I know.

It's just a bitch is all, even after almost a year.

You can not imagine how many times as a kid I used to ask, cajole, threaten, logic to get my dad to quit. He didn't listen. Even as an 8 year old kid, I knew he was doing something really stupid.

I just remember when he was in the hospital and the different health professionals would make the rounds and invariably the question would arise - "Do you smoke"

Answer, "No"

Question, "Did you used to smoke?"

Answer, "Yes, but I quit 12 years ago"

Followed by the look of understanding, i.e. Now I understand why you have lung cancer.

Truth be told, I understood that reaction.

My father's oncologist told me point blank that 50% of smokers will die of one cancer or another, despite what anyone tells you or thinks.

For the most part I don't agree with your analogy and besides these issues should be evaluated one at a time. I'm one of those who believes the government should almost always err on the side of less control. It doesn't matter to me which party Democrats or Republicans is doing the advocating.

To take just two items from your analogy I don't think for instance that taking the position that the government should allow us to own guns and also that the government should allow us to invest our FICA taxes in personal accounts is inconsistant.

I am for less government interference in most of the things you mentioned but am undecided on health care, missile defense, and global warming. I am leaning toward more control of health care because the system seems to be out of control and don't know enough about the others to have an opinion one way or the other yet.

I may eventually favor additional missile defense (more government) and less global warming legislation (less government). I don't see what is so wrong about being inconsistant on some of these matters that should discourage you from wanting to discuss them in these forums. Not everyone who is generally for less government sees everything as "Republican or conservative good" and Democrat or liberal bad".

I totally agree, and the government doesn't dictate where or when you may drive (unless you are totally nuts and want to go the wrong way on a 1 way street...lol).

This is just the beginning and people don't understand because it is easy to hate the effects of smoking. But let's look at it from this aspect.

Ok, we all agree the taxes from smoking are necessary to the respective local, state and federal governments. Now, without those taxes coming in, where do they get that money? Coffee? Fast food? Raise the gas taxes even more? Tax condoms? Tax soda? Tax whatever the government now deems to be "the killer" in society. What new "sin" will be taxed?

I don't drink coffee so tax the hell out of that. Besides I've seen reports where caffeine and coffee can cause cancers and health problems.

Fast food tax the hell out of that because we all know it just makes people obese, causes severe health problems and has no nutritional value.

Raise gas taxes... people need to drive to work and the public transportation systems offer crime, nasty seating conditions and in most cities take much longer to get where you want to go. Plus, it will cut down on all those nasty SUV's being driven about.

Where is the lost tax money from cigarettes going to come from? Hmmmmm....

Ok now let's look at the social aspect. If government can dictate where and when you may smoke, they then can dictate where and when you may drink coffee, eat fast food, drive your car, tell you what cars to drive and what cars not to drive, etc. and they can claim it is all for the common good and they have set precendence because they destroyed smokers rights.

When is enough government enough????? How can supposed conservatives who preach for less government truly support these issues?

Where will the money come from and what will be the next item targeted to be gotten rid of?

And yes, statistically the poor smoke more so they pay more tax. So whatever is next has to be something to hit the poor and lower class. Hmmmmmm fast food...... go bye bye.

Call me paranoid but this is where the government sees how they can control people and make people do what they believe to be right..... not what the individual believes.

I don't support this at all.

"Sin" taxes make my blood boil.

This is just a silly excuse to generate more money for more gov't programs.

It gets passed because enough people don't smoke and vote for it--thinking the gov't will actually use the money wisely.

They just released their "plan" for the new smoking tax money here in Colorado and I was pissed. The things they were going to spend the money on (from campaign commercials) is nowhere near where they are going to actually spend the money.

We wouldn't need stupid taxes like this if we could actually get politicians to curb their spending.

I would argue more liberals support smoking bans than conservatives.

As an update, they were talking about this on radio again today. They said that with the ordinance that is currently in place, only 200 of the 600 bars in Austin allow smoking. So to Manx, currently more than half of the bars in Austin already have smoking banned.

Also, they discussed 3 seperate bars/restaurants that have closed down as a result of the ordinance already in place with all of the owners citing the smoking ban as the reason for their inability to stay in business.

Also listed this website: www.keepaustinfree.com

OUR CURRENT SMOKING ORDINANCE MANDATES:

Quote:
Of 46,000 businesses in Austin, over 99% are smoke free.
No smoking is allowed anywhere children under 18 are present.
Over 2000 restaurants are smoke free. Only 6 allow smoking.
Over 400 bars are smoke free. Only 200 allow smoking.
Only 211 businesses and their employees have chosen to allow smoking in Austin.


Ah, see, now that's a win-win: Places to smoke AND places that are smoke free and everyone stays in business and everyone has a choice.

On another note, who says bars are going out of business cause you can't smoke inside? I haven't heard about that.

Well, look at the bright side, at least the former bartenders don't have to worry about second hand smoke. Now all they have to worry about is finding another job! The anti-smoking nazis really are looking out for the good of the little guy, aren't they?

An idea I haven't seen discussed anywhere in this argument (perhaps I missed it) is a smoking license. Much like an alcohol license, it serves to answer both sides of the issue. It generates revenue for the government, but the cost to the owner is made up by increased patronage from smokers, and bars that choose not to pay for the license are attractive to the nonsmokers. What's the problem with this theory?

What is listed above is the ordinance already in place, not the one being proposed.They were discussing the places that have already gone out of business on the radio. They said the reason a lot of the places will close is smokers tend to drink more alcohol than nonsmokers, and stay longer than nonsmokers. I imagine the businesses under the ordinance currently in place had a significant amount of their income coming from smokers, but not enough alcohol sales (at least 50% of their total income) to let them allow smoking.They are framing this in Austin as a worker health issue, not a customer health issue.

On the economic impacts of smoking bans: there have been several peer-reviewed studies published that have showed that the only impact of bans, if any, has been to increase profits of restaurants and bars in NY, Florida, Texas, and elsewhere. Here's a popular article on the subject:

(no link available)

On the question of who supports smoking bans, liberals or conservatives: There have been many polls in the cities that currently have bans, conducted prior to the bans, and in almost every poll the great majority of respondents, regardless of political affiliation, supported the bans. Generally the only demographic group that did no support the bans was smokers.

In Canada, the support for bans (regardless of political party) is much greater than in the U.S.

There could be other factors as to why restaurants and bars are losing business - the most obvious would be the bad economy. People eat out less, go out less because they are losing jobs or need to save more money etc..

I like the Austin Ordinance - it gives the people choice. Kadath's idea for a "smoking license" is interesting too. I bet a combo would be good. Licensed smoking places with non-smoking places available to everyone and the city still makes a little revenue. If people don't like smoke, don't work/patronize there and go to the non-smoking joint.

I'll be at the bar at the smoke-free joint watching the game.

Licensing = regulation + bureaucracy + fees + oversight + more gov't programs + etc.

Bad equation in my book.

Sounds good as an idea, but it would just create more problems.

I say remove gov't from the equation.

Let demand rule. Let the market speak. But the people that don't like smoking actually have to get up off their duff and actually do something for once.

Why does the government have to do everything for you?

If it bothered you so much before these silly bans, why didn't you frequent non-smoking restaurants? Then, you tell the owner of the previous restaurant that you used to frequent, that you took your business elsewhere because he/she allowed smoking.

If enough people got off of their collective lazy asses and did this, their would be no need for a ban. Restaurants/bars that lost business because of smoking, would change their rules. Restaurants/bars that didn't lose business would stay the same.

Nobody loses.

Where did this mindset of the gov't doing everything for us come from?

How is this an example of the gov't doing everything for us? How is this an example of anything besides the government doing the will of the people? I'm pretty sure that this is the result of people getting off of their collective lazy asses an engaging in political organization.

Well, I answered this is my post.

In this case, you are having gov't do the work.

In my case, that I listed in my post, you do the work.

My way = you do it on your own and our gov't doesn't have to waste time/money with it.

Also my way = everybody gets what they want.

My way, again = doesn't cost a penny

The gov't way = costs more money and only the people in the "pro" column are happy.

Plus, you (collective) did for yourselves, rather than have gov't do the work for you.

The government didn't have to be involved in this.


Edit: I don't want government to engage in every "will of the people". If you want our gov't more socialistic, than obviously you would disagree with me. I think our government is big enough, we have enough laws and intrusion (too much, if you ask me), we don't need to expand its powers even more. At some point, people need to realize that they can accomplish many things on their own, without involving the government.

I'm not the one advocating the organization of the masses to force their will upon the capitalist, thereby altering the natural course of the market- don't shovel the socialist label off onto me.

I guess i just disagree with the notion that the government shouldn't be used to spread the will of the people. I disagree with the notion that it is somehow lazy for people to use the legislative branch as a means of improving their lives. The phrase "by the people for the people" comes to mind. What's the point of having a government if the people can't use it to make their lives better?

I disagree with the notion that smokers would be more pleased if bar owners willingly prohibited smoking rather than having it imposed on them by the countrymen and women. The smoker demographic is for the most part, one giant wet blanket. You claim that everybody gets what they want if they go your way, but i don't think that's the case. I think most smokers only pretend to care about the business owner's right to self determination because they can't think up any better argument against smoking bans. Many smokers could only get what they really want if they were allowed to smoke anywhere they wanted, everyone else be damned.

Um, that is how the natural course of the market works, why bring the government into it, unless you want more and more government in our lives.

This is a sin tax, pure and simple, plus the gov't is lying about how they are going to use the money.

There are a lot of sins in this world, without going the "reduce to ridiculous" route, which of your sins are you ok with being taxed or taxed even more?

My points stays the same, and I have been very consistent: this could have been accomplished without involving the government. We don't need more government, we need less. We are never going to have a truly balanced budget or decreasing deficits until we stop the growth of gov't. Yet, every election cycle, we vote to make the government bigger, not smaller.

I just don't get it.

That's funny because in Canada we've had 8 years of balanced budgets and have greatly reduced our enormous debt... and we would be considered largely socialist...

Imagine that...

The free market is good for somethings but the one thing it is definately not good at is looking after poeple. If the item being sold is cheaper to make and sell, even if it is harmful to the environment and people in general, it will win out... The priorities are wrong.

Just look at the history of leaded fuels for a prime example of this...

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/

Or seat belts, air bags...etc..

Many things can be accomplished without involving the government. Why bring government into anything? Anything is theoretically possible without a government. Why even have a government?

I believe that the government exists for whatever purpose the people see fit to use it for within the bounds of the constitution. "Big Government" is a boogeyman. Everyone hates big government until big government can help them.

How can you claim that we'll never have a "truly balanced budget or decreasing deficits until we stop the growth of gov't"? That assertion is more faith based than anything. See charlatan's post about canada.

Sin taxes do what they're supposed to do. They provide an incentive for people to stop doing certain things. It's the same principal as giving people and corporations tax breaks for doing certain things. It's rewarding people/corporations based on their good behavior, "good" being defined by the people making the laws. I don't see how you can support one without the other seeing as how they're two peas of the same pod. These things exist because the market is often completely inadequate when it comes to self regulation.

And you spend what on defense?

I am not talking about Canada, I am talking about my government. A government that thinks as long as there are checks left in the checkbook, they can still spend money.

What Canada does with its laws and how it spends its money has no bearing on my opinion.

I am coming from the limited gov't standpoint, so using Canada as an example isn't going to have any effect on me....at least when I want less gov't, not more.

Because there are some things the gov't can provide that the private sector can't. But, we are gonna go way into left field if we want to go into this one. I am not saying "no government", I am saying "less government".

I agree.

And banning smoking fits into this equation how?

No, it is not.

We consistently spend more than we bring in....way more. We run massive deficits because of this.

How do you fix overspending? Easy, you spend less. How do you spend less? Well, you can start by not wasting gov't time and money on something like this. Is it going to fix the problem? Nope. We need to cut back and quit going overboard in our entire fiscal policy. We need to decrease the scope of the gov't, not increase it. Plus, we need to take a close look at the current programs and see if we can do things more efficiently.

No faith needed on this one.

Anyone who supports this ban, or "sin taxes", doesn't give one shit about the "sinners" they are taxing.

"Sin taxes" are for creating revenue, nothing else.

If your argument were true, they wouldn't have long-term plans to spend this new found money, because the amount of money coming in would dwindle because everyone is now aware of their sin and people start to quit smoking.

Unfortunately, the opposite is true.

Here in Colorado, they just voted in a massive increase to the existing "sin tax" for cigarettes.

Guess how much is earmaked for "smoking cessation"? 16%.

84% of this new tax will be spent elsewhere. As I said, it isn't about cutting down on smokers. They don't want that, they want their money.

I'm sorry, this ban and sin taxes are bullshit, pure and simple.

Sounds like murky waters. Let me guess, you're the only one with the light?

The point is that you denounce big government until it benefits you. Then you rationalize it. If you don't see inconsistency, what do you see?


How is it not going to fix the problem? People want smoking banned in public places, they act legally using their wondrous magical powers as citizens of the republic to ban smoking in public. Problem solved. They decide that banning smoking in public is a worthwhile use of public resources. Bada boom bada bing, done and done.

Your opinion on the direction the government should go is your opinion. All predictions on economic matters are an act of faith.



I agree that sin taxes would probably be more effective if they made the cost of consumption prohibitive. Unfortunately in the instance of cigarettes that seems like a bad idea, since that would just create illicit markets.

All taxes are for creating revenue. Sin taxes create revenue and also discourage people from doing certain things. It may seem unfair, but life rarely is fair.

Yep, well, times are tough. The funny thing is the number of smokers who will complain about being exploited, yet still plop down that $5+ for a pack of smokes every day. They say the lottery is a tax on people who don't understand basic statistics. I would wager that cigarette taxes run along the same lines.

Maybe you have a case for sin taxes being bullshit. I still don't understand how the ban is bullshit though. Do you think liquor licenses are bullshit? Are health regulations bullshit?

We are just going to go in circles on your other stuff, but this really caught my eye.

What inconsistency? It is easy to throw out such an accusation, but much harder to back it up. I am not aware of any rationalizing I have done for the expansion of government.

If anything, I have said quite the opposite, and been very consistent about it.

On big government: banning smoking in public places makes for a cheaper and more efficient government than allowing smoking in public places. The medical costs of second hand smoke are staggering and local governments pay a big chunk of those costs.

It's much more efficient and cheaper to handle the problem with the legislative and executive branches than the judiciary. Every city that ever enacted a ban first commissioned an economic cost-benefit analysis and found that the economic benefits are enormous. In fact the only certain economic costs are to the tobacco companies.

So if you're in favor of a cheaper and more efficient government, then it's a no-brainer. You should be in favor of smoking bans in public places.

Maybe i misread what you were saying, but it seems like you express a huge dislike of big government. Then you agree with me that big government is a boogeyman. You agree that everyone hates it until it helps them. This seems to imply that you yourself quite enjoy big government if it suits your purposes. Forgive me for labelling you as inconsistent when you criticise others' support for something that you also support (big government when it suits you.)

My that's a pretty closed point of view... the thing I was trying to underscore is that smaller government is not always the solution. Here is an example of a goverment that is successful.

The whole big vs. small government is really a red herring wrt. the smoking ban. Government is always involved, whether or not smoking is banned. The question is not whether to involve it, the question is how to involve it.

If public smoking is not banned, then second-hand smoke causes cancer, disability, and death, and government is involved in paying out the medical costs, the unemployment payments, the disability payments, the life insurance payments, higher health insurance rates, litigation costs, court costs, etc.

If smoking is banned, then government is involved in enforcing the ban.

Which option involves less government?

It looks like second hand smoke isn't the only thing that bothers people. Maybe the government can enforce a non-perfume policy, Just kidding: :)

Nope, I didn't agree to that.

Wow, that's a classy way of calling me a liar.

Once again, I feel I have been very consistent with my views on big gov't. I don't support any increase to the size or scope of our gov't in almost any way that comes to my mind. That is not to say I won't ever support something, the possibility is always there. However, on the whole, I do not support it.

How many times do you want to go rounds on this? I have denied your accusation several times and your only response is to repeat the same accusation. :crazy:


That is actually a very good point, and I admit that I didn't think of it this way. I am so against expanding the gov't that I react quickly, maybe too quickly, to anyone's suggesting of expanding it.

I would mention on this point, however, that this argument only works if people actually stop smoking because of the bans.

I would guess that if any do, it is a very small percentage, thus making the potential cost savings practically negligible. But, once again, that is just a guess.

I would also note the story mentioned in this thread about the guy that got sick 12 years after quiting. That tells me that not every smoker that quits is going to save the gov't or the taxpayers any money.

So, it almost seems six-to-one-half-dozen-to-the-other on this.

This is because you are looking for a short term solution... Yes, those who quit now may get cancer 12 years later. But those who never start because of the bans (directly or indirectly) are good results... but results that will take time to realize.

??? No, the argument works if nonsmokers are no longer exposed to second-hand smoke.

Then what exactly did you agree to? A boogeyman is an imaginary monster use to frighten children into compliance. I made a statement claiming that the big government argument is of the boogeyman variety. You agreed. Everyone hates big government until big government can help them. You agreed with me. I assume that you are a part of that big group consisting of everyone. Agreeing with me here implies a certain level of guilt in this on your behalf. Excuse me if i thought that you meant what you said.



Once again, i apologize for assuming that you meant what you said.

Though i would be interested in how you define "big government". You say less government is better, and your standard seems to be based on the citizen's ability to get something done without the aid of the government. Is that not the basis for your opposition to the government involvement in the prohibition of public smoking? The citizens have it within their power to affect the market and bring about an end, or at the very least a decrease, in the amount of smoking allowed in public, correct?

Here's the thing. If that is the basis for your personal opinion as to whether a certain activity should justifiably require government help, well, then, that's not very strict criteria at all. In fact, i think that it could be argued that since it is the citizen who gives the government its power, that there is nothing the government can do that cannot also be accomplished by a sufficiently organized and motivated populace. Can you agree with me on that? Would this self empowered citizen group then essentially be a government, full of all the hugeness and bureaucracy that is inherent in any larger-than-small sized organization? Would that put us back where we started?

I see your distaste for big government, but i don't understand where you draw the line. I know you see the necessity of a big government for some things. If you admit that big government is at least in part a necessary thing, than how does it make sense to arbitrarily denounce something solely because it represents an increase in the size of government?

That argument won't fly unless you either accept the inherent hypocracy of judicious application or a universal steamroller of legislation that crushes every possible health-non enhancing act/interaction/process/substance ... you get the picture. The right of others to breath fresh air in a restaurant is persuable. The health cost of smoking is a specificly targeted argument that is more propoganda/spin doctor crap than anything else, or we would ban internal combustion and air conditioning and plastic and ...

filtherton -

I didn't edit well. I was agreeing with the first statement, not all of them. By showing all, I led you to believe I was referring to all of your comment. I just wasn't paying close enough attention when I was editing down your comment.

It is obvious, from my other comments, that I don't agree, with pretty much anything else you said.

Let me rephrase, since I gumbled up my previous attempt:
I agree with this comment--kinda hard not too.

However, I don't see how smoking bans can pass the constitutional water test.

Hell, the money we gave for the tsunami can't pass that test either, but we did it anyway. That doesn't mean the money was wrong, it just means we have been forgetting the constitution a lot lately.

We all have different beliefs regarding the role of gov't, the size, scope, etc. I fall under the "less is more" category--and always have--that is how I see gov't serving my purpose.

now am i making sense?

Yes, thank you.

Red Herring?

If this was really a health issue, couldn't we just ban alcohol. It is poison. Also, I would argue that the costs of alcohol far outweigh second-hand smoke. If you can find a study that suggests a few hours in a bar a week next to a guy smoking a cigarette kills 17,013 a year, I'd be glad to read it. I might be able to find a study that shows a few hours a week in a bar drinking alcohol leads to astronomical government/societal costs when compared to second-hand smoke ($185 billion!).

I just don't see how this is a societal health issue if alcohol is not.

PS. I think the $185 billion thing is probably high.


The Atlanta Journal and Constitution is hardly Peer-Reviewed. If smoking doesn't hurt sales, explain this (pay careful attention to where it says "Closed."

The article you posted seems to focus on restaurants, rather than bars. Also, the part about 76% of business owners saying the lost business... can we really just toss that out because it was just an opinion poll? I understand that it is not scientific, but that does not mean that there claims are unfounded.


Not that any of this really matters to me. As I said before, for me it is a freedom issue.

It's more than a health issue. It's a health issue in which unwilling people have their health compromised, due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever. I'm less concerned about banning a behavior that harms others needlessly than banning a behavior that harms only the user in privacy.

Drinkers don't force other people to drink, by virtue of being in public.

They both are. But people are obviously more open to a public smoking ban than an alcohol ban because because public smoking directly infringes on the rights of bystanders, whereas public drinking does not. That should be easy to see.

Nor did I say it was. However it referenced several peer reviewed studies that demonstrated economic benefits of the public smoking ban. Did you read it?

Of course. But we as a society tend to allow people to harm themselves in costly ways. However we generally don't take kindly to people harming innocent bystanders in costly ways.

That's hardly a peer-reviewed article. Nor is it remotely unbiased, having been published by smokersinc., a smoker's rights organization.

So you don't dispute its conclusions about the economic effects of a ban in restaurants?

Sure we can, if it conflicts with undisputed peer-reviewed studies.

Freedom for whom? Smokers or non-smokers?

I don't see it that way. If someone gets tanked at a bar and gets on the freeway, the "bystanders" can end up dead. So saying that only the drinker is harmed is not fair, especially if your the in the car he/she drives into.

I would say that people are more open to banning smoking because of simple majorities. Over 60% of people drink alcohol while about 25% of people (in Texas) smoke.
Is losing a life costly? If you can't see a connection between alcohol related fatalies and a cost to society, I might as well abandon this discussion.
I didn't say it was peer-reviewed. My point is that many owners say it hurts business. Think of it like this. When a smoking ban goes into effect and a business has an uncovered patio, people could still smoke outside. Smokers will go to this business rather than another. Because of the usually limited number of bars that have patio space, 10% of bars will experience increased sales, while others will lose sales. Usually small, independently owned bars. In Austin, the same thing applies to venues. Some open air venues, will automatically become the most popular with smokers. The smoke ban may have no aggregate negative effect of sales, but it affects each place individually.

As far as the article you posted. Look up that professor. He has spent his whole life trying to get rid of tobacco. It is not surprising that when he puts some data together, he comes up with the conclusions he was after. Is he not biased?

Studies (even scientific ones) sponsored by tobacco companies are not ipso facto wrong. Biased, yes. But everyone has an agenda. It is best to at least look at both sides.
Freedom for everyone. Freedom to choose whatever bar you want- be it smoking or smoke free.

Please explain the last statement. From the way I am reading it, you would rather ban smoking in private than public.

Actually, I thought retsuki03's analogy was pretty good.

When drinkers drive drunk, they put every person they are near in immediate danger, public or private. The family that is killed by a drunk driver didn't have drinks forced on them, they had a several thousand pound vehicle, manned by a drunk, forced on them.

And....anyone that has been in an accident with a drunk driver has "their health compromised due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever".

What about the kid beaten and abused by an alcholic parent? Would you say that "their health [was] compromised due to behavior that can easily be stopped without any hardship whatsoever".

Sounds very parallel to me.....drinking should be banned because of the risks/dangers it inflicts on the unwilling in society.......oh yeah, we tried that.

Edit: Jinx

You're really stretching... the harm to others caused by the irresponsible use of alcohol is completely different from the harm to others cause by the proper use of smoking tobacco.

Surely you can see the difference.

nope, I don't see a difference.

The drunk is "properly" drinking his/her alcohol. It is how they act after they consumed alcohol that is the problem.

The irresponsible act isn't the drinking, it is getting into a car after drinking. It isn't the "use" of alcohol.

And, according to most here, it is irresponsible for a smoker to "share" their smoke, so that would make it an "irresponsible" act.

Nope, don't see a stretch and don't see a difference.

Sure, and that's why drunk driving is illegal. And that's also why public smoking should be illegal.

Good analogy. Thanks for making my point.

I would just like to add....since the direction of the converstation is going this way....the person affected by the drunk driver doesnt in have to be in public.

They can be sitting in their house, minding their own business, and have their vehicle completly demolished by a drunk driver.....I know....its happened to me twice

Laws against driving drunk are really effective at stopping drunk driving. Therefore we can legislate a perfect society as defined by the majority.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." --CS Lewis

"Laws against murder are really effective at stopping murder. Therefore we can legislate a perfect society as defined by the majority."

So are you opposed to all laws, because laws reduce some people's freedom?

Exactly how are smokers in restaurants "tormented for their own good will"?

No, I don't oppose laws at all. I just draw the line if different places.

My point lies in the efficacy of the laws. There are ways to combat all society's ills.

Obesity?
Ban unhealthy food and have mandatory exercise.

Murder?
Outlaw guns, kill people who commit murder within a week of their crime, and show it on national television.

Drunk Driving?
Outlaw Alcohol.

What exactly is that point? That drunk driving laws are not effective, therefore we should not have drunk driving laws?

That drunk drivers are "tormented for their own good will" by drunk driving laws?

My point is, if the goal of society was truly to stopping drunk driving, the law most effective at this would be to outlaw alcohol... or maybe just a Breathalyzer on every car.

California is already this way, the whole state. It's great. If you're smoking in any public place, there is a hefty fine. Last time I believe it was $500.

I'm with Charlatan on this one, about thinking it's a great thing. I don't smoke nor have I ever tried it. I don't think I should be able to deal with it when others smoke around me.

I would say your argument is much stronger on things generally considered public, like beaches (even then I don't agree completely). But when we start talking about someone's private business, I strongly disagree.

So you're saying you're opposed to drunk driving laws, because they are ineffective in stopping drunk driving?

I'd accept a yes or no.

No, I am not opposed to drunk driving laws. I still believe they are ineffective.

There is some evidence to the contrary:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/...in533451.shtml
http://www.safety-council.org/news/m...n19-drunk.html
Basically, the rates of Drunk Driving have plummetted over the last 20 years in both the USA and Canada, which correlates to a push to catch drunk drivers on the road and in the legal system.

I'm not saying it was the sole cause, but it is a contributing cause. People now believe (at least around here) that driving drunk is stupid and wrong.

...lets not convolute things here. The effects of second hand smoke, amounts to nothing more than a minor annoyance, in very rare instances a major annoyance. I smoke, and i've been in places where it bothers me. Those who would suggest that their health is at risk by second hand smoke, as they come in contact with it, have let emotion COMPLETELY take over reason (if noone else has notices, this is the only thread host has posted in that wasn't accompanied by 3 pages of quoted articles "supporting" his points).

The obligation of proving the dangerous effects of second hand smoke is in your hands, but that will never happen because the effects are clear - they're nonexistant. Not only is there no scientific evidence, there isn't even obvious basic correlations to warrent a scientific study to prove this point. I could go on and on, but it's time to whip on on some poor eager nine-ball wannabe's. I'll see you when i'm 400 bucks richer.

:confused: "No scientific evidence..." Wow, I found these 3 links on google in less than 3 minutes, replete with references to scientific studies. Two of them are PDFs so I can't quote them.

Read 'em and weep matt:

SCIENTIFIC STUDY #1

SCIENTIFIC STUDY #2

SCIENTIFIC STUDY #3

You're just so blatantly ignorant/misinformed it's difficult to take your post seriously.

Not really. I was just stating an opinion. I know what the statistics, and in my opinion, the laws are ineffective. In your opinion, I guess they are, that is fine.

Regardless of your opinion, facts are facts. You could swear up and down that the Sun revolved around the Earth and it wouldn't mean squat since evidence and proof tell us otherwise. Ignore the evidence if you want, but doing so still doesn't put the word fact in quotation marks.

Edit: What do drunk driving laws have to do with anything anyway?

Ok... I am not ignoring the facts.

In 1982 - 26,173 Alcohol related fatalities
In 2003 - 17,013 Alcohol related fatalities

Wow. 35% reduction in over 20 years. Like I said before, I don't think they are effective. Just an opinion.

Why are we talking about DD?

We were talking about the societal costs of secondhand smoke vs. alcohol.

And how many car-miles in 1982 vs 2003? The rates have dropped more than 35% in the USA (about 50%, IIRC), and by 60%+ in Canada.

Just a fact.

There could be other effects: population aging, etc. And I'd admit the social effects that make drunk driving non-normative matter more than the laws, but the non-normativeness came from the increased enforcement of the laws.

But, 50% is pretty big.

As for smoking, there is lots of evidence that it kills people around them. Maybe not enough for smokers and tobacco manufacturers to believe it.

Sitting in a room with someone having a beer is not the same as sitting with someone that is having a smoke. How this streched this into drunk driving is beyond me.


Can you prove it's 100% safe 100% of the time?

good game that nine-ball...lots of fun. :thumbsup:

Fourtyfulz, as proud as you must be of yourself, and as pretty as those primary colors were in your google links, my blatently ignorant/misinformed opinion is based on multiple years of clinical cancer research. I've yet to see the epidemic of lung cancer cases caused by second hand smoke that you googlers seem to find in.... well, 3 seconds. Though "SHS" might sound real intimidating, it pales in comparison to your fear mongering.

Could you do be a big big favor and explain to me what you think a "scientific study" might be, and explain to me how those links meet those criteria.

Oh i'm weeping fourtyfulz, just not for the reasons you think i am.

"good game that nine-ball...lots of fun. "

That it is, my man. Those "eager little nine-ball wanna-be's" got the best of me tonight. Trying to play and run a tournament is next to impossible. Picture 20 "fourtyrulz" nipping at your ankles all nigt, while your just trying to run a rack. It sucks.

The NIH (National Institute of Health) devotes a page to the risks and effects of SHS that seems to be in stark disagreement with the opinion of matthew330.


<a href="http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_18.htm">http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_18.htm</a>

Because:

(1) KMA brought up DD as an argument by analogy to refute the idea that banning second-hand smoke is good.

(2) you brought up alcohol as an argument by analogy to refute the idea that banning second-hand smoke is good.

Now that it is clear that the analogy with alcohol actually does the exact reverse of what you and KMA want it to do, you suddenly wonder why we are talking about alcohol.

We are talking about alcohol and DD, because, in analogy, it makes the reasons for banning second-hand smoke crystal clear.

Is there anything about the argument that you don't understand?

Exactly right. And what did we find out? We found out that secondhand smoke has significant societal and government costs, therefore it is regulated by the government. And we found out that alcohol has significant societal and government costs, therefore it is regulated by the government. Neither alcohol nor smoking is banned. However, secondhand smoke is banned, and DD are banned for similar reasons.

No surprise.

So, to summarize, the comparison with alcohol that you introduced into the argument does nothing whatsoever to bolster your claim that banning secondhand smoke is wrong, by any criterion (e.g. by some "freedom" criterion or some "effectiveness" criterion, or by some "argument by analogy" criterion).

So the alcohol diversion that you introduced does nothing for either your argument or KMA's argument. If anything it clarifies quite convincingly why banning secondhand smoke in enclosed public spaces is consistent with other existing law and is a good idea.

Regardless of how ineffective DD laws are, laws banning secondhand smoke in enclosed public spaces are extremely effective.

So does this mean you're now in favor of banning secondhand smoke in public places? That seems to be the conclusion if you are now switching to an "effectiveness" criterion from your previous "freedom" criterion, which seems to have disappeared.

So to summarize, here are the main positions that people in this thread have put forward to bolster their claim that banning secondhand smoke in enclosed public spaces is wrong.

(1) Secondhand smoke is not harmful.
(2) Banning secondhand smoke requires bigger, more expensive government.
(3) Banning secondhand smoke reduces "freedom"
(4) Banning secondhand smoke is "ineffective"
(5) Banning secondhand smoke is inconsistent with how we as a society treat alcohol.

Every single one of these positions has been completely and convincingly refuted.

Correct? Does anybody opposed to the ban still hold any of the above positions and is still willing to discuss the issue?

In the end, what it comes down to is that smokers want to be able to smoke where and when they feel like it and "fuck you" if you have a problem with that...

Often seems that way to me. And this idea that second hand smoke isn't dangerous is asinine. When your house is on fire, they tell you to crawl under the smoke to escape. That's because smoke is not good for you. Add in tar, cyanide, nicotene, and a few dozen other noxious chemicals to regular smoke and you've got second hand smoke, which is certainly not gonna be any better for you than regular smoke.

As I always tell smokers, if you want to slowly kill yourself that's your perogative, but you may not take me with you.

Alcohol was brought in as an analogy on purpose.

I find this really, really funny.....and very typical.

One of the reasons for this ban is to protect the "greater good". However, when it is pointed out that more people die from alcohol related injuries/event/etc, than the "greater good" goes away and is replaced by whether or not the substance in question was used "properly".

And I quote:
So, now the greater good is more considered about whether or not the act that is "killing" them is being done responsibly and properly?

Wouldn't the "greater good" benefit from a ban on alcohol and smoking? If we don't ban alcohol, won't more of the "greater good" die needlessly. Is that what we are trying to stop here folks, senseless deaths?

Or are we trying to accomplish something that has absolutely nothing to do with the "greater good", smoking or drinking?

If you are really, truly trying to protect the "greater good" (who just can't survive without your help, I might add) than you would be consistent and not try and change the rules mid-stream so we can sit down and figure out if the drunk driver used the alcohol properly or not.

How many deaths per year are directly/indirectly attributed to alcohol?

I bet the number is greater than smoking.

If you are so concerned about the "greater good", than you would ban alcohol as well as cigarettes, it is the only natural conclusion to this argument.


By the way - that "3,000 deaths" a year from second-hand smoke line came from a 1993 EPA report that was eventually overturned in court:

Multiple sources for similar material

LINK #1
LINK #2
LINK #3
LINK #4 - This one is from PBS

not even fuckin' close

1)The "dangers" of second-hand smoke are still under debate.

2)It does require "bigger/more expensive" gov't - because no one can prove that banning smoking actually makes smokers stop (by an measurable percentage)

3) It does - when was this refuted?

4) This one is probably true

5) I still contend it is - how can you be concerned about the "greater good" and keep a blind-eye to something that kills more people, destroys more lives, etc.

Nice try, but no, you didn't refute shit.

You also didn't win shit, either.

Cancel the parade, because I (and many, many others) still disagree with you.

No one is swayed.

No opinions were changed.

And just because you think you are right, don't mean shit to us, because we don't think you are even remotely right.

Matt,

The personal attacks are childish at best and definitely not appreciated. Ever head of an "ad hominem" argument? Here are the studies referenced in my links:

References
1.Woodward A, Laugesen M. Deaths in New Zealand attributable to second-hand cigarette smoke. A report to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, September 2000.
2.Woodward A, Laugesen M. Morbidity attributable to second-hand cigarette smoke in New Zealand. A report to the New Zealand Ministry of Health, March 2001.
3. Health Sponsorship Council (2002) Youth Lifestyle Survey, Wellington, Health Sponsorship Council

Fact Sheet on Secondhand Smoke
James. Repace, MSc., Physicist
Repace Associates, Inc., Secondhand Smoke Consultants
Bowie, Maryland 20720, U.S.A.
Ichiro Kawachi, PhD, Associate Professor
Department of Health and Social Behavior
Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Stanton Glantz, PhD., Professor
Department of Cardiology, University of California, San Francisco
San Francisco, California, U.S.A.

and lastly...

The Oklahoma State Department of Health

Not to mention the vast set of resources referenced in host's link to the NCI.

No would would appreciate being set in front of a smoking campfire, why should anyone put up with it in a public place? If smoking is proven to kill the smoker himself, why would it be any different for those who breathe in secondary smoke? The argument just isn't logical in my mind. Saying that secondary smoke is inconsequential might as well say that smoking isn't bad for you.

Also, simply because you disagree with the facts doesn't make them go away.

I should probably clarify something here.

I am not saying second-hand smoke is healthy or that it doesn't cause harm.

I am disputing the how much harm it causes--for every study that says it is a killer, there is another study that says it isn't, this is the case with many "studies".

However, the quality of the studies is difficult to compare as there is plenty of free money for someone to study the dangers of second-hand smoke, while any study to refute the claim must come from private money--what school/university/gov't foundation is going to publically fund a study on against the dangers of second-hand smoke?

As for me, I can't stand second-hand smoke. I hate it. But I would never agree to a ban of it. It is very simple for me. If I don't want me or my family to inhale second-hand smoke, than we don't go around smoke--simple solution and I didn't need the government to help me.

I have never, ever been in a situation where I was forced to inhale second-hand smoke.

And there is no way I would believe that second-hand smoke, in the open air, is dangerous.

Hell, I grew up in L.A.--i would venture to guess that breathing the air in L.A. for 18 years is much, much more dangerous than second-hand smoke that is, in effect, filtered.

Smog ain't filtered - second-hand smoke is....twice actually.

Not among research scientists, they are certainly not under debate. The scientific consensus, as has been pointed out many times, is that second hand smoke is a significan cause of cancer, lung disease, and heart disease.

I doubt that you and a few others in this forum are better informed about the medical issues here than several international panels and the Surgeon General of the United States.

You certainly did not show this. Where is the proof?

Faulty logic. All you need to demonstrate is that secondhand smoke is a health hazard, and that banning it eliminates the health hazard. If it eliminates the health hazard, then it must necessarily eliminate the cost that the government carries to deal with that particular health hazard. And several independent estimates of the costs have indicated that they are indeed “measurable” (your word). So by your standard you should now concede that banning smoking does reduce expensive government.

(1) So you’re saying that banning secondhand smoke reduces the “total freedom” in some population? Let’s see, under a ban: the entire population is “freer” to do business and to work without being exposed to harmful chemicals. A small subset of the population is less free to pollute the air wherever they please. So: the whole population has greater freedom to breathe clean air, while a small subset has less freedom to poison the air.

Or to approach it a different way, we can ask the public which provides greater freedom, freedom from smoke, or freedom to smoke. In every case a vote had been put to the public so far, they voted overwhelmingly in favor of freedom from smoke. In Miami, for instance, the vote was 70% in favor of “freedom from smoke”.

That sounds to me like a resounding vote that the ban increases freedom, in the most meaningful test of the concept that a society can make.

(2) The entire purpose of laws is to reduce freedom, of those engaging in an act that causes harm or injustice. The “freedom” criterion simply doesn’t hold water, unless you are opposed to all laws. Are you opposed to all laws?

Good, so we have dispensed with the "ineffective" argument.

Nobody keeps a blind eye to the effects of alcohol. Where did you arrive at this idea? That’s precisely why alcohol is regulated. The manner in which alcohol is regulated is completely consistent with the manner in which secondhand smoke is regulated. Where is the contradiction?


Really? Many polls have been made to gauge public support of the secondhand smoke bans, and in general the support among conservatives and liberals has been overwhelmingly in favor of the ban. In reality, very few people disagree with me.

We're still enjoying the parade here in Florida, and there's no cancellation in sight. You're welcome to join in the festivities anytime.

Well I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true, given the intellectual stubbornness of the average person, and their inability to confront the real psychological reasons they believe something.

And yet you still have yet to make an argument that is not extremely easy to refute.

It may be difficult for you to compare, but it is not difficult for research professionals to compare. If it's so difficult for you then why bother? Why not just leave it to the international panels and the surgeon general?

And if you do leave it to them, the conclusion that secondhand smoke is a significant danger to public health is inescapable.

That's a red herring. Nobody is advocating a ban of secondhand smoke outdoors.

I have less problem with people committing suicide slowly and painfully, than I have of people killing other people.

Beating your wife is illegal, even if you are drunk.
Breating smoke into the air in an enclosed, shared space is going to be illegal to a lesser extent.
Drinking yourself stupid is usualy not that illegal.

I'll ban alchohol while driving. I'll ban smoking while you are breathing smoke into random other people's lungs.

I haven't seen a study that says "second hand smoke cause no harm beyond a reasonable doubt".

There are 3 possible results from a study.
1> The effect was proved, beyond a statistical reasonable doubt.
2> The effect was disproved, beyond a statistical reasonable doubt.
3> The study was inconclusive, up to a statistical reasonable doubt.

I've seen people refer to type 3 studies as if they where type 2.

Not being able to show the effect in a study is not strong evidence the effect is not there.
Being able to show the effect in a study is strong evidence.
Being able to show the effect does not exist in a study is strong evidence.
Inconclusive studies are just inconclusive. They don't disprove the effect being studied. They are inconclusive. Lack a conclusion. Insert more thesaurus entiries here.

O.K., I kinda brought in a ringer to the "second-hand" smoke issue.

I just got off the phone with my mother-in-law, who was a cancer researcher for NCI (National Cancer Institute).

Here is the gist of what she said:

1) Very few people say that second-hand smoke is good for you, but the actual danger of second-hand smoke is very contentious.

2) Hairdressers are in more danger to the chemicals they are around then people being around second-hand smoke.

3) Most of the studies were not done blind, with "true" histories of the subjects. When you go into a study with a specific opinion, you will always come out of the study proving your own point.

4) It is virtually impossible to know, for a fact, everything a person has inhaled in their lives. Because of this, it is next to impossible to prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that second-hand smoke is the culprit in every case mentioned.

She likened it to high cholesterol. In the mid-90's, there was a report that high cholesterol "doubled" your chance of having a heart attack. The truth was, that the number went from 3 in a 1000 to 6 in a 1000. By saying the chance "doubled" it led us to believe high cholesterol was a much bigger killer than it was. Yes, in fact, the number doubled, but going from 3 to 6, statistically, is nothing.

And...I'm sure everyone remembers the studies about the health hazards of egg yolks, right? We all believed that one, right? What do we think now?

no references here, I am just offering up info from someone who actually researched cancer.

Edit: BTW, she is a published cancer researcher, if that helps. I read her published thingy--friggin' Greek if you ask me.

no, not a red herring, as the idea has been discussed many times. I believe, I don't know for sure, but I believe that is it banned in public in Boulder, CO.--I will check.

Edit: it isn't in Boulder, but I have heard people broach the idea.

Talk about reaching.

Show me a study that says this.

Show me one that says "second-hand smoke is a significant cause of cancer, lung disease, and heart disease".

Post up the quote from a "real" study, that was done blind, that says this and I will concede the point.

Look, all I am saying is I don't think that is effective. You may think it is. I am not ignoring the facts, I acknowledge that the rates have declined. But ask those 17,000 families how effective the laws are, then you will know where i am coming from.

I'm sure you'll argue with this because it's based off of scientific reviews (six) and not a blind study, but

http://www.otru.org/pdf/special/special_ets_eng.pdf

That was about 3 minutes of just Google searching. I can talk to my buddy at Merck with access to actual study databases and see if he can turn anything up if you want, but I have a feeling you'd argue regardless, and I feel silly pulling in outside resources for TFP Politics argument about smoking bans.

You do know what a blind study is right?

It means that they didn't have the intended result going into the study.

That being said, you are right, I will argue this one, very, very easily.

Look at the references.

Look at reference #1

Do you see anything wrong with that one?

Hint: read my links above.

In other words, this paper proves exactly what they wanted it to prove before they did any research.

Also, look at what they want: all smoking to be banned that could be anywhere near another person, inside or out. I thought "nobody would want to ban smoking outdoors"--these people have an agenda, and they won't let facts get in their way.

I am more than willing to admit that second-hand smoke is bad.

I am not willing, unless I see proof A LOT BETTER than this, to admit second-hand smoke is as dangerous as some people would like us to believe.


Once again: Remember when all of the studies came out about how dangerous egg yolks were? What happened there? But....but...but...those were studies done by smart people that know things! Well, we knew better before them and we know better know.

Not quite.

A blind experiment is designed so that individuals do not know whether they are so-called "test" subjects or members of an "experimental control" group.

ALL science involves stating a hypothesis and then attempting to prove or disprove it. That being said, I agree that trying to prove something you already believe to be true could be viewed as a conflict of interest by someone looking to discredit you.



And this is how I know you will argue regardless. Even if a double blind (neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group) study turns up the result you ask for, you can always point back to your egg study and say "We'll know better in the future, science makes mistakes all the time."

I think I am abusing my terms.

I am referring to a study where there isn't an intended result.

In other words, we want to study second-hand smoke, not study to see the dangers of second-hand smoke--the later has an obvious bias going into it.

But, I think you knew what I meant even if I am linguistically-challanged.

What about my comments regarding using a proven, bogus study as the very first reference.

Anyhow, my egg comment isn't to disprove anything scientific, it is just to show that science isn't the be all and end all of society. Scientists can put out bogus information just as easily as I can. Plus, it is very easy to make a study prove what you want it to prove--it just depends on how you handle your "victims".

Well, the problem, and I admit it is a problem, is that you aren't going to get someone to study the effects of secondhand smoke just out of curiosity. Science costs, and it's going to be funded by either the NIH(which is likely against smoking) or the tobacco companies(and we know how they feel).

I did know what you meant. I wasn't trying to play gotcha, just correcting your terminology. As long as we are going to discuss scientific studies and your criteria for what would be an acceptable study for you to admit secondhand smoke was bad, I want to be clear about what you want to see. As for the study being bogus, I don't know. I will admit I just loaded a Google search with ["second-hand smoke" "significant cause" "lung heart disease"] and found that paper as a reference in the first five results. I didn't even read beyond the first few pages or bother to look at the studies; I was just throwing up the first thing I found that matched your criteria because I supected you would find fault with whatever I found and so I wasn't going to commit a lot of resources to it.

This is my point. You'll accept science as long as it says what you want, but if it goes against you, you can always duck back behind "science isn't always right" or "it's easy to make science say what you want." If we are going to go with that conclusion then the whole argument becomes even more meaningless than it already was, because I will never be able to give you anything that you can't dodge in one of the above ways. I think at this point we have both spent enough time going round and round, but if you want to take a fresh approach I am all for it; I'm not trying to get the last word, just wondering if we have anything left to gain.

No, I didn't think you were playing gotcha--I got caught up in my own verbal problem.

Anyways...

Do you find it odd that the one study that is used most often as a reference is flawed?

i.e.

From the above PBS link.

This is what really makes me wonder about how serious the "dangers" are.

If the study that started this whole ball o' wax is off the mark....and then the rest use it as a launching point.....couldn't you at least see why I question this?

Anyway, who would be suicidal enough (other than the tobacco industry) to fund a study to counter the second-hand argument?

As I said before, I hate second-hand smoke, it bugs the piss out of me, so I don't think that my mindset is so set that I couldn't be convinced if there was a "serious" problem. However, if second-hand smoke is less dangerous than living in L.A., then I don't get the whole "ban smoking" thing.

Some people want to ban smoking and some people want to ban alcohol (again).
If people don't want to be around smoke then don't go to establishments that permit smoking.
If people don't want to be around alcohol then don't go to establishments that permit drinking.
These are both legal substances and no one is forcing you to go to places that permit the consumption of them and we should not force businesses to change their policy just to accommodate you. Just go someplace else.

I don't understand your logic on this, KMA. I hope you don't interpret this as condescension, but why do you believe that the first study (referenced in the first link) is a "springboard" for other studies?

The only reason it's the first citation is because it came first in the paper, presumably because it was chronologically first within the series the authors reviewed. But the thing that bothers me is that you seem to be thinking that, and this is just ceding that the first study was even bogus for the sake of asking you the next question, an earlier study being tainted would somehow impugn the rest of a series of independent studies, from around the globe, no less.

The later studies don't hinge on the validity of the first study.

To answer your question as to why one would study the harms of second hand smoke versus just general curiousity about the smoke is a very odd notion to me and perhaps any other scientist. Unless you are going to dispute that cigaratte smoke is related to those diseases, how would you then wonder whether the smoke coming off the cigarette doesn't in some way harm people inhaling it? The logical question would be, how much? Not whether. The same chemicals going into the lungs of smokers are wisping off into the air, minus whatever protection the filter provides.

I smoked for over ten years and I have an occasional cigarette probably once a month or every few weeks depending on my company. I don't see how you could discard a meta-analysis with 52 references because your assessment that one study from that list is flawed.

OK, I'll see your ringer and raise you three.

Here are my three ringers: the American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health, and the Surgeon General of the United States (under Reagan). Let's take the three in order.

Dr. Michael Thun is vice president of the Department of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research of the American Cancer Society in Atlanta GA. He is also a published researcher in cancer epidemiology. What is his opinion about the scientific consensus on the medical harm of SHS (secondhand smoke)? Here it is:

And I'd like to point out that this is the fourth time this quote has been linked or posted in this thread.

On to the National Cancer Institute (of the NIH). The NCI has a position paper on the medical impacts of SHS. This position paper is based on a review of all the current published research on the medical effects of SHS, which consists of over 100 controlled, peer reviewed studies as of today. What is their position on the medical impacts of secondhand smoke? Here it is:

And I'd like to point out that this is the third time this information has been linked or posted on this thread.

On to the Surgeon General of the United States. In 1986 the SG office issued its report summarizing its review of some 60 published research reports on the impacts of secondhand smoke. Here are its conclusions:

And this is the fourth time this report has been referred to or linked to in this thread.

So to summarize: Yes there is an obvious, objectively demonstrable scientific consensus that SHS is a significant risk for cancer, heart disease, and lung disease.

Here's a suggestion, KMA. Scroll up the page to Host's post. In his post is a link to the NIH NCI fact sheet on secondhand smoke. Take several minutes to read through it.

The National Institutes of Health is one of the most authoritative scientific bodies in existence on the current knowledge of medical science across the globe. If they don't convince you that there is a current consensus among research scientists that SHS is a significant risk of cancer, lung disease, and heart disease, then I doubt that I or anyone else will be able to convince you.

But feel free to read through that sheet carefully, then come back and post your conclusion either way.

If you concede the point, then condede. If not, then explain why and we can continue the discussion.

Amen to that :)

You just don't get it do you, I will try again.

I agree that second-hand smoke is bad, to a degree.

I, however, totally disagree with your "significant" assertion and you haven't provided squat-shit to back that up. Why do you keep missing this and posting the same shit and then repeat your "significant" line?

Is my point, whether you agree with it or not, getting across yet.

Also, the NIH study is linked to the EPA study - whaddya think that means?

So your position has now become a position about vague and ambiguous semantics.

Nope.

How can I possibly know what will convince you or anybody else if you fail to tell me what, precisely, will convince you?

So here's a question for you: what's your definition of "significant"? Please be as specific as possible.

If you can define it in a way that doesn't leave enough wiggle room for a truck to drive through, then we might get somewhere.

I think that means that the NIH, like the 18 independent scientists who peer-reviewed the EPA study and found its results valid, also finds the study valid.

By the way, my definition of significant is: "the probability is less than 5% that, under the null hypothesis, the results would be as extreme or more extreme than those observed."

OK, a grand total of 3 minutes on MedLine gave these two studies on the first search page:

So SHS can under normal circumstances increase the risk of both lung cancer and heart attack by around 30%.

I wonder if anybody would consider 30% significant?

And these are just two of dozens of studies. I could keep posting these all day long.

less than 5%? How can that be significant?