Merged Smoking should be banned universally

[Drachasor]

People die no matter what they do. End of story.

No. People EVENTUALLY die no matter what they do. There's a lot that can be done to adjust when that happens.

 

[Drachasor]

Don't worry, it's only a news report. It's the one below that's got the actual data.

ps works ok for me though. Page from the Indie:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/passive-smoking-does-not-cause-cancer-1347192.html

"Their report, which contradicts previous findings, was immediately attacked by anti-smoking campaigners and cancer charities who described it as "appalling" and noted it had been funded by three big tobacco companies."

You're taking that seriously after the Tobacco companies knowingly lied about smoking for DECADES?

Edit: It is working now, btw. Before they must have been having some sort of problem.

 

[23_Tauri]

No. People EVENTUALLY die no matter what they do. There's a lot that can be done to adjust when that happens.

I'm not sure that there is, actually. I believe life expectancy in the West is by and large driven by genetics, not environmental factors.








Unless you get run over by a bus.....

 

[23_Tauri]

"Their report, which contradicts previous findings, was immediately attacked by anti-smoking campaigners and cancer charities who described it as "appalling" and noted it had been funded by three big tobacco companies."

You're taking that seriously after the Tobacco companies knowingly lied about smoking for DECADES?

Read the summary of epidemiological studies I linked to earlier. There's your data.

 

[Drachasor]

Like base jumping, skate boarding, rock climbing, eating a lot, lumber jacking, potholing, free fall parachuting, horse riding, playing Russian Roulette, scuba diving, free diving, etc. ?

The bolded stuff is certainly very dangerous or a large health risk for our population, and I don't have a problem with the government working to make the situation better. A lot of the other stuff doesn't seem to be that big of a deal as long as proper safety measures are taken (which in most cases there are laws about).

Are you saying skate boarders shouldn't wear helmets or something? Or scuba divers shouldn't be required to check their gear? What?

 

[Drachasor]

I'm not sure that there is, actually. I believe life expectancy in the West is by and large driven by genetics, not environmental factors.

That's totally not true. In fact, insufficient health care is a major factor in the USA. Smoking DOES decrease average life expectancy, etc, etc.

 

[Drachasor]

Read the summary of epidemiological studies I linked to earlier. There's your data.

Just looked at it. A pdf made by someone strongly against smoking bans, who even acknowledges there are many studies that show a significant risk of second-hand smoke, but makes a big deal out of them not entirely agreeing with each other or studies that have flaws (and hence can be safely ignored)? Yeah, I think I'll stick with the experts on this one.

I think you are biased on this, if you seriously consider the newspaper article to be good evidence (enough to have posted it).

 

[23_Tauri]

"Their report, which contradicts previous findings, was immediately attacked by anti-smoking campaigners and cancer charities who described it as "appalling" and noted it had been funded by three big tobacco companies."

You're taking that seriously after the Tobacco companies knowingly lied about smoking for DECADES?

Edit: It is working now, btw. Before they must have been having some sort of problem.

I've looked up the study and I find it strange that the Independent reported that the study was funded by the tobacco companies. It appears to me that Indie hacks had received phone calls from anti-smoking campaigners and believed them when they said "funded by the tobacco industry!" without checking whether that was true or not.

The study concerned was commissioned by the WHO, and carried out France's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It was not funded by the tobacco industry. When the study showed no statistically significant elevation in risk for those exposed to SHS, Stanton Glantz, famous tobacco prohibitionist, searched for links with big tobacco. He found none, and of all the people who would find tobacco sponsorship if there was some it would be Glantz.

Perhaps the Independent didn't want to face a complaint by ASH being filed to the Press Complaints Commission so they decided to bend to ASH's will. After the Sunday Telegraph reported the results of the study, ASH filed complaints with the PCC about the article and accompanying editorial, calling Telegraph journalists "dupes of the tobacco industry". The PCC did not uphold the complaint, but needless to say you can understand why other newpaper editors wouldn't want ASH all over them.

Nefarious goings on, I'd say.

 

[dafydd]

The bolded stuff is certainly very dangerous or a large health risk for our population, and I don't have a problem with the government working to make the situation better. A lot of the other stuff doesn't seem to be that big of a deal as long as proper safety measures are taken (which in most cases there are laws about).

Are you saying skate boarders shouldn't wear helmets or something? Or scuba divers shouldn't be required to check their gear? What?

I'm saying that smokers should be allowed to smoke if they choose to without sanctimonious sourpusses getting on their backs.

 

[23_Tauri]

Just looked at it. A pdf made by someone strongly against smoking bans, who even acknowledges there are many studies that show a significant risk of second-hand smoke, but makes a big deal out of them not entirely agreeing with each other or studies that have flaws (and hence can be safely ignored)? Yeah, I think I'll stick with the experts on this one.

Who's that, Deborah Arnott? Oh pur-lease.

The author of the book, Chris Snowdon, published the results of over 60 epidemiological studies as an appendix. He didn't need to give an opinion, the results of those studies speak for themselves. Most studies show no statistical significance. To say that it is proven beyond doubt that SHS causes disease is a lie.

I think you are biased on this, if you seriously consider the newspaper article to be good evidence (enough to have posted it).

No, it's a newspaper article, and I've already pointed out. Look up the WHO/IARC study on passive smoking published 1998 for some further data.

 

[dafydd]

That's totally not true. In fact, insufficient health care is a major factor in the USA. Smoking DOES decrease average life expectancy, etc, etc.

So does eating a lot of fast food.

 

[23_Tauri]

ps most people feel so strongly about tobacco smoking these days that you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who doesn't stand squarely on one side of the fence or the other. That's one of the problems; the ban has been so divisive. People who never felt strongly either way about other peoples' smoking habits have become zealots. Or smokers have become political radicals. Remember when we were young and we all just used to get along together, man?

 

[23_Tauri]

So does eating a lot of fast food.

Life decreases your life expectancy. The longer I'm alive, the nearer I get to death.

 

[dafydd]

I smoke about three cigarettes a day,thin hand rolled. I live in the country and I'm sure I would do more damage to my lungs and body if I was a non-smoker living in a polluted city. Tomorrow I am baby sitting my grandson and I will not smoke. I am not addicted to nicotine. The rabid anti-smoking brigade tar all smokers with the same brush. (No joke intended)

 

[dafydd]

ps most people feel so strongly about tobacco smoking these days that you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who doesn't stand squarely on one side of the fence or the other. That's one of the problems; the ban has been so divisive. People who never felt strongly either way about other peoples' smoking habits have become zealots. Or smokers have become political radicals. Remember when we were young and we all just used to get along together, man?

I remember. I remember we used to have problems instead of 'issues'. What we are issuing is still a mystery to me.

 

[23_Tauri]

T
Are you saying skate boarders shouldn't wear helmets or something?

Skate boarders wear helmets? Where do you live, dude?

 

[dafydd]

Skate boarders wear helmets? Where do you live, dude?

Nanny State Land?

 

[Verde]

ps most people feel so strongly about tobacco smoking these days that you'd be hard pushed to find anyone who doesn't stand squarely on one side of the fence or the other. That's one of the problems; the ban has been so divisive. People who never felt strongly either way about other peoples' smoking habits have become zealots. Or smokers have become political radicals. Remember when we were young and we all just used to get along together, man?

I don't think that is true. I believe I have made my position clear: that I dislike being around smoke, but like the smokers.
Even though most of my friends don't smoke, I can't think of a single one that I would describe as an anti-smoking zealot.

V.

 

[Drachasor]

I've looked up the study and I find it strange that the Independent reported that the study was funded by the tobacco companies. It appears to me that Indie hacks had received phone calls from anti-smoking campaigners and believed them when they said "funded by the tobacco industry!" without checking whether that was true or not.

The study concerned was commissioned by the WHO, and carried out France's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). It was not funded by the tobacco industry. When the study showed no statistically significant elevation in risk for those exposed to SHS, Stanton Glantz, famous tobacco prohibitionist, searched for links with big tobacco. He found none, and of all the people who would find tobacco sponsorship if there was some it would be Glantz.

Perhaps the Independent didn't want to face a complaint by ASH being filed to the Press Complaints Commission so they decided to bend to ASH's will. After the Sunday Telegraph reported the results of the study, ASH filed complaints with the PCC about the article and accompanying editorial, calling Telegraph journalists "dupes of the tobacco industry". The PCC did not uphold the complaint, but needless to say you can understand why other newpaper editors wouldn't want ASH all over them.

Nefarious goings on, I'd say.

First, citation? Second, it disagrees with a lot of earlier studies. If you have a list of studies and one disagrees, you generally assume the disagreeing one is wrong. Studies can be wrong from time to time, that's why verification is important. ONE study showing no link doesn't mean much.

I'm saying that smokers should be allowed to smoke if they choose to without sanctimonious sourpusses getting on their backs.

And I disagree with that in cases where there is a serious risk of injury to yourself or others.

Who's that, Deborah Arnott? Oh pur-lease.

The author of the book, Chris Snowdon, published the results of over 60 epidemiological studies as an appendix. He didn't need to give an opinion, the results of those studies speak for themselves. Most studies show no statistical significance. To say that it is proven beyond doubt that SHS causes disease is a lie.

And yet the whole thing is full of his opinion and is on a site that seems to be against smoking bans.

Beyond that, there are tons of studies in there that do show second hand smoke increases cancer rates. The author just dismishes them as all wrong because they don't agree enough for his tastes, yet they DO all agree that SHS increases the risk cancer. So sorry, I don't really see what that shows.

There's always room for doubt in science. It is thinly possible that even evolution is wrong, but the science backing it is very, very good so one would need good reason to not accept our current conclusions. The evidence for SHS is not as good as that, but it is still fairly good, and you'd need good reason to not accept it. You don't have good reason.

No, it's a newspaper article, and I've already pointed out. Look up the WHO/IARC study on passive smoking published 1998 for some further data.

One study that disagrees with numerous others doesn't mean much.

So does eating a lot of fast food.

And? I think something should be done to increase how healthy food is as well. It's an absolutely huge health issue.

Life decreases your life expectancy. The longer I'm alive, the nearer I get to death.

That's a meaningless argument. There are things that decrease your life expectancy more than others. There are ways to increase your life expectancy as well.

Skate boarders wear helmets? Where do you live, dude?

It's basic safety along with kneew and elbow pads for riding a skate board. In the case of an accident, such as being hit by a car, it can save your life. It's like riding a bike in this regard.

I smoke about three cigarettes a day,thin hand rolled. I live in the country and I'm sure I would do more damage to my lungs and body if I was a non-smoker living in a polluted city. Tomorrow I am baby sitting my grandson and I will not smoke. I am not addicted to nicotine. The rabid anti-smoking brigade tar all smokers with the same brush. (No joke intended)

You can't say that for certain unless you actually tried to stop smoking. You could potentially be denying you have a problem. Btw, saying "this completely different problem might be worse" is in no way an argument that the original thing isn't a problem.


Guys, fundamentally I believe the State/People have a vested interest in keeping people healthy. It's good for both the country as a whole and for the individuals. Reasonable safety precautions and laws to reduce the amount of toxins people ingest go hand in hand with this. I don't buy the liberty argument. Liberty is not a fundamental right. There are all sorts of sensible restrictions on what you can say (no "fire" in a theatre) and what you can do. I don't see laws made in regards to health as fundamentally different in that regard. Like many sensible laws in the past, sometimes people affected won't like it. Imho, tough.

 

[23_Tauri]

First, citation?

I've read a lot of stuff on passive smoking debate over the years. It's all in my noodle, as Mozart said in the film Amadeus. I'll try and find you some online refs this evening.

Second, it disagrees with a lot of earlier studies. If you have a list of studies and one disagrees, you generally assume the disagreeing one is wrong. Studies can be wrong from time to time, that's why verification is important. ONE study showing no link doesn't mean much.

The WHO/IARC wasn't just any old study. It was a large, Europe-wide research programme looking at over 1,000 lung cancer cases, twice as large as any study that went before it.

And the majority of studies into the effects of SHS on disease (listed in Snowdon's appendix) don't find statistical significance. It's not just "one study" as you claim.

And I disagree with that in cases where there is a serious risk of injury to yourself or others.

But there is no serious risk of injury from SHS, the risk is tiny. In fact, in most research studies its found to not be signifcant i.e. not there. Relative risk (RR) is the concept used by epidemiologists to compare disease rates in populations. The RR for disease caused by SHS was found by the EPA to be so low that it had to change the gold standard Confidence Interval of 95% down to 90% in order to show significance (see the Osteen decision for details)

I'll respond to the rest of you post later but I have to work now.