the science on the issue of public secondhand smoke is slim. in fact, i think that it is safe to say many more of us will die due to climate change - induced environmental factors than will die from the effects of (nonpoint source) public second-hand smoke.

I am siding with dumpjack (and science) with this one.

Now ask me if smoking is really fucking addictive, or if it is highly harmful to a smoker's health, or if it makes your clothes and hair smell bad, and you will get a different answer. I do think it is relevant to consider what the data can speak to, and what it cannot.

I think that there are much better social ills to fly into histrionics (good work, dj) over than outdoor smoking bans. I think that Haq's conclusion, calling for a (taxable, limited) freedom is a good one.

my .02

once again, when you repeatedly mischaracterize my position as being "second hand smoke doesn't hurt you" its easy to win. several of those links are quoting sources that the studies i linked to specifically indict for poor methodology (i.e. the 1992 epa meta-analysis). and google isn't exactly a sound scientific basis--by that standard we could justify laws banning sasquatch in public areas.



as my civil procedure professor is fond of saying, the burden of production is on the moving party. or, put less legally, you're the one thats arguing for changing the status quo and banning outdoor smoking, so the burden of proof is on you to prove that outdoor second hand smoke is so detrimental to health that we should ban it. even though i doubt it, you might very well be right, and if there was some solid scientific research to back your assertions up, you would win over lots of smokers like me--people who enjoy smoking, don't want to hurt other people, but are disturbed by how far the anti-smoking crusade is going, and don't want to see erosion of our right to enter flavor country infringed by bad science and hysteria.

incidentally, i did find a debate about this issue that has raised a whole lot of the same arguments expressed in this thread, where somebody actually goes to the trouble to make a scientific argument for banning outdoor smoking. the guy arguing your side of the issue makes a plausible theory for banning outdoor smoking, but, much like you, lacks a lot of data to back his assertions up. the pro-outdoor smoking guy makes what i believe to be a very good point:

Look, man. I don't even smoke regularly. This isn't a personal issue for me, and I totally support non-smoking initiatives for indoor facilities. I just fucking HATE whining and posturing about what is effectively an issue of personal annoyance: I don't like to smell cigarette smoke and even though it likely won't have any health implications for me, I want it banned completely for the outdoors.

It's completely ludicrous, and without a shred of sound scientific evidence, to suggest that dissipating cigarette smoke in outdoor air will negatively affect a person's health. How will you go about conducting that study anyway, to effectively isolate that OUTDOOR cigarette smoke is causing health effects? Any idea how to single out that variable, from say, the bus emitting great big gasps of black, smoky fumes as it passes by? Even if you could conduct some experiment, at best, BEST, you'll be able to do some weak-ass correlational study that will suggest that MAYBE there's a weak "relationship" but I guarn-fucking-tee you that the amount of variance it explains will be DICK compared to other residual variances that aren't taken into consideration.

Keep in mind, that cigarette smoking does not CAUSE cancer. There is a moderately strong linear correlation, varying from 0.6 to 0.7, which means that the roughly 35-50% of the variance in lung cancer rates can be explained by smoking. That's only HALF! And that's in smokers who are constantly inhaling it and breathing in the second hand smoke. The explained variance in non-smokers who breath in second hand smoke outside for the BRIEFEST of periods will be miniscule at best and a complete waste of time and money at worst.

All this talk makes me wanna start up smoking, see what the fuss is about.

Better watch out - I've heard that shit can stunt your growth.

But that's not my stance. I am convinced that it is a health hazard. The only question is how much. You insist on comparing it to things to which it is incomparable. How often do I get a big black plume of diesel smoke? Once in a blue moon, and 90% of the time, I see it in time to either roll my windows up and turn off the fan (if I'm in a car) or hold my breath (if walking or riding a bike). How often do I walk through a crowd of smokers smoking outdoors? At least 2ce daily.I beg to differ. You're exaggerating again. Exaggerating will get you nowhere with me.So...you're already conducting this study and coming to conclusions in your head? How is that any better (than what you're accusing me of doing)?You lost me completely now. How can you even say this with a straight face? You work for the tobacco industry, don't you?

You just don't want to know. The tobacco industry and it's cronies will continue to provide you with enough slanted information for you to believe what you want to believe, but the correlation is there.

Do it!

I think that's his point. Speaking precisely (the only way to speak when you're making scientific claims), correlation is not cause.

Awesome. I was hoping it would come to this.

"you say correlation is not causation"
--soul coughing, "supra genius"

doughty speaks truth.

Ironic that you found that on a pro-smoking (anti-anti-smoking?) site. I will have to read it later, unfortunately. So you're saying that because the guy sucks at debating (as do I, I will readily admit), that makes him wrong? I'm not so easily convinced. Perhaps he was a pansy (in the old sense of the word -- fall guy)? I know I keep trying to convince myself I can't be bothered.

actually i think it's linking to an anti-smoking site (its called tobacco control anyways), but i think all parties involved in that debate are more eloquent than any of us

Old sense of pansy is still "homo." I think you want "patsy."

You're convinced it's a health hazard based on WHAT?! Your opinion?!! Who the fuck are you? Who gives a shit what you think or believe? Sound, scientific data is the only thing that matters when conducting reliable and valid health research. And even anti-smoking studies acknowledge it doesn't CAUSE cancer. IT IS A RELATIONSHIP!!! It's based on epidemiology, not lab data. Correlation does NOT mean causation. So as you say "the correlation is there". Yes it is there, but it doesn't mean causation. That's the first day in science class by the way.

And how the fuck can you possibly suggest I'm exagerrating when I asked you to consider how you can actually conduct your open air/cigarette smoke study? How you can isolate your single variable amongst the myriad of others a person faces in their day to day life. You can't smell carbon monoxide from auto fuel combustion, but I guess because it doesn't bother your delicate sensibilities, who cares right? Let's forget about that variable, too hard to quantify anyway. Have you any idea how many potentially health damaging fumes you're exposed to on a daily basis that you don't even know about? Can you smell asbestos? What about radon? Based on the available data on direct and second hand smoke it would suggest that open air exposure is weak at best. It's called a hypothetical. Also from science class.

You have a serious, evangelical glean about you. Data? Who cares? It's what I believe so that's all that matters.

let's start an abortion thread.

babykiller.

O the irony.

O the lack of meaningful rebuttal.

No. Again, you are reading only what you want to read. What I am saying is that the only choice for non-smokers, for people who DO NOT want to be around smoke, has been to NOT DO ANYTHING that involves smoking. If I want to go to a show at a club, I have to weigh the considerable downside to going because of smoke. The result is that I have crossed off every show that goes to a venue that allows smoking. A smoker does not have to weigh anything when going to a non-smoking venue other than that they will not be able to smoke inside the venue, which is what they have to do when going anywhere else - grocery stores, Blockbuster, McDonald's, etc. The people who should be most inconvenienced are the people who choose to do the behavior that the majority of people do not agree with. NOT the other way around.

Why am I not seeing any pro-public drinking advocacy here? Why is it fully acceptable that the government can tell you not to take your beer for a walk - an action that physically harms no one, but they can't tell you that you can't smoke inside public buildings - an action that NO ONE can say does not pose a risk of harm?

No, my quote from you spelled it out perfectly. Smokers are complaining solely because they are being inconvenienced. The inconvenience to a smoker is a selfish thing - the smoker is the ONLY one who suffers when he/she has to go outside to smoke.

30 Minutes of Secondhand Smoke Hurts

Well I'm not a smoker, and you could only say this with a straight face if you hadn't read a word I'd written, because my argument was about agency. The reason nobody's complaining about public drinking is that 1) the smoking bans in question are about private establishments, 2) it has always been that way with public drinking, so it's not really a current issue, although the arguments against drinking in public are mostly puritan and based on its dubious effect on "public morals," and 3) because we're talking about smoking.

Non-regulation of smoking does not restrict your freedom to go to the shows you want. The choice of club owners to allow smoking does. Your only option is not to sit at home and cry about it on the Internet. You also have the choice of rallying public support for non-smoking clubs. In Indianapolis, a new smoke-free music venue opened last year. It is smoke free because the owners prefer that and probably thought their patrons would appreciate it. You have the choice of opening your own bar, if you have the resources. You have the choice of going to outdoor concerts. The least legitimate choice, IMO, is to use the law to restrict the freedom of others to do as they will with their property just to impose your preferences upon them.

I'm against the smoking bans, but I have always found this to be a painfully stupid argument.

Just be honest, and say that if you can't handle, or are allergic as I am, to cigarette smoke, and you want to go to shows, then you're screwed.

Yes, you can start your own non-smoking club, start a public campaign to get a non-smoking club, etc... but those are very much out of reach strategies for most people.


I mean, I could say "if you don't like the smoking bans, then become a supreme justice of the united states and convince your colleagues that they are unconstitutional". But most people have enough to do, and too little time. They aren't going to fit in becoming a supreme justice over the weekend. So I won't say that.

+1

that's fine, but what i'm saying is, when people want to change society's behavior, foisting a law on them should be the last way. and i agree that it screws people who are allergic to smoke, and that i shouldn't care if i'm against smoking bans. i don't care about the effect on a tiny minority - that's not who most legislation should contemplate. he's saying "as a smoke-hater i you give me only one option," but he would choose to take away the option of club owners to allow smoking in their club. i think that's illegit.