Smoking Ban

[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 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 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?

[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

[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.

[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 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 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 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=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.

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).