TheAgitator.com
Tobacco Good and Evil
Tuesday, March 30th, 2004Here’a a nice piece in the Washington Times featuring Zoe Mitchell, the Green Party activist-cum-pro-smoking advocate and co-founder of the group fighting D.C. smoking prohibition, Ban the Ban.
On the evil side, try to hold back the rage whilst reading this interview with Nurse Bloomberg on the one-year anniversary of New York City’s smoking ban.
Radley: I’m a DC Statehood Green Party member. I’m more focused on the Statehood side than the Green Party side…
Ban the ban? What nonsense. Nobody gave smoker’s the right to give me sore throats, foul smelling clothes or smoking related diseases. This is an example of the government stepping in and telling the public that no, you can’t kill other people.
Look at how this parallels with environmental regulations. Sure, you have the right to own your own property, and do pretty much as you please on it. So lets say you start dumping high powered cleaning solvents out your back window, from the mechanical work you’re doing on your car/boat/whatever. That stuff is hydrophilic for some reason, and it winds up polluting downstream water, which other people were using to bathe or drink. Well, nobody gave you the right to foul up everybody else’s water, or in this case, air.
I am in that bar or restaraunt, a paying customer such as yourself. But I didn’t order the cancer stick sloppy seconds, or any of the ills that come with it.
Adam S–
Care to cite some hard, primary evidence that second-hand smoke is killing anyone? Just because some public health Nazis think so doesn’t make it true. Remember, some of them thought AIDS was only a problem for gay people and that marijuana was addictive.
I realize that secondhand smoke can be obnoxious to some people. So can loud music, cover charges, and drunk people. All of which are easily avoided by not patronizing the establishments in which they are commonplace.
If you actually believe that “you have the right to own your own property, and do pretty much as you please on it” (and I suspect that in reality, you do not), then you must recognize that this is not an environmental issue, but one of property rights. Unless you also believe that smoke in the bar on the corner is deadly to even the people who do not voluntarily go in?
Good luck finding evidence to back that up.
Yes and we should get rid of those stupid laws that REQUIRE restaurant employees to wash their hands. We should voluntarily go eat where we donâ??t end up getting sick.
Firecracker:
How many restaurant employees are arrested for not washing their hands in a given year?
I’ll tell you: 0. Zilch. The law is not enforced – employees either wash their hands or they don’t. And there’s not a damn thing you or any politician or cop can do about it.
So if the law is unenforceable, why bother having it?
Anyway, your analogy doesn’t work. Even if there was any evidence to the whole second hand smoke hoopla (which there isn’t), you can easily identify which establishments allow smoking and choose not to patronize them. You have no way of knowing who’s washing their hands or not.
Who would’ve known there were so many Americans with tendencies toward tyranny.
Banning cigarette smoke in public places is tyranny? You find a couple of papers on how second-hand smoke effects are overblown and suddenly you can discredit billion dollars of research? Please, I think many of you are being unreasonable.
I’ve heard the arguments on, “If there was a demand for smoke-free bars, then the market would create them.” The free market principles don’t really apply because people don’t really care. There is a zealous anti-smoking movement who won some legislation. Now, I abhor smoking but here in Ohio I go to bars anyway and accept the fact that smoking is there. But I found it glorious in my recent trip to NY to go home at 3 AM and not smelling like a RJR factory. But is it something to campaign about? No. If smokers were really pissed, or you guys throwing “tyranny” around were really pissed, you would start a campaign and fight to overturn the law. But the will of the people is speaking. In NY the great majority like the smoke-free bars. Do you go there to drink or to smoke? ANOTHER ROUND PLEASE! :-)
Um, we have started a campaign, Ambush. It’s called Ban the Ban, and it’s what Radley’s post was about. Though we aren’t fighting to overturn any laws, we’re fighting to prevent bad laws from passing.
ambush–
You may consider my challenge to Adam S issued to you as well. I am especially interested in whether you can back up your “a couple of papers vs. billions of dollars in research” claim.
If smokers were really pissed, or you guys throwing “tyranny” around were really pissed, you would start a campaign and fight to overturn the law.
What a great idea! If only someone were doing that…perhaps in DC…
To those who don’t want to be in a smoky bar, DON’T GO THERE. Nobody has ever forced you to go into a smoky bar. Stop imagining rights you don’t really have. There is no “right” to be able to go to a bar and not risk smoke inhalation.
What a bunch of whining, selfish cry-babies. Damn, you people piss me off (and I’m a non-smoker). Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean there is reason to create a new law to stop it.
If the will of the people is to have smoke-free places, let some businesspeople capitalize on it. I’m sure they’d love a crack at a lot of non-smokers money. Just don’t force them to do it. Believe it or not, the free market works, but only if you don’t regulate the shit out of it – like this issue, for example.
I’ve heard stories about how revenues are up in a lot of CA bars since their ban went into effect, and that has been touted as evidence that the law was justified. I submit, however, that the fact that a law seems to have increased business AND the “safety” of workers and customers is STILL not a good enough reason to create another law.
This is clearly a property-rights issue, and is a true slippery-slope if ever there was one. The problem is, it’s even more slippery because people refuse to recognize it for what it is. Easier to cling to your imaginary rights, I suppose.
ambush–
it seems your argument is more geared to wanting to smell better after a night of drinking not the actual impact of such laws. I won’t argue that smoke is good for you, but I will admit my distaste for laws like this. What’s next on the list of things the majority of people don’t like? If bad air is a huge concern for you, I’d rethink living in populated cities with millions of gas guzzling vehicles right outside your door. I guess exhuast fumes are less deadly and smell better to you.
A restaurant is not ordinary private property. It is a public house where the public is invited to eat without suffering injury. If a restaurant owner wants to fill his own home or a private club with smoke that’s fine. But a public restaurant is different.
Second hand smoke can and will trigger an asthma attack which can kill a person. Hence, second hand smoke can cause injury.
Titus you will persuade more people if you avoid name calling. If you think there is no evidence of smoke causing injury please google “Dr. Abid Hanson”.
red -
“A restaurant is not ordinary private property”
Who owns it, a person or the government?
“Second hand smoke can and will trigger an asthma attack which can kill a person. Hence, second hand smoke can cause injury”
True enough. So STAY THE HELL OUT OF A PLACE THAT CAN KILL YOU!!! Look, I have a minor form of asthma, and as a result, I avoid going to overly smoky places. See how easy that was?
Red:
What name did I call you? Firecracker? That’s what you called yourself on your first post.
I’m the only non-smoker who works in a small warehouse. Been working here for years. I’m around second-hand smoke all the time. Not only are my lungs clean and healthy, I’m a marathon runner and a boxer.
The second-hand smoking studies are Bullshit; in fact, you should check out Penn & Teller’s show of the same name on Showtime for a good (and entertaining) response to the anti-smoking socialists. Here’s a link:
http://www.sho.com/site/ptbs/topics.do?topic=shs
Roger,
“Who owns it, a person or the government?”
Yes a person owns a restaurant. That doesn’t change the fact that it is not ordinary private property like your home. You are inviting the public to eat. Apparently the state has a compelling interest in seeing that people can eat in a public house without suffering injury — hence your local board of health.
“I have a minor form of asthma, and as a result, I avoid going to overly smoky places.”
Great. More evidence that smoke injures. Can everyone now stop arguing that smoke doesn’t injure?
Great discuss all. I enjoy this as this is one of the few issues where I can’t agree with my libertarian friends.
Red-
Say the business is a cigar bar where alchohol and tobacco products are sold, should they have a smoking ban imposed on them?
I won’t argue that smoking isn’t bad for you, it is, smoke in the lungs is a bad thing, but the disagreement I have is with the laws.
The argument that just becuase the owner “serves” the public it becomes a public place does not hold water with me. No one has to go into a bar to live their lives or pursue their livelihoods. The place does not automatically become a public place as soon as someone who doesn’t own it comes in.
It doesn’t take much to find out if the bar is smoker-friendly.
My concern is that people are just trying to impose laws to do away with their dislikes upon others and not necesarily for the health of others.
Red–
Good. You have a sample size of n=1. Thanks for playing.
The (very, very remote and generally avoidable) risk that exists from acute asthma attacks triggered by secondhand smoke is therefore comparable (in fact, much less severe) than most food allergies.
Should all restauraunts therefore be barred from serving any food that has been documented to trigger one fatal allergic reaction?
Great diversity of opinions. Civil discourse at its best. :-)
I would say that when restaraunts and bars typically advertise “grand openings” and such, they usually include “now open to the public” or some similar caveat. Bars need licenses and restaraunts need inspections by, yes, I’ll say it, the STATE. (cringes) So yes, it is a public place.
Drink and eat, hence bar and restaraunt. If I wanted to smoke, I would go to a head shop or smoke shop.
I don’t have the time to dig through research on second hand smoke. Why don’t you provide us with some, Brian? A couple links or journal articles would suffice. And it better not be that junkscience dot come moron.
Personally, I don’t like the idea that I am immersed in air that is filled with tar and other unknowns. Especially since I am at said establishment for nurishment and/or liver exercise.
Then again, I live in a air quality non-attainment zone. So who knows what I’m already inhaling.
“A couple links or journal articles would suffice. And it better not be that junkscience dot come moron.”
LOL, i. e. Brian, what Adam really meant to say is
“a couple links or journal articles would suffice as long as they dont prove your point”
Adam
This may be a bogus site but it only took me all of 2 minutes to find. Look around you will find more.
http://www.davehitt.com/facts/
Red -
“Great. More evidence that smoke injures. Can everyone now stop arguing that smoke doesn’t injure”
The only problem is, I didn’t say the smoke injures me. I just don’t like it; simple as that. I just seem to cough a little more in those environments, and I don’t much care for it. Exactly how it is my right to stop others from enjoying themselves simply because I am not, however, escapes me.
“Yes a person owns a restaurant. That doesn’t change the fact that it is not ordinary private property like your home. You are inviting the public to eat”
Indeed, you are inviting them to eat, not FORCING them to eat. Big difference.
Why is it so hard for some people to just avoid going to places they don’t like? Personally, I find it quite easy…
Titus: you grouped me with politicians and cops. That is name calling and you know it.
Brian: It is pretty easy for an individual to order only food that doesn’t cause harm. But its hard to miss the smoke particles in the air.
There are 9 links on this Phillip Morris web page that conclude that environmental tobacco smoke causes disease. I hope this addresses your concern with sample size. BTW lose the attitude.
http://www.philipmorrisusa.com/health_issues/secondhand_smoke.asp
Adam S–
I thought you’d never ask. :)
British Medical Journal (2003) v. 236(7398):1057
” For participants followed from 1960 until 1998 the age adjusted relative risk (95% confidence interval) for never smokers married to ever smokers compared with never smokers married to never smokers was 0.94 (0.85 to 1.05) for coronary heart disease, 0.75 (0.42 to 1.35) for lung cancer, and 1.27 (0.78 to 2.08) for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease among 9619 men, and 1.01 (0.94 to 1.08), 0.99 (0.72 to 1.37), and 1.13 (0.80 to 1.58), respectively, among 25 942 women. No significant associations were found for current or former exposure to environmental tobacco smoke before or after adjusting for seven confounders and before or after excluding participants with pre-existing disease. No significant associations were found during the shorter follow up periods of 1960-5, 1966-72, 1973-85, and 1973-98. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed.”
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (1995) v.48(5):587–598
“In this study, 29 case-control and three cohort studies involving exposed and unexposed female smokers (as defined herein, an exposed individual is a never-smoker married to a smoker and an unexposed individual is a never-smoker married to a never-smoker) and nine case-control and two cohort studies involving exposed and unexposed male smokers, in which presence or absence of lung cancer is the specified outcome, are reviewed. It is pointed out that any attempt to make inferences toward such a causal relationship must account for the fundamental differences in these studies, which took place on three continents over 15 years and involved many differences in individual study design as well as in study subjects. Since this has largely not been done, the only conclusion that sensibly can be drawn from these studies is that the conclusion of a causal relationship is currently not supported by the data. “
Red–
Just a bit of snarkiness among relatively like-minded folks. No harm intended. Seriously.
And though I was a bit tounge-in-cheek, I really do appreciate your attempt to go beyond the “secondhand smoke is bad bad bad” mantra and actually cite some evidence.
The bug up my ass here is that most people on your side of the issue (not necessarily you) just don’t like cigarette smoke (fair enough) but attempt to use shoddy and/or non-existant science to justify imposing thier preferences on business owners via the government. As both a scientist AND a libertarian, I find this just a tad offensive.
GEE Whiz! Is there that much to second hand smoke. I smoked for 20 years and quit now for more than 35 years, but not because of being told not too by some social engineering nazi. I just figured it was stupid to keep putting something in my mouth that would cause me discomfort in my declining years.
If you want to do something that has some degree of sense attached to it help get rid of the representatives and senators that vote the crop subsidies for the weed all of these years and figure how we can replace the taxes that the habit brings to the table and try not to believe all the legal malarkey the government feeds us about the health hazards of second hand smoke.
I find it interesting that Dr Gross’ study in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology is largey rebuked in a later article. (same vol/no, pg599-601)
It seems Dr Gross largely ignores any relationaship between dose-respone to causation. Omitting this seems a bit sketchy.
“In fact, the most striking and serious error in Gross’ reasoning is that his conclusion of the absence of a causal association rests solely on a meta-analysis of spousal smoking studies in which spousal smoking was dichotomized into ever versus never.”
“Due to his failure to appreciate the importance of the dose-response data, Dr Gross’ conclusions cannot be considered valid.”
I have only had one risk assessment course in my education, so I might not be the most qualified to assess the research by Dr Gross. Epidemiology bascially requires real human data, which is a great thing, especially if you don’t like the idea of correlating mouse tumors to human tumors. However, ignoring the dose-response association seems a bit irresponsible. But that’s just my basic understanding of risk assessment.
It seems that you used that study for EMPHASIS.
The other study seems a bit more objective. I will give it a closer look.
I have these on pdf ifanyone else wants to look at them.
Cheers.
Of the two I picked, the BMJ one is definitely the stronger study.
It’s also worth pointing out that there is a definite bias (any any field, not just this one) against publishing negative data. So yes, there are plenty of papers that take issue with what I’m saying. A lot of the ones I’ve read (and I’ve read quite a few) tend to overstate the effects of ETS. Specifically, increased risks for any fatal disease rarely exceed 30%, and virtually none of them adequately account for confounding variables (diet being the most common and glaring ommission).
I know better than to say that there is no way ETS could cause harm to others. That would require proving a negative. But I feel pretty confident in saying that the risk, if any, is very small, and the science supporting causal relationships is shaky enough that it isn’t a strong basis for legislation.
I suppose a little sarcasm is to be expected around here. But let’s all remember that sarcastic comments (I too am guilty of them) will bring out defense reactions in people and prevent them from absorbing the message you are trying to get across. I definitely want you guys to effectively spread libertarian ideas.
I never said I was a libertarian.
Ichiro Kawachi is the epidimiologist who released the results of his cohort study of the effects of environmental tobacco smoke on nurses during deliberation in the Engle case in Florida, which was the class action for flight attendents suing big tobacco.
Since then, Kawachi has studied many other conditions, such as obesity, stress, social cohesion, inequality, etc. He often equates the negative effects of those other conditions as similar or greater than the effects of primary smoking itself.
Kawachi is painfully aware of the phenomenon of Roseto, Pa., an Italian American town whose inhabitants smoked heavily and cooked with lard but nonetheless had an unusually low incidence of heart attack. Studying this in the 50′s, the physician-sociologist team of Stewart Wolf and J.G. Bruhn traced its good health to a conspicuously old-fashioned immigrant culture and closeness. By the ’60s, however, they began to see younger Rosetans adopting the more individualistic ways of the wider world–for example, building terraces in back of their houses rather than porches in front. Within another decade, Roseto’s heart-attack fatality rate was as high as that of neighboring towns.
Smokers today have become the scapegoat of society. They are nagged, attacked, and harrassed unmercifully by the “politically correct”, “perfect, and “beautiful” people like Adam S and Redfirecracker in attempt to tax, restrict, denormalize, dehumanize, and even demonize them. Anti-smokers create the conditions of stress, social incohesion, and inequality for smokers, that Kawachi regularly characterizes as having similar or greater negative effects on health as smoking itself. The hate and intolerance they preach and spread is worse for the health of the fabric of society than any amount of environmental tobacco smoke they may encounter.
Rahahahahhaahahahahahhahahahahahaahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahahahaa
POOP
You know tobacco is bad for you why do it well ill tel you it starts with the brain and it gets angry when dehidrated so the mind loses control and you die the end what a wonderfull book to buy grOOvy yeah
xenical Xen-770009122-345566
viagra ViaT8898111-01-01-22