published Tuesday, March 28, 2006, in the San Francisco Examiner
Board seeks to expand cigarette ban
By Justin Jouvenal
The Examiner
SAN FRANCISCO — San Francisco has stamped out smoking in bars,
parks and restaurants, but two new locations may be added to the
growing list of butt-free zones: transit stops and golf courses.
The Board of Supervisors is considering a ban on smoking at hundreds
of bus, trolley and train stops scattered around The City, while a
separate version of the bill would also ban smoking at The City’s
public golf facilities.
“People that take the bus are a captive audience. People can’t walk
away from the bus stop when someone is smoking or they might miss
their bus,” said Alexandra Hernandez, co-chairwoman of the San
Francisco Tobacco Free Coalition. “There is no safe level of
exposure to secondhand smoke.”
The American Lung Association estimates secondhand smoke is
responsible for the deaths of 3,000 nonsmokers each year from lung
cancer and 35,000 to 62,000 from heart disease. The statistics do
not differentiate between outdoor and indoor secondhand smoke.
Denzel Russell, an asthma sufferer who testified in favor of the
ban at a City Hall hearing Monday, said he is often forced to leave
the bus stop when someone lights up.
“I worry I might have an attack,” Russell said.
The proposed ban, sponsored by Supervisor Fiona Ma, would be self-
enforcing, meaning it would be up to smokers to comply with the new
regulations.
The Department of Public Health, which backs the legislation, plans
to spend $15,000 putting up “no smoking” signs at transit stops
around San Francisco.
A handful of cities in California already have smoking bans at
transit stops, including Berkeley, Palo Alto, San Carlos and Davis.
The Board of Supervisors Neighborhood Services Committee passed
Ma’s version of the bill Monday. It now goes to the full Board of
Supervisors.
The committee will also take up Supervisor Jake McGoldrick’s amended
version of the bill, which bans smoking at public golf courses, next
week. McGoldrick said only banning smoking at bus stops would
constitute class inequality.
“It’s usually people that have lesser income that are using the bus
stop and people with greater income that use the golf course,”
McGoldrick said.
A similar ban on golf course smoking failed before the Board of
Supervisors last year.
The proposed bus stop ban left at least one smoker fuming. “I don’t
think smoking should be banned, because we live in a free country,”
said Will Fitzgerald, a 23-year-old San Francisco resident. He
paused and then added: “Supposedly.”
March 29th, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Eli Rabett writes, “The dose is more than sufficient to be a poison,…”
He continues with these study results quotes:
“Results: Inhaled fresh sidestream cigarette smoke is approximately four times more toxic per gram total particulate matter (TPM) than mainstream cigarette smoke. Sidestream condensate is approximately three times more toxic per gram and two to six times more tumourigenic per gram than mainstream condensate by dermal application.”
Oh, brother. You apparently don’t understand the concept of “dose” very well. (By the way…have you learned the proper relationship between enthalpy and temperature in the atmosphere yet? Not likely, I expect!)
“Dose” does not simply mean the harm per unit mass of exposure. Dose is the product of the harm per unit mass of exposure TIMES the mass of exposure.
For example, if Person A takes a hit on a bong, and Person B across the room watches Person A inhale and exhale the smoke, does Person B receive the same dose as Person A?
That should be a rhetorical question…but considering your previous bloviating on ethalpy versus temperature in the atmosphere, for you, it’s probably not rhetorical.
So…are the doses the same for Person A and Person B, in the situation I just described?
Eli Rabett concludes, “Please explain to me again, why you have a right to poison those standing near you in any public accomodation.”
Do you have a problem reading? Please point to anywhere that I wrote something that you (incorrectly) inferred to mean that I think I “have the right to poison those standing near (me) in any public accomodation.”
What I DID write was:
1) The owner of a pub (which is PRIVATE property) has the right to set the rules for conditions on his or her property. (And anyone who doesn’t like those conditions should simply leave ***the owner’s property.***)
2) Each individual has the right to put in his or her body whatever he or she wants.
March 30th, 2006 at 2:11 am
I reiterate, you nannies and self important ninnies now have the right to put down and call names at a new victim class. If you can not see it, I feel sorry for you. What happened to the freedoms promised in the 60s and 70s? Those freedom lovers built us a world of opression called the nanny state. If a cigar store has no right to allow smoking, even though the only people who enter are the owner and the customers, that is the very definition of overreaching. But if self important myrmidons of political correctness can put cigar stores out of business, they will, and have. Just because you don’t call the owner and his customers niggers does not make it that much different, except you are no longer allowed to use the “N” word. You must accept blacks, but you can exert power over smokers. You feel superior to them, and you perceive the right to discriminate against them. and so you do. Power corrupts. If an activity is legal, and we all have the right of assembly, why must you deny us the right to peacefully assemble to partake of a completely legal sybstance?
Shame on you, Andy Dessler and Dano. You win this round. but don’t expect us to be there when they come for you…
March 30th, 2006 at 8:56 am
There are smokers, non smokers and ex smokers. The latter are the worst nannies
March 30th, 2006 at 9:43 am
“What happened to the freedoms promised in the 60s and 70s? Those freedom lovers built us a world of opression called the nanny state. ”
Puh-leez. Where’s my freedom from your disgusting habit? Gimme a break, pal.
It’s not all about you, as if your rights existed in a widdle bubble with no effects on anyone else.
Your argument doesn’t work. Period. No matter what widdle phrasie-phrases you use.
D
March 30th, 2006 at 10:36 am
As an ex-smoker I’ll do my best to refrain from my nanny-ish impulses
I should say up front that I think that on this issue reasonable people can disagree and I sometimes find myself feeling sympathetic for the poor souls outside the bar when it’s -30C outside.
To a certain extent the libertarian argument is compelling; as Mark points out, from a property-rights point of view there is no diference from the bar owners bar and the home owners home. If I’m allowed to let people smoke in my home, why can’t I allow them to smoke in my bar?
IMHO there are two considerations that muddy the issue and make the direct comparison described above inappropriate. First, a bar is, as Steve pointed out, a semi-public space. As such, there are more restrictions on the owner’s rights; for example, the bar owner can’t restrict access to his establishment based on race, religion, sex, etc, whereas the homeowner has every right to do so. One could argue that the state has a legitimate right to limit the bar owners rights even further by banning smoking using the known health risks to non-smokers as just cause.
(I remember going to a bar that tried to get around the newly implemented smoking ban by declaring itself a private club and charging a nominal membership “fee” with the first drink purchase)
The second important difference is that bars typically have employees, whereas homes do not. As such, a smoking-ban can be justified on the basis employee safety.
Now before you jump in Mark, let me concede that a person can choose not to go into a bar where there may be smoking, just as a person can choose to work in a different(less risky occupation).
As I said, reasonable people can disagree…
March 30th, 2006 at 8:17 pm
There is, in the US, a large amount of case law on attempts to declare previously public accomodations private clubs. This really started with a vengence as an attempt to restrict access by blacks so a lot of it has to do with civil rights cases.
Interestingly, much of the conflict centers arount the granting of liquor licenses to such places.
March 30th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
“First, a bar is, as Steve pointed out, a semi-public space.”
A bar is not a “semi-public space.” There are no “semi-public spaces.” There are public spaces and private spaces.
“As such, there are more restrictions on the owner’s rights; for example, the bar owner can’t restrict access to his establishment based on race, religion, sex, etc, whereas the homeowner has every right to do so.”
That’s merely because the Supreme Court of the United States has willfully disregarded the plain language of the U.S. Constitution. To wit:
1) The 14th Amendment restricts state GOVERNMENTS, not private entities, and
2) The Supreme Court has an interpretation of the (INTERSTATE!) “Commerce Clause” that does not even pass a straight face test, when one is attempting to honestly compare the Court’s judgments with the views of the Founding Fathers.
So you are talking about the law, not people’s rights. Even more appropriately, you are not even talking about the law as it’s plainly written. You’re talking about the “law” as it’s practiced…which is to flagrantly disregard The Law as it’s plainly written (in the Constitution).
“The second important difference is that bars typically have employees, whereas homes do not. As such, a smoking-ban can be justified on the basis employee safety.”
No, it can’t. The simple fact is that the federal government has an (almost certainly unconstitutional) Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA *has* regulations on acceptable workplace concentrations of various air pollutants, e.g., the 8-hour Time-Weighted Average allowable concentration for nicotine is 0.5 mg/m3 (0.5 milligrams per cubic meter, or 500 micrograms per cubic meter).
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9992
Another simple fact is that even the most primitive ventilation systems can reduce workplace concentrations of pollutants in cigarette smoke to orders of magnitude below OSHA limits:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/4848/1293/1600/OSHA%20SLP.0.jpg
“Now before you jump in Mark, let me concede that a person can choose not to go into a bar where there may be smoking, just as a person can choose to work in a different(less risky occupation).”
If you concede that, you’re conceding that the bar owner’s property rights are being violated. And you’re also conceding that the worker’s rights are not being infringed…because he or she can work in a place that has no smoking, smoking with good ventilation controls, or smoking with poor ventilation controls.
“As I said, reasonable people can disagree…”
Yes, there are people like me who respect everyone’s rights and The Law (specifically, the Constitution) as it’s plainly written.
Then there are those who don’t respect others’ rights, and ignore The Law as it’s plainly written, if ignoring The Law produces a “good result.”
March 31st, 2006 at 2:33 pm
Hi Mark,
First of all, I’m Canadian, so any discussion of the Constitution and amendments and such is a bit lost on me. In Canada, we have the Charter of Rights, which is analagous but still different. The point I was trying to make was that this is basically a disagreement about rights, not laws per se, because laws themselves are based upon considerations of rights.
Second, I disagree with your either/or characterization of space. To me there are basically three kinds: private, semi-public, and public (e.g., house, bar, park), and there are different rights associated with along the individual-collective continuum.
I’m going to recast the issue here slightly so that hopefully we better understand each other’s position. Instead of framing it in terms of property rights, I instead see it in terms of the limits that the collective (i.e. public interest) can place on an individual’s rights (in this case, activities that occur on their property). In other words, is the public interest in discouraging smoking sufficient enough to override the individual’s right to allow smoking? As I mentioned in my earlier reply, in the homeowner’s case the anwser is no, but in the bar owners case the anwser is yes.
I take your point on ventilation systems and OHSA standards, but I’m pretty sure that there is a fair bit of literature out there that shows a pretty strong connection between cancer rates and second-hand smoke exposure in a work environment. But to me that’s ultimately a policy choice for governments to make; i.e, do you ban outright or impose ventilation requirements…
Having said that I think that there is more than a little hypocrisy and inconsistency when it comes to governments using health concerns as a means for justifying regulation. It bothers me to no end that in Canada, where we have publicly-funded health care, the government does virtually nothing to discourage unhealthy eating habits that arguably will cost the public purse as much if not more than smoking in the future. Am I saying that we should also ban/regulate fast food? I’m certainly leaning in that direction (i.e. I would love to see a fat/sugar tax). Like the bans on smoking, this kind of a policy could certainly be justified on the basis of reducing public health care costs.
Cheers,
April 2nd, 2006 at 12:13 am
“It bothers me to no end that in Canada, where we have publicly-funded health care, the government does virtually nothing to discourage unhealthy eating habits that arguably will cost the public purse as much if not more than smoking in the future. Am I saying that we should also ban/regulate fast food? I’m certainly leaning in that direction (i.e. I would love to see a fat/sugar tax). Like the bans on smoking, this kind of a policy could certainly be justified on the basis of reducing public health care costs.
Cheers” – Marlowe Johnson
That is why I hope we in the US NEVER see a Canadian type health system. Almost any activity can have health care cost repercussions and will be banned or taxed. Start with an easy one like smoking, move to a dubious one like fat/sugar, and then things like skiing or dirtbiking, or sunbathing or drinking alcohol become fair game. Doesn’t Canada already tax alcohol to the point that people homebrew to avoid the tax? Black market sugar will be next.