[...] the Congressional Research Service noted that, of the 30 studies the EPA incorporated into its analysis, "six found a statistically significant (but small) effect, 24 found no statistically significant effect and six of the 24 found a passive smoking effect opposite to the expected relationship."
Italics mine. Those last studies "show" that ETS reduces the risk cancer (and various cardio-pulmonary disorders) to the same extent the first batch "show" ETS increases that risk. Or we could agree that correlation does not equal causation and that the studies in question don't "show" anything.
The situation, as I see it, is as follows.
The majority of medical professionals now believe second hand smoke is dangerous.
What they believe is beside the point; there was a time when a majority of medical professionals believed in the four humors, blood-letting and all that. What counts is what is supported by scientific evidence.
Everyone agrees that second hand smoke can be a powerful irritant.
An irritant, certainly; how powerful is the matter under discussion here. I don't think it's unreasonable to assert that whereas an activity which carries a genuine risk of causing cardio-pulmonary disorders (lung cancer, emphysema, heart disease etc.) in others is a matter which justifies government intervention, something that at worst inflicts smelly clothes, brief headaches and minor respiratory discomfort makes for a less compelling case.
This applies especially in the context of imposing blanket smoking bans in bars. Nobody
needs to visit a bar, in the sense that one needs to visit a grocery store or a doctor's office or a vehicle licensing center. One visits a bar to engage in activities one finds pleasurable, and many of these activities have potentially detrimental effects on one's health, not least the consumption of alcohol. The notion that the health of bar patrons needs protecting is a ludicrous one; even the anti-smoking crusaders acknowledge this, which is why they push for smoking bans under the guise of "workers' protection."
Smokers possessed of sense and reason - i.e. the majority - understand this. They welcome such action. They understand that smoking is not being banned and they understand that such regulatory measures are necessary and indeed inevitable in a progressive civilised society.
A small minority of selfish, small-minded individuals do not agree that smoking should be regulated. They have no valid argument other than they don't see why they shouldn't be able to do what they want when they want, regardless of who they physically harm or otherwise negatively affect. They argue is that non-smokers should stay indoors if they don't want to be exposed to others' smoke.
I count at least two fallacies here, namely a false dichotomy regarding smokers' attitudes, and an
argumentum ad hominem directed as smokers who don't agree with you (who are supposedly devoid of "sense and reason").
Have you actually
read the thread? One smoker after another, myself included, has stated that he doesn't think that smokers should have the right to smoke
anywhere they please. As I myself put it:
I don't care if I can't smoke everywhere, but I would like to be able have somewhere I can smoke and have a roof over my head and, ideally, a pint in front of me, all at the same time.
We're fine with not smoking in stores, office buildings, restaurants. We're fine with not smoking in bars of which the management has decided not to allow smoking on the premises because a substantial number of their customers demanded it. But what we refuse to accept is that there is a legitimate need to ban smoking in
all bars by force of law.
I don't see a problem. There are always those who are too stupid and / or selfish to voluntarily conform to change and need to be forced into compliance by the introduction of laws.
But if you're going to go that route, why not extend it to
all recreational activities with potential health risks? If any threat to public health justifies outlawing an activity, what reason is there not to outlaw bars, nightclubs and the like entirely? Why not outlaw sports which might result in severe injury and thus place an unnecessary burden on the health care system, not to mention the expense of mounting search and rescue operations in the case of climbers and boaters? Why not outlaw the use of motor vehicles for recreational purposes (such as going on holiday)?
Personally, I detest the term "nanny state," but it sounds to me like that is what you're advocating. Or are you like so many people, who resents government intervention when it affects them personally, but is perfectly happy to have it inflicted on others?
