Second Hand Smoke/Baby Bullshit

I just watched this episode this evening. I've enjoyed many of the other episodes, but this one hasn't held up. The episode originally aired in 2003, and cited an EPA study from 2001 that was later discredited.

However, many subsequent studies and meta-analyses have been performed, and it's widely agreed that secondhand smoke is dangerous. Smoke inhalation, at its most basic form (whether the smoke is from burning wood, tobacco, or meat) replaces oxygen with a mixture of compounds that are not useful to the

While this episode doesn't stand the test of time, their irreverent view is enjoyable and their perspective on questioning is still a valuable takeaway.

In the first segment we learn that claims about the danger of second-hand smoke are false, even while anti-smoking crusaders are using dubious studies to support their attempts to ban smoking in public places. Segment two shows us the lack of evidence for marketers' claims that their videos, computer programs, CDs and other products can really make your baby smarter.

The first segment is well-argued with a relatively (for this show) small number of cheap shots. Joe Cherner, the Wall Street entrepreneur-turned-anti-smoking fanatic, is so repulsive that Penn and Teller hardly needed their pack of editing tricks to make him look worse. The second segment is weaker, especially that horrific ending where the jokesters trick a group of fathers into believing that behaving like babies will make their babies smarter. We see them putting on diapers (over their jeans, thank God), wearing bibs, allowing themselves to be spoon-fed, etc. Was this trick really necessary?

Specifically regarding second hand smoke portion of the show....sure they make the claim that it doesn't "significantly" cause cancer in non-smokers. To me, that's only half the point. Smoking is a disruptive and invasive activity. When you go into a building where people are smoking it stinks and the smell gets all in your clothing and your hair. It can cause allergic reactions and possibly worse for those people with breathing problems. So who has more rights...the rights of people to burn paper and plant material so they can get a fix or the rights of people to breath clean, fresh air?

In the show, one smoker compared smoking bans to banning cake....wrong! He can eat all the cake he wants to. Unless he smears it on my face and on my clothes I'm not going to smell it, taste it, or get sick because of it. It's just a really really bad comparison. Let's compare it to burning incense. Even in smoking establishments, I would not be allowed to just light up a few candles and set them on my table to stink up the joint. I'd get kicked out.

What about other types of disruptive behavior; noise pollution, really bad BO, being insulting....to me these don't come anywhere close to how bad smoking is but in all three situations the owner of the establishment has the right to ask these folks to leave his business. I really think Penn and Teller focused solely on the limited cancer research to make their show and didn't even address the actual situation....the act of smoking should not interfere with the rights of non-smoking.

Smoking is an action, it's a behavior; non-smoking is not....people don't actively non-smoke. I think people have more of a right to clean air than smokers have a right to make the air I breath and my clothing smell nasty. If a private business owner wants to allow smoking, then he's going to have to deal with non-smokers not shopping there.