March 11th, 2008 - Richard Okelberry

The following letter was submitted for publication in the Utah State University newspaper, The Utah Statesman. It was written in response to an essay by Jascee Bennett of the Bear River Health Department concerning the dangers of Second Smoke.

A recent Utah Statesman article by Jascee Bennett, Tobacco Coordinator for the Bear River Health Department, titled "Dispelling the myths about secondhand smoke (SHS)," not only failed to present the entire "truth" about secondhand smoke but was occasionally downright false and misleading. I would never argue that SHS is not harmful but it is important to establish how harmful it truly is with respect to other every day gases and chemicals. Because it is impossible for a society to make clear decisions without true and factual information I would like to provide some counter points to Jascee Bennet's opinions.

Jascee Bennett claims that SHS, "gases and particles contain more than 40 known cancer causing agents." While it is true that studies have shown that many of the chemicals and gases in SHS may contribute to cancer the only actual known cause of cancer is radiation. Additionally, it should be noted that many of the gases and particles found in SHS are also found in a wide range of other daily products. Most byproducts in SHS are often so miniscule they are considered by scientists to be only trace amounts that barely exist on the brink of our ability to detect them. So we need to ask, as with almost any product; at what point do the levels become truly dangerous and therefore unacceptable? Mercury, for example, is also considered very dangerous to humans yet we find it regularly in seafood. Rather than pulling all seafood from the store shelves, we are instead advised to eat seafood in moderation. SHS on the other hand has been so successfully demonized by anti-smoking groups that regularly use false or misleading information that people have come to believe that even the smallest amounts will kill. As an example of the double standard, even the vapors from the gasoline you put in your car have been known to cause Toxic Psychosis which is an effect similar to those caused by mescaline, LSD and psilocybin, all powerful psychoactive drugs. Of course, this fact would hardly compel a single person to put away their car and start riding a bike. The question is; have we become a society so scared of our own shadows that we will eventually end up banning anything that has even the slightest possibility of doing us harm? I find it strange that with the current controversy over SHS at USU nobody has considered the dangers presented by Radon which is currently the number one cause of lung cancer in the U.S.

Jascee Bennett also makes the often quoted statement that SHS "also has twice as much nicotine and tar compared to the smoke that a smoker inhales." This statement is purposely designed to imply that non-smokers are actually at a greater risk of illness than smokers; an idea that is plainly ridiculous. If you believe this then you must also believe that smokers have some strange force field that protects them from the very SHS that they themselves are creating. It should be noted that the study claiming this was done by allowing cigarettes to burn down while capturing the smoke in a small concentrated area to keep it from replicating how smoke would naturally disperse. Of all the studies done on SHS in common public areas measurable levels of SHS have never come close to those lab produced levels.

Jascee Bennett ends her first Myth by stating that SHS kills 53,000 non-smokers each year. Unfortunately, Bennet does not mention that the two studies used to give those figures were done in 1991 and 1992, long before clean air acts and current public non-smoking measures where enacted. Not only is this another attempt to exaggerate statistics for maximum emotional effect but Jascee Bennett also fails to mention that this statistic was discredited when it was thrown out of a case by a District Court Judge for using "inadequate science, failing to demonstrate a statistically significant relationship between secondhand smoke and diseases."

Bennett's second and third myths deal with whether or not SHS outdoors is dangerous. She states that multiple studies can be found at www.repace.com to confirm the fact that second hand smoke is more dangerous than common air pollution. Mr. James L. Repace is

a Biophysicist that makes a living as a "Secondhand Smoke Consultant." Rather than being an unbiased researcher, Mr. Repace compiles statistics for organizations with an anti-smoking agenda. Unfortunately, for Jascee Bennett the American Lung Association (ALA) statistics disputes her claims. If we assume that Jascee Bennett believed the discredited estimate that claims 53,000 non-smokers died in 1991 from second hand smoke, we should also assume she would trust the ALA report that claims 70,000 lives a year are lost because of common air pollution. One would assume that considering her position, Jascee Bennett should have known that 17,000 more people die from air pollution than SHS when she made her statement. Considering that the air quality in Cache Valley can become far worse than the national average during inversions, it seems apparent that Jascee Bennet would have trouble proving that walking by someone who is smoking a cigarette outside the Hub is worse for an individual than inhaling high levels of ground-level ozone, particle pollution, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide (just to name a few) for prolonged periods.

Finally Jascee Bennett speaks to the Myth that people have a constitutional right to smoke. She declares that, "the privacy interest protected by the U.S. Constitution includes only marriage, contraception, family relationships and the rearing and educating of children." This is plainly incorrect; rather than giving an example of Supreme court opinions she has given a listing of the types of cases that have led us to the our current understanding of Constitutional privacy. Any first year political science student will tell you that our legal system is based on case law, meaning one ruling can be applied to similar cases. The Supreme Court only hears cases that they feel will have the broadest effect while leaving specific decisions to lower courts. Instead of going into the complex history of each case, I will give a single quote that helps describes the Supreme Courts feelings on privacy in Constitutional law.

"'Privacy' is a broad, abstract and ambiguous concept." There is no one sense of privacy which can be extracted from the various Court decisions which have touched upon it. The mere act of labeling something "private" and contrasting it with "public" implies that we are dealing with something which should be removed from government interference. According to those who emphasize individual autonomy and civil liberties, the existence of a realm of both private property and private conduct should, as much as possible, be left alone by the government." - Justice Hugo Black, Griswold vs. Connecticut

While I doubt that this information has had much of an effect on how people think about not only SHS but other everyday toxins, at least I can say that what you have read here is the TRUTH, good or bad. What we as a society do with these truths will ultimately determine how free we are as a society and will dictate whether or not we will still be allowed to drive our cars, have a Twinkie, drink a beer or use tobacco on occasion. If nothing else, we all need to be vigilant against false information, especially when it is handed out by government employees and officials like Jascee Bennett. Because, we are all somewhat guilty of harming others we should always be considerate when deciding which liberties and freedoms should be banned and how far we should intrude into personal privacy to do so. While I can't speak for Jascee Bennett or the Bear River Health Department, I personally would choose being in a room full of 100 smokers for an hour before going into a closed garage with a single running car for 10 minutes. How about you? Hopefully, someday common logic will trump emotion and social bias.

Richard Okelberry, Managing Editor