Almanac: At the Capitol

There are reasonable economic arguments to be made against a statewide smoking ban for public places — not necessarily correct arguments, but reasonable.

And then there's the argument State Sen. Tom Neuville (R-Northfield) tried to make in the Mankato Free Press — lo and behold, second-hand smoke isn't all that bad!

Apparently Sen. Neuville has been studying at the Dick Day School of Tobacco Politics:

One of the largest studies on the effects of second-hand smoke was conducted by James Enstrom and Geoff Kabat, and published in 2003. Their study, conducted from 1960 through 1998, found "no significant associations for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke." They concluded that, "the results did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco and tobacco-related mortality. The association between exposure to second-hand smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

Unbelievably, the surgeon general did not even consider this large and recent study. Likewise, a study, published in 1998, and commissioned by the World Health Organization in Europe, made similar conclusions, but was not publicized when the results found no relationship between second-hand smoke and cancer or heart disease. Most studies on second-hand smoke find that the relative risk of second-hand smoke is less than the relative risk of taking birth control pills for women. Yet, no one is suggesting that we should declare birth control pills a health hazard.

Truthfully, second-hand smoke is an annoyance and a nuisance. Some people are allergic, and others who have asthma should avoid any kind of smoke. However, second-hand smoke is not a public health risk because people can avoid it.

Why did the Surgeon General not consider that study? Possibly because it was funded by a front for the tobacco companies, or perhaps because Enstrom has accepted funding from Philip Morris, a major cigarette manufacturer. The purpose of Enstrom's study, and the Center for Indoor Air Research? Why, the same purpose as the Discovery Institute's attempt to debunk the theory of Evolution: produce controversy where there was none, and turn generally-accepted fact into theoretical politically-biased mumbo-jumbo, making action on behalf of public safety impossible.

Again, there are economic arguments against a smoking ban — a temporary drop in business from fewer smokers going out to eat or drink can prove costly in the short run, especially to small establishments — but arguing that a statewide smoking ban isn't necessary because second-hand smoke isn't as dangerous as the entire legitimate medical community says? Good luck with that, Sen. Neuville.