In 2003, UCLA epidemiologist James Enstrom and I published a study of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS)—also called “secondhand smoke” or “passive smoking”—in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Using data from the American Cancer Society’s prospective study of 1 million adults, we concluded that ETS exposure was not associated with increased mortality.
Since that conclusion flew in the face of the conventional wisdom that had long driven state and local bans on smoking in public places, our study understandably sparked a controversy in the public health community. But the intensity of the attack on us in the pages of a medical journal—by critics who were certain that our study had to be wrong but typically failed to provide specific evidence of fatal errors—vividly illustrates what can happen when policy preferences that have taken on the status of doctrine override rational scientific debate.
A recent study by American Cancer Society (ACS) researchers underscores that point by showing that, contrary to what our critics asserted, the cancer risk posed by ETS is likely negligible. The authors present that striking result without remarking on it, which may reflect their reluctance to revisit a debate that anti-smoking activists and public health officials wrongly view as long settled.
Because there’s no grift in “likely negligible”.
Perhaps these second hand smoke studies are now coming out to be able to counter complaints of second hand marijuana smoke?
Exactly. Gotta make it “safe” for when the blax folx get pulled over by da cops an deys be hot-boxin deir little kids in the back. Don’t worry … our first Jamaican President will legalize da ganja, mon. In all times, and in all places. It be medicine for yer chilren
I never believed in the mortal dangers of second hand smoke but I’m glad I don’t have to smell it in restaurants and such. Now if smokers could just learn that the whole world is not their ashtray and that butts are litter. People that would never do the same with a paper cup see no problem in tossing their butts anywhere they please.
I don’t like the smell of patchouli oil, but I don’t make an issue of it like you seem to be doing with cigarette smoke, and unlike you, I wouldn’t be “glad” if they banned it, and started handing out fines to bar owners for permitting it. You are what is colloquially known as a “Karen.”
Also, if you don’t like cigarette butts all over the place, well, you and your ilk should never have gotten rid of the once ubiquitous ashtrays.
It’s not just the smell. You clearly habe no idea how difficult it is for people with asthma and other respiratory problems to breathe in s.one when it’ s all around them. It may not kill us but it’s certainly (literally painful). And it IS a health issue. Then there’s the aftermath of all your clothes and hair smelling lime an ashtray.
Just like they banned PB at schools, you want normal folk to give stuff up because sick people exist.
You too are a Karen.
Listen to these freaks applauding the sending of armed state goons after bar owners because they’re oh-so-offended.
The two of you are a sickened example of what western “men” have become.
I can’t stand the smell of cigarette smoke. It irritates the hell out of me, and in some instances, actually makes me sick if concentrated enough.
But I will never NEVER ask anyone to put out a cigarette. If I’m bothered by the smell so much, I’ll just simply walk away.
I’m just wondering if that makes me a “Karen” too?
No, that makes you a man.
There exist things, smells, I don’t like, and I don’t go whining to the state to ban them.
If you like the state banning them, just because you don’t like the smell, or you have asthma, then yes, you are a Karen. If you can just mind your own business, then no, you are not a Karen.
And you know waht? If one politely asks me to put out a smoke, I might do so, or I might tell the guy to eff off. Depends on a lot of things, but calling in state power? Definite Karen move.
Gee, thanks for the in depth analysis, Dr. Fraud. Now you can GFY.
Easy there, Tiger. He’s not a “Karen”, he doesn’t like the smell of smoke when he eats in restaurants.
Who does? Even smokers don’t smoke while they eat.
Lifelong non-smoker here and I think it sucks how ostracized smokers have become. I think it’s a restaurant’s or bar’s right to determine if they are smoking, non-smoking or permit smoking in separate ventilated areas. And it’s a customer’s right to patronize a place according to their preference.
Toronto did that as a reasonable solution and many places spent $thousands on upgrades, only to have the next leftwing nutbag council cancel it and no recompense for lost investments. I think it was d-bag david miller who presided over that scam.
Agree on T’s point on butt litter too; clean up your mess FFS
mhb23re
I kinda miss the smell of old bowling alleys.
As far as butts… yes, people are filthy assholes but where did all the ashtrays go? No choice but the ground sometimes.
If there wasn’t already a shitshow on the ground, I used to field strip my smoke and pocket the butt.
No choice but the ground? Seriously? Field strip it and keep it until you find a garbage can?
So, they all lied through their teeth, and now nobody can smoke in restaurants and pubs.
Its come out that they lied through their teeth, and we still can’t smoke in restaurants and pubs, or laundromats, or variety stores, or doctors’/dentist’s waiting rooms, in work vehicles, etc.
I travel to Ontario a lot and I remember when bars and restaurants were allowed to install sealed off, usually glass-walled, smoking rooms. Then TPTB decided to hell with that and required bars and restaurants to eliminate those smoking rooms entirely. Probably too many Karens caught a whiff of smoke when the entrance door was opened. So a double burden and double costs were imposed on the hospitality sector.
Smoking was still allowed on outdoor patios, but that was prohibited too at some point.
Jesus wept is all I have to add.
Too many stupid people these days.
Stupid people who want to hamper other’s enjoyment.
“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be “cured” against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”
― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)
That is one of Brother Jack’s most insightful and concise descriptions of what, these latter days, we call “Karens.”
I especially just newly appreciated this excerpt…”To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease…”
Time to reread “That Hideous Strength” which, in my view, ranks up there with 1984 and all the other celebrated dystopic novels.
Aslan Abides.
The problem going on for far too long in many countries is that TPTB are both the busybodies and the robber barons.
The authors of the first study took flack, but it shows the power of well-designed scientific studies. Over time these studies will chip away at what people want to believe, replacing it with what actually is.
Working well so far, isn’t it? Smoke ’em if you got ’em…
Dr. Barry Marshall has entered the chat.
Also Wendys is about to cease handing out drinking straws at all.
As long as I smoked, if the wife and kids wanted no second hand smoke they could choose to go outside. I suspect they turned a lot of spouses and children into nags that destroyed a lot of families. All for nothing.
if anybody can come up with a remedy for the really nauseating stench of an ashtray l might loosen my attitude about it. and resolve the idiocy of ‘smoking section’ in a friggin passenger plane.
I remember that study well. It was over a ten year period, and was the most comprehensive one ever undertaken on the subject. I have also referenced it a few times over the years when arguing with the climate alarmists, to make the point that actual science and incontrovertible facts are invariably pushed aside when BIG MONEY is involved (Ukraine is another great example of the latter).
It seems that they have completely demonized tobacco smokers and second hand smoke, but for some reason pot smoke is considered completely acceptable and if you complain about it then you’re just a “far right “ idiot.
Thank you liberals
Where is Fred Singer? He died a few years ago at age 93. He was a physicist, who often strayed outside his field, but he was always right I guess. He came up with this conclusion decades ago, was against the idea of anthropogenic climate change, the supposed connection between UV-B and melanoma, and those old ‘bad’ aerosols depleting the ozone. There are other items, but I will stop here. Oh, except I’ll add one more. He wandered into theabiotic oil debate, where he was labeled a Russian shill.
Porgy and Bess?
“The things that you’r libel to read in the bible, they ain’t necessarily so”.
The “Second hand smoke scare” was BS from the beginning,a side effect to designating Smokers as the modern witches.
Medical science has so little science taking place that it makes primitive witchdoctors look brilliant.
This is the key phrase “Since that conclusion flew in the face of the conventional wisdom “.
Contrary to the self proclaimed authorities.
Arguing from their position of authority..On foundations of public trust, or sand in this case.
Dread Covid Theatre exposed all of these mediocre self congratulating “experts” for what they are.
“The Science” if you are a conformist fool.
Once we had “Evidence based policy making”
Now we see “Policy based evidence manufacturing.”
The former mostly worked.
The latter never has.
Partly because of the type of people who want to impose their policies on others.
My own personal anecdote … as a healthy soon to be 69yo male. Yes, personal anecdotes are not medical or scientific fact … however … that’s all these “studies” are. They are a collection of anecdotes and self reported data.
Both my parents smoked, heavily, from the day I was born. My grandparents were chain smokers and when they hosted bridge parties … I was literally hot boxed by a house full of 24 smokers. And for my first “real” job, my Japanese boss not only chain smoked all day long in our small open office … but he rolled his own Bull Durham cigarettes. I should be dead … Right? Or at least chronically ill with multiple respiratory deficits. But I’m not. I rarely get so much as a sniffle. I’ve never been part of anyone’s “study”. And no, I’ve never smoked a day in my life (after trying some smokes in my treehouse at 10yo) . But I have never been ANGRY that other people do.
Sadly, this is what we now call “science” … multiple statistical “studies” and computer models built NOT to find TRUTH … but to push an agenda. And what bothers me most about the anti-smoking hysteria is how it went from the reasonable (no smoking on airliners) to the absurd and hostile (no smoking in groups outside building entrances on the street).
And the money! Ohhhhhhhhhh mommaaaaaaa … the money $$$$. Cigarette (sin) taxes are insanely high. And the money has created a whole new cottage industry (read: corporate industry) in advertising, smoking cessation, etc. Where have we seen this movie before? Hmmmm? Glo-bal-Warm-ing? It’s all FAKE, invented, science FRAUD driven by agenda not TRUTH. And the money in it is insane! Dwarfing even BIG Pharma money
Say Kenji, I’m about to turn 69 on the 30th — is your birthday the same as mine? wsj
Congrats, my compadre in age! I’m early Dec. … but I’m excited to finally … do … ‘69’. BTW … I have an amazing anecdote about ‘69’ that happened to me in 5th grade (no, not THAT… but close) that I will save to “share” on my ‘69th.
Here’s one of my favorites from ‘69 … https://youtu.be/XS0niyiKlcw?si=qIZT8MgSx_PcSfCt
Kenji,
I am curious to know how long your parents and grandparents lived, being heavy smokers.
I am 67 and have been smoking since I was 15. While I admit to being a bit shorter of breath, I still feel pretty good for my age. Arthritis bugs me more than my smoker’s cough.
OK, time for a smoke and a wee dram o whiskey.
I think my grandmother stopped smoking at about age 75 … and died in her sleep, peacefully at age 93. My mother lived into her 80’s. My father died in his early 80’s … but I’d say the alcohol probably did him in.
So Kenji, you’re a Christmas gift — but “Crimson & Clover!” I had a buddy who had the single & he played it over & over & over & over…I’m having flashbacks! Just don’t play any Tommy Roe, ok!
As for me, I’m not looking forward to being 69 but it will be nice to have my age match my IQ!
Cheers, wsj
As a smoker of over 40 years, I had no issue with some of the first steps done. I can recall when restaurants had a 20% non-smoking area (that really did nothing to stop smell of smoke drifting across the room). I also recall being in the car on long road trips with my family and my parents chain smoking. Having smoke free restaurants makes sense to me, than people can enjoy there meal. Respecting others when in a confined space (i.e. car, plane, elevator, ect…) and not smoking is just polite. Prior to the bans, I would ask if anyone minded if I smoked. If someone said yes, I would respect them and hold off on having one. When I got married, I respected my wife and would only smoke outdoors (even though she said I could smoke inside). I knew the smell bothered her. But the ban junkies went overboard. I recall a restaurant on the west coast that did some major upgrades to create a separate smoking area (essentially two restaurants, one smoking, one non-smoking with separate staff [also smoking and non-smoking] and top of the line HVAC). They than proved through multiple tests that the air in the smoking side was actually cleaner than the non-smoking area or out on the street. With my work, I travel a lot. The only thing that really bugs me is that there is no smoking areas in the airports. Once you go through the security check points there is no where to smoke. At the start of a trip or the end, not an issue, I can have one before entering and once I leave. But when I have an 8 hour layover along the way, it can get trying. They did have them at first, but the ban monkeys had them removed. Now I get to de-board the plane, find my way out of the secure area, leave the building and find the smoking area (usually a 5-10 minute walk from the main building). Chain smoke a dozen smokes. Return to the building, go through security again (with a good chance of having a detailed security check done because I am a white male [that is another rant for another day]) and find my way back to the gate with my connection flight. Big pain in the ass.
If second hand smoke could kill us, we’d all be dead. As kids we spent hours every day in cars or other close quarters with adults smoking up a storm. Second hand smoke won’t kill you but it sure stinks, especially with all the additives in cigarettes now.
Precisely! Again, my common sense always proves more accurate than all the sciency-sounding “studies” ever churned out. A great swath of Baby Boomers would never have seen age 35 … if second hand smoke was such a killer. Didn’t happen. So who are these victims of secondhand smoke? Hint: they don’t exist. Period.
I love second hand smoke.
I quit directly smoking almost 13 years ago.
Now I just smoke with my nose, just like when I was a kid.
Meanwhile, the potheads are smoking on their drive to work and from work.
The pill poppers are everywhere. Fckn zombies driving or walking, fcked up on some type of prescribed drug because reality…second smoke was always bullshit.
Another lie, like the Wuhan vax.
I remember seeing the sealed off smoking areas being packed with people and the smoke free area almost empty…… that’s when the na_zi’s decided to ban it out right! pure evil mass psychosis
If I recall, Obama’s environmental czar ordered all of the data on the study of second hand smoke destroyed shortly after Barky was sworn in.
Well, folks smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. Just not here. As someone who smoked for almost 40 years, I’m just glad I haven’t had one in 25 years and am no longer the kind of entitled jerk making some of the comments above.
“Well, folks smoke ‘em if you got ‘em. Just not here.” …or I’ll send gov’t goons after ya!
Karen.
Over 20 years ago Michael Crichton (RIP) scoffed at the lack of proof behind fear-mongering against second-hand smoke.
He was a great mind and writer. If you ever want a fun read, check out his article “How to Fight” which is a tongue-in-cheek, witty, humorous yet useful take on how to fight with your spouse or significant other.
I read it, what, maybe 30 years ago published in its original form in Playboy (which I always bought for the articles), and it’s still enjoyable and useful today.
mhb23re
Do you remember a magazine called “OMNI”?
Yeah, a Bob Guccione spin-off (non-nude) mag. Bought a few of those in the day
I kinda liked it. Nice art, and my introduction to John Brunner.
An elegant mag from a more civilized age, if you will.
But, but, but…. I thought second hand smoke could kill a baby at a thousand yards?
Looking at some of the babies whining about it above, one would think it was that dangerous.
I’ll defend your right to stand on any street corner and swing your fists – until you hit my nose…then we have a problem.
ok. thanks for deleting my response.
This is why they call them ‘studies’ instead of something less flexible like ‘experiments’.
Similarly with the output of SCOTUS: ‘opinions’.
Language has been used against us in plain sight for many generations.
‘Business’ is essentially the same as ‘busyness’. Why is that?
“Busyness” means the Loch Ness Monster is active.