Third-hand smoke, first-rate nonsense

The anti-smoking movement has officially jumped the shark

By Andrew Button

According to Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, a Harvard researcher, “third-hand smoke” poses a real threat to children.

His study shows that the smoke that lingers on furniture and clothing contains toxic chemicals that can be ingested by children.

Children are at a particularly high risk for inhaling rogue carcinogens, since they spend so much crawling and rolling around with their faces up close and personal with the dust. Add to this the fact that third-hand smoke can be carried on hair and clothing, and you’ve got all the ingredients needed for a bona fide national health crisis.

If the loud and virtuous voices of anti-smoking activists are any indication, the day smokers are banned from their own homes “for the sake of the children” is not too far off.

Don’t get me wrong – I don’t doubt that third-hand smoke is uniquely dangerous and terrifying in its way.

I’m not a doctor, and when a Harvard scientist tells me that something is real, I’ll generally take him at his word.

I just don’t think that every study that shows a correlation between some variable and cancer is necessarily a cause for alarm.

Research on children and third-hand smoke is a new field, and until some of the kids involved in this research grow up and get cancer, the results of the research is not conclusive. The fact that some people are actually calling for home smoking bans on the basis of this research, says some unflattering things about what the anti-smoking movement has become.

It started with its heart in the right place. Early pushes for warnings on cigarette packs and smoking bans in public places definitely made sense given the health risks of tobacco use. But when activists started talking about third-hand smoke, display case walls, and home smoking bans, they jumped the shark.

The point at which your activism goes from being an attempt to protect people from harm to a plot to make life harder for people with a weakness, is the point you should probably call it quits.

The thing is, big anti-tobacco is a thriving business, and they’re not going to stop on their own.

The people of Canada need to send a message: The anti-smoking movement is out of control. There are now people who want to ban smoking on campus, in homes, and in parks.

This latest wave of anti-smoking activism has completely lost touch with the movement’s initial goals. You’re not going to ingest second-hand smoke if some people on campus are smoking cigarettes – it’s only if they’re smoking close to you that it can potentially become a problem. Same goes with parks and houses.

So why ban smoking in these wide, open spaces? Why ban smoking in homes? Why ban smoking in all these situations where the risk to people is causally determined by people’s deciding to expose themselves to the smoke?

What relationship does any of this have to the initial goals of the movement, to protect non-smokers from being subjected to harmful chemicals at work, while shopping, or when dining out?

The anti-smoking movement of today is less about health, and more about discriminating against and controlling people.

Anti-smoking activists want a nanny state that protects people from themselves, and punishes behavior some people find aesthetically unappealing.

The state should not have the power to regulate what it doesn’t like arbitrarily, unless that behavior poses a real risk to other people.

Until people realize this, anti-smoking legislation is only going to get more restricting and oppressive.

Share