Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Health Care
Sierra Tucson
Eating Disorders Program Coordinator General
A1 Communications
Cable Techs

Some public policy activists engage in "advocacy science," manipulating data to create the appearance of a scientific basis for the policies they advocate. Their allies in the scientific community attempt to make the findings of their research fit a predetermined conclusion.

Many public-policy debates have become immersed in advocacy science. Whether it's global warming, endangered species or silicone breast implants, either side of the debate has its own cadre of advocacy scientists to bolster its arguments. This makes it difficult for the discerning citizen to separate truth from half-truth. And when a particular viewpoint is politically correct, journalists tend to be less skeptical of the scientific claims supporting it.

A case in point is the argument against secondhand smoke. In 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency deemed secondhand smoke a cancer risk. But in 1998, a U.S. District Court ruling nullified the EPA report. It turns out the EPA cherry-picked its data and manipulated scientific procedure and scientific norms to rationalize the agency's predetermined position.

When asked by reporters for a response, an EPA spokesperson said the EPA had acted for a worthy cause. But lying is never acceptable, even for a worthy cause.

To this day we have heard scant mention of this incident in the press. Nor has there been much mention of the May 2003 British Medical Journal report by UCLA School of Public Health researchers Enstrom and Kabat, whose research "did not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality." It concluded, "The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary artery disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

Nor has the press mentioned that the latest U.S. Surgeon General's report, based on a review of existing literature, stated, "Although the data are sparse on specific elements linking secondhand-smoke exposure and tumor induction in humans via exposure to tobacco smoke carcinogens, substantial data from active smokers support this framework of biological steps towards cancer."

The fact is, either side in this debate can bring out its team of scientists to shoot holes in the other's data and bolster its own case. I'd like to get away from this and resort to common sense.

It is undisputed that risk of lung cancer and other smoking-related diseases is directly related to the amount of cigarettes smoked per year and the amount of years one smokes. The more smoke inhaled into the lungs, and the longer the sustained period of time this continues, the greater the risk. When it comes to lung cancer, there is a roughly 20-year lag time between the onset of smoking and the development of lung cancer.

Therefore, I reason, if high doses of smoke must be inhaled over a sustained period of several years to increase the risk of lung cancer, then occasional, partially inhaled smoke, say from a distant table in a restaurant, cannot possibly be considered a major health risk.

Thankfully, our political system is not a "scientocracy." Otherwise, we would have no freedom to make any choices other than those scientists deem good for us. When it comes to public policy, our constitutionally guaranteed rights should have final say in any debate.

Restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and offices are all privately owned entities whose owners seek to do business with the public. As such, the owners have the right to decide whether they want to allow or prohibit smoking on their premises. Naturally, the profit motive will make them strongly take their customers' desires into consideration. And no potential customer is forced to patronize any particular business.

Any law that prohibits smoking in privately owned places is a violation of the property rights of the owner. Regardless of any potential risk associated with secondhand smoke, the only place the public has a right to ban smoking is in a place the public owns.

It is a sad irony that many of the same people who rightly see the abuses of eminent domain laws by state and local governments as an assault on our property rights are happy to see their consistency go up in smoke when the subject turns to secondhand smoke.

As a doctor, I am very concerned about the harmful effects of tobacco. I counsel my patients to stay away from cigarettes. But as much as I care about their health, I respect their rights as adults to make their own personal choices. A statewide ban on smoking in privately owned places would continue the erosion of liberty that threatens the foundations on which our nation is based.