More than once we have heard State lawmakers ask for “something that can use” because the smoking cessation movement comes at them with seemingly bulletproof data. After all, they have the money, resources and support to be considered legitimate…. Right?

Wrong.

The anti-smoking proponents cherry pick their data until they have a collection of information that they can use to inundate lawmakers with that seems to do nothing but support their cause. Yet, isn’t it funny how none of their data ever seems to have another side to it?

So we’re here to give the lawmakers a toolbox to use that we hope will help to clear up some of the issues…

You can also download a handy PDF version of this document.

The Truth: While smoking cessation may show a short-term economic benefit to the state coffers, the truth of the matter is that after the initial dip, smoking cessation will actually cost the state more. Hard to believe, isn’t it? Well, don’t take my word for it. Here’s what Dutch economists had to say:

“Preventing obesity and smoking can save lives, but it doesn’t save money, researchers reported Monday. It costs more to care for healthy people who live years longer“

Not legit enough? Here’s what a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine says:

“If people stopped smoking, there would be a savings in health care costs, but only in the short term. Eventually, smoking cessation would lead to increased health care costs. “

Yes, this is a real study done by real doctors and published in the NEJM. Here’s an excerpt of their analysis:

“Society clearly has an interest in this matter, now that several states are trying to recoup Medicaid expenditures from tobacco firms and the tobacco companies have agreed to a settlement. Yet we believe that in formulating public health policy, whether or not smokers impose a net financial burden ought to be of very limited importance.”

But if it's hard math you're looking for, let's take a look into what W. Kip Viscusi, the George G. Allen Professor of Economics at Duke University, has determined regarding the overall cost to society in his article "Secondhand Smoke: Facts and Fantasy"

"Using the upper-bound EPA estimates of the ETS body counts in conjunction with a figure of $5 million per life lost, I have estimated that the external cost per pack of cigarettes is as high as 41¢ per pack. Since this amount is also below the taxes smokers pay per pack, even the highest estimate of the smoking externalities that has been put forth by any government agency fails to indicate that smoking is a losing monetary proposition for society." 

This figure includes medical-care costs, sick-leave costs, greater life-insurance costs, costs due to fires, and foregone Social Security taxes on their earnings.

Lawmakers take note… The financial element makes for a compelling argument, but it’s a complete farce.

The Truth: If this statement were indeed true, OSHA would have something to say about workplace exposure. Yet, per 29 CFR 1910.1000 Standard Interpretation dated 24 February, 2003, the main chemical compounds found in ETS that are covered by OSHA regulations do not exceed permissible exposure limits under normal situations. As with most things, the poison is in the dose. The Surgeon General’s report would have you believe that secondhand smoke is more dangerous than plutonium - which sounds much more frightening than the reality behind the claim.

Plutonium has a relatively low level of toxicity since 2.5 μg of inhaled plutonium increases your lifetime risk of developing cancer by 3% and there is no known fatal dose. Most everyday chemicals that we are exposed to are far more toxic, yet plutonium sounds frightening to the average reader and works and works as a useful scare tactic.

But if the poison is in the dose, just what sort of dose are we looking at when it comes to secondhand smoke? According to a Covance Laboratories Department of Air Quality Monitoring study of nonsmokers’ exposure to secondhand smoke:

“…based upon median levels of ETS particles and nicotine, no group would potentially inhale or be exposed to more than 10 cigarette equivalents per year…”

A similar study was performed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, which came to a similar conclusion:

“Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of 768 micrograms per cubic meter. The OSHA standard for RSP is 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours.”

Unlike the studies that portray secondhand smoke as deadly, this information comes from actual collected data as opposed to simulation, modeling and assumptions. So how toxic is exposure to 10 CE/y? Ten cigarettes per year equates to .027 cigarettes per 24-hour day, which breaks down to a negligible chemical exposure.

For a through selection of health-related resources, please visit our Health page.

The Truth: Other than working to scare the average reader, what does this mean to us? If you are at all familiar with chemicals and chemical exposure, it means very little. Many of these chemicals are found in everyday life - often times in much greater quantities than you will find in secondhand smoke. An analysis of secondhand smoke inhalation studies states:

“ETS contains numerous chemicals that are continuously changing both in their absolute concentration, in the ratio of concentration between one and another, and even in their particulate to vapor phase distribution. Moreover, when considering ETS in real-life situations, many of the chemical components of ETS will be present as a result of sources other than tobacco smoking.”

What does this mean? It means that anybody who uses the “4000 chemical” argument should rethink their approach. Considering the various decay rates, disbursement rates, airflow patterns etc, one cannot presume to know that any of the chemical exposure from secondhand smoke is toxic.

Some of the chemicals used in arguments are formaldehyde, cyanide, arsenic, carbon monoxide, methane, and benzene - yet these chemicals are found in everyday life. For instance, formaldehyde resins are used in many construction materials, hence formaldehyde is one of the more common indoor air pollutants. Hydrogen cyanide is naturally occurring in fruits with pits, car exhaust, wood burning and some plastics. It takes 300 mg/m3 of air exposure to be acutely toxic. Arsenic is widely found in drinking water and treated wood. Carbon monoxide is a byproduct of burning any carbon-containing material and is found naturally occurring in the atmosphere. Benzene can be found by burning a candle. Methanol seems to be toxic if ingested, however it burns off in air to form carbon dioxide and water at temperatures far below the burning end of a cigarette.

So how well does the “4000 chemicals” argument really hold up? It’s really pretty flimsy.

The Truth: The only place that you have the “right” to breathe clean air is within the confines of your own home. Live in a sterile bubble at home if you’d like, but once you step out your door and through another’s, you have no more of a right to clean air as you do to cold filtered water to drink. The fact of the matter is that we would have to ban cleaning products, plastics, perfume, candles, car exhaust and hundreds of other things if we want to uphold the “right to clean air” argument.

Would you walk into somebody else’s business and demand that they provide you with filtered water because the tap water might have toxins in it? Of course not. Now if that is how you choose to run your own business, fine, but to demand that everybody else does it so everybody is “fair” would be ridiculous.

The heart of the matter is best explained by the University of Missouri School of Law's Thomas Lambert:

"Don't smokers in a public space impose costs on non-smoking patrons, who can't order them to stop? And if that's the case, won't indoor smoking entail both the inefficiency (an excessive level of pollution, since the polluters don't bear all the costs of their activity) and the injustice (an infringement of nonpolluters rights to enjoy clean air) associated with outdoor air pollution? The answer to the latter question is no. There is a crucial difference between outdoor and indoor air, and that difference alleviates the inefficiencies and injustices normally associated with air pollution.

The crucial difference is property rights. Whereas outdoor air is common property (and thus subject to the famous 'Tragedy of the Commons'), the air inside a building is, in essence, 'owned' by the building owner. That means that the building owner, who is in a position to control the amount of smoking (if any) that is permitted in the building, has an incentive to permit the 'right' amount of smoking - that is, the amount that maximizes the welfare of individuals within the building. Depending on the highest and best use of the space and the types of people who patronize the building, the optimal level of smoking may be zero (as in an art museum), or 'as much as patrons desire' (as in a tobacco lounge), or something in-between (as in most restaurants, which have smoking and non-smoking sections)."

The Truth: There are few ban myths that are greater than this one. If it were indeed true, there would be no need for things to be “fair” when it comes to bans. Yet, smoke-free cities or counties seem to constantly call on states to help make things “fair” by enacting state-wide bans in an attempt to shore up their hemorrhaging economies. Yet, when the playing field is leveled in the name of economic fairness, the smokers simply stay home and localized ban damage grows into a state-wide epidemic.

Not only do independent small business suffer, but tax revenue to the state dries up, charitable gambling shrivels and seemingly extraneous industries suffer economic setbacks on larger scales.

I’m not going to repeat all of my facts and figures here, but our collected economic damage findings can be found here. However, here are some some numbers to chew on:

• A year after Dallas implemented their smoking ban, it was found that alcohol sales were down by $11.8 million.
• A year after New York implemented their smoking ban, it was found that the bar industry had suffered a loss of 10.7% of it’s workforce which equated to $28.5 million in lost wages, and $37 million in gross state product.
• Eight months after Talbot County in Maryland implemented their smoking ban, restaurant sales tax receipts fell 11% ($2.9 million) while neighboring Caroline County rose 36% and Dorchester County rose 14%.
• Referring to the Columbia, Missouri ban, an economist with the St. Louis Federal Reserve warned that "[r]ecent data from the city of Columbia show a distinct decline in sales tax receipts at bars and restaurants. After rising at an average rate of 6.8 percent from 2002 through 2006, tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 1.3 percent over the first seven months of 2007. Although the data are still preliminary, initial analysis suggests a 5 percent decline in overall sales revenue at Columbia dining establishments since the implementation of the smoking ban."
• [Two papers] have used data available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics to examine the employment effects of smoking bans. Using nationwide county level data, these two studies examine the changes in employment at bars and restaurants after communities adopt smoking bans. Neither study finds significant employment changes at restaurants, on average, but both find statistically significant employment declines at bars, with loss estimates ranging from 4 percent to 16 percent... [Establishments] that suffered the dual curse of being in regions with colder climates and a high prevalence of smokers suffered statistically significant employment losses, on average.

For a through selection of economics-related resources, please visit our Economic Impact page.

Myth: The majority of Wisconsin (70%) wants a state-wide smoking ban.

The Truth: If you ask the right questions, you can always find support for your cause - however you can never claim that your survey was objective in nature or tout it as representative of a population's overwhelming opinion. Yet this is exactly what Smoke Free Wisconsin and the Smoke Free Coalition is doing.

The February 2007 Mellman survey being widely touted by Smoke Free Wisconsin et al. as definitive proof that Wisconsin residents support a smoking ban is a horribly biased study and should be disregarded in any debate over the issue. Here are just a few reasons as to why:

• The survey was not a true random sampling of Wisconsin residents nor did it address no-response bias. As one informational site stated regarding non-response, "It is nearly impossible to know how respondents to your survey differ from non-respondents." Regarding the random sampling issue, the survey results were based on 500 responding registered voters. It would be irresponsible for anybody to believe that this is a solid representative sampling of Wisconsin residents. For an excellent review of nonresponse rate bias, read this article from the Oxford Journal's Public Opinion Quarterly. Another necessary article from Public Opinion Quarterly is this article on coverage bias in traditional telephone surveys, as it specifically addresses the fact that "[e]ven after statistical adjustments that account for demographic differences between adults living in households with and without landlines, telephone surveys of landlines will underestimate the prevalence of health behaviors, such as binge drinking, smoking, and HIV testing."
• Another overt bias found in the Mellman survey was the question wording. The questions were very leading in the way they were written and were specifically designed to exploit the general public's fears. For instance, in the "two arguments" portion of the survey, the respondents were asked to decide based on two arguments, one of which was: "Supporters of smoke-free laws say that everybody has the right to breathe clean air without the dangers of secondhand smoke. Secondhand smoke contains more than 60 cancer-causing chemicals like formaldehyde, arsenic and lead, and this law will protect everyone from secondhand smoke. It is time Wisconsin join the 16 other states around the country that have passed smoke-free restaurant and bar laws." The survey then asks if the respondent if they would favor or oppose a smoke-free law. I have highlighted the leading elements of this question as an example of severe bias. This is important to note because the counter-argument that is presented simply offers the "right to choose" argument and leaves out compelling statements like those used in the pro-ban argument. For a review of question wording, read this article from the American Association for Public Opinion Research.
• Following the last point, it is of great importance to note that the survey revealed that 81% of respondents believe that secondhand smoke is a moderate or severe health hazard. This data is based purely on opinion and the survey didn't account for this bias. Since the overall structure of the survey is built around people's perception, it should then be assumed that since 81% of the respondents had an incorrect perception regarding secondhand smoke, the remainder of the data would be invalid as the data would be highly subjective in nature.
• There was an unusual disbursement from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a well known smoking opponent with massive financial power, to the Mellman Group. This alone should raise more than a few eyebrows as it further draws into question the objectivity of this study.

It should be noted that using a survey such as this as a tool to mold public policy is absolutely irresponsible as it doesn't present an unbiased, fair or objective cross-section of the general Wisconsin population.

Myth: Environmental Tobacco Smoke is a class-A carcinogen, the EPA says so!

The Truth: The United States Environmental Protection agency did in fact say so; however they were wrong to do so. In 1998, Judge Osteen ordered the EPA's report that claimed secondhand smoke caused lung cancer and was a class-A carcinogen to be vacated (invalidated) due to questionable practices and claims by the EPA. Among the findings were:

• The EPA "publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun;
• "Adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency’s public conclusion;"
• "aggressively utilized the [Radon] Act’s authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiff’s products and to influence public opinion;"
• "disregarded information and made findings on selective information;"
• "failed to disclose important findings and reasoning;"
• "left significant questions without answers;"
• "did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information;"
• "excluded industry by violating the [Radon] Act’s procedural requirements;"
• and "deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines."

Does this sound like a good source to use when formulating public policy? The Federal judge didn't think so either. Even the EPA's own risk assessment experts told the organization that their data didn't support the claim and yet they moved ahead anyway in an act that the Judge determined was designed to influence the public's opinion. So the next time you hear the claim that secondhand smoke is a class-a carcinogen, remember that it's a claim that was invalidated in Federal District Court by Judge Osteen.

Myth: Nonsmoking workers in a smoking environment inhale x number of cigarette equivalents at work!

The Truth: We could get into semantics here and talk about what it means to inhale x number of cigarette equivalents and if it is indeed hazardous to your health. Of course, this would also mean that we would have to first believe the myth that there is no safe level of smoke exposure which is a hard line to swallow anyway. Instead we'll just look at the facts.

According to the Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment and Health, a nonsmoker working in a smoking environment receives .1-.2 cigarette equivalents per year. Now, logic tells us that this is insignificant. However, the anti-smoking claims tell us even this much exposure is hazardous to our health.

But let's look at this in a much more simplified perspective. If nonsmoking employees were truly exposed to as much nicotine and secondhand tobacco smoke as claimed, wouldn't they be addicted? Wouldn't there be a surge of withdrawal symptoms when places go smoke free? Wouldn't employees crave going into work when they aren't there? Yet, we see none of these things happen. It may just be coincidental that all of these exposed employees are immune to the effects of nicotine, but the likelihood of that is pretty slim.

Myth: It's for the workers! All workers have the right to work in a smoke-free environment.

The Truth: No person in Wisconsin has the "right to work." We are an at-will employment state which means the employer has no obligation to hire or to retain an employee. This means that if an employee doesn't care for a pro-smoking environment, they are free to leave. If they don't want to leave they have every right to ask the employer to change policy if they value the employee's service. This also means that the employer has every right to tell the individual that they value the customers over the employee and will not change their policy - at which point the employee can take no further action short of leaving.

Another element that must be addressed is that (per EmployeeIssues.com)  "[a]t-will employment also means that employers may decline to hire job candidates for any, no or even unfair reasons." This means that an employer can pointedly decide not to hire somebody who doesn't smoke or doesn't want to be around smoke.

"Prohibition... makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principle upon which our government was founded." -Abraham Lincoln, December 1840