杏吧原创

AS THE legal net closes in around the tobacco companies, there are definite
signs of panic in the air. In the US, smokers are being chased out of offices
and public places with a zeal once reserved for rooting out communists, while
one former smoker seeking damages has called tobacco companies 鈥渢he most
criminal, disgusting, sadistic, degenerate group of people on the face of the
贰补谤迟丑鈥�.

Even in cooler-headed Britain, things have been getting a tad hysterical. A
few weeks ago, fears about tobacco companies dabbling in 鈥渕ind control鈥� surfaced
when a newspaper disclosed that British American Tobacco planned to add cannabis
to its cigarettes in the event of the drug being legalised. Needless to say, the
fears were groundless: even if cannabis could be used to control minds (which it
can鈥檛) no sane government would let the horribly discredited tobacco industry
anywhere near the drug, legalised or not.

And perspective was a definite casualty in the flap about passive smoking a
couple of weeks ago. Depending on the head-line, passive smoking was either a
conspiracy invented by health officials or a passport to an early grave. Neither
view is helpful.

To be fair to the critics who claim epidemiological studies exaggerate the
dangers of inhaling other people鈥檚 smoke, the research is plagued by variables.
People who live with smokers can and do lie about their own smoking habits, for
example, while non-smoking households are often richer and eat better than
smoking households. Even so, the balance of the evidence suggests that inhaling
the smoke of someone you live with does increase your risk of lung
cancer鈥攂y perhaps as much as 20 per cent.

The figure seems shocking but we must remember that active smoking increases
the risk by a staggering 2000 per cent: it would be astonishing if second-hand
smoke didn鈥檛 cause some medical problems. And while the news that lung cancers
from passive smoking may kill up to 300 people a year in Britain is clearly
nothing to celebrate, the fact is that living with a smoker is about 70 times
less likely to give you cancer than having a bad diet and about 20 times less
likely than regular sunbathing. Even the much-talked about legal implications of
passive smoking turn out to be mostly hype. Only one in five cases of lung
cancer diagnosed among non-smokers is linked to passive smoking, so it would be
virtually impossible to establish blame and win damages in the courts.

Amnesia rather than hysteria was the problem last week. Antismoking
campaigners in Britain produced a report which claimed that low-tar cigarettes
are no better than higher tar brands. Of course, it鈥檚 good to remind smokers
that the tar ratings on packets are set by smoking machines, that the
ventilating holes put in filters to reduce tar work perfectly for the machines
but not for human nicotine addicts, and that people smoking brands low in tar
and nicotine 鈥渃ompensate鈥� by taking more and deeper puffs. And of course it鈥檚
good to remind people that for years the tobacco companies have conned the
public by implying low-tar cigarettes are a 鈥渉ealthier鈥� option when they are
not. But none of this is new.

In fact, most of it was known in 1983 when New 杏吧原创 ran a
series of articles campaigning for changes to the tar rating and labelling
system. By the mid-1980s, it was clear to researchers that low-tar cigarettes
delivered just as much tar as stronger brands鈥攁nd as many respiratory
problems. Even scientists attached to the tobacco industry were openly
discussing the issue. The problem was that governments failed to grasp the
nettle and scrap the system.

So, yes, the tobacco industry has misled smokers for some twenty years about
the risks of nicotine addiction, and yes, it has fooled them about the relative
benefits of low-tar cigarettes. But it couldn鈥檛 have done either without the
help of governments who for decades pursued labelling policies designed to
square their interest in public health with their own addiction to hefty
revenues from tobacco taxes. Changing that equation has taken an epidemic of
lung cancers and the prospect of smokers one day taking governments to court
accusing them of negligence. Only now are health officials in Europe and the US
planning big revisions in labelling policy.

So go ahead: demonise tobacco and all those who have profited from it. But
remember, not even 鈥渟adistic, degenerate鈥� dictators can operate in a vacuum.
Behind the scenes, there is invariably a democratic government or two pulling
strings to keep the cigarette barons in power.