Scientists admit that second-hand smoke causes zero cancer deaths.


Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar to the right. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.

Scientists admit that second-hand smoke causes zero cancer deaths.

The article notes that this fact has been known for years.

Jyoti Patel, MD, of Northwestern University School of Medicine said the findings were not new. … “Passive smoking has many downstream health effects—asthma, upper respiratory infections, other pulmonary diseases, cardiovascular disease—but only borderline increased risk of lung cancer,” said Patel. “The strongest reason to avoid passive cigarette smoke is to change societal behavior: to not live in a society where smoking is a norm.”

In other words, the power hungry who have been imposing these regulations on us have been lying about why they want to do it. They aren’t protecting anyone, they are simply trying to impose their will. And succeeding.

Share

15 comments

  • Cotour

    You make it sound like if the supposed worst result does not occur, lung cancer, that being immersed in smoke that another individual has introduced into the air that you and everyone else is then forced to breath in an enclosed area, that that is a good thing.

    And yes, everyone could choose not to eat or frequent that particular establishment.

    “Hey everyone, I only got emphysema and COPD from working at my job and not lung cancer!”

    There is a line where Libertarians run off the rails sometimes and run head long into brick walls.

  • D. K. Williams

    I have a better reason to avoid passive smoking–it stinks. I vividly recall being stuck next to the smoking section on a plane and having to sit in a small classroom with a chain-smoking professor.

  • Cotour

    I left out my own personal opinion that it is a dirty, filthy, disgusting, smelly, self medicating, obsessive habit and just stuck to the logic of people being trapped in a space being forced to breath air that has been altered by “others”.

    And yes, people can (theoretically) choose to frequent and work in places that are smoke free.

    Watch where this conversation goes when smokers and Libertarians get ahold of it.

  • You miss my point. I was focused on the lie, not the issue of whether second-hand smoke is something to avoid. I don’t like lies, especially in the name of science.

  • David Hollick

    As a smoker, I consider it a matter of politeness. I won’t smoke in your house, even if you say it’s ok. Nor will I smoke in a confined space, even if given permission. But if you’re in my house, you’ll have to deal with it being a smoking zone, or you can leave. It’s a matter of courteousness – I’ve always known that the “second hand smoke” issue was nonsense.

  • Cotour

    Nonsense?

    From who’s perspective is it nonsense? From a considerate smoker like you, or a non considerate smoker like many?

  • Cotour

    While I do appreciate when you call out different scientists for their convenient “objective” interpretations, in this particular case you do seem to be saying that because lung cancer is not the end result that its not that bad. Even though you cite the “power hungry” and their real agenda.

    The “power hungry” and their “real” motivation aside your conclusion / implication is that actions taken in regards to second hand smoke and its effects are ONLY based in power and not based at all in reasonable conclusions about the activity and its effects.

    Maybe the powers that be occasionally stumble upon something that has actual application in respect and overall freedom even though they are based in power and the imposition of their rules only?

  • Step 1. Make it illegal to select employees based on whether or not they smoke.
    Step 2. Make it illegal to subject non-smoker employees to “second hand smoke”.
    Step 3. Declare all workplaces smoke-free.

    This formula can be used for anywhere you can find a discrimination and occupational health and safety law matching.. or if you can invent one.

  • Gee, Trent, you seem to be eager to impose a lot of rules on people. When did you become the arbiter of what’s right and wrong?

  • Cotour

    You sound like a good candidate for the presidents new No Smoking Czar. Lots and lots of rules.

  • Edward

    I have to agree with Robert on this one. Many laws have been passed based upon lies and deceit. Maybe they were good laws or maybe they only gave power to government, the point is that We The People need to be well informed if we are going to properly govern ourselves. Otherwise the ruling class will end up with all the power and we will be stuck doing their bidding.

  • Ha! Maybe read the last paragraph first.

    In Trent-land there would be neither hiring laws nor occupational health and safety laws.

    Unfortunately we live in the former free world.

  • Cotour

    No sane person would disagree with you, of course the people need the best unadulterated information as possible and yes their are manipulations and cherry picking information by government due to agenda. I offer this article in todays news as an example of those abuses of power / opinion.

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/12/20/muzzled-epa-silenced-scientists-that-challenged-their-agenda/

    This statement : “Scientists admit that second-hand smoke causes zero cancer deaths.The article notes that this fact has been known for years.”

    Gives the impression that maybe smoking isn’t as bad as what people have been lead to think because it has been “proven” that second hand smoke does not cause lung cancer. It may cause every other ailment that smoking is rumored to cause but it does not cause lung cancer. And that somehow is good.

    The article and Mr. Zimmermans comments seem to themselves support a misleading conclusion because he does not qualify his comments in some manner. Is the main thrust here about misleading through “science” or about how smoking is not as bad as it has been represented? For ME he does not draw that distinction brightly enough.

  • D. K. Williams

    Why make it illegal to discriminate against smokers? 1. They are generally less productive. 2. They impede the progress of people trying to enter buildings. 3. They litter the ground. 4. They drive up group healthcare costs. 5. They start a lot of small fires. (Okay, this one is tongue-in-cheek.) And 6. They stink up offices and hallways.

  • Edward

    “Unfortunately we live in the former free world.”

    I agree with you on that one. All these opressive laws and regulations — and now we are being required to purchase something (enter into a contract with a third person, not the government) just to live legally in this country. Even the communists, who were the opposite of the free world, didn’t dare go that far with its people.

    Come January 1, we will not be in a free country (even if you assume that we are now).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *