Media have fallen for misguided antismoking crusade

By Robert J. Samuelson, 09/30/97

ASHINGTON The media are deeply sensitive to the rights of those we
consider minorities: the poor, the disabled, blacks, gays, and immigrants,
among others. But there is one minority much larger than any of these (at
least 25 percent of the population) whose rights we deny or ignore:
smokers. The debate over cigarettes has been framed as if smokers are the
unwitting victims of the tobacco industry. They lack free will and,
therefore, their apparent desires and interests don't count. They are to
be pitied and saved, not respected.

This is pack journalism run amok. We media types fancy ourselves
independent thinkers. Just the opposite is often true: We're patsies
for the latest crusade or fad. In this case, the major media have
adopted the view of the public health community, which sees smoking as
a scourge to be eradicated. The ''story'' is the crusade; the villain
is the tobacco industry. Lost are issues that ought to inform this
debate.

The simplest is whether, in trying to make Americans better off, the
antismoking crusade would make many Americans worse off. Smokers would
clearly suffer from huge price and tax increases. The cost of the
$368.5 billion agreement between the tobacco industry and the state
attorneys general is estimated at 62 cents a pack. President Clinton
suggests raising that to $1.50 a pack about six times today's
federal tax (24 cents). The cost would hit the poor hardest. They
smoke more than the rich.

Consider. About half (53 percent) of today's cigarette tax is paid by
taxpayers with incomes of less than $30,000, estimates the
congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Higher prices will deter
some people from smoking. But for the rest, would siphoning billions
away from poorer people be good policy? Or fair?

The antismoking crusaders try to seem fair by arguing: (1) smoking has
been increasing among teenagers who, once they try cigarettes, may
become addicted for life; (2) tobacco ads cause much teenage smoking
teenagers are, therefore, victims; and (3) passive smoking (nonsmokers
inhaling smoke) in public places is a serious health threat,
justifying action against smokers. These assumptions permeate media
coverage, but the first two are open to question and the third is
untrue.

Start with teenage smoking. One survey from the University of Michigan
does show a rise. In 1996, 34 percent of 12thgraders reported smoking
in the past month the highest since 1979 (34.4 percent). But the
government's survey on drug abuse suggests the opposite: In 1996, only
18.3 percent of teenagers between 12 and 17 had smoked in the past
month, the lowest since 1985 (29 percent). It's hard to know which
survey to believe, but neither depicts runaway teenage smoking.

As for ads, teenagers do a lot of dangerous things (drugs, early sex)
that aren't advertised and are often illegal. The tobacco industry no
doubt targets teenagers, but the ads may affect brand choices more
than they do the decision to smoke. A new, comprehensive study
financed by the National Institutes of Health suggests that
teenagers' home environment is more important in determining who
smokes.

''Children who report feeling connected to a parent are protected
against many different kinds of health risks including ... cigarette,
alcohol, and marijuana use,'' it says.

And even teenagers who smoke do not necessarily become lifetime
smokers. Among 12thgraders, the percentage of those who once smoked
(63 percent) is about twice as high as for those who currently do. The
''addiction'' isn't so great that millions haven't broken it.

Finally, passive smoking isn't a big public health risk, as many
stories imply. The latest example of misreporting involved a study
from Harvard Medical School. It purported to show that passive smoking
doubled the risk of heart attacks, indicating a huge public health
problem. That's how both The New York Times and Washington Post
reported it. In fact, the study at most showed that passive
smoking doubles a very tiny risk.

Here's why. The study followed 32,046 nonsmoking nurses between 1982
and 1992. Of these, fourfifths said they were exposed to passive
smoking. But there were only 152 heart attacks (127 nonfatal) among
all the nurses: a small number. Many heart attacks would have occurred
even if no one was exposed to smoke. And most exposure to passive
smoke is now private or voluntary, because public smoking has been
barred in so many places. Will we outlaw husbands smoking in front of
their wives or vice versa?

You don't hear much of all this, because the press has an antismoking
bias. The crusaders do have a case. Smoking is highly risky for
smokers. But lots of things are risky, and don't smokers have a right
to engage in behavior whose pleasures and pains are mainly theirs
without being punished by the rest of society?

There is almost no one to make smokers' case. They have been abandoned
by the tobacco industry, politicians, and the press. Do smokers have
rights? Apparently not.

Robert J. Samuelson is an economics reporter in Washington.

Copyright 1997 Globe Newspaper Company.