03-07-2005, 08:38 PM | #161 (permalink) | |
Wehret Den Anfängen!
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. |
|
03-07-2005, 08:40 PM | #162 (permalink) | |
it's jam
Location: Lowerainland BC
|
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:
good game that nine-ball...lots of fun.
__________________
nice line eh? |
|
03-07-2005, 09:37 PM | #163 (permalink) |
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) |
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. |
03-07-2005, 11:12 PM | #165 (permalink) | |
Banned
|
Quote:
<a href="http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_18.htm">http://cis.nci.nih.gov/fact/10_18.htm</a> |
|
03-08-2005, 04:58 AM | #166 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
(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? |
|
03-08-2005, 05:08 AM | #167 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-08-2005, 05:11 AM | #168 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-08-2005, 05:15 AM | #169 (permalink) |
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? |
03-08-2005, 06:03 AM | #170 (permalink) |
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, 06:12 AM | #171 (permalink) | |
Tone.
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-08-2005, 07:56 AM | #172 (permalink) | ||
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
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:
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:
LINK #1 LINK #2 LINK #3 LINK #4 - This one is from PBS
__________________
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, 08:01 AM | #173 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 08:21 AM | #174 (permalink) |
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) |
....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, 08:41 AM | #176 (permalink) | |||||||||
Born Against
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
Quote:
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:
Quote:
|
|||||||||
03-08-2005, 08:48 AM | #177 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
And if you do leave it to them, the conclusion that secondhand smoke is a significant danger to public health is inescapable. |
|
03-08-2005, 09:03 AM | #179 (permalink) | |||
Wehret Den Anfängen!
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
Quote:
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:
Quote:
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.
__________________
Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest. |
|||
03-08-2005, 09:06 AM | #180 (permalink) |
....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, 09:09 AM | #181 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
Edit: it isn't in Boulder, but I have heard people broach the idea.
__________________
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, 09:13 AM | #182 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 11:24 AM | #183 (permalink) | |
Crazy
Location: Austin, TX
|
Quote:
|
|
03-08-2005, 05:22 PM | #184 (permalink) | ||
Muffled
Location: Camazotz
|
Quote:
http://www.otru.org/pdf/special/special_ets_eng.pdf Quote:
__________________
it's quiet in here Last edited by Kadath; 03-08-2005 at 05:26 PM.. |
||
03-08-2005, 06:00 PM | #185 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
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, 06:34 PM | #186 (permalink) | ||
Muffled
Location: Camazotz
|
Quote:
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:
__________________
it's quiet in here |
||
03-08-2005, 06:52 PM | #187 (permalink) |
....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 |
03-08-2005, 08:20 PM | #188 (permalink) | |||
Muffled
Location: Camazotz
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
it's quiet in here |
|||
03-08-2005, 09:06 PM | #189 (permalink) | ||
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
Anyways... Do you find it odd that the one study that is used most often as a reference is flawed? i.e. Quote:
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.
__________________
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. |
||
03-09-2005, 12:28 AM | #190 (permalink) |
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, 01:31 AM | #191 (permalink) | |
Junkie
Location: Right here
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman |
|
03-09-2005, 06:02 AM | #192 (permalink) | ||||
Born Against
|
Quote:
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:
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:
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:
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. Last edited by raveneye; 03-09-2005 at 06:04 AM.. |
||||
03-09-2005, 06:12 AM | #193 (permalink) | |
Born Against
|
Quote:
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. |
|
03-09-2005, 06:22 AM | #194 (permalink) | |
Poison
Location: Canada
|
Quote:
__________________
"To win any battle, you must fight as if you were already dead" -Musashi |
|
03-09-2005, 07:38 AM | #195 (permalink) | |
....is off his meds...you were warned.
Location: The Wild Wild West
|
Quote:
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?
__________________
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. |
|
03-09-2005, 08:20 AM | #196 (permalink) | ||
Born Against
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
03-09-2005, 08:42 AM | #199 (permalink) | ||
Born Against
|
OK, a grand total of 3 minutes on MedLine gave these two studies on the first search page:
Quote:
Quote:
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. |
||
Tags |
ban, smoking |
|
|