Still Pooping in My Salad

Five years ago I wrote an essay in The Heartlander titled “Please Don’t Poop in My Salad.” It came from an email I received from an anti-smoking activist in Milwaukee, who called himself “Harry,” who was annoyed by an op-ed I had written that ran in a daily newspaper.

Harry wrote, “if Bast promises not to smoke within ten feet of me, I promise not to poop in his salad bowl while he’s eating.” Only he didn’t say “poop.”

Harry epitomized the mood and tactics, and often the language, of the anti-smoking movement of the time. I regret to report that the debate has not gotten any more civil. That’s too bad, because there’s a lot at stake in how this debate unfolds.

Secondhand Smoke

Smoking bans are usually justified by concern over the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke. In 2006, U.S. Surgeon General Richard Carmona said, “the debate is over. The science is clear: Secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard.” He released a massive report -- 709 pages -- that said “secondhand smoke is a major cause of disease, including lung cancer and coronary heart disease, in healthy nonsmokers.”

But here’s the problem: None of the claims in the Surgeon General’s report would pass muster in a court of law because the studies it relies on have sample sizes that are too small, or the time periods they cover are too brief, or the effects they show on human health are too small to be reliable.

Most of the research cited in this report was rejected by a federal judge in 1993, when EPA first tried to classify secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen. The judge said EPA cherry-picked studies to support its position, misrepresented the findings of the most important studies, and failed to honor scientific standards.

The largest and most credible study ever conducted of spouses of smokers, by James Enstrom and Geoffrey Kabat, was published in the May 12, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal. They found “the results do not support a causal relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco-related mortality. The association between tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”

The study is mentioned just once in the Surgeon General’s report, on page 673, in an appendix listing studies that were too recent to be included in the report. But it was published three years before the Surgeon General’s report, and the report quotes other more recent studies.

No Public Outcry

The scare tactics of the Surgeon General and other anti-smoking advocates, such as the American Cancer Society, are intended to create public support for smoking bans. But what really drives the anti-smoking movement is private profit, not concern for the public good.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation has contributed more than $200 million to anti-smoking groups. Why is it so opposed to smoking? It owns $5.4 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock, and its board is controlled by former Johnson & Johnson executives. Johnson & Johnson is the manufacturer of Nicoderm and other smoking cessation products. By demonizing tobacco, they’re creating a market for their products.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation created the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids with a $20 million grant in 1996. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids helped negotiate the Master Settlement Agreement between the tobacco industry and state attorneys general in 1998.

The Master Settlement Agreement funds the American Legacy Foundation, which runs the television ads you often see attacking smokers and tobacco companies. The American Legacy Foundation spends $130 million a year opposing smoking and has awarded grants of more than $150 million to other groups since its inception. It has net assets of more than $1 billion.

All this is just the tip of a billion-dollar industry devoted to attacking smokers. Thousands of people now work full-time attacking smokers, and they have life-long funding. They are the ones quoted in newspapers and talking on the radio. They design and run the ads. They lobby in state capitols and Washington DC.

What does the average Joe Lunch Bucket think? He just wants to be left alone.

Economics of Bans

So ... scientifically, bans are unnecessary, and the public doesn’t support them. But lots of laws are unnecessary and unwanted and still get passed, and life goes on. Why should we actively oppose smoking bans?

One good reason is because bans really do hurt bars and restaurants. Two of the best studies of the economic impact of smoking bans -- a 2002 survey of 300 businesses in California by KPMG, the big accounting firm, and a 2004 study by Deloitte & Touche -- found major negative effects of smoking bans on restaurants and bars. The first study found 59 percent of bars and restaurants that served alcohol experienced a decrease in business. The average decline in sales was 26 percent, and 29 percent laid off staff. The second study found declines in annual sales of 36 percent at restaurants in communities with smoking bans.

It’s about Freedom

The attack on smokers and bar and restaurant owners is the tip of a spear aimed at the heart of all of our liberties. Smoking bans say private businesses are actually public places and can be regulated by the state. By what authority does the state say a person cannot smoke in a particular place, regardless of whether there are others in the room, and regardless of whether the owner of that place approves?

This is unprecedented interference with the private property rights of owners. It starts with workplaces, then restaurants and bars, then parks and sidewalks, and soon it will be homes and private cars. Once we say the state can violate people’s private property and privacy rights, where does it end?

Like all victimless crime laws, the laws against smoking are difficult to enforce. With 23 percent of the adult population of the U.S. still smoking, it would require a police state to actually enforce a ban on smoking in all places that serve the public. Is that what we want?

Victimless crimes are reported by spies, snitches, nosy neighbors, and sore losers. We don’t want to live in a world where there are lots of people like that. We don’t want to encourage kids to report their parents or parents to report their kids to the police. But that’s what smoking bans do.

Time to Speak Out

Unfortunately, many people who generally support less government, lower taxes, and free-market solutions to social and economic problems nevertheless stand on the sidelines of this debate, saying, “I don’t smoke, so this isn’t my issue.” Or they smoke and blame themselves for being poor parents or poor citizens -- they believe what the television ads say -- and so they don’t turn out to vote against smoking bans.

It’s time for that to stop. Fundamental liberties are being put at risk by the anti-smoking campaign. These rights didn’t come to us easily or as a matter of entitlement. Our forefathers fought a war for independence to secure these rights. We owe it to them not to abandon these rights without a fight.

Joseph Bast (jbast@heartland.org) is president of The Heartland Institute.