A STORY IS TOLD of a man who testified truthfully in a court of law to an event that on the surface seemed highly improbable but that he had, nonetheless, actually seen.

The man’s earnestness was quite persuasive – that is until, upon cross examination, he also claimed to have seen Sasquatch and the Loch Ness Monster and to have been kidnapped by extraterrestrials.

One lesson to be drawn from this tale is that if we wish to be credible advocates of a correct but unpopular position, we must be cautious that we do not undermine our credibility by maintaining with equal ardor the factuality of other matters that have no factual foundation.

I speak here of matters of fact and not of faith, though too often we fail to draw the distinction. Let us remember that everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own set of facts. [A maxim attributed with no little irony to Daniel Patrick Moynihan.]

To get down to cases, let us look at two politically-charged issues: anthropogenic climate change and, uh, smoking.

I shall touch on the first just briefly. The questions of whether global warming is real, of what its potential consequences might be, and of the extent to which it may be influenced by human activity, are all valid areas of scientific inquiry, but they have become highly politicized.

I need not tell you that belief in anthropogenic climate change has become an article of faith for liberals, who consider the matter settled science. Some conservatives have been swayed by the propaganda and have also come to accept the notion as established fact. But others correctly point out that the notion of man-caused global warming and the dire consequences to follow are exaggerations at best and, at their worst, are flagrant fabrications and deliberate distortions driven by a radical political agenda.

An appeal to sound science is sufficient to refute the ever-more-prevalent extremist views on this and many other environmental issues for anyone who has enough intellectual honesty to actually examine the science objectively. Most do not, of course, for modern environmentalism is a religion, not a science. Its priests and prophets wear the vestments of academia and speak the language of science, but they repudiate its methods and its fundamental principals. Science, to them, is not a path to truth but a device to be manipulated in support of their cause. Conservatives are right to challenge the pseudo-science behind the doomsday prophecies and scaremongering of the global warming extremists and many of them do.

But in far too many cases, the same outspoken conservatives who are daring to challenge the scientific validity of the claims of the global warming activists have also chosen to challenge the scientific validity of another issue that has become politically polarized, that being the hazards of smoking. And on this issue, it is they, and not the anti-tobacco liberals, who are on shaky ground. The health risks associated with cigarette smoking are well-established. The science is irrefutable. Any conservative who dismisses that fact in the same breath that he dismisses global warming – and I hear that happen over and over again – is sabotaging his own credibility.

It is a marvel to me, quite frankly, that so many conservatives have latched onto "smokers’ rights" as a “conservative cause.” The right to smoke is certainly a libertarian principle. But I would contend that just as in a free society your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, so does your right to smoke. Of course, if I see your fist coming, I’m going to move out of the way, and if I see your smoke coming, I’ll move out of the way – providing there is an escape route available, which is not always the case.

It’s not just that cigarette smoke is smelly. It’s downright unhealthy. First-hand smoke, second-hand smoke, it makes no difference. It’s the same smoke.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, former U.S. surgeon general (and a conservative, by the way,) said repeatedly that smoking is the biggest single avoidable cause of health problems in the United States.

Does that mean the government should forbid you from smoking? Certainly not. If you choose to do something unhealthy, that’s you’re choice. But if what you do puts my health in jeopardy, you are infringing upon my freedom.

Do those words make you bristle? If so, you can be assured that I am talking directly to you. If you don’t like it – if you can’t handle the truth – you are welcome to quit reading, throw this down in a fit of anger, and go on your pompous way. But if you will hang with me for a moment, I would like to make my case in the hope that it may help you see things a little differently. And if you find yourself agreeing with me – well, then maybe you would be so kind as to pass this piece along to others who need their eyes opened.

There are really two issues here. First is whether smoking is in fact an unhealthy activity. The second is whether so-called second-hand smoke poses the same health risks, or any risks at all.

Most people, whether they smoke or not, know that smoking is an unhealthful activity. Most smokers I know would like to quite and have tried to quit. Many of them actually have quit smoking – repeatedly. And some, thank goodness, have quit for good.

But there are some smokers who are in denial about risks to their health of continuing to smoke. They think that the hazards of cigarette smoke are phony, hatched by liberals who are simply out to destroy the tobacco industry. Well, I’ve got news for that group of smokers: They are half right. They are absolutely right about the agenda that drives many anti-tobacco activists. They are absolutely wrong if they think that the risks associated with smoking are just another liberal lie. Science is on the liberals' side on this one, folks. Don’t forget that the devil can quote scripture for his purpose.

I don’t believe I need to elaborate further on that, since most of you, even if you smoke, realize that it’s not good for you and you’d be better off if you didn’t. I also understand that quitting is not an easy thing to do, especially in this stressful world in which we live.

But the stickier issue with regard to smoking revolves around second-hand smoke and whether your smoking in the presence of non-smokers poses a risk to their health. On this point, those people who insist on their “right” to smoke where and when they choose with no regard to whether others are forced to breath their exhaust are not only inconsiderate but they are often disdainful of the notion that second-hand smoke causes any harm. They think that the numerous studies showing second-hand smoke to be a health hazard are bunk, and they contend that the handful of studies, most of them financed by tobacco interests, which might seem to exonerate second-hand smoke are the only ones with any validity.

Just like the global warming alarmists, they pick their science to match their preconceptions.

But to suggest that second-hand smoke has no negative effects on health is an absurd position to take. The smoke from your cigarette doesn’t care who is holding the cigarette or who lit it. It is the same smoke. There is nothing second-hand about it. And it is comprised of the same unhealthy toxins and carcinogens, no matter who breathes it.

It is true that a person only occasional exposed to cigarette smoke is less at risk than a non-smoker who works all day (or all night) in a smoke-filled room or a child who is constantly exposed to smoke from the cigarettes of a chain-smoking parent.

Still, as a non-smoker who travels extensively, I am glad that there are now such things as non-smoking flights in many parts of the world and non-smoking restaurants (or non-smoking areas in restaurants) in at least some places. I am also thankful that there are some courteous smokers (and there ought to be many more) who just out of consideration for others will excuse themselves and go outside and downwind to smoke if there are non-smokers present and who would never consider smoking indoors in the presence of a child.

I do think that smoking in front of children, especially small children, is callous and cruel. If you light up in my presence, I can excuse myself and leave the room, as I did recently at a business dinner when one of the 12 people at our table, who happened to be sitting directly across from me, took out a cigarette between courses. But small children don’t always have that option, and infants never do.

There are at least two reasons that a decent, considerate, thinking person would never want to smoke in the presence of children. First, it endangers the health of the child. Secondly, it teaches a child by power of example that harmful, self-destructive behavior is acceptable. Why would anyone want to do that?!

So smoke if you like, or if you must – if you haven’t yet found the desire or the will or the motivation or the strength to quit. But c’mon now, it shouldn’t take the force of law to persuade you to be a considerate smoker and do your smoking where people who choose not to smoke, and particularly children, don’t have to breathe the stuff.