Would you be in favor of a repeal of smoking bans ....

[Father Time]

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

no---I want the FDA to control everything that is sold in America.

Are you guys really serious? They can manipulate the numbers to mean just about anything in "studies".

Which is why we have peer review.

 

[tigerbob]

I already spent a long time discussing it with you and giving you strong evidence as to how cigarette smoke harms people, whether it is the smoker or the people the smoker is near to.
You steadfastly refused to concede that research has shown it does. You claim it's inconclusive.

Here's a question for you. Do you believe it's possible that further research may be conclusive enough to your standards to convince you that secondhand smoke is a health hazard?
Don't you think that before we allow secondhand smoke in public places we should do enough research to determine that it isn't dangerous before unleashing it on the public?

Would you approve of the FDA allowing a manufacturer to sell an untested drug?

No, I wouldn't. But cigarettes are not untested. They've been a legal product for hundreds of years. Their risks to the smoker are well known and these risks have to be disclosed to the user, just as any drug would be.

And it is not the research that has been done that is potentially flawed. It is the interpretation of the data. You can conduct cohort studies and meta analyses until the cows come home, but if the statistical analysis of the findings is flawed then you may as well not have bothered.

Here's a question for you. The current smoking bans are all built upon pretty much a single foundation - the 1993 EPA report. What is it about that report and the methodology used that makes the conclusions it reaches so sound and inescapable that there is no alternative to the introduction of widespread public smoking bans?

Because it's good science. I am not a conspiracy freak who thinks it has been tampered with or flawed or whatever you said. I also believe the studies because they confirm what I and many others already know from experience. Cigarette smoke makes people sick. I've observed it making others sick and I've been made sick myself by it. I had to use an inhaler at one time because workplace exposure to it gave me asthma. I also used to get bad sinus headaches from it.

You say "because it's good science". That's your answer???

That's no answer. Why is it good science? You've clearly never read it. All you read is the articles that the media churn out using the highlights of the report. You don't know the methodology used, you don't know anything about statistics, how the data were evaluated, nothing in fact, yet you continue to insist "it's good science" and say that I am a kook.

Let me take a guess. Because it is a report produced by the EPA, you believe it. That's your only reason. Well, you're not alone. That's the media's view as well. And the view of most policymakers. And because that view is supportive of your agenda, you have no reason to want to debate it. You just blindly accept that it is fact because that's exactly what you want it to be, because if it were fact then bans on smoking in public places would be pretty much justified. There's little reason to ban smoking if it's dangerous to the smoker, but if it's dangerous to non smokers as well then banning it would be, in my opinion, quite reasonable.

Since you're so adamant that the EPA report is good science, I'll let you have a link to it. Then you can read up on it so that in future you know specifically what it is that you seem bound and determined to defend.

But if you do decide to read it, I'll also post several questions I have about the methodology and conclusions. Having read the report, you tell me why it is that a report published by a body that you seem to think is beyond reproach should

1) leave so many questions unanswered
2) make so many claims that the data simply don't support
3) use statistical methods that are alarmingly short of the minimum standards considered by statisticians to be 'best practice'.

If you can't answer the questions, if you have never read the report, then perhaps you should reconsider the "kook" thing.

BTW, just so you know, it's not "science". It's epidemiology and statistics. That's math, not science.

 

[tigerbob]

Tell you what Ang. Rather than linking to the entire 500 some page report, here's a summary of it (also sourced from the EPA, just so you know I'm not trying to cover something up)

EPA Fact Sheet: Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

If thats how you feel then try and get a law passed making cigarettes illegal or crack legal.

Maybe we should ban drinking alcohol in bars, its legal but I dont like the smell and drunk people are sometimes violent putting me at risk of physical damage...just like cig smoke. ----SARCASM

Don't forget that when one heads to the bar and drinks, one typically drives home and typically is tipsy while doing so and this puts you and your family at risk.

Maybe we should ban living as all living is risky!

Immie

Now you are just getting hysterical.

Or sarcasticly sniping at you.....one or the other

 

[Immanuel]

Don't forget that when one heads to the bar and drinks, one typically drives home and typically is tipsy while doing so and this puts you and your family at risk.

Maybe we should ban living as all living is risky!

Immie

Now you are just getting hysterical.

Or sarcasticly sniping at you.....one or the other

Immie

 

[Zoom-boing]

Your comment about asking nicely is a little snide and a bit naive. I've been asking people for years to please not smoke near me and I learned a long long time ago that I achieve the best results when I do so in a casual non confrontational manner. Smokers are very volatile and must be handled with kid gloves. Most often people respect my request and move away. Not all do though and I'm glad I am no longer put in the position of having to even say anything to smokers any more in bars and restaurants because the laws take care of that now.

Ang, asking in a 'casual non confrontational manner' is just what Immie said, it's 'asking nicely'.

Smokers aren't volatile they just get cranky when they need a nicotine fix . . . just like most people do when they need food.

 

[tigerbob]

Before I start, a point or two about methodology.

Ever seen an article that tells you, for example, that drinking red wine in moderation can have a positive effect, then a few weeks later seen another that says exactly the opposite? Both sets of conclusions may be correct based on the statistical approach used, but both conclusions may be hopelessly misleading for the same reasons. So how do you tell the difference?

First of all, you have to know where the results come from - what kind of study was conducted.

Ideally you want a Cohort Study, where a large number of people are tracked over time. Unfortunately this kind of study is hugely expensive and, while good for common things like, for example, influenza, it is somewhat impractical for conditions that are rarer and take a long time to develop.

Cohort study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alternatively you can use Case Control, a type of study that compares a group of people who have a condition with a 'control group'. Case Control studies are cheaper and take less time to conduct. Unfortunately, Case Control is likely to be biased because it specifically includes a group who have a condition (for example, if you want to find out if red wine causes heart disease you might select a group of wine drinkers who have heart disease, but leave out wine drinkers who don't. See how that might influence the findings?)

Interestingly, it was a Case Control study that initially showed potential linkage between smoking and cancer. The results were questioned until Cohort Studies demonstrated that a link did exist. Once established by a Cohort Study, the criticism of the original findings of the Case Control study evaporated because of the reliability of Cohorts. The Cohort Studies are the reason that I will take issue with anyone who says that smoking does not cause cancer.

Case-control study - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You can also use Meta Analysis. These are reviews of existing studies. A researcher would find all the appropriate studies, select the data that is specific to the issue he/she is studying, combine the data and calculate what it all suggests. In this approach, you actually don't have to do any fieldwork at all, so it's very quick and comparatively cheap. Unfortunately, because of the different methodologies used, it is difficult to combine the data sets without generating confounders (issues that skew the results), and is also subject to bias because leaving out certain studies can skew the findings in an almost infinite number of ways. It's also worth checking whether the analysis is conducted by someone who has an agenda. I would be extremely skeptical of any meta analysis that was conducted by a corporation that had a vested interest in seeing the results come out one way or the other.

Meta-analysis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sorry if this seems like an introduction to statistics, but THIS is the sort of stuff you need to understand before you say things like "it's good science" and expect your views to be considered well informed.

OOh - one other thing about Meta Analysis. Two studies can point in one direction, but when they are combined they can point in exactly the opposite direction. It's called The Simpson Paradox. Weird, huh? Starting to get the sense that this is difficult stuff? Well, that's because it is.

 

[Immanuel]

Your comment about asking nicely is a little snide and a bit naive. I've been asking people for years to please not smoke near me and I learned a long long time ago that I achieve the best results when I do so in a casual non confrontational manner. Smokers are very volatile and must be handled with kid gloves. Most often people respect my request and move away. Not all do though and I'm glad I am no longer put in the position of having to even say anything to smokers any more in bars and restaurants because the laws take care of that now.

Ang, asking in a 'casual non confrontational manner' is just what Immie said, it's 'asking nicely'.

Smokers aren't volatile they just get cranky when they need a nicotine fix . . . just like most people do when they need food.

I posted that last night late in the evening and was a little tired when I did so.

I believe that I posted it intending it to say, "in a nice manner" and then realized it did not come across that way and editted the post, while she was posting her reply.

Immie

 

[Charles Stucker]

And then those combo places had to have a separate smoking section. That seemed to work out best for everyone. (Although my own experience was that the smoking section was always crowded and the non-smoking section always had seats available, which I thought was strange if supposedly there are fewer smokers these days.)

Smokers and non-smokers typically go at different times (around here non smokers tend to go before 8PM and smokers after) so whichever side is prevalent at a particular time will seem crowded.

I smoked for 40 years and quit only when I got bronchitis so bad one winter that I couldn't get it down my throat..

I have yet to meet someone who bemoaned the fact that they failed to start smoking when they were younger, but many who wished they had never started.
I applaud you quitting.

 

[tigerbob]

Relative Risk

Another thing that needs to be clearly understood is the statistical term Relative Risk. This is fairly detailed math, but basically what it means is that you take a baseline of how common something is in general which you then express as a Relative Risk (RR) of 1.0 (i.e. no risk at all). Increases or decreases in risk are then expressed relative to that baseline. A decrease of 50% would be expressed as RR 0.50, and increase of 50% as RR 1.50. This is basically what the media are alluding to when they say something like "a 40% increased chance of".....whatever.

Relative risk - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

However, with statistics, it's reeeeeeeally important to take a considered view of this because it is very possible for results that, on the face of it, seem to point in a clear direction to be hopelessly misleading. As a result of this, statisticians are generally fairly rigid in their insistence that the RR is above 2 before they will consider it statistically significant. But don't take my word for it. Look it up yourself. Or, here's a link to a detailed explanation of the issues and the perspective of several people whose views on this matter are undoubtedly much better qualified than mine. But you really should read the Wiki or Google something yourself so you can be sure I'm not trying to steer you one way or the other, particularly since you view me as a "kook". I've included one quote here, but there are others in the link...

In epidemiologic research, [increases in risk of less than 100 percent] are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident .[Source: National Cancer Institute, Press Release, October 26, 1994.]

Relative Risk

 

[tigerbob]

And then those combo places had to have a separate smoking section. That seemed to work out best for everyone. (Although my own experience was that the smoking section was always crowded and the non-smoking section always had seats available, which I thought was strange if supposedly there are fewer smokers these days.)

Smokers and non-smokers typically go at different times (around here non smokers tend to go before 8PM and smokers after) so whichever side is prevalent at a particular time will seem crowded.

I smoked for 40 years and quit only when I got bronchitis so bad one winter that I couldn't get it down my throat..

I have yet to meet someone who bemoaned the fact that they failed to start smoking when they were younger, but many who wished they had never started.
I applaud you quitting.

LOL. That's a very good, and very true way of putting it.

 

[Immanuel]

I have yet to meet someone who bemoaned the fact that they failed to start smoking when they were younger, but many who wished they had never started.
I applaud you quitting.

And I know of few, if any, who started after age 20.

Which is why there are laws against advertising cigarettes via media focused on children.

Immie

 

[tigerbob]

The last thing you need to have a basic grasp of is Confidence Intervals, or CI in Statistical Significance. These are also covered in the above Wiki link, but on the basis that you won't understand Sackett's Formula (apologies if I'm doing you a disservice) I will explain them in layman's terms.

A CI is used as a support to the level of RR in determining significance. Is is usually expressed as a percentage, and for many years the required standard has been for a minimum of 95% confidence (which basically means that there is a 1 in 20 chance of a result having occurred by pure accident).

As years have passed, the focus on maximizing the CI has lessened. This is a double edged sword. Certainly we should not allow the requirement for an absurdly high CI to derail studies from which we might learn, but at the same time we can not allow the requirement to drop to the point where studies are compromised. Setting the requirement for confidence aside merely so that you can get your research findings to be considered newsworthy (and therefore published) is a very worrying prospect. There are no hard and fast rules here. The tradition has been 95% confidence for many years, but this is one of the inexactitudes of statistics where we all have to make up our own minds.

BTW, the link expresses a CI of 95% in a slightly different way. It uses the term P (Probability) = 0.05. It's the same thing, just expressed the other way round.

Statistical significance

Actually, you probably also need an appreciation of Confounders, but they are fairly simple to understand in principle, though much harder to filter out in statistical terms. Here's a link if you want to know more about them...

Confounding - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OK - now that you've got your head round the basics of statistics, I'll set out why I have issues with the EPA report. Before I start, let me remind you that I'm not saying that there is no link between ETS and disease, merely that the methodology used in the EPA report is flawed to the point that there is NO WAY that it should be used as a basis for legislating.

 

[Shogun]

Also smoking tends to make the addicts cranky when they can not get a fix.

in THIS case it's not so much about not getting a fix as it is the pompous "my way or the highway" bullshit your kind exhibit when refusing to exercise your CHOICE to pick a non smoking venue. You are an example of why goode family lefties are just as dangerous as bible thumping righties. congrats!

We no longer have to leave or cease from breathing as we did for decades Now you have to leave or put out the cigarette. Your turn to feel imposed upon, spoiled brat. Quit whining and get used to it.

you might wanna check out the results of your own poll before believing that this one is dead, Anguille. We won't get used to. Instead, we'll take our money where we need to and let your kind drown in the laughable bullshit that results in closed business, limited option and restricted liberty. Trust me, you'll eat your own crow on this issue before it's over.

 

[Shogun]

Now you are just getting hysterical.

Bit rich coming from you, isn't it? Have to compared cigarette smokers to crackheads yet? That normally makes an appearance somewhere within your tobacco diatribes.

You're the kook who thinks cigarette smoke cause no harm.

POST YOUR EVIDENCE without having to rely on words like "projected", "estimated" and "ASSUMED".

oh.. that's right.. you CAN'T.

 

[tigerbob]

Dammit - managed to close my browser having typed another post, but at least it's given me a chance to arrange my thoughts. So, I'm going to start with the methodology.

The EPA used a meta analysis, which I indicated earlier is significantly quicker and cheaper than certain other options, but also more prone to being skewed, either deliberately or by poor foundation.

First, the EPA had to pull together all the relevant research. It found that 33 appropriate studies were available. It discounted 3 of them (I can't recall why off the top of my head - I'll need to look it up but let's be reasonable and assume it was nothing underhand).

One of the highlighted findings (from Jarvis 1989) was that the non-smokers in the study who were exposed to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke, sometimes called Secondary Smoke, sometimes called Passive Smoke - it's all the same thing) had nicotine levels in their bloodstream that equated to "the equivalent of about one fifth of a cigarette per day". See 3-46 of the report. Actually it may not be in the overview version I posted earlier so here's a link to the whole document just so you know I'm not lying (or being a "kook") about it. It's a pdf and I should warn you that it's over 500 pages.

http://oaspub.epa.gov/eims/eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=36793

So, their headline figure in this respect is that non smokers exposed to secondary smoke are consuming the equivalent of just under 4 packs of cigarettes a year. 73 to be exact.

That's my 'Issue # 1'. Is it really credible that someone who consumes the eqiuvalent of 4 packs of cigarettes a year is going to develop a chronic condition? Taking a smoker at an index of 100, the non-smoker is at about 0.7. Is that really compelling enough to be the basis for legislation?

And that's only the start of it...

 

[tigerbob]

Despite the fact that this "one fifth a day" estimate is already pretty low, that number itself appears to be quite possibly hugely overstated.

A study in the UK indicated that non-smokers consume the equivalent of just 6 cigarettes a year.

Passive smokers inhale six cigarettes a year

A study by Oak Ridge National Laborotories (ORNL) of people wearing monitors while working for a minimum 4 hours in smoky environments found Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSP) of 768 micrograms per cubic meter. The limit allowable by the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OHSA) is 5000 micrograms over 8 hours.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory - Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study finds

So, what's up with that? EPA report starting to look a little less than completely square?

Is there still a compelling enough basis for legislation?

 

[Ravi]

I doubt Anguille will come back to this thread...didn't she abandon the last one where you pointed out the actual facts?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

in THIS case it's not so much about not getting a fix as it is the pompous "my way or the highway" bullshit your kind exhibit when refusing to exercise your CHOICE to pick a non smoking venue. You are an example of why goode family lefties are just as dangerous as bible thumping righties. congrats!

We no longer have to leave or cease from breathing as we did for decades Now you have to leave or put out the cigarette. Your turn to feel imposed upon, spoiled brat. Quit whining and get used to it.

you might wanna check out the results of your own poll before believing that this one is dead, Anguille. We won't get used to. Instead, we'll take our money where we need to and let your kind drown in the laughable bullshit that results in closed business, limited option and restricted liberty. Trust me, you'll eat your own crow on this issue before it's over.

Anguille:

How is allowing smoking in a restaurant imposing anything on a non-smoker?
Is someone forcing them to go to that specific establishment that allows smoking?

i'd rather have the freedom to choose which type of establishment to go to.


As an prospective eater I would choose to not go to a smoking establishment just as if I was a prospective employee I wouldn't take a job at a smoking establishment. As an american I feel its wrong to have the government make that decision for a private business on private property.

 

[Anguille]

One of the highlighted findings (from Jarvis 1989) was that the non-smokers in the study who were exposed to ETS (Environmental Tobacco Smoke, sometimes called Secondary Smoke, sometimes called Passive Smoke - it's all the same thing) had nicotine levels in their bloodstream that equated to "the equivalent of about one fifth of a cigarette per day"

Regardless of whether that is accurate or not, why should anyone be willing to accept any amount of nicotine or any kind of narcotic in their blood?