The Ethics of Life
Should We Ban Cigarettes?
Peter Singer
|
|
|
|
PRINCETON – US President Barack Obama’s doctor confirmed last month that the president no longer smokes. At the urging of his wife, Michelle Obama, the president first resolved to stop smoking in 2006, and has used nicotine replacement therapy to help him. If it took Obama, a man strong-willed enough to aspire to and achieve the US presidency, five years to kick the habit, it is not surprising that hundreds of millions of smokers find themselves unable to quit.
Although smoking has fallen sharply in the US, from about 40% of the population in 1970 to only 20% today, the proportion of smokers stopped dropping around 2004. There are still 46 million American adult smokers, and smoking kills about 443,000 Americans each year. Worldwide, the number of cigarettes sold – six trillion a year, enough to reach the sun and back – is at an all-time high. Six million people die each year from smoking – more than from AIDS, malaria, and traffic accidents combined. Of the 1.3 billion Chinese, more than one in ten will die from smoking.
Earlier this month, the US Food and Drug Administration announced that it would spend $600 million over five years to educate the public about the dangers of tobacco use. But Robert Proctor, a historian of science at Stanford University and the author of a forthcoming blockbuster entitled Golden Holocaust: Origins of the Cigarette Catastrophe and the Case for Abolition, argues that to use education as one’s only weapon against a highly addictive and often lethal drug is unpardonably insufficient.
“Tobacco control policy,” Proctor says, “too often centers on educating the public, when it should be focused on fixing or eliminating the product.” He points out that we don’t just educate parents to keep toys painted with lead-based paints away from their children’s mouths; we ban the use of lead-based paint. Similarly, when thalidomide was found to cause major birth defects, we did not just educate women to avoid using the drug when pregnant.
Proctor calls on the FDA to use its new powers to regulate the contents of cigarette smoke to do two things. First, because cigarettes are designed to create and maintain addiction, the FDA should limit the amount of nicotine that they contain to a level at which they would cease to be addictive. Smokers who want to quit would then find it easier to do so.
Second, the FDA should bear history in mind. The first smokers did not inhale tobacco smoke; that became possible only in the nineteenth century, when a new way of curing tobacco made the smoke less alkaline. That tragic discovery is already responsible for about 150 million deaths, with many times that toll still to come, unless something drastic is done. The FDA should therefore require that cigarette smoke be more alkaline, which would make it less easily inhaled, and so make it harder for cigarette smoke to reach the lungs.
Much of Proctor’s book, which will be published in January, is based on a vast archive of tobacco-industry documents, released during litigation. More than 70 million pages of industry documents are now available online.
The documents show that, as early as the 1940’s, the industry had evidence suggesting that smoking causes cancer. In 1953, however, a meeting of the chief executives of major American tobacco companies took a joint decision to deny that cigarettes are harmful. Moreover, once the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer became public, the industry tried to create the impression that the science was inconclusive, in much the same way that those who deny that human activities are causing climate change deliberately distort the science today.
As Proctor says, cigarettes, not guns or bombs, are the deadliest artifacts in the history of civilization. If we want to save lives and improve health, nothing else that is readily achievable would be as effective as an international ban on the sale of cigarettes. (Eliminating extreme poverty worldwide is about the only strategy that might save more lives, but it would be far more difficult to accomplish.)
For those who recognize the state’s right to ban recreational drugs like marijuana and ecstasy, a ban on cigarettes should be easy to accept. Tobacco kills far more people than these drugs.
Some argue that as long as a drug harms only those who choose to use it, the state should let individuals make their own decisions, limiting its role to ensuring that users are informed of the risks that they are running. But tobacco is not such a drug, given the dangers posed by secondhand smoke, especially when adults smoke in a home with young children.
Even setting aside the harm that smokers inflict on nonsmokers, the free-to-choose argument is unconvincing with a drug as highly addictive as tobacco, and it becomes even more dubious when we consider that most smokers take up the habit as teenagers and later want to quit. Reducing the amount of nicotine in cigarette smoke to a level that was not addictive might meet this objection.
The other argument for the status quo is that a ban on tobacco might result in the same kind of fiasco as occurred during Prohibition in the US. That is, like the effort to ban alcohol, prohibiting the sale of tobacco would funnel billions of dollars into organized crime and fuel corruption in law-enforcement agencies, while doing little to reduce smoking.
But that may well be a false comparison. After all, many smokers would actually like to see cigarettes banned because, like Obama, they want to quit.
Peter Singer is a professor of bioethics at Princeton University and Laureate Professor at the University of Melbourne. His books include Animal Liberation, Practical Ethics, and The Life You Can Save.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.
www.project-syndicate.org
For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link:
http://traffic.libsyn.com/projectsyndicate/singer80.mp3
You might also like to read more from Peter Singer or return to our home page.
|
|
harleyrider1978 06:57 11 Nov 11
Moreover, once the scientific evidence that smoking causes cancer became public, the industry tried to create the impression that the science was inconclusive, in much the same way that those who deny that human activities are causing climate change deliberately distort the science today.
I know for a fact they have never ever proven smoking causes cancer!
Proctor is fabricating his argument from a leftwing progressive stance.
Id like to see Mr.Proctor provide factual biological/toxicological evidence to claim smoking causes disease or even cancer! He cant because its never ever been done even to this day. They dont even know what causes cancer after nearly a trillion wasted dollars on anti-smoking propaganda and research!
Heres what is known:
Not 1 Death or Sickness Etiologically Assigned to Tobacco. All the diseases attributed to smoking are also present in non smokers. It means, in other words, that they are multifactorial, that is, the result of the interaction of tens, hundreds, sometimes thousands of factors, either known or suspected contributors - of which smoking can be one.
Then theres this from COT
JOINT STATEMENT ON THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE TOXICOLOGICAL TESTING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS"
7 October, the COT meeting on 26 October and the COC meeting on 18
November 2004.
http://cot.food.gov.
uk/pdfs/cotstatement
tobacco0409
"5. The Committees commented that tobacco smoke was a highly complex chemical mixture and that the causative agents for smoke induced diseases (such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, effects on reproduction and on offspring) was unknown. The mechanisms by which tobacco induced adverse effects were not established. The best information related to tobacco smoke - induced lung cancer, but even in this instance a detailed mechanism was not available. The Committees therefore agreed that on the basis of current knowledge it would be very difficult to identify a toxicological testing strategy or a biomonitoring approach for use in volunteer studies with smokers where the end-points determined or biomarkers measured were predictive of the overall burden of tobacco-induced adverse disease."
In other words ... our first hand smoke theory is so lame we can't even design a bogus lab experiment to prove it. In fact ... we don't even know how tobacco does all of the magical things we claim it does.
The greatest threat to the second hand theory is the weakness of the first hand theory.
harleyrider1978 06:59 11 Nov 11
Study: live to 100 by defying all health advice
Einstein College recently studied folks who lived past age 95. The reluctantly reported result: "People who live to 95 or older are no more virtuous than the rest of us in terms of their diet, exercise routine or smoking and drinking habits."
Einstein College press release:
http://www.einstein.yu.edu/home/news_pr ... 78&pt=news
Did you notice in link above that they just state that the very old smoked about as much as did people who died younger, with no detail given, although detail is given regarding eating, boozing, exercise, and so on? Well, when it came to publishing the abstract with the National Institutes of Health, they ignore smoking results entirely! They do say that smoking was studied, but make no mention whatsoever that smoking was not shown to impair longevity: again, as with the press release, precise detail is given regarding other studied factors, but when it came to smoking -- the holy taboo of all holy taboos -- they simply couldn't bear even to mention their own finding!
Here it is: the official NIH abstract:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21812767
You'd probably have to pay about $50 to buy the full study from the Wiley service where it's posted. But you don't have to. A reporter for an independent publication who read the study tells us that about 74% of 70-year old men smoked and that smokers still made up the majority of over-95 men at 60%, while 26% of 70-year-old women smoked and a greater proportion of about 30% of over-95 women smoked, and that, all-in-all, the oldest folks did not particularly follow any of the Healthist advice to exercise, eat "healthy", or avoid booze and tobacco.
The news article:
http://lee-robinson-petzer.tumblr.com/p ... pectations
Did you note the researcher's conclusion: "Although this study demonstrates that centenarians can be obese, smoke and avoid exercise ... We should watch our weight, avoid smoking and be sure to exercise, since these activities have been shown to have great health benefits for the general population, including a longer lifespan."
harleyrider1978 07:03 11 Nov 11
According to independent Public and Health Policy Research group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke........
They did the figures for what it takes to meet all of OSHA'S minimum PEL'S on shs/ets.......Did it ever set the debate on fire.
They concluded that:
All this is in a small sealed room 9x20 and must occur in ONE HOUR.
For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes
"For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes
"Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes.
Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers would need to light up.
"For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes
For arsenic 2 million 500,000 smokers at one time
The same number of cigarettes required for the other so called chemicals in shs/ets will have the same outcomes.
So,OSHA finally makes a statement on shs/ets :
Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded." -Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Sec'y, OSHA
harleyrider1978 07:06 11 Nov 11
Heres a time line starting in 1900,dont be surprised to see the same thing playing out today nearly 100 years later.
1901: REGULATION: Strong anti-cigarette activity in 43 of the 45 states. "Only Wyoming and Louisiana had paid no attention to the cigarette controversy, while the other forty-three states either already had anti-cigarette laws on the books or were considering new or tougher anti-cigarette laws, or were the scenes of heavy anti- cigarette activity" (Dillow, 1981:10).
1904: New York: A judge sends a woman is sent to jail for 30 days for smoking in front of her children.
1904: New York City. A woman is arrested for smoking a cigarette in an automobile. "You can't do that on Fifth Avenue," the arresting officer says.
1907: Business owners are refusing to hire smokers. On August 8, the New York Times writes: "Business ... is doing what all the anti-cigarette specialists could not do."
1917: SMOKEFREE: Tobacco control laws have fallen, including smoking bans in numerous cities, and the states of Arkansas, Iowa, Idaho and Tennessee.
1937: hitler institutes laws against smoking.This one you can google.
tHE WORLD ANTI-TOBACCO WHO TREATY has created a world wide tobacco blackmarket everywhere new york city,canada where its purported that 60% of tobacco sales are blackmarket,ireland,england etc.........
Blackmarkets and costs associated to enforcement in a world on the verge of great depression cannot afford such prohibitions long. The repeal of these prohibitions will bring about much needed revenues to governments and businesses without the costs of enforcement!
harleyrider1978 07:08 11 Nov 11
Well just as everybody said even people in tobacco control sahigher taxes would lead to massive bootlegging in cigarettes! Look right in maryland the cigarette gestapo!
9 indicted for cigarette smuggling
They’re the tip of the iceberg,” Maryland Comptroller Peter Franchot said. “There is an explosion of cigarette smuggling going on.”
Comptroller’s Supervisory Agent Mike Madison peered through his binoculars, eyeing the black Toyota Camry as it pulled up to the Woodbridge tobacco shop. A man in a polo shirt got out, laid down a mat in his trunk and went inside. He emerged carrying several grocery bags — 10 to 12 cartons of cigarettes, Madison guessed — and drove away.
It sounds innocuous. But tobacco smugglers like these, officials say, are responsible for hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost tax revenue to Maryland each year. On Thursday, Prince George’s County prosecutors announced that they had indicted nine people — allegedly responsible for nearly $30,000 in lost tax revenue — on criminal charges of transporting and conspiring to transport unstamped cigarettes.
Trade In Black-Market Cigarettes: Hot, Dangerous
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129934561
harleyrider1978 07:17 11 Nov 11
If Proctor had said can smoking be a contributing cause of cancer,Id more than likely agree,but then weve got the oldest living folks in the world that were or are smokers! Until human genetics itself is figured out by itself without outside contributers being included to bias the findings,nothing will be conclusive!
Maybe in 100 years or so,factual evidence and cures will be available to us all.
To outlaw smoking and tobacco products is not only insane its financially irresponsible because of the revenues generated! Cures for disease is the answer not radical healthist laws justifed under the false assumption of prevention when we have 110 year old smokers around! A hate campaign government approved because people like proctor are now in control of it is a sad excuse for denying smokers there place in society and the economic revenues they generate to governments around the world.
anmason 08:31 11 Nov 11
To harleyrider1978:
Since your argument is rather long I only cared to look at the ONLY academic source you have since all others are simple articles and opinions. For the sake of argument I will focus on you argument about cigarettes not causing cancer and your reference from the NIH. I will not go into the policy implications, tobacco timeline or potential smuggling since these are subjective and may not apply to this article at all.
The academic source you used quotes in its conclusion: "People with exceptional longevity are not distinct in terms of lifestyle factors from the general population, suggesting that people with exceptional longevity may interact with environmental factors differently than others. This requires further investigation."
For starters, your argument about cigarette impacts focuses on a "special" segment of the population, those who have high longevity. For this reason I consider such argument myopic and not representative of the general population.
Moreover, the article looks at many other factors such as physical activity, diet and alcohol consumption. The fact that NONE of these really had an impact on longevity simply shows that people who live longer simply have a significant difference from others which was not captured by this study. This does not mean that these factors are not important to health (they clearly are) it just means that people that live longer seem to live longer for different reasons. It has been clearly shown that an unhealthy diet has adverse effects on health; however, it still had no effect on longevity.
Please frame your argument on a more defined and localized manner. The way it is written now, it is hard to take it seriously just because you are “all over the place.” If you can please make a direct argument as for why you think cigarettes do not have adverse health effects I would be happy to read it, but please focus you argument around that topic only.
harleyrider1978 09:10 11 Nov 11
Im not all over the place with this artcle,it covers more ground than quaker has oats!
You want me to hit the kids and shs/ets claims too! I will flat blow that junk out of the water too!
harleyrider1978 09:15 11 Nov 11
given the dangers posed by secondhand smoke, especially when adults smoke in a home with young children
The inconvenient truth is that the only studies of children of smokers suggest it is PROTECTIVE in contracting atopy in the first place. The New Zealand study says by a staggering factor of 82%.
“Participants with atopic parents were also less likely to have positive SPTs between ages 13 and 32 years if they smoked themselves (OR=0.18), and this reduction in risk remained significant after adjusting for confounders.
The authors write: “We found that children who were exposed to parental smoking and those who took up cigarette smoking themselves had a lower incidence of atopy to a range of common inhaled allergens.
“These associations were found only in those with a parental history of asthma or hay fever.”
They conclude: Our findings suggest that preventing allergic sensitization is not one of them.”
The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Volume 121, Issue 1 , Pages 38-42.e3, January 2008
http://www.jacionline.org/article/S00...(07)01954-9/abstract
.
This is a Swedish study.
“Children of mothers who smoked at least 15 cigarettes a day tended to have lower odds for suffering from allergic rhino-conjunctivitis, allergic asthma, atopic eczema and food allergy, compared to children of mothers who had never smoked (ORs 0.6-0.7)
CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates an association between current exposure to tobacco smoke and a low risk for atopic disorders in smokers themselves and a similar tendency in their children.”
Clin Exp Allergy 2001 Jun;31(6):908-14
http://www.data-yard.net/30/asthma.htm
...
harleyrider1978 09:38 11 Nov 11
The academic source you used quotes in its conclusion: "People with exceptional longevity are not distinct in terms of lifestyle factors from the general population, suggesting that people with exceptional longevity may interact with environmental factors differently than others. This requires further investigation."
Thats exactly my point about genetic predisposition to disease by people because of their genetic make up iregardless of whether they smoke or eat high fat foods!
The point is most of these so called smoking related diseases are actually OLD AGE DISEASES........brought on by the aging process!
As far as second hand smoke junk science,everything theyve tried to us so far is natural occuring processes in the body to stimuli whether it be smoke,odors,eating food or drinking water,or running a marathon! These junk science researchers try and claim they are exclusive to shs/ets when theres no evidence to that assumption at all! Continine levels only say this person may have been around nicotine and thats not a carcinogen nor a problem! OSHA sets levels of chemicals to which people maybe harmed and this environmental tobacco smoke doesnt come close by any toxicological stance!
About 90% of secondary smoke is composed of water vapor and ordinary air with a minor amount of carbon dioxide. The volume of water vapor of second hand smoke becomes even larger as it qickly disperses into the air,depending upon the humidity factors within a set location indoors or outdoors. Exhaled smoke from a smoker will provide 20% more water vapor to the smoke as it exists the smokers mouth.
4 % is carbon monoxide.
6 % is those supposed 4,000 chemicals to be found in tobacco smoke. Unfortunatley for the smoke free advocates these supposed chemicals are more theorized than actually found.What is found is so small to even call them threats to humans is beyond belief.Nanograms,picograms and femptograms......
(1989 Report of the Surgeon General p. 80).
LFC 01:13 12 Nov 11
What frustrates me is the refusal of anti-smoking advocates to acknowledge that electronic cigarettes ("e-cigarettes") may offer massive benefits to humankind. Of course, more research needs to be done. But so far it looks like nicotine (which is the only chemical in an e-cigarette) is not, by itself and in its usual dosage, much more dangerous than caffeine. E-cigarettes produce zero second-hand smoke, do not generate tar in the user's lungs, and do not contain any of the 1,000s of carcinogens that are in ordinary cigarettes. The anti-smoking advocates I've spoken to say that they are scared that e-cigarettes "legitimate" non-electronic smoking (because they look similar), but that seems like an incredibly weak argument to me.
Just think, governments could warn tobacco manufacturers that in 2 (or 5, or whatever) years, ordinary leaf-based cigarettes will be illegal and e-cigarettes will be the only legal nicotine-ingestion method. Millions (probably 10s of millions) of lives would be saved. As it is, in may countries (like Australia), e-cigarettes are actually illegal (at least to sell retail) because nicotine is classified as an illegal drug. Of course, there is an asterisk attached to that classification that says "tobacco-based cigarettes are not subject to this classification". As someone who is passionate about stopping smoking-related deaths, this situation seems absurd to me.
mikemorgan 03:22 12 Nov 11
Big government's hypocritical stance on smoking has nothing to do with ethics and everything to do with the tax dollars it receives from tobacco sales and corporate settlements, most of which isn't used on prevention. Electronic cigarettes are increasingly popular now, so see www.ecigwerks.blogspot.com for more.
MK 09:20 13 Nov 11
The arguments here are presented in a very bias way, and the 'ethisit' doesn't bring much light.
0) the golden standard in science is the double blind placebo controlled trial. But since smoking is a bad, scientists cannot make that kind of study.. which could prove it is a bad .. That proves only that the dogma is there before the experiment takes place.
1) Assuming life expectency is lower for somkers because of cigarettes (or is it placebo effect from anti-smoking campaigns?), it is certainly not the main killer in terms of DALYS - disability-adjusted life expectancy. Cancer related disease (cancer, heart attack, stroke) happen later in life. The actual number one killer is car, because it kills at the dawn of productive life, i.e. young drivers. Shall we forbid it?
2) Adolescents can choose whether to smoke or not. THey are allowed to drive, allowed to have relationships.. And poeple really willing to quit always DO.. the physical addiction fades away veru quicky (less than a month)..the real "addiciton" is psychological
3) If they die younger, then smokers are a good for society: they cost LESS money, (pension, health care..), leaving aside the very high taxes they unfairly pay in cigarettes
4) it is easy to separate smokers from non smokers (and they usually do without being told), so there is no bad "externality" to be internalised. As for families, if the air quality of children is to be controlled, the same applies to food.. and why not education?
The governement's role is not to save us from ourselves. If they could first save us from them, It is unlegitimate to impose one's value to others, one's culture to others. Smoking is something the state shouldn't take care off. it's a matter of preference, tastes, and way to choose one's life.
Why don;t they take care of the banks instead, which are a real public bad. How many millions kids are hurt in a much worse way than a bit of smoke at home? For those who live outside.. smoking inside is not an issue anymore.
gregtascona 10:46 13 Nov 11
Obama is surely very strong-willed to be able to become President, but it is not fair to contrast this with his ability to quit smoking:
1) There may be biological factors that affect one's ability to quit.
2) There may be psychological or social factors that influence his ability to quit.
3) By this logic, then every President should be, for example, really fit (strong-willed enough to exercise relentessly).
The level of willpower one exercises as it applies to one's career advancement cannot be applied to every activity in life that requires a certain degree of willpower.
21tiger 03:48 14 Nov 11
Re: Alcohol
Well, last I checked, the combination of alcohol and driving is still fatal, and kills lots of people every year, including passengers (who aren't drinking). On the old evil-meter, though, Tabacco wins hands down: you can't get Cancer because the guy next to you at the bar is having a Martini.
This is a product (not a plant) designed and manafactured to be addictive. Why not just require that Cigarette companies remove addictive substances from Cigarettes? Oh right. Because those same companies are paying off the government we elected to watch out for our best interests. Sweet.
What other forms of poison should be legal? Exactly: any form of poison that only harms the guy using it. Darwinism. The worst thing about Cigarettes is that not only is the guy smoking actually killing himself, but he's killing people around him (total strangers) as well. That's the part that should be illegal.
megaduke 01:55 14 Nov 11
Let's explore this. How do we ban cigarettes? Do we make tobacco an illegal substance as we have done with marijuana?
So this means that pipe and cigar smoking would also become illegal? Do we arrest tobacco growers and shut down tobacco plantations and put everyone involved in the tobacco industry out of work? What if people want to grow their own tobacco and roll their own cigarettes? Should they be imprisoned with stiffer penalities than those who smoke marijuana (which is in the process of becoming decriminalized across the country)?
What if technologies like e-cigarettes were able to eliminate the threat of second-hand smoke--should they still be illegal?
PurnoDePurno 11:50 14 Nov 11
The "this time it might be different because smokers want to quit" argument is idiotic. Many heroin and cocaine addicts want to quit too it has hardly stopped the drug war. Brushing such an important counter argument off with one sentence shows lazyness and is almost criminally irresponsible, the drug war has casued tens of thousands of deaths in Mexico alone, al lot of those died in the most cruel ways imaginable, you might think a little harder about why this time it will really be different.
airdrummer 03:13 19 Nov 11
> Reducing the amount of nicotine in cigarette smoke to a level that was not addictive
and addicts will simply smoke more to get their fix, increasing harm:-P
a ban on cigarettes need not mean a ban on tobacco, which is doomed to fail. tobacco consumption went up with the convenience of pre-rolled cigs: let addicts roll their own, and many will be able to quit.
dutchpy 06:46 20 Nov 11
So called "Science" used to convince the non-scientists in our society is not very ethical to me. I see no difference with earlier 'scientific studies' in favor of tobacco. The best science can offer to society is risk analysis and awareness of the risks being taken, and (free) life is all about taking risks.
johnalex 05:59 04 Dec 11
@harleyrider1978: your ignorance is not only annoying but also rude.
1. You should see a psychiatrist. Writing over 11 comments to try to make a point makes you an obsessive, hysterical person. There are many drugs that will help you with that and might help you quit smoking as well.
2. If you ever decide to read a serious document about Tobacco consumption or you decide to visit a website with scientific value, please refer to NCI (http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/):
1. A fact sheet that describes how smoking increases a woman's risk of cancer and other health problems and the benefits of quitting smoking. Includes resources to help women smokers quit.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/women
2. A fact sheet that summarizes the studies on the health effects of exposure to environmental (secondhand) tobacco smoke.
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS
harleyrider1978 06:13 04 Dec 11
junk science - a term used to describe false or misleading research that is offered as real science, but which was not obtained using the accepted scientific method . The term "junk science" is often applied to deceptive environmental and health studies.
harleyrider1978 06:14 04 Dec 11
Nord Med. 1994;109(4):121-5.
[Environmental somatization syndrome. How to deal with the external milieu syndrome?].
[Article in Swedish]
Nilsson CG, Göthe CJ, Molin C.
SourceMed Rehabiliteringskliniken, Huddinge Sjukhus.
Abstract
Somatization is a tendency to experience and communicate psychogenic distress in the form of somatic symptoms and to seek medical help for them. Patients suffering from environmental somatization syndrome (ESS) consider their symptoms to be caused by exposure to chemical or physical components of the external environment or by ergonomic stress at work. ESS is distinguished by mental contagiousness and a tendency to cluster. Sometimes it explodes in wide-spread epidemics that may be escalated by mass-media campaigns. Extensive ESS epidemics have been connected to, i.a., arsenic, carbon monoxide ("generator gas poisoning"), mercury ("oral galvanism"), carbon-free copy papers, electromagnetic fields ("electric allergy") and repetitive movements ("repetition strain injury", RSI). The typical patient directs the interest on the external environment, refuses alternative explanations of his symptoms and abhors any suggestion of a psychogenic etiology.
The community is often placed in difficult positions by lobby groups calling for drastic measures to eliminate alleged disease-inducing exposures. When hygienic evils occur simultaneously with an ESS epidemic, it is essential to strictly differ the hygienic problems from the ESS problems. If mismanaged, measures aimed at reducing hygienic inconveniences may aggravate the complex of ESS problems.
anmason 09:30 04 Dec 11
johnalex:
Thank you for the resources and factsheets. I agree with your statement and I think some comments are out of place and context in this discussion.
There is little or no denying of the harmfiull effects of smoking and its negative impact on society; the real discussion in this thread should be the best policies to adopt given these facts, not the facts themselves. Hopefully your comment will finally put an end to the nonsense that is being said arguing against smoking facts.
harleyrider1978 10:43 04 Dec 11
Those arent fact sheets,there ADVOCACY SHEETS! The same ones used by all the anti-smoking forces! I challenge you to provide one study that proves smoking or second hand smoke causes a disease or cancer in anything!
You cant because they dont exist!
anmason 11:52 04 Dec 11
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Tobacco/ETS#r4
References provoided right there on the bottom! look at this one:
http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/tobaccosmoke/report/executivesummary.pdf
There is no point to speaking on deaf years, this is the last time I am arguing in this thread.
harleyrider1978 02:13 05 Dec 11
Yes…the 1992/93 EPA report was thrown out by a judge for fudging the numbers. Essentially, the standard for scientific significance which demonstrates if a variable has an effect at all was lowered. But the judge’s ruling doesn’t stop the anti-smoking advocates from citing bad science.
Here’s some other findings that have been taken so far out of context it defies the imagination:
2006 Surgeon General’s Report (excerpts)
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke and female fertility or fecundability. No data were found on paternal exposure to secondhand smoke and male fertility or fecundability.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and spontaneous abortion.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and neonatal mortality.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and cognitive functioning among children.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and behavioral problems among children.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and children’s height/growth.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between maternal exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy and childhood cancer.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy and childhood cancer.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between parental smoking and the natural history of middle ear effusion.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and an increase in the risk of adenoidectomy or tonsillectomy among children.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between parental smoking and the risk of immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy in their children.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and an increased risk of stroke.
Studies of secondhand smoke and subclinical vascular disease, particularly carotid arterial wall thickening, are suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between exposure to secondhand smoke and atherosclerosis.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in persons with asthma.
The evidence is inadequate to infer the presence or absence of a causal relationship between short-term secondhand smoke exposure and an acute decline in lung function in healthy persons.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.
The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
And finally…..
The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.
Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh…
harleyrider1978 02:15 05 Dec 11
They have created a fear that is based on nothing’’
World-renowned pulmonologist, president of the prestigious Research Institute Necker for the last decade, Professor Philippe Even, now retired, tells us that he’s convinced of the absence of harm from passive smoking. A shocking interview.
What do the studies on passive smoking tell us?
PHILIPPE EVEN. There are about a hundred studies on the issue. First surprise: 40% of them claim a total absence of harmful effects of passive smoking on health. The remaining 60% estimate that the cancer risk is multiplied by 0.02 for the most optimistic and by 0.15 for the more pessimistic … compared to a risk multiplied by 10 or 20 for active smoking! It is therefore negligible. Clearly, the harm is either nonexistent, or it is extremely low.
It is an indisputable scientific fact. Anti-tobacco associations report 3 000-6 000 deaths per year in France ...
I am curious to know their sources. No study has ever produced such a result.
Many experts argue that passive smoking is also responsible for cardiovascular disease and other asthma attacks. Not you?
They don’t base it on any solid scientific evidence. Take the case of cardiovascular diseases: the four main causes are obesity, high cholesterol, hypertension and diabetes. To determine whether passive smoking is an aggravating factor, there should be a study on people who have none of these four symptoms. But this was never done. Regarding chronic bronchitis, although the role of active smoking is undeniable, that of passive smoking is yet to be proven. For asthma, it is indeed a contributing factor ... but not greater than pollen!
The purpose of the ban on smoking in public places, however, was to protect non-smokers. It was thus based on nothing?
Absolutely nothing! The psychosis began with the publication of a report by the IARC, International Agency for Research on Cancer, which depends on the WHO (Editor's note: World Health Organization). The report released in 2002 says it is now proven that passive smoking carries serious health risks, but without showing the evidence. Where are the data? What was the methodology? It's everything but a scientific approach. It was creating fear that is not based on anything.
Why would anti-tobacco organizations wave a threat that does not exist?
...
The anti-smoking campaigns and higher cigarette prices having failed, they had to find a new way to lower the number of smokers. By waving the threat of passive smoking, they found a tool that really works: social pressure. In good faith, non-smokers felt in danger and started to stand up against smokers. As a result, passive smoking has become a public health problem, paving the way for the Evin Law and the decree banning smoking in public places. The cause may be good, but I do not think it is good to legislate on a lie. And the worst part is that it does not work: since the entry into force of the decree, cigarette sales are rising again.
Why not speak up earlier?
As a civil servant, dean of the largest medical faculty in France, I was held to confidentiality. If I had deviated from official positions, I would have had to pay the consequences. Today, I am a free man.
Le Parisien
...
harleyrider1978 02:17 05 Dec 11
Subject: THE TRUTH FROM A PHYSICIAN JOHN DALE DUNN..HEARTLAND
INSTITUTE
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 01:04:54 -0500
I am a Texan for 22 years, a 36 year physician, specializing in
emergency medicine. I am familiar with the public health science on
second hand smoke. I can say with confidence that second hand smoke
may irritate some, but it does not kill. Those claiming thousands of
deaths from second hand smoke to the public are deceitful for a
political goal.
Public Health Studies cited by the Cancer Society and the Surgeon
General that claim thousands of deaths from second hand smoke are
weak, cherry-picked studies. Their supporters compound their perfidy
by ignoring studies by the World Health Organization (Buffetta 1998
in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), Stranges, 2006 in
Archives of Internal Medicine and Enstrom 2003 in The British Medical
Journal, that show no second hand smoke effect.
In science, one study that disproves a scientific theory is more
important than a pile of studies that are slightly positive. Anti-
smoking advocates and fanatics ignore that basic rule and ignore any
study they don't like. They are propagandists, not scientists.
The crusaders are willing to do anything and say anything about
second hand smoke, including making public statements about thousands
of deaths from second hand smoke. Those claims are multifarious and
duplicitous—they are lies. Second hand smoking, even for the spouse
of a smoker is one cigarette or less per day—which has no effect.
The second hand smoke scare is a phantom menace conjured up by the
High Holy Church of Smoke Haters to support the anti smoking
crusade...
Smoking Bans violate the Ohio tradition of mind your own business.
If the Ohio General Assembly thinks it has a role in telling people
how to live, they should get a Divinity Degree and find a
congregation. Folks in Ohio can easily avoid second hand smoke, and
employment in a bar or restaurant is voluntary. Smoking is legal.
Avoiding smoke is easy.
John Dale Dunn MD JD
Policy Advisor
American Council on Science
and Health,
NYC, and the Heartland Institute, Chicago.
harleyrider1978 02:17 05 Dec 11
A letter from a doctor on shs
Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionate opponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based upon economic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss of individual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.
I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also past president of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk, in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobacco smoke. What I will say is: 1) it’s a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) is virtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even in bartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support the ban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular product based on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.
To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as “proving that environmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer”. Not only is this unproven but there is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for a scientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (of which I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best described as a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hate smoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections in restaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those who choose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronize establishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is to deny people of their rights.
Respectfully,
Robert E. Madden, M.D
...
anmason 03:46 05 Dec 11
You seem to have "overlooked":
Sudden Infant Death Syndrome
4. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal
relationship between exposure to secondhand
smoke and sudden infant death syndrome.
Preterm Delivery
5. The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to
infer a causal relationship between maternal
exposure to secondhand smoke during pregnancy
and preterm delivery.
Low Birth Weight
6. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal
relationship between maternal exposure to
secondhand smoke during pregnancy and a small
reduction in birth weight.
Sorry, but failing to show all results to support an argument when these are readilly available really damages your credibility apart from being extremely unethical.You may know some other things, you may have other information that is not available to me, but you have already shot yourself on the foot.
The way to get a point across is with unbiased facts and sound arguments, not by flooding people with useless information in the hope that they will not double-check your sources.
harleyrider1978 06:06 05 Dec 11
Study: Babies' low serotonin levels cause SIDS
Researchers may have solved the mystery of what makes some babies vulnerable to sudden infant death syndrome, or SIDS, which kills more than 2,300 babies a year. Infants who died of SIDS had low levels of serotonin, a brain chemical that helps the brainstem regulate breathing, temperature, sleeping, waking and other automatic functions, according to an autopsy study in today's Journal of the American Medical Association.
Serotonin normally helps babies respond to high carbon-dioxide levels during sleep by helping them wake up and shift their head position to get fresh air, says senior author Hannah Kinney of Harvard Medical School and Children's Hospital Boston.
When babies are placed face down, their exhaled carbon dioxide may pool in loose bedding, where it can be breathed back in, Kinney says.
Normally, babies sense high carbon-dioxide levels automatically and wake up, she says. Babies who don't respond appropriately, however, may never wake up.
"This could have a huge impact," says Rachel Moon, a leading SIDS researcher at Children's National Medical Center in Washington, who wasn't involved in the new study.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-02-03-sids03_st_N.htm
harleyrider1978 06:11 05 Dec 11
The below is garbage science they did questionaires by mothers of new borns and asked how much smoking were you around when pregnant and then looked up birth weights,regardless if the mothers had preemies or not!
The entire SG reports have been trash and you will never find proof of any claim just manipulated epidemiology if even that, recall bias,researcher bias and everything else. Theyve lowered the standard of a causal effect to that of drowing in the desert of your own sweat!
Low Birth Weight
6. The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal
relationship between maternal exposure to
secondhand smoke during pregnancy and a small
reduction in birth weight.
luizvasc 06:56 11 Nov 11