Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Many researchers believe that the alarmist claims about secondhand smoke have gotten way out of hand. Studies actually had a difficult time even proving that constant exposure in a closed environment over years was deadly and cancer causing. But concerns about on-going exposure in a home or workplace environment developed and morphed into concerns that even walking past a smoker in the open was cause for concern.

Check out this article from 2006 from ABC News (Myth: Secondhand Smoke Is A Killer). This article ran before anyone really knew what electronic cigarettes were or would be — and yet, there are some serious similarities in the debate. Tobacco prohibitionist Stanton Glantz and tobacco control advocate Michael Siegel are both tapped for quotes and information for the piece. Glantz is willing to make alarmist claims about secondhand smoke — even suggesting that someone smoking in a neighboring apartment might be enough to cause damage. Siegel, meanwhile, suggests that although he supports close-quarters smoking bans (like in workplaces), the concept of short-term secondhand smoke turning into long-term harm is fairly ridiculous.

This might sound familiar to electronic cigarette community members because Siegel and Glantz are both heavily involved in e-cig debates and their positions are similar to what they were on secondhand smoke. Glantz bends statements and ignores contradictory research to suggest that e-cigs should be banned out of fear that they cause harm while Siegel has followed the research and advocates for regulations appropriate to the harm level.

The fight against secondhand smoke has gradually changed from an evidence-based public health movement to an emotional and political crusade. Politicians gain easy points with many voters by fighting to save lives and hinder cigarette sales.

Comic magic duo Penn & Teller looked into Secondhand smoke for their debunking show Bullshit back in 2003. They didn’t have any issue with the existence of smoking bans, but they did take issue with the shady maneuvers advocates and questionable “science” used to convince the public that even 20 minutes next to a smoker was deadly (many researchers now agree that it’s Bullshit). In Penn and Teller’s eyes, if smoking bans were about public health, they would be based on real science. If smoking bans are based on being annoyed that other people are smoking, then regulators and advocates should just say so.

Glantz has gained momentum fighting against electronic cigarettes by arguing that any level of constituents in vapor should require hefty bans on where and when e-cigs can be used, how the products can be purchased and so on. Yet again, what should be a discussion about meaningful evidence-based legislation is being manipulated by emotion. Cars release quite a lot of toxins into the air — probably more than electronic cigarettes — but we don’t force people to cut their engine and roll the last 30 feet into a public parking lot. What anti-e-cig efforts really boil down to is I don’t like seeing other people do it, so I will use any excuse possible to make it illegal.

And why don’t they like it? Take your pick. Parent groups don’t like anything that kids might start doing for the coolness factor that could mold their adult habits. Anti-smoking groups don’t like it because they’ve fought smoking for so long they don’t want to see anything that even looks like smoking. Public health groups don’t like it because it requires more complex rules, exemptions, and distinctions for tobacco control to continue working. These are all understandable grievances, but they hardly amount to a legislative responsibility to control the industry.

This isn’t an argument over the value of freedom over safety as many smokers and vapers might make it. This is an argument for evidence-based decision making over emotional and “best guess” decision making. Electronic cigarettes are treated by many as guilty until proven innocent. We assume that they are dangerous because we don’t have evidence that they are not, says many local and state governments making laws about the products. When secondhand smoke arguments got pushed to the farthest degree, similar was said. We don’t know that smoking can harm someone in a neighboring hotel room, but smoking seems scary enough that we can assume that it might and act as if it does.

Many opponents to electronic cigarettes even make claims that they support evidence-based decisions. They do this for two reasons. First, it makes the other side sound unreasonable. Second, by suggesting that there isn’t enough evidence to make a decision, they can easily support the “play it safe” decision (that is, imposing smoking bans on e-cigs). But this is exactly what they just got done saying should be avoided — decisions not based on evidence.

We’re not saying that secondhand smoke isn’t a killer. It has been proven that children raised in a smoke-filled environment are far more likely to develop complications. But again, the idea that 20-30 minutes of secondhand smoke in a public place might cause long term damage has generally been debunked. Already, studies into electronic cigarette emissions are finding little to no damage to the users themselves — and evidence suggests bystanders are at zero risk. But again, some smoking prohibitionists (Glantz included) are refusing to accept the data and continue to push the idea that we just don’t know enough about them.

The fight against unnecessary smoking laws based on secondhand smoke fears has largely been lost. More recent research suggests that only after 30 years of living with a smoker does someone become more likely to develop lung cancer. But smoking prohibitionists continue to further ostracize the act of smoking. Some experts have now moved on to arguing that thirdhand smoke (smoke residue left in materials and surfaces long after the smoking has ceased) is cause for enough concern to even further ban smoking anywhere that a non-smoker (particularly a child) might ever happen to be.

When it comes to e-cigs, one hopes the public at large doesn’t fall for the same Bullshit.