Rights for smokers? Apparently not

by Robert J. Samuelson, NEWSWEEK

The media are deeply sensitive to the rights of "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 packabout 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 three things: (1)
there's growing smoking among teenagers who, once they try cigarettes,
may become addicted for life; (2) tobacco ads cause much teen
smokingteens are, therefore, victims; and (3) passive smoking (the
inhaling of smoke by nonsmokers) in public places is a serious health
threat, justifying action against smokers. These assumptions also
permeate media coverage, but the first two are open to question and the
third is untrue.

Start with teen smoking. One survey from the University of Michigan does
show a rise. In 1996, 34 percent of 12thgraders reported smoking in the
past monththe highest since 1979 (34.4 percent). But the government's
survey on drug abuse reports the opposite:

In 1996, only 18.3 percent of teens 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 teen smoking.

As for ads, teens do a lot of dangerous things (drugs, early sex) that
aren't advertised and are often illegal. The tobacco industry no doubt
targets teens; but the ads may affect brand choices more than the
decision to smoke. A new, comprehensive studyfinanced by the National
Institutes of Healthsuggests that teens' 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 teens who smoke do not necessarily become lifetime smokers.
Among 12thgraders, about twice as many (63 percent) once smoked as
currently smoke. 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 the
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 studyat mostshowed 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 were 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 wivesor vice versa?

You don't hear much of 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 do 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.