Media Lets the Surgeon General Get Away With "THE DEBATE IS OVER" on 2nd-hand Smoke

[swansont]

According to ABC News' date=' at some point in this report, the Surgeon General states -- STATES -- that 50,000 people die annually due to brief, casual contact with second-hand smoke, such as from bars and restaurants! This in spite of the fact that there is not one shred of causal evidence in this entire report! As I understand it, it's all [b']statistical studies[/b]!

 

But, again as I understand it, statistics can never show a causal relationship. Not ever! So how can anyone state that something is factual when only a statistical study has ever been done?

 

Am I missing something here? Aren't we just perpetuating pseudoscience at the expense of science just because we all hate tobacco companies? What kind of nonsense is that?

 

 

Do you accept that wearing seat belts and lower driving speeds save lives? Much of that, if not all, is statistical as well. A LOT of science, especially medical, is statistical in nature. And that makes it easy to attack, because statistics can be manipulated and misrepresented, and people can be manipulated if they don't understand the statistics. Just like some people driving at high speeds or not wearing a safety belt will survive acccidents unscathed, whether or not you contract cancer under a given set of conditions is probabilistic.

[KLB]

Smoking is banned in all public places in Canada, how is it in the US?

Here in Maine smoking is prohibited in all public buildings. The only exception is for private "members only" clubs/organizations (e.g. VFW or Elks lodge) where the membership votes to allow smoking.

 

The public smoking ban was implemented a few years ago and it has been wonderful. I can now go to a bar and actually breathe. Before the ban I never went to a bar and almost never went to a restaurant because couldn't stand the smoke and I didn't want to breathe it. Now my wife and I go to these places on a regular basis. The ban was very liberating.

[Pangloss]

A LOT of science, especially medical, is statistical in nature. And that makes it easy to attack, because statistics can be manipulated and misrepresented, and people can be manipulated if they don't understand the statistics.

 

Well perhaps, but it also raises the issue of putting things into perspective. Part of the reason we're okay with seat belt laws is that we accept the necessity of driving (i.e. we'd be safer if we never drove at all, but we accept some degree of risk because we have to get around).

 

But a lot of times when these statistical studies get released to the public no perspective is offered, we're just told, flat-out, that popularThing_X causes cancer_Y. It's not necessarily the fault of scientists, it's also the media, but you can't exonerate scientists either since they make more of a name for themselves the bigger the issue is.

 

And I say "perhaps" because I'm not convinced that statistical analysis is the same thing as "science". I'm not saying that epidemeology isn't a valid field of study, or that it hasn't contributed to improving health in the world, I'm just saying that you have to balance statistics with cause-and-effect investigation, regardless of how difficult it happens to be, before you can call it science.

 

I'm not even saying that you should never ban something just because you can't acquire "science" on that basis -- may there are times when you have to err on the side of caution. But that should be the EXCEPTION, and today it seems like the NORM.

 

As to whether or not any of this reasoning applies to secondhand smoke and the surgeon general's latest report, I've promised to read more before commenting further.

[Pangloss]

Here in Maine smoking is prohibited in all public buildings. The only exception is for private "members only" clubs/organizations (e.g. VFW or Elks lodge) where the membership votes to allow smoking.

 

The public smoking ban was implemented a few years ago and it has been wonderful. I can now go to a bar and actually breathe. Before the ban I never went to a bar and almost never went to a restaurant because couldn't stand the smoke and I didn't want to breathe it. Now my wife and I go to these places on a regular basis. The ban was very liberating.

 

One of the surprising aspects of smoking bans has been the increase in patronage at bars and restaurants that previously allowed smoking. It seems that the ban has shown owners an aspect of their business that they did not previous realize.

 

But that doesn't make it right. If we find (just for the sake of argument) that no health problems are caused by second-hand smoke inhalation, then it should not be banned from businesses like restaurants and bars. People should lose all their rights just because they become business owners, and it's ridiculous how far we've gone in that direction in this country. Today it's secondhand smoke. Tomorrow it'll be trans fat. Then it'll be all meat. After that it'll be whatever politically correct thing happens to be en vogue. We're DICTATING what business owners can or cannot sell to OTHER people! We might as well be forcing people to go to CHURCH on Sunday! What's the difference?

 

If the patrons don't like it, they can go somewhere else. That's called FREEDOM.

 

Another thing that always irks me about the left's support for smoking bans is that the left also ostensibly supports drug decriminalization. Why is it okay to ban smoking but allow the use of mind-altering drugs? The hypocrisy of this is outrageous.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

If we find (just for the sake of argument) that no health problems are caused by cancer,

I hope you didn't mean that.

[Jim]

One of the surprising aspects of smoking bans has been the increase in patronage at bars and restaurants that previously allowed smoking. It seems that the ban has shown owners an aspect of their business that they did not previous realize.

 

I've been saying for years that a non-smoking bar would be a huge draw. My wife and I would like to go out for a drink but simply can't stomach the smoke.

[Pangloss]

I hope you didn't mean that.

 

Wups, I meant to say:

 

"If we find (just for the sake of argument) that no health problems are caused by second-hand smoke inhalation"

 

I'll edit the O. Thanks!

[KLB]

One of the greatest lies the tobacco companies perpetrated on to the public is the "right" to smoke in public places. There is no more of a right to smoke in public places then there is a right to drink in public places. In most places you can not go walking around in public buildings, or on public streets for that matter, drinking an open can of beer.

 

Since there is no way I could get harmed by sniffing second hand beer fumes, yet I can be harmed by cigarette smoke, what gives smokers any more rights to smoke in public places than drinkers have rights to drink in public places?

 

Again the "right" to smoke in public places is a lie. There is no such right.

 

--edit--

Posted written without seeing pangloss's editorial correction so I'll give him slack but the statement is still valid.

[Pangloss]

I've been saying for years that a non-smoking bar would be a huge draw. My wife and I would like to go out for a drink but simply can't stomach the smoke.

 

EXACTLY! DINGDINGDINGDINGDING! Lack of availability = opportunity = entrepreneurship = MONEY. The American way.

 

What the heck is wrong with that? Why do we have to DICTATE everything? Are we really THAT lazy?

 

(Yeah I know, health problems. Comes back to that.)

[Pangloss]

One of the greatest lies the tobacco companies perpetrated on to the public is the "right" to smoke in public places. There is no more of a right to smoke in public places then there is a right to drink in public places. In most places you can not go walking around in public buildings' date=' or on public streets for that matter, drinking an open can of beer.

 

Since there is no way I could get harmed by sniffing second hand beer fumes, yet I can be harmed by cigarette smoke, what gives smokers any more rights to smoke in public places than drinkers have rights to drink in public places?

 

Again the "right" to smoke in public places is a lie. There is no such right.[/quote']

 

A bar or restaurant is not the same thing as a street corner or sidewalk or public park.

 

What's not right is for people to assume that just because we make a compromise for certain aspects of public safety on business grounds, that therefore business owners should have no rights whatsoever. We can tell them to do anything we want them to do, from what they can sell to how much they can charge to how much they get to keep and everything in between.

 

All because they're those evil "business owners" -- second-class citizens. The new N word.

[KLB]

EXACTLY! DINGDINGDINGDINGDING! Lack of availability = opportunity = entrepreneurship = MONEY. The American way.

 

What the heck is wrong with that? Why do we have to DICTATE everything? Are we really THAT lazy?

Okay, I'll go back and quote the politician I love to quote but didn't like as a politician (if that makes any sense):

 

"Free enterprise left totally free will destroy itself."

 

Former Republican Govener of Alaska Wally Hickel. "The Wit and Wisdom of Wally Hickel", Searchers Press, Anchorage Alaska, 1994 ISBN 0-9644316-02

 

Quite simply business can be so short sighted that they won't see what could be good for their business because they are afraid to do what's right.

 

Side note: I voted against him but my copy of his book is signed by him. Does that make any sense?

[KLB]

A bar or restaurant is not the same thing as a street corner or sidewalk or public park.

 

There is no difference, a bar and restaurant CAN NOT serve alcohol without a liquor license. It is the local city or town that gets to decide whether or not a bar or restaurant gets the privilege to serve alcohol on premise and under what circumstances. There is no inherent right to get and serve alcohol simply because you want to open a bar. There also is not inherent right to get to allow smoking in a public place of business.

[bascule]

I used to live in a town that banned all indoor smoking in public places. Several bars in town closed as a result, while those outside the city limits saw a major increase in business.

 

Now they're trying to do it statewide:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3977323

 

Many now claim they'll just go to bars in Kansas/Wyoming to smoke.

[KLB]

I used to live in a town that banned all indoor smoking in public places. Several bars in town closed as a result' date=' while those outside the city limits saw a major increase in business.

 

Now they're trying to do it statewide:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_3977323

 

Many now claim they'll just go to bars in Kansas/Wyoming to smoke.[/quote']

I could see what you are saying happening in a small town where one can just go outside of the town limits. When smoking bans go into effect on a statewide basis the claim that they will just go elsewhere is nothing more than blowing smoke.

 

There is a big difference between driving ten or fifteen minutes to get to a bar one can smoke in and having to drive an hour or more. I challenge all who think that a statewide smoking ban would hurt bars or restaurants to so proof of a state where bars and/or restaurants were hurt on a wide scale (more than just the occasional "border town") after state wide smoking bans were implemented.

[bascule]

I'll say this at least: smoking bans are a great way to meet new people. If you frequent a bar, particularly on some night where an event is happening (karaoke, open mic, trivia, etc) you end up with a tight knit group of smokers who hang out and talk outside. When you're all freezing your asses off in the middle of winter it tends to build commoraderie. Met lots of great people that way.

[KLB]

I used to work in a trucking terminal in Alaska and my boss was a chain smoker but our terminal manager had banned smoking in any facility buildings. As a result my boss ended up spending a great deal of his time in the cab of his truck with the engine running conducting business on his cell phone. At -50 and colder it gets a little to cold to be huddling up out side to keep warm but our terminal manager would not allow any smoking in any of his buildings. Living in Alaska, I was always amazed at what smokers would go through to smoke their cigarettes. Sometimes I thought they valued that smoke more than the digits on their hands.

[Pangloss]

Quite simply business can be so short sighted that they won't see what could be good for their business because they are afraid to do what's right.

 

And it's up to us to straighten them out! Good-think Americans' date=' unite! Lead the doubleplusungood harbingers of capitalism to the light! Amen, brother! Hallelujah! ;-)

 

"'I will worker harder,' said Boxer. 'Napoleon is always right.'"

 

Side note: I voted against him but my copy of his book is signed by him. Does that make any sense?

 

Hehe, sure. Some of my favorite books were written by people I can't possibly see eye-to-eye with. (grin)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

And it's up to us to straighten them out! Good-think Americans' date=' unite! Lead the doubleplusungood harbingers of capitalism to the light! Amen, brother! Hallelujah! ;-)

 

"'I will worker harder,' said Boxer. 'Napoleon is always right.'"[/quote']

Denouncing KLB's ideas as communism isn't a good thing (and doesn't necessarily make them wrong, anyways), Senator McCarthy.

[Pangloss]

That would be why I put the friendly wink at the end. (I wish the software converted those, the way it encodes the smileys, but maybe I'm just not encoding it right.)

 

But serially, I know that we're talking about a grey area here. Like I said before, we make certain compromises to freedom when we start businesses, I just don't feel that this is one we should be making, so we're at the "agree to disagree point", and that pretty much closes the debate to all but humorous retorts. (grin)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is allowing smoking a right given to businesses or an individual right? It makes a difference, after all. If it's an individual right to smoke in public places, then the businesses should not be our concern.

[ecoli]

Is allowing smoking a right given to businesses or an individual right?

 

it's really neither, isn't it?

[swansont]

Another thing that always irks me about the left's support for smoking bans is that the left also ostensibly supports drug decriminalization. Why is it okay to ban smoking but allow the use of mind-altering drugs? The hypocrisy of this is outrageous.

 

Do you get a second-hand high from someone doing drugs, in the privacy of their own home?

 

And there's no hypocrisy in banning some drugs but allowing the consumption of alcohol?

[Pangloss]

Do you get a second-hand high from someone doing drugs, in the privacy of their own home?

 

Ah, but that's just it -- the surgeon general wants to stop you from smoking in the privacy of your own home.

 

 

And there's no hypocrisy in banning some drugs but allowing the consumption of alcohol?

 

Sure, but two wrongs don't make a right.

[bascule]

Another thing that always irks me about the left's support for smoking bans is that the left also ostensibly supports drug decriminalization.

 

I think you have a lot of ideas about "the left" which aren't necessarily true.

 

Liberals aren't necessarily PC

Liberals don't necessarily support smoking bans

Liberals don't necessarily support drug legalization

 

I would say:

 

Libertarians oppose political correctness

Libertarians oppose smoking bans

Libertarians support drug legalization

 

Totalitarians support political correctness

Totalitarians support smoking bans

Totalitarians oppose drug legalization

 

You like making these things out into a right/left issue when really they're a libertarian/totalitarian issue, and lately "the right" has been acting far more totalitarian than "the left"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Ah, but that's just it -- the surgeon general wants to stop you from smoking in the privacy of your own home.

This topic is about second-hand smoke, not a complete ban of smoking.