Smoke Gets in Your Eyes

Secondhand smoke dramatically increases the risk of heart disease and lung cancer in nonsmokers and can only be controlled by making indoor spaces smoke-free, according to a comprehensive report issued yesterday by US Surgeon General Richard Carmona.

Uh oh...Humphrey Bogart call your office. It looks like this is the end for the 48 million smokers in this country who love to light up a Luckie in the neighborhood saloon or beanery. I wonder if our airports will be able to accommodate the mass number of citizens emigrating to Parisian apartments? How long will it be before the Zippo lighter becomes a priceless antique?

Given the mounting evidence supporting a link between secondhand smoke (SHS) and health problems I can't imagine that anyone outside of Tobacco Road would be surprised by this news. The Surgeon General's report, described as "an analysis of the best research on secondhand smoke," lists several illnesses caused by SHS:

heart disease
lung cancer
sudden infant death syndrome
asthma attacks
ear infections

I guess he forgot to mention halitosis, rotting teeth, a corpse-like complexion, yellow fingers and burns on one's pantaloons.

What do the docs say about this new report? Well, the ones who don't smoke probably agree with Ron Davis, president-elect of the AMA, who said "This report should be a wake-up call for lawmakers to enact comprehensive clean indoor air laws that prohibit smoking in all indoor public places and workplaces."

Yes, a wake-up call is just what we need, especially since the pompous pundits, puerile loudmouths and toochis lechers who dominate the mainstream media would rather pontificate on such panem et circenses topics such as nuts and sluts rather than on the 430 babies who die from SHS each year.

I personally like this new no-holds-barred approach to telling the truth about the dangers of inhaling secondhand smoke:

The surgeon general directly accused the tobacco industry of trying to minimize the scientific consensus on the dangers of environmental tobacco smoke.

Heavens to Betsy! Is this true? Who would have thought that Big Tobacco would try to manipulate the spin, let alone the actual scientific data regarding the risk of SHS on our lovable teddy-bear-like bodies. Is there any evidence of such malfeasance? How about this article from the March 2005 issue of Pediatrics:

Changing Conclusions on Secondhand Smoke in a Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Review Funded by the Tobacco Industry

What's it all about, Alfie? The authors of this interesting paper conclude that "PM [Phillip Morris] executives responded to corporate concerns about the possible adverse effects of SHS on maternal and child health by commissioning consultants to write review articles for publication in the medical literature. PM executives successfully encouraged one author to change his original conclusion that SHS is an independent risk factor for SIDS to state that the role of SHS is "less well established."

I think the jig is up for those who still claim that secondhand smoke is harmless. Perhaps these skeptics can find solace in commiserating with friends who could care less about the effects of SHS. Wait! Don't tell me they are victims, too!

More like this

I live in a Canadian province that recently banned smoking in all public places. What a relief it is to go to a restaurant or bar and not have to worry about having to leave because of the smoking. My asthmatic daughter is even more thankful because it gives her more options about where she can spend time.

Yes, the smokers protested and are still protesting about their rights, but our legislation went with the rights of everyone to not have their health compromised.

Zippo lighters as antiques sounds like a plan to me. There was nothing more frustrating than having to argue with a hostest at a restaurant to not sit me beside the smoking section while I was bald from chemotherapy. One actually said to me "You already have cancer, so what difference does it make?" As for the 430 babies no doubt convincing their parents to not sit and blow smoke in their faces would be a monumental step in irradicating SIDS. However, a routine ekg on newborns to diagnose hidden arrythmias would go a long way to that end and save the lives of many athletic children who suddenly die on the playing field or shortly afterward also. SHS is not the only smoking gun when it comes to SIDS.

I have some honest questions. If you place a rat in a box and fill it with smoke and it gets cancer, then you can say with XX% certainty the rat got cancer from the smoke/carcinogens in the smoke.

If a person who does not partake of smoking visits a restaraunt once a month for 15 years, which has a smoking section in it, and that person contracts a cancer later, how do you go about 'proving' that the second hand smoke was the cause?

I do not believe that medical examiners look at each of the dead's lifestyle/habits/geography/travel etc., and then 'can' conclude that any one thing was the 'direct cause' of a disease. Since no one gets a 'do over' to prove it was/wasn't the cause (by leaving it out totally) then frankly its a bunch of statistics based on the rat in a box.
No?

please may i use this picture for my corsework

By student from s… (not verified) on 23 Mar 2007 #permalink

hay if you stay in room with propley sealed gaps so the room is air tight and you smoke will the smoke give you cancer

shit happens

By catherine (not verified) on 19 Nov 2007 #permalink

Okay think about this... Why is everyone just mad at the tobacco co's? Why not the FDA that approved tobacco sales in the first place (without a surgeons General type of warning for many years)?! And while we're on the subject of the FDA aren't they also supposed to know the true ingredients included in processing cigarettes etc?! So who's responsible here... Me,for my choice I made at age 15 without benifit of cautions as to the carcinogens etc., or the Tax payer supported FDA? IE someone in a position to discover the truth of what they are presented with for approval to sell to the public.
Maybe less people would have discovered smoking if it never became mass produced into the market place ?!

By Sylvia O of Vi… (not verified) on 30 Jan 2008 #permalink

I was a smoker for 40 years until 5 years ago when I quit cold turkey. Had I known the information & warnings I now know back when I started smoking, I know I would have made an informed choice not to smoke.
I have viewed the photos and symptoms of oral cancers as I am concerned regarding a scaley white patch (no pain) found on my lower gum behind my molar. I noticed it at least 2 weeks ago.
I am a parent of 3 adult children, grandmother of 6, widowed, disabled (due to AS, FM, OA, severe migrianes & a herniated disk in my sciatica portion of my arthritic spine).
I have had the colonoscopy to remove a huge polyp (the Dr described it as the size of his thumb incl the area to the first line of the wrist).
I have had two lumps removed from my breasts.
I live with pain all the time. But this scares me as there is no pain...

By Sylvia O of Vi… (not verified) on 30 Jan 2008 #permalink

Congress has never given the FDA the authority to regulate tobacco products since this agency was created at the beginning of the 20th Century. This is the consensus of the legal community, and this consensus was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 2000. In a democracy it is always easy for the populace to blame non-elected governmental officials for a lack of protection against the predatory practices of large institutions such as the tobacco industry. However, what is usually the case is that this predation is allowed by the elected officials that the complaining electorate puts in office. Look in the mirror the next time you want to blame the government. You are it.

Can you please name (3) people that you know of who have died from second-hand smoke?

Bridget,the reason you can't name three people who died of second-hand smoke is that no one dies of second-hand smoke. They die of cancer.Some of them got it from exposure to smoke,but it's usually impossible to say which ones.