Second Hand Smoke and Adverse Health Effects - Essay Example

For the last twenty to thirty years, study after study has confirmed that smoking is bad for health. The United States Surgeon General has warned time and again that smoking causes a host of problems, including lung and mouth cancer, emphysema, and other respiratory diseases. Not surprisingly, the government has tried to stem the sale of cigarettes especially to minors since it has also been determined that those who make smoking a lifelong habit may have indeed started smoking as young people. Because smoking has been linked firmly to many health problems there is a need for the government to step in and ban smoking from the home and other public spaces so that non-smokers do not have to suffer from the adverse health effects of smokers. Smoking is seen by many people as a right. Unfortunately, those who are exposed to second hand smoking do not have any rights at all. They may be children living with their parents or they may be maids who do not have the power to tell their employer to butt out. The end result is that through no fault of theirs those who are unwittingly exposed to cigarette smoke may end up suffering from a variety of health problems. In particular, those who are exposed to second hand smoke at an early age appear to suffer more respiratory problems than those who did not. This may have seemed like conventional wisdom to many but a study in Singapore that monitored 35,000 adult smokers along with those who lived with these smokers as children found that among the respiratory problems that these individuals experienced was chronic cough. One bright spot in the study that it was also found that those who ate more fruit and soy fibre as adults experienced fewer problems because the positive effects of these foods worked to protect them against the negative effects of having been exposed early to tobacco smoke. “According to the authors, fibre may have beneficial effects on the lung. 1It seems to have the ability to reduce blood glucose concentrations, reduce inflammation, and enhance antioxidant processes', they say. All of these may help to protect the lung against environmental insults, such as ETS in childhood. However, the possible benefits of fibre should not lessen the importance of reducing exposure to environmental tobacco smoke” (Thompson 410). Exposure of children in the house to smoking almost guarantees that they will take up smoking themselves. In the past, efforts related to harm reduction as far as smoking was concerned centered around the adults who smoke. There have also been efforts to reduce the number of smokers by increasing the price of cigarettes or in restricting smoking in public places and educating the public about the dangers of tobacco smoke. Lately, it has been found that the presence of smoking in the house is the primary pathway by which adolescents start their own smoking behaviour.: There are indications that before they turn twelve, the main role models in the lives of children are their parents. “Twin studies have shown that about 75% of the variance in smoking initiation is heritable, whereas a crosscultural review attributed 46% in women and 57% in men.4 Parental smoking is clearly a key determinant of children's smoking, although the mechanisms of transmission are not yet entirely described. Moreover, there is little evidence that smoking-prevention interventions aimed at adolescents are efficacious. Clearly, the transmission of a tendency to initiate smoking from parents to children is an important concern” (Anthonisen & Murray 2005 ). Rather than children being charmed by the notion of smoking a study conducted by Becklake, Ghezzo, and Ernst suggests that the mechanism for transmission is more physiological than cultural in that over time the children begin to get more and more nicotine in their systems, which then begins to drive their craving for it. In the study conducted by Becklake and colleagues schoolchildren were examined two years apart. They measured factors in the home as well as physiological elements of the students such as their lung function and salivary cotinine to determine the extent to which these children had already been exposed to smoking in the home. It was shocking that within the two-year period between assessments, as many as 44% of the children took up smoking. “The authors then related characteristics of the first survey to subsequent smoking behaviour. In postpubertal children, 56% of whom had become smokers, the usual environmental factors were noted: more smokers in the home tended to increase the risk of smoking, whereas a decrease in the number of adult smokers at home tended to decrease the adolescent's risk” (Anthonisen & Murray 2005). The most interesting finding of all, however, was not simply the link between parental smoking and the likelihood that the children would smoke. As it turned out, the researchers could have predicted potential smoking behaviour by measuring the cotinine levels in non-smoking children, boosting the theory that once there was a certain amount of nicotine in the children’s system, they began to crave smoke just as regular smokers find it difficult to stay away from smoke. If smoking were banned in the home, fewer children would be exposed to cigarette smoke and very likely, fewer of them would be “forced” to smoke because of their being exposed to high amounts of nicotine. Does smoking really affect non smokers that badly? Though many of us take it for granted that this is the case, there are those who believe that the conclusion that second hand smoke is harmful is based on bogus science and is therefore not something upon which policy should be based. Some smokers would be the first to admit that smoking can be a nuisance for non-smokers in the same way that rap music can be a nuisance for those who do not appreciate this American art. But should the government use bogus science in order to help non smokers get their way? Should dishonesty be used to help those who dislike smoking? Accordign to the article “science trumps rights in smoking, why not other areas,” in the Augusta Chronicle, in 1993, the Environmental Protection Agency conducted a study that concluded that secondhand smoke was a class A carcinogenic, which means that it could cause cancer. The study noted that each year 3,000 Americans die from second hand smoke. The problem was that “They couldn't come up with that conclusion using the standard statistical 95 percent confidence interval. They lowered their study's confidence interval to 90 percent. That has the effect of doubling the margin of error and doubling the probability that mere chance explains those 3,000 deaths” (science trumps rights in smoking, why not other areas 2005). It seems that the EPA had doctored the results of its study so that it would conform to the conclusions that they wanted. The author of the article then asks nonsmokers in America: “Do you support the use of fraudulent science in your efforts to eliminate tobacco smoke nuisance in bars, restaurants, workplaces and hotels?” (science trumps rights in smoking, why not other areas 2005). Smokers believe that the government is eroding their rights by banning smoking in restaurants and public places. America is supposed to be built on freedom and yet it seems that some in America are accorded more freedom than others. Certainly, it is not fair for the government or any agency to use fraudulent results because of good intentions or outcomes that will be beneficial to society. Having said that, there are many other studies that link second hand smoke to adverse health effects; in some cases, the problem may indeed be one of discomfort, but should Americans not care about their behaviour if this gives discomfort to others? If someone is listening to rap music on the subway and it is uncomfortable for others to listen to it, would it not be considerate to use earphones. The same, of course, goes for country music or classical music or other forms of music. We do not have to force others to endure any kind of unpleasantness simply because what brings discomfort to others brings us pleasure. If we were to do that we would be exhibiting sadistic behaviour. If parents derive pleasure from smoking and watch their children wheezing and unable to breathe one might say that it is their prerogative but that child also has the right to clean air. If the child is exposed to the second hand smoke enough in spite of himself or herself the child might take up smoking and then the problem would no longer be the nuisance of second hand smoke but the direct danger of first hand smoke. Smokers ought to have the right to smoke but only when they are by themselves and their behaviour poses no danger to others. One must remember that your right to throw punches end where my nose begins! In the case of smokers, your right to smoke ends where my nose begins. As long as I can unwittingly inhale the smoke, no one has the right to put me through that kind of unwitting danger. Bibliography Anthonisen, Nicholas & Murray, Robert. Aug 16, 2005. A new childhood pathway for transmission of an increased likelihood of smoking? Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol 173 issue 4, 382. “Phony science trumps rights in smoking, why not other areas?” Apr 16, 2007, The Augusta Chronicle, pg A04. Thompson, June. Nov 2005. Childhood exposure to second-hand smoke has long-lasting effects, Community Practitioner, vol 78 no 11:410. Read More