Smoking Ban

[Cloudbringer]

Just a reminder , Please keep this thread civil or it will be closed.

If anyone feels angry when replying- don't hit the submit button. Take all personal debates to pm and try not to bait others while making your own points.

[ 05-12-2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Cloudbringer ]

[Thorfinn]

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

In 39 children with Legg-Perthes disease who were nonsmokers, the specific aim was to assess relationships among parental cigarette smoking during pregnancy, household smoking before diagnosis of Legg-Perthes disease, hypofibrinolysis, and thrombophilia. Fifteen (38%) children had no secondhand smoke exposure; 24 (62%) had secondhand smoke exposure before their diagnosis. Seventeen (71%) of these 24 children were exposed while in utero to smoking by a parent or live in relative and also had exposure to household smoke during childhood; seven (29%) had only household smoke exposure in childhood. In the full cohort of 39 children, secondhand smoke exposure correlated inversely with the major stimulator of fibrinolysis, stimulated tissue plasminogen activator activity. Of the children exposed to smoking, 48% had low stimulated tissue plasminogen activator activity (< 2.19 IU/ml) compared with 7% of the children without secondhand smoke exposure and 14% of 22 healthy control children. Secondhand smoke exposure had no significant effects on other measures of coagulation. Secondhand smoke exposure while in utero and during childhood appears to lower stimulated tissue plasminogen activator activity and additionally may depress heritable low stimulated tissue plasminogen activator activity, leading to hypofibrinolysis. Hypofibrinolysis may facilitate thrombotic venous occlusion in the head of the femur, leading to venous hypertension and hypoxic bone death, Legg-Perthes disease. PMID: 9678044 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

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...

Originally posted by Rokenn: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: That's unfair Rokenn. He was apologizing and you insulted him. "Nazi" enjoys common usage in the USA in the way he mentioned, and can be heard on TV. How many times have we heard "feminazi" or "econazi?" There is a BIG difference in how this term is viewed in usage in the USA and in Europe. While your reasoning as to why it is insulting is fine, please don't act as if folks in the USA don't toss the term around a lot.

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. [/QUOTE]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...

Originally posted by Rokenn: Well Penn & Teller are entertainers (and damded good ones) but I'll get my health related info from more reputable sources. 40 years ago they might well have been 'debunking' that cigrettes caused cancer.

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.

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.

[Thorfinn]

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mordenheim: Don't try that. Smoking is a legal thing? Do not use illegal matter to compare no matter how YOU disdain it. Don't use word's like death, kill, to discuss second hand smoke unless YOU can prove it. I am shocked you would even try to use such childish thinking to compare the use of a LEGAL product to a horrible crime. Try again Thanks

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.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Yorick, I see you've gone off the deep end. A rare occurence with you - and I am happy to witness it.

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.

[Thorfinn]

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 ]

[Timber Loftis]

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.