At least that's what a study published in the British Medical Journal concluded about secondhand smoke increasing the risk for lung cancer and heart disease among nonsmokers.

As one of the 47 million dumb Americans addicted to smoking, I always viewed with skepticism the generally accepted premise, put forth by the World Health Organization, the American Cancer Society and other health agencies, that secondhand smoke poses a serious health threat to others.

As one would expect, the health organizations were highly critical of that study, partly funded by the tobacco industry, saying it was flawed in many ways; namely, that the 35,561 participants (whose histories were reviewed from 1960 to 1998), who'd never smoked but whose spouses did was too small of a group; and that those people had been exposed to secondhand smoke in many other places in the early years covered by the study other than in the home, such as movie theaters, restaurants and the workplace.

And although the lead author of the study, epidemiologist James Enstrom of the University of California, School of Public Health, contends that his findings were "solid and that the tobacco industry had no influence," trying to change the mind-set of most Americans on that subject would make securing a lasting peace in the Middle East look like "a stroll in the park."

Another long-held view about smoking that's been challenged is that cutting back on lighting up significantly reduces the health hazards. Based, however, on a comparison of annual state surveys conducted from 1996 to 2001, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reports that "reducing tobacco use by half or more without quitting did not decrease mortality rates from tobacco-related diseases compared with heavy smokers of 15 or more cigarettes a day." In that regard, the CDC urged states to have comprehensive tobacco control programs to encourage smokers to stop.

To its credit, Maryland plans on spending $14 million in an anti-smoking campaign. But that's a pittance, considering the $800 million that the state received as its share of the $206 billion settlement reached between the tobacco industry and 46 states in 1998, which was slated to be used for tobacco prevention and cancer control programs. Apparently, though, Gov. Ehrlich has had no qualms about tapping the state's Cigarette Restitution Fund to make up for budget shortfalls elsewhere, with much the same impunity that President Bush has raided the Social Security Fund.

Now, I never disputed the fact that smoking is the leading preventable cause of death and disability in the U.S. How could I, when 1,200 Americans (over 44,000 a year) die each day from tobacco-related diseases, and 4 million worldwide each year. But horrifying as those human stats are, there are other mortality figures that make my skin crawl, like the 310,000 deaths a year caused by wars and conflicts, the near 20 million deaths so far from the AIDS epidemic (mostly in Africa), and that every 3.6 seconds someone in the world dies of starvation (four-fifths of whom are children under five). But the human race is not in danger of disappearing, what with the world's population of about 6 billion and increasing by 200,000 every day.

Now, I've been seriously considering becoming a convert, if not so much for my health, as for the money I'm burning up each time I smoke a cigarette. But the fact that I'm now able to order my ciggies on the internet at a sharply reduced price is quite a disincentive to quit. And as of Jan. 2000, there were 88 retailers on line, which grew to 195 by Jan. 2002 (of which 104 were in New York state and on Indian reservations). With a pack of cigarettes costing $7 in New York City, it's no wonder they're doing a thriving business..

Pecking out this column did, however, have one beneficial effect for me, in that I only smoked 4 (or maybe 5 or 6) cigarettes. That's a good start in my conversion, don't you agree?