Smoking Ban

[Duke Malcolm]

Well, The Smoking ban in enclosed public spaces is finally upon the Scots, and I didn't even have enough money for cognac and a cigar last night...

Since King James VI of Scotland and England wrote his little treatise on how bad smoking is, there has been an air of negativity around the smoker, and now those ministers in the parliament have banned smoking in pubs, clubs, restaurants, and other public places enclosed over 50%. My English teacher will take to calling the police when he catches pupils smoking in the toilets now, which shall be interesting...

Auntie Provides (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4845260.stm)

Ho-hum...

~:smoking:

P.S. I might point out that I am not a smoker, and have only twice or thrice indulged in a cigar with cognac. However, my parents are smokers hence we shall be eating out somewhat less...

Your thoughts on the ban?

[Marcellus]

I just can't wait until the ban comes into force in England and Wales. Having someone smoking whilst you're trying to enjoy a meal out can be horrible, and it must be much, much worse on the staff working there.

[Banquo's Ghost]

We've had a ban in Ireland for a couple of years now, and it's bliss having a drink.

When I'm over in England, I really notice it now. I emerge stinking to high heaven, and cough for days after. I don't smoke at all, but after a few hours in a smoky pub I must get through the equivalent of a pack of ten.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

it is already banned in england in restaurants but when is it going to be for pubs?

and it is something like it takes 5 or so hours in a smoke filled room to do the same damage to your system as 2 cigarettes... it isn't as bad as everyone thinks and i learnt this from a business studies teacher who was trying to teach us the advantages of having the tobacco industry and stuff so it might actually be false info or exagerated

[Ianofsmeg16]

There's a movement over here citing a ban on Smoking, I sincerely hope it pulls through, disgusting habit.

[Spetulhu]

Good thing. I hate it when my clothes and hair stink of smoke once I get home.

[Ice]

I really wish that was effective here in the states. It is quite annoying when I'm trying to enjoy a meal in the non smoking section and all I can do is smell smoke from the guy puffing away on the other side of me.

[BDC]

The sooner it's here the better. In a pub twenty minutes after work and I stink. It's disgusting.

[Templar Knight]

Was there not something about pub workers not being able to get life insurance because of the risks of the smoky environment?

[Crazed Rabbit]

Bad ban. Just because you find a habit disgusting, does not mean you should be able to ban in on another's property.

Crazed Rabbit

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

It's about the safety of the staff more than anything else. I view this ban in a similar light to proscriptions on factories having to use properly maintained machinery.

[King Henry V]

I agree with the ban in ordinary restaurants and pubs, but not in private clubs for clubs. I see no harm in a place where all the customers and staff are smokers.
Though I find it ironic how cannabis and other such substances are being increasingly legalised, yet smoking is on its path to being banned.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It's about the safety of the staff more than anything else. I view this ban in a similar light to proscriptions on factories having to use properly maintained machinery.

Noone's forcing the staff to work there, and they know that there will be smoking.

Crazed Rabbit

[BDC]

Bad ban. Just because you find a habit disgusting, does not mean you should be able to ban in on another's property.

Crazed Rabbit
What? So I should be able to cover everyone else around me in highly carcinagenic ooze because I enjoy it? It's be banned immediately.

[Big King Sanctaphrax]

Noone's forcing the staff to work there

No-one's forcing the staff to work in the (hypothetical) horribly dangerous factories, either.

Do you think we should repeal all industrial safety laws?

[doc_bean]

No-one's forcing the staff to work in the (hypothetical) horribly dangerous factories, either.

Do you think we should repeal all industrial safety laws?

Please, this is a strawman argument. People just want to sit in restaurants without smelling horribly afterwards, a sentiment I can agree with. But let's not turn this into something it isn't. Lots of people work in chemical plants where the risk of cancer and other conditions is 'hightened', not too dangerous, but comparable to what restaurants workers have to live with. (and those factories are well within regulations too).

How is working in such a restaurant worse than walking the streets of a smog filled city ?

What I don't understand is why restaurants haven't invested more in the comfort of non-smokers over the years (some have though). A good restaurant where you aren't at risk of smelling someone else's exhaled smoke sounds like a good idea.

These rules (they are in place in belgium already) are pure populism.

[Ice]

Bad ban. Just because you find a habit disgusting, does not mean you should be able to ban in on another's property.

Crazed Rabbit

Why do people find it necessary to smoke while eatting? I don't smoke, but I can assume you have absolutely no will power if you cannot eat a meal without lighting up a cig.

I worked a diner before and I am extrelemy glad this been put into effect.

[A.Saturnus]

These rules (they are in place in belgium already) are pure populism.

Except that they save thousands of lives.

[Kanamori]

It's a bit much to have it banned from all enclosed public areas. There are simply places that are dedicated to smoking, and to endulging smokers. It seems silly to ban smoking in these places, as the person working in the establishment must have experience as a smoker to work there. E.g., places like Che and Boisdale. Nobody goes there not expecting smoke, and it is almost an atmosphere centered around the smoker. The means are more restrictive than they have to be in order to get their end, in the first place. Otherwise, I see no difference between this and banning smoking in most restaurants. The act of smoking is not being banned, but as I said the means are more restrictive than need be, but only restricted in concern for public safety. Similarly, minus the health part, one cannot start watching/looking at pornogaphy in an open park, they must do it in their home. There is an interest to be served in both cases, and the actual act of both is not being banned outright.

[Soulforged]

Except that they save thousands of lives.
I've to disagree with you and agree with Crazed Rabbit. It seems that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or it causes it in so few cases that it isn't reasonable to ban it. (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Editorial%201-4.html) This law is just authoritarism, and for what I know it happened on USA too, I hope this kind of mind set doesn't expands to the south too, I don't smoke, in fact I find it disgusting, but in society we've to learn to accept other people's habits unless they hurt other people.

Beyond that it seems that every study devoloped in USA showed between the considarations and tests a tendence to non-causation, but to push an agenda this agencies showed the conclusion first and in big letters saying that it causes it. Anyone who can read and has the will could discover it by himself (Material extracted from Penn & Teller's: Bullshit).

[Slyspy]

it is already banned in england in restaurants but when is it going to be for pubs?

and it is something like it takes 5 or so hours in a smoke filled room to do the same damage to your system as 2 cigarettes... it isn't as bad as everyone thinks and i learnt this from a business studies teacher who was trying to teach us the advantages of having the tobacco industry and stuff so it might actually be false info or exagerated


Er, nope. There is no legal ban on smoking at the moment in England. It comes into force next year for all public places.

As a non-smoker in the pub trade I welcome the ban. Not on health grounds especially, since I knew when I started that I would be in a smokey atmosphere, but because I regard smoking as a filthy habit. Stinking smoke that clings to your skin, clothes and hair, fag butts (thats one for our American friends to ponder) everywhere. The taste in your mouth when eating near a lit cigarette, hell even the taste when kissing a smoker.

I look forward to nights at works, and about town, without the reek of smoke. And if it helps so much as one person give up the smokes then it is worthwhile.

[JAG]

Can't wait for it to come to the rest of the UK. Tonight it was illustrated to me of why it is so needed. A group of smokers constantly lighting up right next to me and forcing me to inhale their smoke for no other reason than their selfish obsession, killing me because they can't help but continue 'killing themselves to live' (cheers Sabbath) I have Asthma and have a cold / flu coming on so my chest was buggered and I was having a hard time breath / coughing like an invalid, for ages. It just isn't fair, I have a right not to die of cancer because other people have the right to smoke and kill themselves with cancer.

The ban is just and fair and it has been far too long in coming, after all it will help smokers give up as well, they often need a kick up the arse.

[JAG]

but in society we've to learn to accept other people's habits unless they hurt other people.

Exactly, smoking DOES hurt people, it bloody KILLS them. smoking kills the smoker and all those who are persistently around their smoke.

And if you honestly believe that smoking does not cause / distinctly increase the chance of cancer, not to mention all the other terrible side effects of smoking like clogged arteries and thinning blood, then you really need to talk / listen to some doctors. I do not know of one doctor who wouldn't state that smoking is anything but terribly harming. And if they say on the contraire you will probably be able to find the stinky, ash ridden money along the trail.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It just isn't fair, I have a right not to die of cancer because other people have the right to smoke and kill themselves with cancer.

Where were you? Inside a pub? On someone else's property?
And you expect you can demand to decide what they can and can't allow? You ahve no right to go someplace and insist they change for you. I also suspect the danger of public secondhand smoke is exagerrated.

Crazed Rabbit

[Ice]

Where were you? Inside a pub? On someone else's property?
And you expect you can demand to decide what they can and can't allow? You ahve no right to go someplace and insist they change for you. I also suspect the danger of public secondhand smoke is exagerrated.

Crazed Rabbit



Exagerrated? I really can't believe I'm saying this, but I agree with JAG; you really should talk to a few doctors.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Where were you? Inside a pub? On someone else's property?
And you expect you can demand to decide what they can and can't allow? You ahve no right to go someplace and insist they change for you. I also suspect the danger of public secondhand smoke is exagerrated.

Crazed Rabbit

So it would be ok for me to poke people with a thumbtack wherever I go? After all it doesn't cause much damage and they could just go somewhere else.

[R'as al Ghul]

Imo the Hysteria concerning second-hand smoking is way exxagerated.
If I go to a bus station at a heavily frequented inner-city street and light up a cigarette while waiting, there's always someone who will start coughing deliberately to tell me that I'm affecting them. Come on. We're outside inhaling far more poisonous fumes from cars and trucks than my cigarette causes to you in open space.
Anyway, closed public spaces ban would be okay to me. I can restrict myself no problem. Say, train stations, all public buildings like universities, schools, etc.
What I do object is the ban in pubs and restaurants and clubs where the owner has no problem with smoking. Some pubs or clubs have a certain image connected to smoke, they attract smokers and the owners themselve smoke. Who are we to forbid it? Hang up a warning sign that this area is poisonous to people and be done with. What about cigar bars? Close them down? They have a right to exist as much as you have a right to non-smoking areas.
But it won't stop there. I'm sure it won't be long until landlords won't give flats to smokers.
I do understand the health issues and I'm not ignorant to what I'm doing to my body but this smoking ban hysteria is getting fascist. ~:smoking:

EDIT: Oh and btw, why don't we have those disclaimers on candy bars, like "Sugar can make you fat and kill you!" but I guess the obesity problem isn't just as pressing, isn't it? and who is going to pay for the fight against terrorism which, as my government tells me, is funded by the tax on tobacco in germany.

[Papewaio]

Unleaded fuel was introduced for a reason.
As were catalytic convertors and other pollution minimising devices.

Tunnels normally have exhaust stacks and filtering devices in train stations and on underground highways. The old miners canaries were there to check for air pollution.

Not to mention all the liabilities that companies are now facing due to asbestos. Insurance companies will get involved when they have to start 'coughing up'.

=][=

In NSW, Australia you can smoke at train stations, just not if it is roofed. Some stations you are not allowed to smoke at at all (generally the ones that are serving hospital stops).

Bans on clubs, pubs and restaurants are state by state. So it changes, however every place that has banned smoking has not had monetary difficulties for the venues. It seems that it is a scare tactic without any real teeth... a lot of people instead come out to eat because they can do so with the full range of their sense of smell... after all if you cannot smell you only can taste and that leaves you with bitter, sweat, sour..... it is your sense of smell that adds to the subtle range of flavours... try enjoying flavours with a blocked nose...

...A far worse thing for the venues in some council areas has been over zealous parking inspectors.

[Ronin]

a good move.
I hope it's adopted in Portugal soon.

[doc_bean]

Except that they save thousands of lives.

Do you have any statistics on that ?

BTW sports cause quite a few fatalities and a whole lot more injuries, a very large drain on our already weak social security system, should we ban all sports then ?

[Viking]

nm.

[Kanamori]

Where were you? Inside a pub? On someone else's property?
And you expect you can demand to decide what they can and can't allow? You ahve no right to go someplace and insist they change for you.

Since when is there anarchy in personal property? Each persons house or establishment is not their own country. They are not totally free to do as they please; they cannot murder other people on their own property, or dump poison into their earth above a water resevoir. There is a public health interest, and it should be served. Nobody is denying them the right to smoke in their own homes, but a home is much more personal than is an establishment that is meant for other citizens to sit in for profit. It obviously effects others, and the majority of people no longer wish to sit in smoked filled rooms that are only smoke filled because of a minority.

[Crazed Rabbit]

So it would be ok for me to poke people with a thumbtack wherever I go? After all it doesn't cause much damage and they could just go somewhere else.

What the heck? That's an absurd analogy.


Since when is there anarchy in personal property? Each persons house or establishment is not their own country. They are not totally free to do as they please; they cannot murder other people on their own property, or dump poison into their earth above a water resevoir.

Smoking on your property doesn't affect anyone else, unlike everything you listed. Duh.


There is a public health interest, and it should be served. Nobody is denying them the right to smoke in their own homes, but a home is much more personal than is an establishment that is meant for other citizens to sit in for profit. It obviously effects others, and the majority of people no longer wish to sit in smoked filled rooms that are only smoke filled because of a minority.

Oh please. The 'public health' is not being affected by smokey bars. A privately owned establishment with smokers does not affect the public as does pollution. It affects the people who go there to drink and smoke. If the majority of people don't want to sit in a smokey room, DON'T GO THERE DUMBASSES.
Let the profit motive force the bar owners to change policies, if there really is such demand for change.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sasaki Kojiro]

What the heck? That's an absurd analogy.


Crazed Rabbit

How so?

[Soulforged]

Exactly, smoking DOES hurt people, it bloody KILLS them. smoking kills the smoker and all those who are persistently around their smoke.

And if you honestly believe that smoking does not cause / distinctly increase the chance of cancer, not to mention all the other terrible side effects of smoking like clogged arteries and thinning blood, then you really need to talk / listen to some doctors. I do not know of one doctor who wouldn't state that smoking is anything but terribly harming. And if they say on the contraire you will probably be able to find the stinky, ash ridden money along the trail.That's exactly the problem, there's no serious scientist that states "smoking causes cancer". This is exactly the case of "braing washing", and add to that list "marihuana".

It's pretty easy for those who don't smoke, wheter it's tabaco or marihuana, to say that this is a good move, and pretty selfish, the least that one can do when spouting such things is investigating the facts first.

[Goofball]

That's exactly the problem, there's no serious scientist that states "smoking causes cancer".

Either you are completely in La-La land or you are trying to make a point that is purely semantic and has little value to the discussion as a whole.

In the medical field it is undisputed that inhaling tobacco smoke on a regular basis greatly increases a person's risk of developing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and a whole slate of other debilitating/deadly diseases/conditions.

To try to argue otherwise is laughable.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's exactly the problem, there's no serious scientist that states "smoking causes cancer". This is exactly the case of "braing washing", and add to that list "marihuana".

It's pretty easy for those who don't smoke, wheter it's tabaco or marihuana, to say that this is a good move, and pretty selfish, the least that one can do when spouting such things is investigating the facts first.


Philip Morris USA (PM USA) agrees with the overwhelming medical and scientific consensus that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer, heart disease, emphysema and other serious diseases in smokers. Smokers are far more likely to develop serious diseases, like lung cancer, than non-smokers. There is no safe cigarette.

Good enough for you? They make cigarettes if you didn't know.

[Papewaio]

Beyond that it seems that every study devoloped in USA showed between the considarations and tests a tendence to non-causation, but to push an agenda this agencies showed the conclusion first and in big letters saying that it causes it. Anyone who can read and has the will could discover it by himself (Material extracted from Penn & Teller's: Bullshit).

So your source is a pair of psychotic magicians vs Doctors, Scientists and cigarette manufacturers.

If this was poker you have a pair of 2's and they have all the Aces.

[Soulforged]

Either you are completely in La-La land or you are trying to make a point that is purely semantic and has little value to the discussion as a whole.

In the medical field it is undisputed that inhaling tobacco smoke on a regular basis greatly increases a person's risk of developing cancer, heart disease, emphysema, and a whole slate of other debilitating/deadly diseases/conditions.

To try to argue otherwise is laughable.No. I don't see any point in this post other than stating an opinion without anything to hold it. Either way I'm arguing that it doesn't cause cancer. Beyond the legal issue of ordering what one can do with his private property that's becoming annoying.

EDIT: This apparent verbal struggle that you might see here has a lot of importance to determine the merit of the ban.


Good enough for you? They make cigarettes if you didn't know.Not at all. First of all as you said "They make cigarettes if you didn't know", second it clearly misuses the word causes when they wanted to say "smoking increases the risks of..." and third I presented a link too where it was pretty clear that lung cancer was not caused by smoking. But if that's not enough:
First, one that supports your claims not coming from a tabaco company. And by the way you might find this fact (http://www.greenfacts.org/tobacco/)interesting:1.1. Over one thousand million people worldwide smoke tobacco. The percentage of smokers has decreased in developed countries, but is increasing in developing countries and among women.I wonder why the companies still say it causes it? This site however spells it right "it possibly increases the risks of having some type of cancer", different from "causes", however it exagerates the possible risks. So what's next? Well showing how much risk there's. Let's see:from the previous link (the one in my other post). From the article (http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Editorial%201-4.html) then:
Would you believe that the real number is < 10% (see Appendix A)? Yes, a US white male (USWM) cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer (see Appendix A). In fact, the data used is biased in the way that it was collected and the actual risk for a smoker is probably less. I personally would not smoke cigarettes and take that risk, nor recommend cigarette smoking to others, but the numbers were less than I had been led to believe. I only did the data on white males because they account for the largest number of lung cancers in the US, but a similar analysis can be done for other groups using the CDC data.

You don't see this type of information being reported, and we hear things like, "if you smoke you will die", but when we actually look at the data, lung cancer accounts for only 2% of the annual deaths worldwide and only 3% in the US.**

When we look at the data over a longer period, such as 50 years as we did here, the lifetime relative risk is only 8 (see Appendix A). That means that even using the biased data that is out there, a USWM smoker has only an 8x more risk of dying from lung cancer than a nonsmoker. It surprised me too because I had always heard numbers like 20-40 times more risk. Statistics that are understandable and make sense to the general public, what a concept! So what's the risk of been hitted by a car? Yes an old analogy, but it works to demostrate how unreasonable one can be sometimes. That means that we've to forbid cars in public streets too?

And a wise advice at the end:
Yes, smoking is bad for you, but so is fast-food hamburgers, driving, and so on. We must weigh the risk and benefits of the behavior both as a society and as an individual based on unbiased information. Be warned though, that a society that attempts to remove all risk terminates individual liberty and will ultimately perish. Let us be logical in our endeavors and true in our pursuit of knowledge. Instead of fearful waiting for lung cancer to get me (because the media and much of the medical literature has falsely told me that smoking causes lung cancer), I can enjoy my occasional cigar even more now...now that I know the whole story.


Now if any cancer was "caused by...", then the risk will be as high as to shoot a bullet through your chest and you dying, but that's not the case.

So your source is a pair of psychotic magicians vs Doctors, Scientists and cigarette manufacturers.

If this was poker you have a pair of 2's and they have all the Aces.That's one of my sources but to be sure I gave it a try on the oh holy internet and thus I posted my link. But aparently no one pays attention anymore. As for your two "psychotic magicians" well those "psychotic" (????) magicians" also consult experts in every field in everyone of their programs.

[Papewaio]

They actually refer to themselves in their publicity as the psyhcotic magicians...


cigarette smoker has an 8% lifetime chance of dying from lung cancer but the USWM nonsmoker also has a 1% chance of dying from lung cancer

Which means as a smoker you have an eightfold increase in you chance of getting lung cancer... which results in how many years on average shorter lifespan and an associated reduction in quality of life due to shortness of breath?

Smoking cause a 700% increase of lung cancer in smokers. Cancer is a bit like russian roulette, some people will get killed with a minimal amount of exposure others will dodge the bullet. However there is a link between increase in usage and increase in the rate of cancer... a cause and effect.

So smoking does cause lung cancer.

[Soulforged]

They actually refer to themselves in their publicity as the psyhcotic magicians...Nice turn. However that's not the purpose of what you wrote.

Which means as a smoker you have an eightfold increase in you chance of getting lung cancer... which results in how many years on average shorter lifespan and an associated reduction in quality of life due to shortness of breath?So for you an increase of %1 to %8 is causation? WOW I mean do you know how many things are caused by other how many things? Following your logic I mean.


Smoking cause a 700% increase of lung cancer in smokers. Cancer is a bit like russian roulette, some people will get killed with a minimal amount of exposure others will dodge the bullet. However there is a link between increase in usage and increase in the rate of cancer... a cause and effect.Not exactly. First the exageration of %700 wich is of course false. Second the risk of %8 is tested on non-casual smokers over the period of 50 years, a lifetime, and it's still probably less.

So smoking does cause lung cancer.Weren't you a scientist? I think it's a little inanpropiatte to state such things without proof.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Nice turn. However that's not the purpose of what you wrote.
So for you an increase of %1 to %8 is causation? WOW I mean do you know how many things are caused by other how many things? Following your logic I mean.

Not exactly. First the exageration of %700 wich is of course false. Second the risk of %8 is tested on non-casual smokers over the period of 50 years, a lifetime, and it's still probably less.


So, for those 8% why die of lung cancer, it was caused by something other than smoking?


Also, it's perfectly possible for someone to smoke a lot and then die before they get lung cancer.

Anyway, I don't see the point in arguing about how many deaths it causes. You aren't denying that it's unhealthy.

[Soulforged]

So, for those 8% why die of lung cancer, it was caused by something other than smoking?


Also, it's perfectly possible for someone to smoke a lot and then die before they get lung cancer.

Anyway, I don't see the point in arguing about how many deaths it causes. You aren't denying that it's unhealthy.
Never did that. The point is that it is not more unhealthy that say...eating hamburgers. We always measure risks in society to see what's reasonable to forbid and what's not. Shooting a bullet to your chest without your consensus is bad, smoking without your consensus is very far from bad.

[Spetulhu]

So for you an increase of %1 to %8 is causation? WOW I mean do you know how many things are caused by other how many things? Following your logic I mean.

First the exageration of %700 wich is of course false. Second the risk of %8 is tested on non-casual smokers over the period of 50 years, a lifetime, and it's still probably less.

8% is 700% more than 1%. Basic math.

If a 700% increase in lung cancer isn't caused by the tobacco, what caused it? Perhaps the alcohol these smokers have been drinking in smoky bars? :juggle2:

[Papewaio]

Nice turn. However that's not the purpose of what you wrote.
So for you an increase of %1 to %8 is causation? WOW I mean do you know how many things are caused by other how many things? Following your logic I mean.


Non smoker 1% chance of dying of lung cancer.
Smoker 8% chance of dying of lung cancer.

Everything else being the same, it leads to the logical conclusion that smoking causes an increase in the rates of lung cancer.

And due to the fact that smoking increases the rate of death in other areas these acutally dull the risk increase for lung cancer. Simply put the act of smoking increases their chance of dying from another disease before lung cancer gets them.



Not exactly. First the exageration of %700 wich is of course false. Second the risk of %8 is tested on non-casual smokers over the period of 50 years, a lifetime, and it's still probably less.

1% increased by 100% = 2%
1% increased by 200% = 3%
1% increased by 300% = 4%
1% increased by 400% = 5%
1% increased by 500% = 6%
1% increased by 600% = 7%
1% increased by 700% = 8%

As noted smokers increase their chance of dying from other diseases by smoking. If you could save them from the rest the actual increase in lung cancers would be more then the base eightfold increase seen currently.



Weren't you a scientist? I think it's a little inanpropiatte to state such things without proof.

And I'm now a Mission Critical Support Tech... which means my job is to create strategies to minimise risks across an enterprise level and understand the details of how even tiny changes can blow out issues. My portion of the network has a customer expectation of 99.999% uptime. So even tiny things are investigated and minimised. If customers worry about the 5 nines dropping down for a network to 99.997%, why wouldn't others find a 700% increase in the rate of lung cancers caused by smoking something to worry about?

[Atilius]

OK, anyone care to defend this one?

Smoking Ban Moves Outdoors (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nosmoke18mar18,0,7778104.story?coll=la-headlines-california)

[R'as al Ghul]

Calabasas graphic designer Roberta Iervolino was doing city data processing as part of a community service sentence she received for running a red light. She said she deplored the city's draconian actions — and felt they might say something more profound about the town.

"I'm not a smoker, but I think it's horrible. This is a free country. I don't think this is a good social trend," she said as she sat around the corner from a sign that announced that the use of cellphones in City Hall is prohibited, except in designated areas.

"I was running from my car to get here because it was raining. And as soon as I got in, a guy told me not to run," Iervolino said. "I guess that's the nature of the game around here. It's ridiculous."

What would we do without rules?
Looks like Calabasas is a criminal hideout. :no:

[Byzantine Mercenary]

Do you have any statistics on that ?

BTW sports cause quite a few fatalities and a whole lot more injuries, a very large drain on our already weak social security system, should we ban all sports then ?
yes, we should ban sports

[_Martyr_]

As an Irish Orgite (irealnd has had the ban for a few years) I can wholeheartedly say that this is not some quasi fascist conspiracy designed to reduce people's freedoms as some people would have you believe. Practically everyone I know, smokers and non smokers, now hail the ban as a HUGE success. Bars, pubs and resteraunts are infinitely more pleasurable to be be. A new culture of going out for a smoke has emerged, where the specially allocated outdoor areas at the back of pubs and clubs are now a perfect place to get a few minutes out of the load music/atmosphere and have a quiter chat and meet new people... if you know what I mean! :2thumbsup: Hey, and if it works with Irish weather, then it'll work ANYWHERE! My shirts no longer need chemical treatment to get them to stop stinking. Food is so much more enjoyable without adding the "smoked" flavour to everything. Smoking numbers have dropped dramatically. Down from about 32% to low 23% (roughly). When I go abroad, I find I dont like going out as much precisely because of the smoke. I would be much more likely to go to a country where there is a similar ban.

[Slyspy]

Where I work the overwhelming majority of staff and patrons welcome a ban on smoking. Most of the rest are indifferent. Even the smokers hate smoke when they are eating, and many welcome the move in the belief that it will help them cut down or give up entirely. I would guess that the smoker/non-smoker split is roughly 40/60, maybe more. And this isn't some trendy cosmopolitan bar but a small town local pub.

[A.Saturnus]

Do you have any statistics on that ?

BTW sports cause quite a few fatalities and a whole lot more injuries, a very large drain on our already weak social security system, should we ban all sports then ?

After the smoking ban in Italy half a million people stopped smoking there. That implies thousands of people not dying from it. Granted, it doesn't consider how many people would have stopped without the ban, but a ban is a great help for people who want to stop.

Sport causes fatalities but in general it is rather healthy. Before you summon other examples: no other behaviour cases as much death as smoking. 5 million people every year. Worried about a pandemy? We already got one. Smoking.

[A.Saturnus]

I've to disagree with you and agree with Crazed Rabbit. It seems that smoking doesn't cause cancer, or it causes it in so few cases that it isn't reasonable to ban it. This law is just authoritarism, and for what I know it happened on USA too, I hope this kind of mind set doesn't expands to the south too, I don't smoke, in fact I find it disgusting, but in society we've to learn to accept other people's habits unless they hurt other people.

Yeah, it's just coincidents that 85% of all lung cancer patients are smokers. The life of a smoker is in average up to 20 years shorter than that of a non-smoker.

No, I don't want to argue. I say smoking is extremely unhealthy. And the WHO, the ministries of health of almost all countries, all insurance companies, science, the medical world, other health organizations, courts and even tabacco companies agree with me. I don't need to convince you too.

[KukriKhan]

I'm still smoking. Less and less, and in fewer and fewer places (basically nowhere indoors). You know what surprises me? Two things:

1) The vehemence of the anti-smoking crowd
2) How fast we've changed from a mostly-smoking society to a non-smoking one. I mean the whole political movement has really only existed since the 80's.

When I grew up, everybody smoked... the only issue was what brand, or whether cigarette, cigar or pipe. Of course, I'm not employing the "everybody did it" defense here - just pointing out how quickly things can change.

[Soulforged]

Non smoker 1% chance of dying of lung cancer.
Smoker 8% chance of dying of lung cancer.

Everything else being the same, it leads to the logical conclusion that smoking causes an increase in the rates of lung cancer.Yes it does. But there's a lot of factors converging that we should take into account to determine if smoking is exactly the cause. Beyond that, empirical science manages with probabilities, a probability of more than %50 can be considered causation in this case, but that's not the case when the probability is of %8 or less. Remember the research is biased.

And due to the fact that smoking increases the rate of death in other areas these acutally dull the risk increase for lung cancer. Simply put the act of smoking increases their chance of dying from another disease before lung cancer gets them.Again the risk is minimal to null. Being of %8 percent increase in a period of 50 years of non-casual smokers (i.e. smokers that do so often).

1% increased by 100% = 2%
1% increased by 200% = 3%
1% increased by 300% = 4%
1% increased by 400% = 5%
1% increased by 500% = 6%
1% increased by 600% = 7%
1% increased by 700% = 8%Yes noticed that later. Sorry.

As noted smokers increase their chance of dying from other diseases by smoking. If you could save them from the rest the actual increase in lung cancers would be more then the base eightfold increase seen currently.We should search for the risk of those other deseases first.

And I'm now a Mission Critical Support Tech... which means my job is to create strategies to minimise risks across an enterprise level and understand the details of how even tiny changes can blow out issues. My portion of the network has a customer expectation of 99.999% uptime. So even tiny things are investigated and minimised. If customers worry about the 5 nines dropping down for a network to 99.997%, why wouldn't others find a 700% increase in the rate of lung cancers caused by smoking something to worry about?Again with a biased research, and playing with mathematics. If I say 8 -1 = 7 it will not sound as bad as %700 increase in the chances, what matters is the absolute chance of getting it, increasing above the non-smoker, and that's only seven and probably less. I could research about the chances of getting any disease by other habits, but I'll do so only when I've enough time, besides many on this thread don't seem to be interested.

EDIT to add: Cardiovascular system diseases: this source (http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4726)provides that the change for an smoker of getting a kind of cardiovascular condition is 2 to 4 times the one of the non-smoker. The same source shows a significant increase in the chances of getting such conditions being a passive smoker. This other source (http://www.repace.com/fact_cardio.html)provides more detailed information on secondhand smoke: "Kawachi, et al. (1997) in a prospective study of coronary heart disease (CHD) in 32,000 female U.S. nurses aged 31 to 61 yr., for nonsmoking women exposed only at work, observed a dose-response gradient for passive smoking and CHD. Adjusted relative risks of CHD were 1.00 [for no exposure], 1.58 (95% CI, 0.93-2.68) [occasional exposure], and 1.91 (95% CI, 1.11-3.28) [regular exposure]. Thus, regular exposure to SHS at work caused a 91% increase in CHD, shown in Figure 3 below." The relative increase if of %91, but the absolute one is still pretty low. The other studies showed a similar increase. And all this among, again, other factors like genetics and exercise. The risk is as low as cancer, and is among other things that are as risky.
Pregnancy problems: an interesting source (http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/preg.htm) again the source once again mentions the constant tendence of the media to push an agenda, and of the agencies too, when they post conclusions that contradict the results of the test. And read this (actually the whole page is worth a read if you ask me): "These findings, obtained by using laboratory assay, confirm the reduced risk of developing preeclampsia with tobacco exposure. (Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181:1192-6.) " And there's a lot like this, not only it's not as risky as many think, but it even has a lot of benefits. I'll not post every single statement on that page because they're to much, but they also talk about benefits in regards to the cardiovascular system.

I think that after this we can reasonabily state that banning tobbaco, beyond the already annoying legal issue, is insane.
Perhaps later I'll post some of the risks that come from ther sources.

[Papewaio]

Soulforged you are showing your lack of understanding of statistics.

Non smoker 1% chance of dying of lung cancer. So out of all the things that you can die of out of 1 hundred different ways you will die once from lung cancer.
Smoker 8% chance of dying of lung cancer. So out of all the things that you can die of out of 1 hundred different ways you will die eight times from lung cancer.

That is a 700% increase in the likelyhood as a smoker of dying of lung cancer compared with a non smoker.

The 8% is not to do with the correlation coefficient or the standard deviation of the data. The 8% is purely the chance that you will die of lung cancer. The other 92% of things you will die of will be other things.

Also the increase in rates of lung cancers is not the only thing that smoking causes. And as Saturnus pointed out of the people who get lung cancers 85% of them are smokers... yet the amount of smokers in most first world countries is less then non smokers.


Again with a biased reasearch, and playing with mathematics. If I say 8 -1 = 7 it will not sound as bad as %700 increase in the changes, what matters is the absolute change of getting it, increasing above the non-smoker, and that's only seven and probably less. I could research about the chances of getting any disease by other habits, but I'll do so only when I've enough time, besides many on this thread don't seem to be interested.

It is an increase of 700%. By simply being a smoker you have an eightfold higher chance of dying of lung cancer then a non smoker.

Smokers life span is also on average considerably shorter then non-smokers.

[Soulforged]

[QUOTE]Soulforged you are showing your lack of understanding of statistics.

Non smoker 1% chance of dying of lung cancer. So out of all the things that you can die of out of 1 hundred different ways you will die once from lung cancer.
Smoker 8% chance of dying of lung cancer. So out of all the things that you can die of out of 1 hundred different ways you will die eight times from lung cancer.

That is a 700% increase in the likelyhood as a smoker of dying of lung cancer compared with a non smoker.Yes already got that. Eight more times, eight time less and sevenhundred percent chance increase. That's what I said, you said the last, the same but with other simbols. They mean the same.


The 8% is not to do with the correlation coefficient or the standard deviation of the data. The 8% is purely the chance that you will die of lung cancer. The other 92% of things you will die of will be other things.Yes agreed. But the chance is added up over smoking over a period of 50 years. The risk is still low.

Also the increase in rates of lung cancers is not the only thing that smoking causes. And as Saturnus pointed out of the people who get lung cancers 85% of them are smokers... yet the amount of smokers in most first world countries is less then non smokers.I didn't saw any statistics on that.

It is an increase of 700%. By simply being a smoker you have an eightfold higher chance of dying of lung cancer then a non smoker.Even presuming the veracity of such reasearchs, you're still expressing it that way, if I say that %1 of all the non-smokers over the period of a lifetime will get lung cancer and then say that %8 of the smokers over the period of lifetime will get lung cancer the chance if low.

Smokers life span is also on average considerably shorter then non-smokers.Well you might find interesting that article that I posted in my edited post above (the last one).

[Harald Den BlåToth]

I'm still smoking. Less and less, and in fewer and fewer places (basically nowhere indoors). You know what surprises me? Two things:

1) The vehemence of the anti-smoking crowd
2) How fast we've changed from a mostly-smoking society to a non-smoking one. I mean the whole political movement has really only existed since the 80's.

It's all hype generated by health insurance companies. Smokers DO develop a tobacco related pathology (lung cancer) and are more likely to develop other illnesses (COPD, CHD) whose evolution is far graver and faster than in non-smokers.
In other words, health insurance companies lose money. They tried to impose greater taxes to smokers than to non-smokers. It didn't work simply because smokers declared themselves non-smokers to pay less. So they tried the other way around. They turned the smokers into the modern lepers. One's almost ashamed to acknowledge that he's a smoker.
If they do it they do it for money not for the sake of the smokers...

[Kralizec]

Meh. I don't care much either way. Partly because I stopped smoking a few weeks back, but even before I started smoking I didn't generally care about other people's smoke if they're at least polite enough not to blow it in my face.

You can go overboard with anything, but I don't see much of a problem with people who smoke 1-2 packs a week (what I did). If you get cancer because of that little bit, you probably were geneticly inclined towards it. Sure all smokers die at an earlier age- but in a society where the economy suffers because the average age is on the rise, is that a bad thing?

Stop population ageing - start smoking :laugh4:

[A.Saturnus]

Yes agreed. But the chance is added up over smoking over a period of 50 years. The risk is still low.

700% is not low it's almost astronomically high. If any substance has a 700% increase of causing cancer, it will be outlawed immediately. Unless it's pushed by the tabacco industry. Add to that that the base level chance includes passive smokers. Yes, there are behaviours that involve a greater risk. Shooting through your head with a gun for example (which is also outlawed in public places BTW). But on society level, no other behaviour has so much negative impact. 5 million people a year. It's a bigger problem than AIDS. If you consider weighted mortality (that is young deaths weight more than old ones - also called Years Lost to Life), which is a measure for the societal impact of a disease, lung cancer scores number one.


If they do it they do it for money not for the sake of the smokers...

Yeah, they save lives just to get money - that bastards.


1) The vehemence of the anti-smoking crowd

That may have to do with the fact that smoking is the biggest health problem of our time.

[Soulforged]

700% is not low it's almost astronomically high. If any substance has a 700% increase of causing cancer, it will be outlawed immediately. Unless it's pushed by the tabacco industry. Add to that that the base level chance includes passive smokers. Yes, there are behaviours that involve a greater risk. Shooting through your head with a gun for example (which is also outlawed in public places BTW). But on society level, no other behaviour has so much negative impact. 5 million people a year. It's a bigger problem than AIDS. If you consider weighted mortality (that is young deaths weight more than old ones - also called Years Lost to Life), which is a measure for the societal impact of a disease, lung cancer scores number one.

Well I think all comes down to a matter of evaluation (though I didn't see any references on statistics, I'll just buy your words for now). I consider 7% difference to be low, you consider %700 more to be high. Anyway have you read any part of the link I posted, I assure you it's worth it, even more to those that think that smoking is bad for your health. I was one of those, my father smoked and I blamed every single thing on that fact, even his death, until I discovered it was totally unrelated (it was SAMSCom). Now after you read the actual sources and see what's happening maybe it might turn your mind completely or not, I can't force anybody, I'm just recommending. I'll still consider 8% in a life time to be low, even more with a biased source, let's say that I don't find any reason to restrict freedom in any way.

[Duke Malcolm]

Ooh, I can't wait for the weekend to see what the pubs and clubs are like without that haze around the bar...

[mystic brew]

as far as i know this legislation was enacted for the rights of the employees. It's to bring the UK in line with european human rights legislation.

I support the right to smoke. and it should be noted that this doesn't tell a smoker they can't smoke, it merely frees the worker from having that choice imposed on them.

I think this is a good balance between individual freedoms. it doesn't infringe on the right to smoke, which is a personal choice, and it preserves teh freedoms of those who don't wish to be smoked at.

And the 'no one is forcing them to work there' is a bad bad argument. sure, you accept increased risk in certain jobs, but when accidents occur the company can still be held liable. the employer has a duty of care, and this legislation identifies a risk factor and deals with it at one go.

i can't wait for next year.
bring.
it.
on.

[A.Saturnus]

Well I think all comes down to a matter of evaluation (though I didn't see any references on statistics, I'll just buy your words for now). I consider 7% difference to be low, you consider %700 more to be high. Anyway have you read any part of the link I posted, I assure you it's worth it, even more to those that think that smoking is bad for your health. I was one of those, my father smoked and I blamed every single thing on that fact, even his death, until I discovered it was totally unrelated (it was SAMSCom). Now after you read the actual sources and see what's happening maybe it might turn your mind completely or not, I can't force anybody, I'm just recommending. I'll still consider 8% in a life time to be low, even more with a biased source, let's say that I don't find any reason to restrict freedom in any way.

As I said, smoking is the biggest health concern in the Western world and that's not a matter of evaluation. I've read your link and the main problem is that - apart from linguistical details such as the word "cause" - statistics aren't interpreted right. Let's go over it in detail:

1) USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
As I said, that's outrageously much. Very few common behaviours that are considered unhealthy lead to a similar increase. Your chance of dying in a car accident is only 1 to 1000000. An exception is hardcore drug abuse, but that's much less prevalent.

2) No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
That may be true, but 5 cigars a week is very low for smokers. Most smokers smoke more than that. I don't have a link but I read of a study that showed that only 1 cigar per day increases the chance for some forms of cancer significantly.

3) Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
Only number 9 ~:rolleyes: Of course, smoking does not only cause lung cancer but many other forms of cancer as well and also coronary heart disease, another top ten player (number one in Western countries).

4) All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
In the world. In Western countries it is more. And weighted for prematurity lung cancer is cause of death number one in the Western world. All health problems caused by smoking combined account for 5 million deaths worldwide every year. The only factor causing more deaths is starvation.

5) Occasional cigarette use (<1 pk/wk) has never been shown to be a risk factor in lung cancer.
That's the same as number 2, isn't it?

6) Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.
Yes, carbonmonoxyd is more dangerous, that's why releasing more than minimal quantities of it is illegal. Point me to a pollution that as dangerous as smoking and as legal.

7) Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
You provided sources yourself that refute this.

8) A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
This point proves the bias of this argumentation. A WHO study in 1998 found increased risk of lung cancer for passive smokers but the increase was not significant due to the small sample size. It is in fact (weak) evidence for the dangers of passive smoking. Using it to defend smoking is ludicrous.

9) No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
We have already established that passive smoking causes lung cancer. If no study has shown that for children in particular then maybe because none such study has been conducted.

10) In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.
I wonder whether he actually had a look at the study. The authors would probably be shocked to know being quoted in such a context. They state clearly that cigarette smoke is a carcinogene for humans. They also mention that a similar treatment like theirs has caused lung cancer in rats. They do not even conclude that cigarette smoke isn't a carcinogene for mice (they are scientists after all). They propose further studies that take longer than 6 months. But even if mice are resilient agaist tabacco, that's not really surprising. Rodents are in general more resilient to unhealthy environmental conditions.
Again, this point shows clearly the unscientific nature of his arguments.

11) If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)
20% decrease in premature death rate! 20% for christsake! Ending all wars, terrorism, criminality and traffic accidents wouldn't contribute half as much. Healing AIDS wouldn't contribute as much. But he's right, the major cause of preventable death isn't smoking but starvation. Smoking is second.

[Soulforged]

1) USWM smokers have a lifetime relative risk of dying from lung cancer of only 8 (not the 20 or more that is based on an annual death rate and therefore virtually useless).
As I said, that's outrageously much. Very few common behaviours that are considered unhealthy lead to a similar increase. Your chance of dying in a car accident is only 1 to 1000000. An exception is hardcore drug abuse, but that's much less prevalent.First I wonder why they lied and stated 20, some 40, and second I wonder how this can be related to the 8%. And then I find my answer, of course, there has to be a necessary relation, and it's 8% will be not enough so they exagerated it, the previous article mentioned that it was done that way under the excuse that the common people will not understand the risks unless you stated it that way. Other risks might be relative going from place to place, but let's see the one about being hitted by a car and possible dying because of it. This source (http://http://www.cotf.edu/ete/modules/volcanoes/vrisk.html)has a table that shows this:
Event ChanceThis Year
Car stolen 1 in 100
House catch fire 1 in 200
Die from Heart Disease 1 in 280
Die of Cancer 1 in 500
Die in Car wreck 1 in 6,000
Die by Homicide 1 in 10,000
Die of AIDS 1 in 11,000
Die of Tuberculosis 1 in 200,000
Win a state lottery 1 in 1 million
Killed by lightning 1 in 1.4 million
Killed by flood or tornado 1 in 2 million
Killed in Hurricane 1 in 6 million
Die in commercial plane crash 1 in 1 million to 10 million
So as you see at least this chances contradict your chances. The chances of getting cancer are still high without smoking, that's true, however smoking it's of 8 in 500, the difference appears pretty low to me.

2) No study has ever shown that casual cigar smoker (<5 cigars/wk, not inhaled) has an increased incidence of lung cancer.
That may be true, but 5 cigars a week is very low for smokers. Most smokers smoke more than that. I don't have a link but I read of a study that showed that only 1 cigar per day increases the chance for some forms of cancer significantly.Yes I've read them too, but the significance is not that significant. Even considering what it does, or what we think it does, to non-casual smokers, all passive smokers are casual smokers (or even a lesser degree). That has to have some relevance even for the more unwilling to accept that this ban is ridiculous.


3) Lung cancer is not in even in the top 5 causes of death, it is only #9.**
Only number 9 ~:rolleyes: Of course, smoking does not only cause lung cancer but many other forms of cancer as well and also coronary heart disease, another top ten player (number one in Western countries).From the source (in the section of hearth diseases, I think you picked up the previous source, I'm talking about the next one, wich is more complete): "The connection between smoking and heart disease is far more tenuous than that between smoking and lung disease. Though the medical establishment considers smoking to be a risk factor (among many risk factors) for heart disease, the fact remains that anywhere from 30 to 50% of those admitted to hospitals for coronary problems exhibit none of the known risk factors (including smoking), and that the research is by no means either consistent of conclusive in linking smoking the heart disease. It is true that deaths from heart disease, which is still the number one cause of death, are declining but most researchers attribute this to better surgical and medical techniques, not to a decline in smoking rates, since deaths from heart disease are declining world-wide, even in countries with high smoking rate."---"Smoking is by no means the only risk factor for lung cancer, and in some occupations cigarette smoking appears actually to help protect against getting the disease. Lung cancer is acknowledged to be on the rise both in the U.S. and elsewhere despite the decline in cigarette smoking which began more than 25 years ago. "---"Further, lung cancer among nonsmokers seems to be increasing, while the rate of lung cancer among smokers is decreasing, thanks to the advent of filtered cigarettes, which nearly every study has shown decreases risk anywhere from 20% to 30% (only one such study is listed here)." It's only a risk factor for both diseases, as many risk factors for other diseases, that we accept. I think that the main problem is the use of the word "cause" still, and that has pushed many people to believe that eliminating tabacco smoking will cause the rate of appearence of lung cancer to dicrease to a minimal, wich is untrue.

4) All cancers combined account for only 13% of all annual deaths and lung cancer only 2%.**
In the world. In Western countries it is more. And weighted for prematurity lung cancer is cause of death number one in the Western world. All health problems caused by smoking combined account for 5 million deaths worldwide every year. The only factor causing more deaths is starvation.They're not caused by, in a given case it could be that it was because of smoking or not, but many times non of those factors are recognized as the cause of the actual disease. That's an exageration. About the western world, that's the principal cause of death in men, and still there's the issue of cuasation by smoking tabacco. Now the ironical thing here is that it appears the quantity of smokers has been declaning in the most advanced countries, that includes great part of the western world.


6) Certain types of pollution are more dangerous than second hand smoke.
Yes, carbonmonoxyd is more dangerous, that's why releasing more than minimal quantities of it is illegal. Point me to a pollution that as dangerous as smoking and as legal.You said it yourself. Carbon Monoxyd is expelled by cars, combustion working cars. But agregate to that list other possible pathogens: nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, benzene, formaldehyde and polyciclic hidrocarbons.

7) Second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer.
You provided sources yourself that refute this.They only oppose this, there's no serious refutation, and seeing how the research carried out by the principal health agencies are biased, I'll seriously doubt those sources. From the same source: "In 1993, EPA labeled secondhand smoke a "known human carcinogen." This was based on its analysis of about 30 epidemiologic studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer. But 80 percent of the studies did not support EPA's decision. So how did EPA justify its conclusion?

EPA performed a "meta-analysis" of the studies. That is, the relative risks from the 30 studies were weighted, pooled and an "average" relative risk of 1.19 was calculated. And EPA concluded that secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk 19 percent."
And:"Researchers from the University of California (San Francisco) and the University of California (Berkeley) did a meta-analysis of 23 epidemiologic studies of diesel exhaust and lung cancer (Note: 7 other diesel exhaust/lung cancer studies were excluded from the meta-analysis, 6 of which did not support the researcher's ultimate conclusion).
Skepticism regarding the carcinogenicity to the lung of diesel exhaust in humans arises from three main concerns about the epidemiologic evidence. First, and probably most important, the magnitude of the effect observed in most studies is low, with relative risks (RRs) typically under 1.5. Second, of the 30 studies conducted on the relation between diesel exhaust and lung cancer, only four have obtained either quantitative data on current exposure or semiquantitative data on historical exposure. None has obtained quantitative data on historical exposure, the measure most relevant to the development of lung cancer...Third, the effect of cigarette smoking has been controlled in only about one-half the studies...
[The authors] conclude that the data support a causal association between diesel exhaust and lung cancer in humans. Has science proven causality beyond any reasonable doubt? Probably not. The repeated finding of small effects, coupled with the absence of quantitative data on historical exposure, precludes a causal interpretation."


8) A WHO study did not show that passive (second hand) smoke statistically increased the risk of getting lung cancer.
This point proves the bias of this argumentation. A WHO study in 1998 found increased risk of lung cancer for passive smokers but the increase was not significant due to the small sample size. It is in fact (weak) evidence for the dangers of passive smoking. Using it to defend smoking is ludicrous. First it's not exactly to defend smoking, he also says that it's dangerous and recommends not to do it more than occasionally, however, what he wants is to put things as they're. Second, and from the source (again, not the one that you saw, but the next -the one in the hyperlink "interesting source"): "It is not surprising that the WHO is now the vehicle to expand this economy of loot at global level. But reality has not changed: while the WHO is barking its absurd tobacco-related mortality figures based on statistical assumptions dictated by a political agenda, real science still has no proof for the WHO's claims." The propaganda machine, WHO. (http://www.forces.org/evidence/who/index.htm). About the WHO study of 1998 (http://www.davehitt.com/facts/who.html).


9) No study has shown that second hand smoke exposure during childhood increases their risk of getting lung cancer.
We have already established that passive smoking causes lung cancer. If no study has shown that for children in particular then maybe because none such study has been conducted.Actually it was. The same 1998 study of the WHO was tested on families, and it showed in fact that in certain cases second hand smoke decreased the chances of getting cancer for the childs.

10) In one study they couldn't even cause lung cancer in mice after exposing them to cigarette smoke for a long time.
I wonder whether he actually had a look at the study. The authors would probably be shocked to know being quoted in such a context. They state clearly that cigarette smoke is a carcinogene for humans. They also mention that a similar treatment like theirs has caused lung cancer in rats. They do not even conclude that cigarette smoke isn't a carcinogene for mice (they are scientists after all). They propose further studies that take longer than 6 months. But even if mice are resilient agaist tabacco, that's not really surprising. Rodents are in general more resilient to unhealthy environmental conditions.
Again, this point shows clearly the unscientific nature of his arguments. I agree that part was not exactly professional. About the study on rodents (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8616820&dopt=Abstract). That's exactly what the excerpt said, they simply couldn't, not that it's relevant because mice are rodents, and we want to know humans.

11) If everyone in the world stopped smoking 50 years ago, the premature death rate would still be well over 80% of what it is today.1 (But I thought that smoking was the major cause of preventable death...hmmm.)
20% decrease in premature death rate! 20% for christsake! Ending all wars, terrorism, criminality and traffic accidents wouldn't contribute half as much. Healing AIDS wouldn't contribute as much. But he's right, the major cause of preventable death isn't smoking but starvation. Smoking is second.That's of course a prediction, and not exactly of the future, but from the past. But you must admit that it's an exageration, I mean what you said next. I find this to be of little relevance anyway.

I think that it's overly demostrated that secondhand smoking, the primary issue in all this topic, has never show any scientific evidence that puts it as a significant risk factor for cancer. Occasional second hand smoke has never been shown to be a causative factor in lung cancer. Even according to EPA figures, living with a heavy smoker for 30 or 40 years, will only increase the nonsmoker's chance of getting lung cancer from 0.4% to 0.6%.

By the way, actively smoking has a lot of privileges for your health, but it's better to not show them, right?...Hell it can even prevent cancer.

[A.Saturnus]

Die of Cancer 1 in 500
Die in Car wreck 1 in 6,000

Yes, my mistake. I gave the chance of dying in a car accident per year, and not even that correctly. But my claim : "Very few common behaviours that are considered unhealthy lead to a similar increase" still stands.



First I wonder why they lied and stated 20, some 40...

Who said that?


Yes I've read them too, but the significance is not that significant. Even considering what it does, or what we think it does, to non-casual smokers, all passive smokers are casual smokers (or even a lesser degree). That has to have some relevance even for the more unwilling to accept that this ban is ridiculous.

Some passive smokers are indeed more than casual smokers. If you're living in a household with a heavy smoker, you're exposed to more tabacco smoke than a casual smoker. Of course, non-smokers like me who live alone and are exposed to tabacco smoke occasionally are not the issue. But it's established that the harm of smoke is dose dependent. That means that it's not that slight exposure has no effect but the effect is too small to be found with the usual studies. But again, that's not the issue. The issue is that smoking has a huge negative effect on the health of society.


It's only a risk factor for both diseases, as many risk factors for other diseases, that we accept. I think that the main problem is the use of the word "cause" still, and that has pushed many people to believe that eliminating tabacco smoking will cause the rate of appearence of lung cancer to dicrease to a minimal, wich is untrue.

It would probably decrease by about 70%. And you can't have it both ways. Tabacco smoke either causes cancer or it's completely harmless. "To cause" does not mean that the effect has to appear in 100% of the cases. If we would use such a definition we would have to say that nothing causes cancer. It just miraculously appears. No cancerogene substance on earth has an effect rate on 100%. "To cause" means that the cause is connected to the effect in a causal way. The former brings the latter about. Hell, it's as if you would argue that sex doesn't cause pregnancy!


They're not caused by, in a given case it could be that it was because of smoking or not, but many times non of those factors are recognized as the cause of the actual disease. That's an exageration. About the western world, that's the principal cause of death in men, and still there's the issue of cuasation by smoking tabacco. Now the ironical thing here is that it appears the quantity of smokers has been declaning in the most advanced countries, that includes great part of the western world.

Fallacy. The presence of the consequence while absence of the antecedent doesn't refute the implication.


You said it yourself. Carbon Monoxyd is expelled by cars, combustion working cars. But agregate to that list other possible pathogens: nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, benzene, formaldehyde and polyciclic hidrocarbons.

And releasing any of them in a pub is illegal. Your point is?


They only oppose this, there's no serious refutation, and seeing how the research carried out by the principal health agencies are biased, I'll seriously doubt those sources. From the same source: "In 1993, EPA labeled secondhand smoke a "known human carcinogen." This was based on its analysis of about 30 epidemiologic studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer. But 80 percent of the studies did not support EPA's decision. So how did EPA justify its conclusion?

EPA performed a "meta-analysis" of the studies. That is, the relative risks from the 30 studies were weighted, pooled and an "average" relative risk of 1.19 was calculated. And EPA concluded that secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk 19 percent."

A meta-analysis is a statistical procedure to pool multible studies. Even if 100% of the studies had not supported the EPA's decision, a meta-analysis may come to different result because the statistical power increases. Meta-anaylses are legit procedures that are used in many fields in science. There were concerns about possible bias in this study, that is why an independent team of researchers re-analized the data adjusting for bias. They still found a significant result.

You can find a link to the study here (#12):
Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=QuickSearchListURL&_method=list&_aset=V-WA-A-W-CWY-MsSAYVW-UUA-U-AAVZCYYUYY-AAVVAZYYYY-DZEDWUEWW-CWY-U&_sort=d&view=c&_st=13&_acct=C000047079&_version=1&_userid=877992&md5=f3ab7a5870cc6281555bc7670c269fd6)

There you'll also find dozens of other studies finding statistical evidence for the harm of passive smoking.
The original study found an excess risk for people living with a smoker of 24%. The re-analysis corrected this to 19% because of the adjustment to publication bias. As you can see, the EPA quickly adopted the corrected numbers.
Because of its size and its scrutiny this corrected study can be seen as the current answer on the question whether environmental smoke causes lung cancer. Because of that, we can say that any claims that no evidence exists for this causation are definitely untrue.

However, it's true that the effect sizes of passive smoking on lung cancer are surprisingly small. From the studies under the link above emerges the interesting picture that while lung cancer is the main pathology connected to active smoking (but by far not the only one) for passive smoking more important pathologies seem to be cardivasculair diseases and breast cancer.


First it's not exactly to defend smoking, he also says that it's dangerous and recommends not to do it more than occasionally, however, what he wants is to put things as they're. Second, and from the source (again, not the one that you saw, but the next -the one in the hyperlink "interesting source"): "It is not surprising that the WHO is now the vehicle to expand this economy of loot at global level. But reality has not changed: while the WHO is barking its absurd tobacco-related mortality figures based on statistical assumptions dictated by a political agenda, real science still has no proof for the WHO's claims." The propaganda machine, WHO.. About the WHO study of 1998.


Ahh, the WHO conspires with the World Bank to take over the world. It's all obvious to me now ~:rolleyes:
Come on, that's a conspiracy theory. About the WHO study of 1998: they claim the WHO lied in their press release, but I can't see in which way. The press release seems entirely correct to me.


I agree that part was not exactly professional. About the study on rodents. That's exactly what the excerpt said, they simply couldn't, not that it's relevant because mice are rodents, and we want to know humans.

It's not only not professional, it's dishonest. No honest reviewer would take this study as evidence that tabacco isn't a cancerogene for humans.



I think that it's overly demostrated that secondhand smoking, the primary issue in all this topic, has never show any scientific evidence that puts it as a significant risk factor for cancer.

In the contrary, it's an established scientific fact that secondhand smoking causes cancer and many other health problems, as shown above. Estimates go that it kills 60,000 people in the US per year. Further there is no serious doubt in health science that smoking is one of the most important health issues in the world.

[Soulforged]

Who said that?The agencies who performed the tests. They stated 20 or even 40, over the 8%.


Some passive smokers are indeed more than casual smokers. If you're living in a household with a heavy smoker, you're exposed to more tabacco smoke than a casual smoker. Of course, non-smokers like me who live alone and are exposed to tabacco smoke occasionally are not the issue. But it's established that the harm of smoke is dose dependent. That means that it's not that slight exposure has no effect but the effect is too small to be found with the usual studies. But again, that's not the issue. The issue is that smoking has a huge negative effect on the health of society.What matters is the effect that it has on non-smokers. I could believe your word, but I've provided sources, so I'll like to know from where you're extracting this evidence of doce dependance and huge effect on society, so I can refute them.

It would probably decrease by about 70%. And you can't have it both ways. Tabacco smoke either causes cancer or it's completely harmless. "To cause" does not mean that the effect has to appear in 100% of the cases. If we would use such a definition we would have to say that nothing causes cancer. It just miraculously appears. No cancerogene substance on earth has an effect rate on 100%. "To cause" means that the cause is connected to the effect in a causal way. The former brings the latter about. Hell, it's as if you would argue that sex doesn't cause pregnancy!Probably decrease by about 70%, where does it says that? For what I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the cause of something, is that condition that without it given effect X will not be present. Such as in A (C1, C2, Cn) -> B, so if condition C1 in a tests gives this characteristics, it could be said that it's THE cause. However that's not the case here, smoking is just another risk, not the cause for lung cancer, that's what agencies had led us to believe.

Fallacy. The presence of the consequence while absence of the antecedent doesn't refute the implication.See my post above. The antecedent is not connected in a causal way in this case, just as an hipotetical condition, wich is not necessary for given consequence.

And releasing any of them in a pub is illegal. Your point is?Cars circulate in public streets.

A meta-analysis is a statistical procedure to pool multible studies. Even if 100% of the studies had not supported the EPA's decision, a meta-analysis may come to different result because the statistical power increases. Meta-anaylses are legit procedures that are used in many fields in science. There were concerns about possible bias in this study, that is why an independent team of researchers re-analized the data adjusting for bias. They still found a significant result.

You can find a link to the study here (#12):
Science Direct (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=QuickSearchListURL&_method=list&_aset=V-WA-A-W-CWY-MsSAYVW-UUA-U-AAVZCYYUYY-AAVVAZYYYY-DZEDWUEWW-CWY-U&_sort=d&view=c&_st=13&_acct=C000047079&_version=1&_userid=877992&md5=f3ab7a5870cc6281555bc7670c269fd6)Yes but if the statistical study is pooled with many other studies, then the coeficient extracted can only be estipulative, you just only put data together and extract a conclusion from that wich is only estimative. That's what my source (http://forces.org/evidence/)said. About the corrective study (btw thanks for the link) I cannot see the whole study (they ask for donations?), so I cannot dispel my doubts on bias by seeing only the conclusions. Beyond that the quote I posted talks about the revisited statistics, again it's the same source (http://http://www.junkscience.com/news/diesel.htm).

Ahh, the WHO conspires with the World Bank to take over the world. It's all obvious to me now ~:rolleyes:
Come on, that's a conspiracy theory. About the WHO study of 1998: they claim the WHO lied in their press release, but I can't see in which way. The press release seems entirely correct to me.No. In a conspiracy theory you take separete facts, that seem to be connected in some way, and you say that there was a conspiracy, without leaving evidence. They conspired here, I don't know with what purpose, but they left evidence, the evidence was in their same studies. That's what the source says.

It's not only not professional, it's dishonest. No honest reviewer would take this study as evidence that tabacco isn't a cancerogene for humans.Well I didn't took it as evidence. However many take it as evidence that smoking causes cancer on humans, even if the study shows that that's not even true in the same rodents that it was tested.

In the contrary, it's an established scientific fact that secondhand smoking causes cancer and many other health problems, as shown above. Estimates go that it kills 60,000 people in the US per year. Further there is no serious doubt in health science that smoking is one of the most important health issues in the world.Again, you can keep saying that it's causative, when in reality is just another risk factor. As it stands, it's not necessary nor sufficient to produce cancer in any way, many other conditions have to be present, even more considering that cancer is a complex disease and many factors have an influence, tobacco is not the first factor, by far. For all of this, and for matters of abreviation, I remit myself to that source, it tells you everything, from cancer to ETS.

[A.Saturnus]

I've only little time, so I have to make it short.



What matters is the effect that it has on non-smokers. I could believe your word, but I've provided sources, so I'll like to know from where you're extracting this evidence of doce dependance and huge effect on society, so I can refute them.

The WHO has databases about tabaco victims for almost every society you want to know about. Note: these figures are not from the WHO but from the various national health agencies.


Probably decrease by about 70%, where does it says that? For what I know, and correct me if I'm wrong, the cause of something, is that condition that without it given effect X will not be present. Such as in A (C1, C2, Cn) -> B, so if condition C1 in a tests gives this characteristics, it could be said that it's THE cause. However that's not the case here, smoking is just another risk, not the cause for lung cancer, that's what agencies had led us to believe.

Ok, I'm asking you directly: is sex the cause for pregnancy?


Cars circulate in public streets.

You can smoke on public streets.


Yes but if the statistical study is pooled with many other studies, then the coeficient extracted can only be estipulative, you just only put data together and extract a conclusion from that wich is only estimative. That's what my source said.

That's right, because it's all inductive statistics. It's the same for all studies. To get descriptive statistics your sample size would have to be 6 billion people. But that's why we use error margins.


No. In a conspiracy theory you take separete facts, that seem to be connected in some way, and you say that there was a conspiracy, without leaving evidence. They conspired here, I don't know with what purpose, but they left evidence, the evidence was in their same studies. That's what the source says.

Ok, it's clear that I won't convince you, but every reader of this discussion can decide for himself:
Either he believes the WHO, various other health agencies and practically the entire field of health science.
Or he believes Forces who claim that the WHO uses the World Bank to take away our freedom, that hundreds of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals are all "bad science" and says things like
"So, here we have a war unilaterally declared — thus an aggression — where the attacked defend themselves with whine and blunt weapons"

From their tone, you can quickly determine how valid a source they are, even if you don't have the little scientific knowledge necessary to see through their preposterous claims.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Ok, it's clear that I won't convince you, but every reader of this discussion can decide for himself:
Either he believes the WHO, various other health agencies and practically the entire field of health science.
Or he believes Forces who claim that the WHO uses the World Bank to take away our freedom, that hundreds of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals are all "bad science" and says things like
"So, here we have a war unilaterally declared — thus an aggression — where the attacked defend themselves with whine and blunt weapons"

From their tone, you can quickly determine how valid a source they are, even if you don't have the little scientific knowledge necessary to see through their preposterous claims.

:2thumbsup:

Having followed this debate carefully, I have to say, Soulforged, that you have been well and truly pwned.

[Soulforged]

I've only little time, so I have to make it short.Fair enough.

The WHO has databases about tabaco victims for almost every society you want to know about. Note: these figures are not from the WHO but from the various national health agencies.I cannot believe the WHO after what we've been discussing and reading. Sorry.

Ok, I'm asking you directly: is sex the cause for pregnancy?
No. Conception in the maternal uterus is the cause for pregnancy.

You can smoke on public streets.My, point is that it does just as bad as any other risk factor, and it's still allowed. Also if you can smoke on public streets, then the effect should be similar as when you're in pub. The conclusion should be, ban smoke from public streets too.

That's right, because it's all inductive statistics. It's the same for all studies. To get descriptive statistics your sample size would have to be 6 billion people. But that's why we use error margins.Ok. Let's see what the source (http://www.junkscience.com/news/diesel.htm)provides and perhaps no one has read it. For the last time:
EPA performed a "meta-analysis" of the studies. That is, the relative risks from the 30 studies were weighted, pooled and an "average" relative risk of 1.19 was calculated. And EPA concluded that secondhand smoke increased lung cancer risk 19 percent.

But this result was criticized because for a number of reasons, including:

Epidemiologic studies are not generally capable of reliably identifying small relative risks (i.e., less than 2.0).
None of the 30 studies used quantitative exposure data. All the studies used "guesstimated" exposure data.
The relative risk of 1.19 was not statistically significant at the conventional 95 percent level.
EPA underadjusted for the effect of smoking misclassification (i.e., the tendency for smokers to claim they are nonsmokers).
EPA (and the rest of the junk science world) chose to ignore these criticisms.

Ok, it's clear that I won't convince you, but every reader of this discussion can decide for himself:
Either he believes the WHO, various other health agencies and practically the entire field of health science.
Or he believes Forces who claim that the WHO uses the World Bank to take away our freedom, that hundreds of scientific studies published in peer-reviewed journals are all "bad science" and says things like
"So, here we have a war unilaterally declared — thus an aggression — where the attacked defend themselves with whine and blunt weapons"Again, no need to go there. The evidence is in the same studies, I wish I could find some, the original transcript, to see how they lied and exagerated about the results, in the conclusions.


From their tone, you can quickly determine how valid a source they are, even if you don't have the little scientific knowledge necessary to see through their preposterous claims.Yes I only posses a basic scientifical knowledge in that field. However the proposterous claims are, again, from the WHO and other agencies, and the group that tries to push anti-tabacco agenda. The source is complete, I'm sure that if any one with a little more knowledge of science than I've, reads it will understand pretty well what's the real issue about tabacco.

Having followed this debate carefully, I have to say, Soulforged, that you have been well and truly pwned.Not even close Haruchai. Note that I'm providing little from my opinion here (though it's clear by now), and almost nothing from my own pre-knowledge. It all comes to one source, as Saturnos pointed, you can choose to ignore it, as everyone else, I really don't care I don't live in those countries, when it comes here, the issue will be different.