The Agony of an Honest Anti-Tobacco Activist

Dr. Michael Siegel has spent his entire career warning about the dangers of tobacco, and a great deal of effort supporting anti-tobacco measures such as smoking bans in bars and restaurants. I disagree with him about a lot of things, but even he has finally come to terms with an uncomfortable reality: his "side" of the debate has given up any and all claims to the scientific high-ground in favor of overblown fear-mongering. Check out this devastating analysis:

By virtue of the widespread, coordinated, and intentional deceptive, misleading, and inaccurate statements being made by anti-smoking groups about the health effects of secondhand smoke, I believe that the tobacco control movement has unfortunately given up the scientific high ground that it previously could argue that it held above its opponents.

And this, I feel, is a great loss.

We used to be able to say, at the very least, that we had the science on our side. We used to be able to say that we had honesty, accuracy, and the truth on our side. We used to be able to say that while our opponents were cherry-picking data, misrepresenting or exaggerating the science, and misleading or deceiving the public by spinning scientific information in a favorable way, we were the carriers of the wholesome, unadulterated truth. ...

This has uncomfortably put me in an awkward position. I have to argue that on the one hand, secondhand smoke is hazardous and that a lot of what the anti-smoking groups are telling the public is true. But I also have to argue, on the other hand, that secondhand smoke is not as hazardous as we are saying it is, and that a lot of what the anti-smoking groups are telling the public is not true.

But this is where things get really interesting for me:

To anti-smoking advocates, there is no middle ground. By virtue of who we are, and by virtue of who the tobacco companies are, everything we say must be correct and everything they or their allies say must be wrong. To align oneself with a position that runs counter to the anti-smoking one, no matter how extreme, is tantamount to working for the tobacco industry. It automatically makes you a tobacco stooge, or at least a tobacco sympathizer. You have officially and irredeemably crossed over to the "dark side."

Sound familiar? It ought to if you read the Post-Gazette:

June 29, 2006: Lawmakers in Pennsylvania have too long listened to the bellyaching of restaurant and bar owners who contended they'd lose business if legislation prohibited them from exposing waitresses and child customers to toxic secondhand smoke. The legislators need to stop kissing the feet of these businessmen and tobacco lobbyists and focus on two points made by the surgeon general.

October 1, 2006: More important, it is immoral to contend that profits trump workers' health. The only thing dirtier than the cigarette smoke in this situation is the politics.

August 21, 2006: Did Dr. Carmona's bold stand get him fired? We wouldn't be surprised. After all, the business interests hard at work against real smoking bans are the same businesses routinely found on President Bush's list of influential campaign contributors.

June 8, 2006: Ten state representatives turned their backs on their Democratic roots this week, supporting the cigarette industry and businesses such as bars instead of defending the health of Pennsylvanians. ... It means 10 Democrats chose big business over the health of the state's residents. They chose the cigarette industry and restaurant lobby over Rep. Katie True, a Lancaster Republican, supporter of the bill and cancer survivor. It's one year for her this month.

This goes on and on and on and on. Anyone who opposes the ban is a lackey. A stooge. A pawn of Big Tobacco. A dishonest hack. On the take.

At least Dr. Siegel can see through that deception. Too bad one of America's "Great Newspapers" can't be as honest as a public health expert who actually agrees with them.

Comments

[sean mcdaniel]

hey, i know one place where first- or second-hand smoke won't be dangerous — at the new slots casino on the n. side. oh well, there goes the neighborhood and my most frequently traveled bike path.

[Sam M]

Sean,

No problem. File a lawsuit! You probably won't be the only one. Just claim that "the fix was in" and you'll be all over the front page.

Although to be honest, I thought for sure the fix was designed to help either one of the other applicants.

Man, I am glad I am not in the prognostication business. More on that soon...

[sean mcdaniel]

the fix was in no matter where the slots landed. i know you think that the condo subsidies suck. but the casinos are something i just can't stomach. of all the vices to condone, it's the one that can ruin lives the fastest.

[sean mcdaniel]

Knowing that Art Rooney Sr. was a gambling man and supposedly bought the Steelers with track earnings, it's fun to hear the latter day Rooneys bitch about the casino on the N.Side. It's kind of like hearing Michael Corleone going legit.

[Jonathan Potts]

Not only that, the Rooneys own a dog track in Florida. I think they used to own others.

[nemo31]

The real sad thing about all this is that tobacco control groups now attack Dr. Siegel and his professionalism. It is even sadder that the media pays little attention to the fact that the good doctor now verifies what people have been exposing for years about these anti tobacco groups. If this would have been someone from Big Tobacco jumping ship it would be headlines. America a land that used to be home of the free choice.

[Sharon Dupree]

I once asked my doctor to be straight with me, without all of the feel-good-bandwagon rhetoric, about cigarettes, as compared to other health hazards. His answer, as I knew it would be, was that cigarettes, while unhealthy, were not any more or less dangerous than many other conditions, objects and behavioral choices we choose to accept, use and do.
Cigarette smoking is being used so the majority of people can legally get rid of something they don't like and can pat themselves on the back as they continue using, buying and accepting those things they don't want to give up.
One example is car emissions. We got notified by state officials that the area of car emissions was the biggest health offender. Yet, the policy in Washington was to give tax breaks to those who bought vehicles that were the worse offenders. Another area is the lack of clean air filters or proper ventilation systems, especially in buildings built without windows that can be opened, because it's cheaper. Another is building schools and homes on toxic ground, as the price is naturally cheaper. Another is children riding on school buses with the sweet aroma of those fumes, which would cost too much money to take care of (like the seat-belt situation). Another is the constant use of aerosol cans, which are too much of a convenience to give up. Another is the use of company pollution credits in concentrated areas. The costs of doing business, including providing jobs and knocking out product are too high, to some, to stop this healthy practice, with the worst offenders usually near people who have the least amount of protected rights. What about all of the products we love to use? Companies can put all of the toxic fumes they want in the air as long as we have the adult and children's toys and gadgets to make our lives easier and expedient. For the same reasons, they can even affect our food products, including putting substances directly on the food.
All in all, without taking care of those things we just don't WANT to live without, criminalizing people who smoke may be a temporary solution to some and may make people feel as if they've done something, but we're only inserting selfish restrictions on those who don't have the numbers to fight back. This seems to be what we do best in this country, lately.