Passive Smoking: A Publicity Stunt

The risks of second-hand smoking are well-known to almost every individual living in a country which banned smoking in public places. The common belief among members of these societies is that passive smoking directly influences the health of non-smokers, and can potentially cause lung cancer. However, this information, perpetrated by the media and implemented within our societies, is not entirely substantiated by science.

A 1992 study conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concluded that “…exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) -- commonly known as secondhand smoke -- is responsible for approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths each year in nonsmoking adults and impairs the respiratory health of hundreds of thousands of children” (Fact Sheet, 1993). The Respiratory Health Effects Of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer And Other Disorders was one of the first and foremost studies conducted on the effects of passive smoking.

As of 1998, California became the first American state to ban smoking from public places with New York following. A large wave of upheaval arose, with many pro-ban citizens referring to the 1992 study and demanding a smoke-free environment. Other respectable health and science organizations support the claim of the EPA, but use their research as the primary source for their claims, even elevating the number of deaths to almost 50,000 annually. However, it seems that this data is merely a projection based on mortality rate.

Furthermore, the EPA research as well as other pieces of research conducted by the WHO do not hold the conclusive evidence to the risk of second-hand smoke. In a federal lawsuit from 1998, the court claimed that the “EPA’s procedural failure constitutes a violation of the law” and furthermore “…the EPA ‘cherry picked’ it’s data… and deviated from scientific procedure… to ensure a preordained outcome” (Osteen,1998).

Moreover, the World Health Organization issued a press release titled Passive Smoking Does Cause Lung Cancer Do Not Let Them Fool You, based on their research which directly states in its conclusion that “results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk” but found “weak evidence of a dose-response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS” (Boffetta,Agudo,Ahrens,1998).

The media seem to be working pro-health as most of the publicity was aimed at the EPA research, and even press releases by the WHO were altered in order to misinform the public. Apart from health trends, however, a smoke-free society does have its advantages for governments, which can save money on provided health care for victims of smoking (related to injuries and other forms of diseases). Furthermore, smoking bans in the workplace increase productivity and thus boost economic growth, not to mention the smoking ban elegantly evades possible lawsuits that could occur if the public would openly argue that smoking in restaurants, for example, is irritating.

In conclusion, one can observe the power of the media and their immediate impact on society. Due to the fact that the negative effects of passive smoking are not entirely science-based, the publicity of these so-called research papers has caused a major legislative as well as economic change in societies all around the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boffetta, P., A. Agudo, and W. Ahrens. Multicenter Case-control Study of Exposure to Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Lung Cancer in Europe. Rep. Lyon, 1998. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Web. 05 May 2011.

Osteen, William L. The United States Federal Court Decision Judge Osteen. Proc. of The Osteen Decision, North Carolina. 1998. The FORCES International Liberty News Network. Web. 05 May 2011.

Respiratory Health Effects Of Passive Smoking: Lung Cancer And Other Disorders. Publication. Environmental Protection Agency, 1993. Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects Of Passive Smoking. EPA, 13 Oct. 2010. Web. 5 May 2011. .