Local Smoking Ban

[Tormac]

The big city outside Blackswamp (Toledo, OH) has enacted a local smoking ban on public restaurants and bars over a particular size.

I do not smoke, and actively encourage friends to quit, but this smoking ban seems ill conceived and intrusive. A "goody goody ism" the part of local government IMHO, that is a slip down that hypothetical slope. I've been ranting about this, but have had some good counter arguments presented to me from friends who are in favor of it.

I think
1) It is going to be an economic mistake for Toledo, as people who smoke will go to bars and restaurants in the burbs that do not have this smoking ban.

2) It is a case of intrusive government trying to protect people from themselves. I do not think local government has the right to limit the intended use of a legal product in a setting that has traditionally been designed for its use.

3) It is a slip down a slippery slope where pleasurable activities of detrimental worth are banned. Today it’s smoking, tomorrow its alcohol, then next week sandwich cookies. Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, but then again drunks are a hazard to sober people. The consumption of unhealthy foods leads to an increased economic burden on society with increase health care costs.

Others around me have pointed out
1) Parents of small children do not feel comfortable bringing them into restaurants that allow smoking.

2) Workers and owners will not have to be in a potentially hazardous smoke filled environment.

3) People who do not appreciate tobacco smoke will not be unconvinced by it.

My gut is sure that I'm right, and my friends that are for the ban are crazy do gooders on this issue, but I have been proved wrong before. I was curious what others here thought of the idea of a local smoking ban in general, and a critique of arguments for or against such a ban. Is it a means of protecting the public's health? Is it a case of intrusive government? Is it a case of the majority (non smokers) abusing the rights of a minority (non smokers)?

 

[Tony]

It's a case of intrusive government.

 

[c0rbin]

Tony, I think your record has a scratch in it








(I agree, despite my barbing)

 

[Ipecac]

We have a county smoking ban and it's fantastic. Don't have to worry about being seated near the smoking section. No smoke wafting through the restaurant. Greatly improves the entire eating out experience.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think
1) It is going to be an economic mistake for Toledo, as people who smoke will go to bars and restaurants in the burbs that do not have this smoking ban.

And people from outside who do not smoke will come to Toledo to get away from the smokers. Toledo will do fine.

2) It is a case of intrusive government trying to protect people from themselves.

These sort of smoking bans are generally an attempt to protect non-smokers. Second-hand smoke is bad for your health. These regulations ensure that non-smokers will not be exposed to it when they go to public gathering places. It's not an attempt to protect you from yourself, it's an attempt to protect non-smokers from smokers.

3) It is a slip down a slippery slope where pleasurable activities of detrimental worth are banned. Today it’s smoking, tomorrow its alcohol, then next week sandwich cookies.

I don't think it's a slippery slope at all, because as I said above, the rational is not protecting you from yourself, it's protecting other people from you. California has had a smoking ban in restraunts for a long time now, and it's working well. And we're not becoming more oppressive - we passed marijuana legalization laws well after the ban on smoking in restraunts.

Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, but then again drunks are a hazard to sober people.

You can drink without posing a threat to others, but you cannot smoke in a public area without threatening others. And there are already specific laws covering people who drink and become a threat, foremost among those alcohol limits for driving.

My gut is sure that I'm right, and my friends that are for the ban are crazy do gooders on this issue, but I have been proved wrong before. I was curious what others here thought of the idea of a local smoking ban in general, and a critique of arguments for or against such a ban. Is it a means of protecting the public's health? Is it a case of intrusive government? Is it a case of the majority (non smokers) abusing the rights of a minority (non smokers)?

I think it's great. I've been living with California's ban for a long time, and I think it works wonderfully. It also hasn't lead to any sort of puritanical crackdown on vices in general, so I don't think you need to worry about that. I hate the smell of cigarettes, and love that I never have to deal with that here. And whenever I travel to a state without such a ban and go to a restraunt, I really miss it.

 

[HarryKeogh]

i dont care about the health risks of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants

i care about going home smelling like an ashtray or smoke in my face while i'm trying to eat

too bad you say? then can i light some incense next to you the next time you try to eat some bacon and eggs? the smell and smoke is bothering you? too bad.

 

[Agammamon]

Here's another good one on smoking bans.

Get this;

1 Its a bar for recovering alcoholics. They want to allow these guys the same sort of socializing you get in bars but without the constant temptation of alcohol.

2 In Edmonton smoking is only allowed in bars.

3 You can only be a bar if you serve alcohol.

4 The liquor board won't sell these guys a license because they aren't planning on selling alcohol.

Edmonton Journal

 

[WildCat]

Sure second hand smoke may be a hazard to others, ...

Originally posted by Ziggurat
You can drink without posing a threat to others, but you cannot smoke in a public area without threatening others.

Please show one single peer-reviewed scientific study that shows this! That second-hand smoke is harmful is the biggest urban myth going these days. This all dates back to a 1993 EPA study that cherry-picked data to reach it's own foregone conclusions. Penn & Teller even did a "Bullsh%t" episode on this..

Here's the most massive study to date (118,094 participants!), which concludes that there is no relationship between environmental tobacco smoke and any smoking-related diseases. (PDF viewer required).

See also:
http://www.ornl.gov/Press_Releases/archive/mr20000203-00.html

http://healthfactsandfears.com/high_priorities/smoked/2003/ets060903.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9776409&dopt=Abstract

Edited to fix link.

 

[WildCat]

i dont care about the health risks of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants

i care about going home smelling like an ashtray or smoke in my face while i'm trying to eat

too bad you say? then can i light some incense next to you the next time you try to eat some bacon and eggs? the smell and smoke is bothering you? too bad.

I have no problem if they're basing the smoking bans for this reason, but instead they're relying on a bunch of junk science to ram these bans through on the basis of health effects.

 

[Luceiia]

i dont care about the health risks of second hand smoke in bars and restaurants

Good thing, since no risks seem to exist. (Not meant as a dig, but as a preface, of sorts, to my next comment)

i care about going home smelling like an ashtray or smoke in my face while i'm trying to eat

too bad you say? then can i light some incense next to you the next time you try to eat some bacon and eggs? the smell and smoke is bothering you? too bad.

Light your incense, please. If it bothers me but doesn't bother you and the owner/manager, then it's my burden to go elsewhere...to another seat, another section, outside, or ask for a to-go container and go home. I'm perfectly fine with that. I fully support your right to do what you want as long as management/ownership doesn't forbid it in their establishment and it doesn't harm anyone.


Luceiia

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

Please show one single peer-reviewed scientific study that shows this!

First, something's screwy about the way you posted your second link - you've got several web addresses rammed together, requiring hand editing to get the actual addresses.

Second, the study you cite claims that second-hand smoke does not contribute significantly to increased mortality rates in adults. But it tells us nothing about other risks. You imply that the study shows no harmful effects at all from second hand smoke. But I consider reactions such as asthma attacks and allergic reactions to be harmful effects. The study says absolutely nothing about these risks.

Here's a non-PDF link to the article for those without acrobat reader:

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

This study also suffers a fundamental flaw: it splits the study population of non-smokers according to whether they are married to smokers. This ignores whether or not they recieve exposure to second-hand smoke from other sources, such as work, social settings, public transit, etc. This will seriously underestimate the impact of second-hand smoke. Note particularly at the bottom some of the rapid responses to this article, which outline this and other serious problems with the article.

The study you cite also cites a number of papers which did find positive correlations between second hand smoke and heart disease, etc., so I'm not sure why you're challenging me to find a single peer-reviewed study that shows this. There are more than one, and you provided several. It's a separate question of which study you think is more accurate, but don't even try to pretend that there are no studies showing an effect. If you want a specific example, here's just one:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content...751150258772cd48cb633f79&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

Second-hand smoke risks are not an urban legend. I've seen their Bullsh%t show once and enjoyed it, but Penn and Teller are pushing a libertarian agenda, they're not actually contributing any real information to the debate.

Here's an interesting peer-reviewed article about tobacco industry efforts to downplay second hand smoke risks:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/4/375

 

[RSLancastr]

Greatly improves the entire eating out experience.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

First, something's screwy about the way you posted your second link - you've got several web addresses rammed together, requiring hand editing to get the actual addresses.

It's been fixed.

Second, the study you cite claims that second-hand smoke does not contribute significantly to increased mortality rates in adults. But it tells us nothing about other risks. You imply that the study shows no harmful effects at all from second hand smoke. But I consider reactions such as asthma attacks and allergic reactions to be harmful effects. The study says absolutely nothing about these risks.

I didn't imply it, I said it outright! And what you believe about asthma and allergic reactions is irrelevant to this topic.

Here's a non-PDF link to the article for those without acrobat reader:

http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7398/1057

This is a heavily edited summary of the study, not the actual study itself.

This study also suffers a fundamental flaw: it splits the study population of non-smokers according to whether they are married to smokers. This ignores whether or not they recieve exposure to second-hand smoke from other sources, such as work, social settings, public transit, etc. This will seriously underestimate the impact of second-hand smoke. Note particularly at the bottom some of the rapid responses to this article, which outline this and other serious problems with the article.

Many of those responding are anti-smoking activists who just don't want to see any evidence that conflicts w/ their own biased opinions. Why would it not be logical to assume that the spouse of a smoker is more exposed to ETS than the spouse of a non-smoker? The sheer number of participants in the study would seem to rule out a bias in this regard.
And none of the respondents refer to studies that support their point of view.

The study you cite also cites a number of papers which did find positive correlations between second hand smoke and heart disease, etc., so I'm not sure why you're challenging me to find a single peer-reviewed study that shows this. There are more than one, and you provided several. It's a separate question of which study you think is more accurate, but don't even try to pretend that there are no studies showing an effect. If you want a specific example, here's just one:

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content...pe2=tf_ipsecsha

The papers are cited in the Introduction to the study, this is merely to show the reasons for doing this study. It makes no mention of the veracity of said studies.
The link you posted is a meta study. This merely reviews previous studies without actually doing any research of their own. I have no idea what studies they reviewed or the accuracy of said studies. You need a subscription to access this information.

Here's an interesting peer-reviewed article about tobacco industry efforts to downplay second hand smoke risks:
http://tc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/10/4/375

That's not even a study! It only details the tobacco industry's response to the 1993 EPA study which has been thoroughly discredited!
And it's also the web site of an anti-tobacco group! These people hold to their beliefs like a fundy christian holds to his, no amount of evidence will convince them.

 

[Ziggurat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

Originally posted by WildCat
Many of those responding are anti-smoking activists who just don't want to see any evidence that conflicts w/ their own biased opinions.

In other words you have no response to the criticism of the fundamental flaws in the study other than sliming the critic. You have no way of showing that they were actually measuring effects of second hand smoke exposure, because they performed no measurements, surveys, or control over exposure to second-hand smoke outside the home.

Why would it not be logical to assume that the spouse of a smoker is more exposed to ETS than the spouse of a non-smoker? The sheer number of participants in the study would seem to rule out a bias in this regard.

You completely misunderstand the criticism, either willfully or out of ignorance. The point is that because of possible exposure outside the home, you're not really surveying populations with and without second-hand smoke exposure. You're measuring two groups, one of which you can expect to have higher exposure, but you really have no information on how much higher, and what the spreads are. In terms of the amount of second-hand exposure, the two groups may overlap to some unknown extent, and that overlap can mask the effects. The fact that they can't find a statistically significant risk factor doesn't mean that it isn't there, because they did not control for exposure outside of the home. Basically, all it means is if you are exposed outside the home (as most Californians were throughout the study period) to second hand smoke, exposure inside the home does not significantly FURTHER increase risk. The fundamental conclusion they arrive at, that exposure in general poses no significant risk, is actually unsupported by their data.

 

[Tony]

This is a prime example of the nanny police state policies, brought to you by the anti-freedom left.

Why cant we just let the owner of the restaurant or bar, decide whether or not he/she will allow smoking in his/her establishment?

 

[BobK]

For those of you that read the nejm.org link and are interested in the significance of a relative risk of 1.5 here's a quote from this link.

RR is relative risk.

For these reasons most scientists (which includes scientifically inclined epidemiologists) take a fairly rigorous view of RR values. In observational studies, they will not normally accept an RR of less than 3 as significant and never an RR of less than 2. Likewise, for a putative beneficial effect, they never accept an RR of greater than 0.5. Sometimes epidemiologists choose to dismiss such caution as an invention of destructive sceptics, but this is not the case. For example:

In epidemiologic research, [increases in risk of less than 100 percent] are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident .[Source: National Cancer Institute, Press Release, October 26, 1994.]

This being the case.
I didn't see any RR figures greater than 2 in the article so the study has questionable significance. They apparently did a data dredge of 18 other studies of various types to arrive their figures. Sounds like they might have cherry picked the studies they included. They say they used some kind of parameters for selecting the studies but they don't say what those parameters are.
Doesn't seem to me that the study has much merit.

I personally have never seen a 2nd hand smoke study that has a RR value of greater than 2. I'd be interested in seeing one if anyone can find one.

I've never studied statistics in school, but I found that this site
Number Watch has been very helpful in understanding polls and studies. The FAQ's can aid you in understanding of how to assess the worth of various polls and studies. I personally enjoy his whole site.

The site operator John Brignell seems to have a good head on his shoulders and a good sense of humor.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Edit to add...
JREF maintains a link to this site, someplace under "Learning Resources."

 

[corplinx]

Yes, the government should impose smoking bans to protect you. Makes me wonder why all these smoking ban supports don't support the Patriot act. Its there to protect you also.

 

[Tony]

Yes, the government should impose smoking bans to protect you. Makes me wonder why all these smoking ban supports don't support the Patriot act. Its there to protect you also.

Didnt you know, its only correct to support police state policies if they come from the left.

 

[mgidm86]

Tony:
---------------------------
Why cant we just let the owner of the restaurant or bar, decide whether or not he/she will allow smoking in his/her establishment?
---------------------------

I agree. Patrons can go elsewhere, so can the employees. I personally hate the smell of cigarettes but I think this law is wrong.

I loved the commercials out here in California when it came time to vote on this. They portrayed waitresses as suffering from second-hand smoke and pleading with the voting public to outlaw smoking in restaurants and bars. Funny thing is, I have 2 friends who own restaurants. I know every waitress at both places and every one of them is a smoker! No exaggeration. They're always hanging outside the restaurant hackin their lungs out during breaks.

Anyways just a little anecdote for ya.

 

[WildCat]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Local Smoking Ban

In other words you have no response to the criticism of the fundamental flaws in the study other than sliming the critic. You have no way of showing that they were actually measuring effects of second hand smoke exposure, because they performed no measurements, surveys, or control over exposure to second-hand smoke outside the home.

Because the main theme I saw in the critics comments was along the lines of "how dare you publish a study that didn't conclude that ETS is harmful". Note that they couldn't cite a contradictory study, this omission speaks volumes of the tenuousness of their positions.

You completely misunderstand the criticism, either willfully or out of ignorance. The point is that because of possible exposure outside the home, you're not really surveying populations with and without second-hand smoke exposure. You're measuring two groups, one of which you can expect to have higher exposure, but you really have no information on how much higher, and what the spreads are. In terms of the amount of second-hand exposure, the two groups may overlap to some unknown extent, and that overlap can mask the effects. The fact that they can't find a statistically significant risk factor doesn't mean that it isn't there, because they did not control for exposure outside of the home. Basically, all it means is if you are exposed outside the home (as most Californians were throughout the study period) to second hand smoke, exposure inside the home does not significantly FURTHER increase risk. The fundamental conclusion they arrive at, that exposure in general poses no significant risk, is actually unsupported by their data.

I understood the critisism quite well, but surely you realize that there is no way to accurately measure the ETS encountered outside of the home? If there really are harmful effects of ETS, this would surely show up clearly using the methodology described. Especially when the enormous number (118,094) of participants are taken into account.

And you have completely ignored the studies of bartenders I linked to (who, I'm sure you'd agree, encounter much higher levels of ETS than most people) which found no health effect of ETS. Oh yeah, that link was to the very Libertarian institution known as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Are you still looking for that rock-solid study showing the deleterious health effects of ETS?