Smoking Ban - Page 5 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Yakk · 03-07-2005, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by retsuki03

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.

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.

splck · 03-07-2005, 08:40 PM

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

The obligation of proving the dangerous effects of second hand smoke is in your hands.....

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

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

matthew330 · 03-07-2005, 09:37 PM

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.

matthew330 · 03-07-2005, 10:03 PM

"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.

host · 03-07-2005, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

...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.

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>

raveneye · 03-08-2005, 04:58 AM

Quote:

Why are we talking about DD?

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?

raveneye · 03-08-2005, 05:08 AM

Quote:

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

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.

raveneye · 03-08-2005, 05:11 AM

Quote:

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

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.

raveneye · 03-08-2005, 05:15 AM

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?

Charlatan · 03-08-2005, 06:03 AM

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...

shakran · 03-08-2005, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 07:56 AM

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:

Quote:

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.

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:

Quote:

Late last week a federal district judge issued a withering ruling on agency research purporting to link second-hand cigarette smoke - also known as environmental tobacco smoke - with cancer in non-smokers. EPA had claimed the smoke was a potent carcinogen that causes 3,000 cancer deaths a year, give or take several thousand. District Judge William Osteen, however, accused the agency of Alice in Wonderland-style justice, in which the verdict comes before the evidence.

"In this case," he wrote, "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun, excluded industry by violating [statutory] procedural requirements; adjusted established procedure and scientific norms to validate the Agency's public conclusion, and aggressively utilized [statutory] authority to disseminate findings to establish a de facto regulatory scheme intended to restrict Plaintiff's products and to influence public opinion."

He continued: "In conducting the ETS Risk Assessment, EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information, did not disseminate significant epidemiologic information; deviated from its Risk Assessment Guidelines; failed to disclose important findings and reasoning; and left significant questions without answers. EPA's conduct left substantial holes in the administrative record. While so doing, EPA produced limited evidence, then claimed the weight of the Agency's research evidence demonstrated ETS causes cancer."

In short, this risk assessment is worth every penny the recycling industry is willing to pay for it, but not much else. Even grading it on a government curve doesn't help. Still, EPA officials said they will probably appeal the decision. They also claim most scientists and health experts side with them about the potency of second-hand smoke.

Unfortunately for the agency, even if one is somehow able to overlook all of the errors in the study, second-hand smoke still doesn't amount to much of a risk. Said one of the report's co-authors, Steven Bayard, in the wake of its release, "I don't think the risk of lung cancer in non-smokers in general is very high." Likewise Morton Lippman, head of the EPA Science Advisory Board that reviewed the second-hand smoke findings, called it "a small added risk, probably much less than you took to get here through Washington traffic." The Congressional Research Service raised its own questions about the study, arguing, among other things, that the findings on the exposure levels of non-smokers to cigarette smoke were based on the their recollections rather than scientific measurements.

Multiple sources for similar material

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

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

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.

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.

Fourtyrulz · 03-08-2005, 08:21 AM

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.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 08:34 AM

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.

raveneye · 03-08-2005, 08:41 AM

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

2)It does require "bigger/more expensive" gov't

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

Quote:

- because no one can prove that banning smoking actually makes smokers stop (by an measurable percentage)

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.

Quote:

3) It does - when was this refuted?

(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?

Quote:

4) This one is probably true

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

Quote:

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.

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?

Quote:

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

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.

Quote:

No one is swayed.

No opinions were changed.

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.

Quote:

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

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

raveneye · 03-08-2005, 08:48 AM

Quote:

However, the quality of the studies is difficult to compare

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.

raveneye · 03-08-2005, 08:49 AM

Quote:

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

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

Yakk · 03-08-2005, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA

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".

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA

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.

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA

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".

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.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 09:06 AM

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.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

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

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.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

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.

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.

retsuki03 · 03-08-2005, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yakk

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.

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.

Kadath · 03-08-2005, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

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

Quote:

It is concluded that:
· Exposure to second-hand smoke causes the following diseases and conditions:
In adults
· Heart disease
· Lung cancer
· Nasal sinus cancer

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.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

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

/snip

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.

Kadath · 03-08-2005, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

You do know what a blind study is right?

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

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."

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 06:52 PM

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".

Kadath · 03-08-2005, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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".

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.

KMA-628 · 03-08-2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kadath

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.

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.

Quote:

Last week, in North Carolina, the federal judge in the case sided with the industry, saying the EPA made serious mistakes five years ago in evaluating the risk of second-hand smoke. In his ruling, Federal District Judge William Osteen said the "EPA publicly committed to a conclusion before research had begun" and the "EPA disregarded information and made findings on selective information."

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.

flstf · 03-09-2005, 12:28 AM

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.

smooth · 03-09-2005, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMA-628

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.

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.

raveneye · 03-09-2005, 06:02 AM

Quote:

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

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:

Quote:

"The consensus of multiple health committees from around the world, including the surgeon general, is that secondhand smoke is definitely related to lung cancer and heart disease, and may be also be related to chronic lung disease."

--Dr. Michael Thun, in an interview with WebMD

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:

Quote:

What are the health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke?

Secondhand smoke exposure is a known risk factor for lung cancer (1, 3, 4, 6, 7). Approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths occur each year among adult nonsmokers in the United States as a result of exposure to secondhand smoke (2). Secondhand smoke is also linked to nasal sinus cancer (1, 4). Some research suggests an association between secondhand smoke and cancers of the cervix, breast, and bladder. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link to these cancers (3, 4, 8).

Secondhand smoke is also associated with the following noncancerous conditions:

* chronic coughing, phlegm, and wheezing (4, 6, 7)
* chest discomfort (4)
* lowered lung function (4, 6, 7)
* severe lower respiratory tract infections, such as bronchitis or pneumonia, in children (4, 6, 7)
* more severe asthma and increased chance of developing asthma in children (6)
* eye and nose irritation (4)
* severe and chronic heart disease (4)
* middle ear infections in children (4, 6)
* sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) (4)
* low birth weight or small size at birth for babies of women exposed to secondhand smoke during pregnancy (4)

Certain other noncancerous health conditions may also be associated with secondhand smoke. However, more research is needed in order to confirm a link between these conditions and secondhand smoke. These conditions include:

* spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) (4)
* adverse effect on cognition and behavior in children (4)
* worsening of cystic fibrosis (a disease that causes excessive mucus in the lungs) (4)

--SHS Fact Sheet, NCI

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:

Quote:

After careful examination of the available evidence, the following overall conclusions can be reached:

1. Involuntary smoking is a cause of disease, including lung cancer, in healthy nonsmokers.

2. The children of parents who smoke, compared with the children of nonsmoking parents, have an increased frequency of respiratory infections, increased respiratory symptoms, and slightly smaller rates of increase in lung function as the lung matures.

3. Simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, exposure of nonsmokers to environmental tobacco smoke.
Exposure to environmental tobacco smoke occurs at home, at the worksite, in public, and in other places where smoking is permitted.

The quality of the indoor environment must be a concern of all who control and occupy that environment. Protection of individuals from exposure to environmental tobacco smoke is therefore a responsibility shared by all:

As parents and adults we must protect the health of our children by not exposing them to environmental tobacco
smoke.

As employers and employees we must ensure that the act of smoking does not expose the nonsmoker to tobacco smoke.

For smokers, it is their responsibility to assure that their behavior does not jeopardize the health of others.

For nonsmokers, it is their responsibility to provide a supportive environment for smokers who are attempting to stop.

Actions taken by individuals, employers, and employee organizations reflect the growing concern for protecting nonsmokers. The number of laws and regulations enacted at the national, State, and local level governing smoking in public has increased substantially over the past 10 years, and surveys conducted by numerous organizations show strong public support for these actions among both smokers and nonsmokers.

As a Nation, we have made substantial progress in addressing the enormous toll inflicted by active smoking. Efforts to improve and protect individual health must be not only continued but strengthened.

On the basis of the evidence presented in this Report, it is clear that actions to protect nonsmokers from environmental tobacco smoke exposure not only are warranted but are essential to protect public health.

--Surgeon General's Report 1986

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.

raveneye · 03-09-2005, 06:12 AM

Quote:

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.

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.

IC3 · 03-09-2005, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

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...

Amen to that

KMA-628 · 03-09-2005, 07:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raveneye

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.

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?

raveneye · 03-09-2005, 08:20 AM

Quote:

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?

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

Quote:

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

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.

raveneye · 03-09-2005, 08:21 AM

Quote:

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

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.

raveneye · 03-09-2005, 08:24 AM

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."

raveneye · 03-09-2005, 08:42 AM

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

Quote:

Secondhand smoke exposure in adulthood and risk of lung cancer among never smokers: a pooled analysis of two large studies.

Brennan P, Buffler PA, Reynolds P, Wu AH, Wichmann HE, Agudo A, Pershagen G, Jockel KH, Benhamou S, Greenberg RS, Merletti F, Winck C, Fontham ET, Kreuzer M, Darby SC, Forastiere F, Simonato L, Boffetta P.

Int J Cancer. 2004 Mar;109(1):125-31.

The interpretation of the evidence linking exposure to secondhand smoke with lung cancer is constrained by the imprecision of risk estimates. The objective of the study was to obtain precise and valid estimates of the risk of lung cancer in never smokers following exposure to secondhand smoke, including adjustment for potential confounders and exposure misclassification. Pooled analysis of data from 2 previously reported large case-control studies was used. Subjects included 1263 never smoking lung cancer patients and 2740 population and hospital controls recruited during 1985-1994 from 5 metropolitan areas in the United States, 11 areas in Germany, Italy, Sweden, United Kingdom, France, Spain and Portugal. Odds ratios (ORs) of lung cancer were calculated for ever exposure and duration of exposure to secondhand smoke from spouse, workplace and social sources. The OR for ever exposure to spousal smoking was 1.18 (95% CI = 1.01-1.37) and for long-term exposure was 1.23 (95% CI = 1.01-1.51). After exclusion of proxy interviews, the OR for ever exposure from the workplace was 1.16 (95% CI = 0.99-1.36) and for long-term exposure was 1.27 (95% CI = 1.03-1.57). Similar results were obtained for exposure from social settings and for exposure from combined sources. A dose-response relationship was present with increasing duration of exposure to secondhand smoke for all 3 sources, with an OR of 1.32 (95% CI = 1.10-1.79) for the long-term exposure from all sources. There was no evidence of confounding by employment in high-risk occupations, education or low vegetable intake. Sensitivity analysis for the effects of misclassification (both positive and negative) indicated that the observed risks are likely to underestimate the true risk. Clear dose-response relationships consistent with a causal association were observed between exposure to secondhand smoke from spousal, workplace and social sources and the development of lung cancer among never smokers.

Quote:

How acute and reversible are the cardiovascular risks of secondhand smoke?

Terry F Pechacek, associate director for science1, Stephen Babb, coordinator, secondhand smoke work group1

BMJ. 2004 Apr 24;328(7446):980-3.

Could eating in a smoky restaurant precipitate an acute myocardial infarction in a non-smoker? As unlikely as this sounds, a growing body of scientific data suggests that this is possible. In this context, the results of the observational study in Helena, MT are provocative: hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction declined by about 40% during the six months in which a comprehensive local ordinance on clean air was in effect, and rebounded after the ordinance was suspended.1
Given the small size and observational design of the study, these findings might be discounted or even disregarded altogether. However, the study focuses attention on an interesting subset of literature on secondhand smoke and its consequences. We now have a considerable amount of epidemiological literature and laboratory data on the mechanisms by which relatively small exposures to toxins in tobacco smoke seem to cause unexpectedly large increases in the risk of acute cardiovascular disease.2-7

Secondhand smoke causes coronary heart disease

Exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk of fatal and non-fatal coronary heart disease in non-smokers by about 30%.2 5 8 9 Because coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in many countries, even relatively small increases in risk from this one factor can result in a large population burden of disease attributable to exposure to tobacco smoke.10 11 While the substantial cardiovascular risks posed by active smoking are now almost universally accepted, the tobacco industry and some other observers continue to question the idea that secondhand smoke can cause cardiovascular disease and death.12-15 Notwithstanding the substantial clinical and experimental evidence regarding the adverse cardiovascular effects of exposure to secondhand smoke, some have argued that an association between low level environmental exposures and health outcomes should be more critically evaluated, particularly when the relative risk for the exposure is below 2.0.14 15 In addition, the risk of coronary heart disease associated with the typical self reported level of exposure to secondhand smoke (for example, that of a non-smoker living with a smoker) can seem disproportionate. It is more than one third of the risk associated with smoking 20 cigarettes a day, even though the measured exposure to tobacco smoke among non-smokers is only about 1% of the exposure from smoking 20 cigarettes a day.2 4 5 16 This observation differs from the case for lung cancer, where the excess risk for exposure to secondhand smoke reflects a more linear dose-response effect in comparison with the risk from smoking 20 cigarettes a day.2 4 5 17 While the epidemiological pattern of risks for coronary heart disease might seem inconsistent with the data on measured exposures, the emerging understanding of the mechanisms by which exposure to toxins in tobacco smoke increases the risk of acute myocardial infarction provides a biologically plausible explanation of the data.

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.

kutulu · 03-09-2005, 08:45 AM

less than 5%? How can that be significant?

03-08-2005, 06:03 AM	#170 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	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... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

03-08-2005, 08:21 AM	#174 (permalink)
Fourtyrulz Psycho Location: io-where?	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. __________________ the·o·ry - a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation. faith - Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. - Merriam-Webster's dictionary Last edited by Fourtyrulz; 03-08-2005 at 08:23 AM..

03-08-2005, 08:34 AM	#175 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	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. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-08-2005, 09:06 AM	#180 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	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. __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot.

03-08-2005, 06:52 PM	#187 (permalink)
KMA-628 ....is off his meds...you were warned. Location: The Wild Wild West	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". __________________ Before you criticize someone, you need to walk a mile in their shoes. That way, if they get angry at you.......you're a mile away.......and they're barefoot. Last edited by KMA-628; 03-08-2005 at 06:56 PM.. Reason: i r a dumbass

03-07-2005, 09:37 PM	#163 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	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.

03-07-2005, 10:03 PM	#164 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	"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.

03-08-2005, 05:15 AM	#169 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	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?

03-09-2005, 12:28 AM	#190 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	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.

03-09-2005, 08:24 AM	#198 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	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."

03-09-2005, 08:45 AM	#200 (permalink)
kutulu Junkie	less than 5%? How can that be significant?