This week’s piece about Big Tobacco loving Physicist William Happer sparked some discussions, again, about the eerie affinity climate deniers have for deadly, addictive poison. Go figure.
A new friend reminded me of the video above, where Joe Bast, Chief of the Climate and Tobacco denying Heartland Institute, was confronted with his own past affirmations of Tobacco’s safety – wherein he first feigned a memory lapse, then, when confronted with his actual words, agreed that, yes, all that talk about tobacco risks was way overblown. Great work by journalist Lee Fang.
Since Heartland just finished their latest Climate Denial Convention shindig in Las Vegas, I thought a reality check and reminder might be in order. This is who, and what, we are dealing with, folks.
I’ve posted in the past about Bast’s boot licking appeals for funding to the tobacco industry, such as the 1999 letter to a Phillip Morris executive, which includes this friendly appeal:
Because Heartland does many things that benefit Philip Morris’ bottom line, things that no other organization does, I hope you will consider boosting your general operating support this year to $30,000 and once again reserve a Gold Table for an additional $5,000.
We genuinely need your financialsupport. Maybe by the end of this letter you’ll agree that we merit even greater support; I certainly hope so!
–Heartland has devoted considerable attention to defending tobacco (and other industries) from what I view as being an unjust campaign of public demonization and legal harassment. We’re an important voice defending smokers and their freedom to use a still-legal product.
The Heartlander, our monthly newsletter for members, has called attention to the dangerous legal precedents and discriminatory taxes that are part of the campaign against tobacco in cover essays appearing in the October, November, and June issues.
Recent and past Heartland publications on tobacco, including a Heartland Policy Study and several Perspectives, and the 21 documents on the subject available fromPoIicyFax, are all available on Heartland’s Web site. Particularly popular are two of my essays, titled “Five Lies About Tobacco” and “Joe Camel is Innocent.”
Below, reposting my most popular video, which documents more on the tobacco/climate connection.
I’m not saying that Joe Bast is not a slimeball, or that the tobacco industry was not reprehensible. But….
Smoking in moderation (perhaps up to five cigarettes a day) is NOT particularly unhealthy for most people. And there IS a legitimate individual freedom issue involved with smoking – just as there is with every other activity that may be deleterious with perfect health.
Joe Bast and the tobacco industry are reprehensible because they were and are dishonest and not fully honest. They used rhetorical devices to further their dishonesty.
And guilt by association and/or ad hominem are logical fallacies often used as rhetorical devices even with the best intentions, Peter.
Please provide studies that say occasional smoking isn’t bad for you.
http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/expertvoices/post/2013/01/02/light-smoking-as-risky-as-a-pack-a-day.aspx
http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/14/5/315.full
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/healthyliving/smokingandtobacco/commonquestions/common-questions-about-smoking-and-cancer#Is8
http://www.health.harvard.edu/press_releases/smoking-unsafe-at-any-dose
And none of the results from that Harvard meta analysis reported on 5 or less cigs/day.
Indeed, the teaser for the study – claims that smoking does not follow a standard dose-response curve – it is supposedly “unsafe” at ANY level.
You believe that?
You think that is a study you just posted? It was an essay, which asserts that light smoking is just as risky as a pack a day. His “evidence”? – some 5 cigs/day smokers experience withdrawal symptoms.
Most people here know you and respect you, including myself, but this is exactly what I’m talking about when I’m saying people rationalize instead of being rational.
I asked you to provide one study on how light smoking has no health effects. I am sincerely interested in that, because I am unaware of any such study (except maybe by pro-industry ‘scientists’). Everything I’ve always read and seen confirms that light smoking has negative health effects. Every large medical organization confirms it. I posted a solid study (tobaccocontrol) that shows it. The Harvard essay you are questioning has at its top a link to this study:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletters/Harvard_Mens_Health_Watch/2012/May/light-smoking-dangerous-in-any-dose?utm_source=mens&utm_medium=pressrelease&utm_campaign=mens0512
You take one part of the cancer.org essay and say the doctor only says smoking lightly can lead to addiction (which is true, btw), but he also says this:
“No cigarette is without risk, however. Smoking even as little as 5 days out of the month can lead to more shortness of breath and coughing. What’s more, smoking just 1 to 4 cigarettes a day can increase the risk of dying from heart disease and all causes, like cancer. For women, the news is even worse: women’s risk of lung cancer from light smoking is greater than men’s when compared to never- smokers of both genders.”
I don’t see how you don’t see the pattern here. This is exactly what climate deniers do when confronted with data. I could have found a lot more info, but I just included those 4 links because I didn’t want to be too obnoxious.
Why Peter is bringing up smoking isn’t about smoking itself. It’s to show the techniques and motivations for climate denial from a historical case study. But you read it, and because you smoke and are upset about smoking laws, you think it’s about smoking. It’s not. But you also leap to defend a denial standpoint about smoking (light smoking) without providing adequate reason. Extract your own personal feelings from the issue and you’ll see this a little more clearly.
Yes, and of course, the scientists who put together Surgeon General Report, 2014 assess the scientific literature and they have clear views.
Try the PDF pages in the full report:
p.34: Fig 1.1A The health consequences causally linked to smoking
p.35: Fig 1.1B The health consequences causally linked to exposure to secondhand smoke
Search for light smoke
Human variability is larger, but there is no safe level.
Most people adults want to quit, but nicotine addiction is very strong, but is *not* an adult freedom-of-choice issue. For most people, nicotine addiction only works during rapid brain development, i.e., adolescence and maybe early 20s.
See Familiar Think Tanks Fight For E-Cigarettes., especially graph near end that shows when people start. Among tobacco research experts, there is a pretty strong consensus that:
a) Existing smokers should try very hard to quit, since even just nicotine can be toxic, and causes cardiovascular problems.
b) But since many are seriously addicted, they’d be better off switching from smoking to vaping, which is “less bad.”
c) Of course, the issue is that people add vaping to smoking, and worse, things like “gummy bear” vaping fluids are geared for kids, which is helping the teenage vaping rate climb faster than smoking rates fall. Vaping is just as addictive.
I don’t know why I should, as that was not the claim I made. Please check what I said.
You know, Jimbills, you and I would likely get along famously in person, as I think we tend to agree on most things. But I must say you have a bent toward expressing yourself online in a somewhat personally disparaging manner. Of late, I have been told I am not acting rationally, that I am naive about human nature, and my personal feelings have blinded me to the truth. Can I really be the first person who has mentioned your style of criticism?
It is easy to find studies which show increased morbidity and mortality from all sorts of different causes. The question is how well were each of the studies conducted, what is the relative risk, and what does this mean when put into perspective.
I can tell you that I spent hours reading the FDA reports on passive smoking and the results were not particularly impressive and the conclusions were startling in their over reach. But the prevailing medical opinion is that passive smoking has been proven to be robustly dangerous. The data, in my view, does not support this. I am not alone on that – there is still spirited discussion about the passive smoking data.
Call me picky, but I am bloody well skeptical when I see conclusions about pharmacology that do not follow dose-response curves. 1 cigarette a day is as dangerous as 60 cigarettes per day? Sorry – I don’t believe it.
Plus, once you get into the nitty gritty details of these studies, one begins to see that other factors come into play. It turns out that family history, being over-weight, lack of exercise, saturated fat intake, etc are all important contributing factors.
Then you have to put these results into perspective. What do these relative risks actually mean? If the risk of acquiring a rare disease is doubled, how important is that? I can tell you that the relative risks of smoking in the study you presented (a meta-analysis, remember, and NOT from the Cochrane Collaboration) were roughly equivalent to the cardiac risks from eating beef, according to other studies.
Is eating beef completely safe? Does eating beef regularly have zero negative health effects? Obviously – no. Is eating beef in moderation ” NOT particularly unhealthy for most people”? I would argue yes.
All that said, I think you have provided evidence that even small amounts of smoking carry health risks. And I DO have biases here as a smoker, but also from years of speaking to many physicians in my job who were agreed that less than five cigarettes a day were not much of a health risk to their patients. But, those conversations are more than ten years old now, and their opinions may have changed in the interim.
Roger – I only engage with people I feel are worthy of my time and effort. There are a few people who post here who aren’t worth the bother. I could say many worse things – not to you, but to others – and I choose not to do so. I don’t think it will help further the discussion.
Yes, I do feel that at times your comments show a definite naivete on certain issues. Sorry. I try to avoid sugar-coating or toadying, especially with my friends. I wish more people would do the same, frankly. I think instead of a deceived and unhappy world we’d have less deceived and happier world if that were the case.
I know the flip side of this is that I tend to be negative nelly or a crank. That’s fine. I’d like to see how and where I’m wrong, and I’ll adjust my opinions. I pretty much never get that, though. I don’t know if that’s because deep down people agree with me – or they feel I’m not worth their time – ha ha.
When you post a comment that I disagree with, or disagree with in partial, I do try to explain how and why. I’ll try as much as possible to not be personal with it, however.
The ‘rational’ thing only really applied here, because I could definitely see it. I’m glad you’ve addressed it with this last comment. Yes, the literature also indicates to me, of course, that more smoking is worse than less smoking. I’m also aware that the literature on passive smoking, which I wasn’t talking about, is mixed, especially in low doses. There are also many other things which adversely affect health – of course – and many things which adversely affect health far worse than light smoking, but that’s not what we’re talking about.
Going back to Bast, he says, “The FACT that smoking in moderation has few, if any, adverse health effects….” This is simply an untrue statement. It does have several adverse health effects according to the data. He’s also talking about an addictive substance. It’s not the same as drinking water or taking vitamins, and that’s a bizarre and completely irrational thing to say.
Peter’s only using this to show how and why these same guys deny climate change science from another example. They have monetary and economic philosophy reasons to do these things, and they use the same type of thinking and verbal techniques when doing so. He’s not bashing smokers themselves, and neither am I.
“Guilt by association”? Tell me more about this. And also, I’d like to know how Mr. Bast’s conduct with respect to climate change differs from his conduct on tobacco.
Guilt by association? :
Bast represents Big Tobacco. Big Tobacco is pushing “deadly, addictive poison”. Therefore, what Bast has to say about the climate is _____.
Peter’s second video opens with Big Tobacco executives flat out lying to Congress about the addictiveness of cigarettes. Therefore, what Bast has to say about climate is false. This is ad hominem by association.
Whatever Bast has to say about climate should be evaluated by what he has to say about climate, not what he said about tobacco twenty years ago.
I understand that Peter is freezing his tuchas off in Greenland – but this is about the 5th time he has played this Bast-tobacco card. (Therefore, what Peter has to say about climate is ____?!?)
And, btw, what Bast has to say about climate is completely full of sh*t. I believe he is responsible for “The Unabomber believes in AGW” series? That is despicable enough all on it’s own.