Paging Dr. Zealot, paging Dr. Zealot!

You might remember Richard Sargent, MD. He's the Helena doctor who pushed hard for the smoking ban. He's also the Helena doctor who came out with a 'study' in 2003 purportedly showing a decrease in heart attacks after Helena instituted their smoking ban. His study was thoroughly debunked as bad science. (Scroll down to "Smoking Ban Saves Lives in Montana Town, and read the several articles describing his various errors. In Sargent's case, "stat" is not short for "statistics.")

Well, Sargent is back. He had a letter to the editor in yesterday's Great Falls Tribune, commenting on Keila Szpaller's December 4 piece about the smoking ban. In the article, Szpaller discusses some of the ambiguities in the anti-smoking law. She also refers to the owner of a Box Elder business who, faced with a customer who comes in and smokes every day, 'just lets him,' rather than lose his business.

Sargent's letter to the editor is a masterpiece in arrogant self-righteousness. First, with respect to the anti-smoking law's attempts to keep children out of smoking areas, Sargent says "we attempted to make it quite clear: For the next four years children can't where there is smoke, and smoke can't go where there are children." [Emphasis added] Normally, I try to refrain from juvenile name calling, but excuse me, does the good doctor have a turd in his pocket? Who is the "we" he is referring to? Funny, but I thought the legislature passed the law and the DPHHS adopted the rules. God Complex, anyone?

He then discusses the fact that you can tell a smoker has owned a house or a car even long after the smoke is gone. And, according to the good doctor, if you go into the house or car, you will "breathe the toxic leftovers from the last session of smoking." While all of the non-zealots are still debating the level of harm, if any, caused by second-hand smoke, Sargent has moved on...to the smell of old smoke! Well, geez, then, if you've ever been around a smoker you can smell it on their clothes, so I guess they're walking poison bombs, huh? Let's ban them, too!

Remember the business owner in Box Elder? Well, he has advice for her, too. "[M]ost smokers are polite people. If they are asked politely, they will go outside. Designate an area for them downwind from the door." Gosh, thanks, Doctor. But you know what? While it might be easy for you to suggest we just shoo the smokers out, here's a news flash for you, Doc: When they're outside, they're not spending money. They're not customers anymore. Maybe you should buy the land, build the building, risk everything you own to open a business and create some jobs, then you can shoo your customers out.

Dr. Zealo..er..Sargent, felt "validated," too, by Szpaller's sidebar piece about a Pueblo, Colorado study that seems to reach the same result as his earlier, debunked, study. (Speaking of sidebars, did you notice how uncritically Szpaller approached Sargent's spin? So much for the cynical, skeptical press!) The problem, though, is that the Colorado study suffers from the same statistical shortcomings as the Helena study. I mean, come on, it is intuitive. With all of the smoking bans in huge metro areas, if these facts were true you wouldn't need a study to pick up on it. A 40% decrease in heart attacks would stand out!

I've said it before and I'll say it again. I don't smoke. Smoking is stupid and harmful. But its effects on the non-smoker have been politicized to the point that you really don't know who or what to believe (think global warming). And I don't think you abdicate hundreds of years of private property rights to suit some megalomaniacal doctor in Helena, Montana.

(As an aside, it is fortunate that Sargent is a physician, and therefore no doubt has friends in the field of orthopedic medicine. He must require regular visits to treat the inevitable elbow and shoulder injuries he receives from incessantly patting himself on the back.)