I am not going to make another long post (well at least try not to). I think I made my point clear.

It seems the issue is public saftey. Second hand smoke is a danger to the public. Using this analogy how can ANY honest person looking at REAL evidence say alchohol is not a danger to public saftey? I will even argue more so and would be happy to back it up with a whole host of actual deaths not scientific research that has not shown me ONE single case of death from second hand smoke (excuse the run-on).

Using logical thinking there is no way one can say second hand smoke is more dangerous then the consumption of alchohol at places like bars. I am glad some take a taxi but FACTUAL evidence show plenty do not. Those plenty cause a major risk to public saftey. There is no way to lie in the face of evidence.

Asking if you smoke before you get a job is pure discrimination. Obesity as well as alchohol addiction can be just as fatal. If we were half way honest we would call it what it is and that is discrimination. I find it funny in the most obese country in the world we have people screaming about health. Imagine that.

I mean show me people who have got cancer from second hand smoke. Show it to me, dont tell me, show me. Don't show me some report done by people in a lab.. show me real living people who have had life put in danger because of second hand smoke. I want to hear about bob the bartender and nancy the waitress. Then after you do let me show you the graves filled with children, mothers, fathers of people who died for that right called alchohol. Let's compare and see exactly what is more a danger to public saftey. This is such a political hysterical issue it is not even funny.

Both are dangerous but I argue where does it end? There will never be a utopia folks. We might want to think twice about banning things less we end up with logans run.

As an engineer, I am used to browsing abstracts. PubMed is awfully weak. I searched for secondhand smoke and got 98 hits (seems to be a little light. The most salient articles do not link to anything, even an abstract, though presumably if you owned the journals in question, or had access to a medical library, you could read it.

But the first one I ran into that had an abstract read OK, now this is certainly not the cream of the crop of studies, but 'c'mon. 39 kids with a given condition are reviewed for exposure to household smoke, and no mention is made of attempts to control for other factors. It is also an incredibly small group, so random fluctuations will be much harder to isolate.

"Of the (24) children exposed to smoking, 48% had low stimulated tissue plasminogen..." As I read that, 11 in a smoking environment had low levels, 13 did not. Harly a clear-cut cause, though may be a contributory factor. The sample size is much to small to tell.

Furthermore, this is just another example of a backwards study -- pick a group with some disorder, then try to force some correlation onto it, with no a priori reason for suspecting any given factor. In my first college statistics class, we were shown a chart correlating the birth rate in post-war London with pig iron production in the US. Surely no one would claim that though it was a correlation of .99, that the US could decrease London's birth rate by decreasing our steel production. Yet "studies" like this get little to no criticism when the results kind of agree with what the chosen would like to see.

I scanned a few other articles, and lo and behold, saw at least one major flaw in the application of statistics in each one.

What I am saying is that very few people have much in the way of statistical background. I have several years of post-doc training in statistics, so they tend to stand out like a sore thumb. But for anyone without a firm statistical background, including most professionals, those errors need to be pointed out by someone who does understand the limits of statistics. Which is why books criticizing papers are generally more revealing than the papers themselves...

Well when people through around terms like xxxx-nazi, in my eyes, they totally discredit themselves and their arguements. Just becuase it has entered common usage does not mean it should be tolerated. </font>[/QUOTE]<font color="#f683ad">Well Im shocked and horrified that I find myself agreeing with Rokenn :( I have to say, I dislike the way we minimize and dilute horrific terms and references due to our ever less strict use of the language...and yeah..I am guilty of it too :(

PS. I think the Nazi's that broke your Jaw Chewie are poor immitation wannabe's who are unable to deal with reality...</font>

<font color="#f683ad">They are also damned good at spotting cons, and fakes....and they are just the Hosts of the show people..There were real experts doing the research on the issues they expose and the studies everyone is touting have all (or most all) been discredited and shown to lack scientific value. Int he end the anti-second hand somke crowd had to back up and fall on the old addage...well just in case we are right there is no real reaosn not to act like we are in fact right...the good out weighs the bad and the ends justify the means. </font>

<font color="#f683ad">In my book, once a scientist falsifys a report, or exagerates findings, and spins the information to prove his or her point....at that point they are no longer scientists but propagandists.

I dislike smoke, and second hand smoke as badly or worse as anyone....I do however insist that people use the truth and not lies to push forward their agenda...and I also disagree with people trying to errode our personal freedoms. </font>

Rokken, I understand your misgivings to trust Mr. Oakley's book. But you misunderstand. He does not say that smoking is not bad for you. He points out the misuse of statistics in the studies used to launch the War on Smokers. Smoking may or may not be bad for you -- no statistician not on the payroll of either side can tell you with any certainty. The studies are just methodologically flawed.

In his next part of the book, he argues basically Mordenheim's line -- even if everything we think we know about smoking is true, does that justify the actions we have taken in the War on Smokers? Does it not leave us open for whatever other crusades are launched on whatever else the activists focus their sights upon? Simply drum up a few flawed studies, publicize the heck out of them, and using the Smoker precedent, you can feel justified in cracking down on anything else.

Smoking is not legal in bars.

You said this was about rules in private property. That's what laws are. Protection. Now nonsmokers are protected a little more from the harmful choices nonsmokers make. Bravo.

I noticed you haven't commented on the death of the nonsmoking entertainer from smoke related lung cancer yet. I would say slowly killing this man with smoke while he's entertaining you IS a horrible crime.

Timber, I don't smoke, do drugs or have indiscriminate sex. Many professional musicians I know don't. It's no strange thing. Your joke would have been funny 30 years ago, but times have changed.

Can I ask a moderator if this is a flame?

Timber, I'm not upset, angry or frustrated or calling people Nazis or the like. My views are consistent with pretty much every nonsmoker.

We choose not to breathe in tobacco.

Hardly "off the deep end". It seems that some smokers who've been quite happy stepping on the rights and health of nonsmokers without the slightest care, are getting pissed now that the shoe is being put on the other foot. With one big difference. THe smoking ban won't kill a smoker. It'll just make them step outside for FIVE MINUTES.

What is the big freakin' deal. It's a lot of hoohar over nothing. Work out the big issues guys. Sheesh. Walk out side for five minutes, have your cig, and be glad you just prolonged the waitresses life.

Yorick, let's switch gears a sec. What if the Religious Right managed to get enough control over the government in the '80s to ban any records that did not meet their narrow definition of "music", on the grounds that metal and acid and whatever else were sound pollution? What if you were only able to listen to rock-n-roll in the privacy of your own home, or if you had to take your walkman outside to get your riff fix?

Don't you see this is exactly the same thing you applaud having done to smokers?

[ 05-12-2003, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: Thorfinn ]

Yorick, "off the deep end" meant you were really ranting and blathering about the topic. If you go read that string of posts you posted, you might agree. I said it was nice to see because you usually don't do that. Everyone should get sputteringly mad every now and then. ;)

I don't think it was a flame, but hit the "report post" button if you like. I assure you, and you well know, it will not be my first suffering of a "Chocdown."

I still haven't had time to frame an opinion about the musician in the bar suffering from 2nd hand smoke. I'll tell you MagiK, thorfinn, and company will argue such smoke won't harm you. I won't go there, the obvious is obvious. It can and will harm you. As for a reply to it, I'm still pondering, but smoking and non-smoking bars would help solve the issue.

Have ameeting now. Post more later.