View Poll Results: Smoking ban, good for you, or not good for you?

115. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I love it!

    105 91.30%
  • No, I want to be able to smoke!

    10 8.70%
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456
Results 81 to 83 of 83

Thread: Smoking Ban

  1. #81
    Admin (Ret'd)
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    3,208 times in 2,281 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by finlay666 View Post
    I'll take it you havent seen the show....
    Correct, I haven't.

    Quote Originally Posted by finlay666 View Post
    There are senior medical officials from the US in the show that state that there
    Without knowing who, or what they say, I can't make much of that.

    Quote Originally Posted by finlay666 View Post
    Dr Elizabeth Weilan (sp?) President of american council of science and health said that the evidence is extremely scanty on the connection between 2nd hand smoke and disease
    She said a fair bit more than that, but I'll grant you, she makes some good points .... much of which is based on a criticism of the many studies being based on assessment by toxicologists rather than epidemiologists. Both represent fair ways of looking at things, but I'll grant, she makes a good case for epidemiology.

    Quote Originally Posted by finlay666 View Post

    The federal court lambasted the original survey (on which MANY following surveys have been partially based on) for:
    Procedural failure
    Cherry picking data

    Yes, a court decision which was subsequently thrown out by the Court of Appeals 4th Circuit, on multiple grounds including that the plaintiffs didn't have standing to challenge the report, that Osteen was wrong in that the report was an Administrative Procedures Act final agency action, that the EPA did follow relevant procedures and that any not followed were not grounds for vacating the report anyway, and that Osteen's court had exceeded it's authority for judicial review. A pretty firm slap down for Osteen whom, it appears, got it wrong on several bases and didn't have the authority to act anyway.

    Or are we supposed to conclude that one judge was right and the Court of Appeals are part of a conspiracy? If we are to place any reliance on the authority of the federal Court to throw it out, we implicitly have to place greater reliance on the Court of Appeal to chastise him and throw it right back in again.

    Quote Originally Posted by finlay666 View Post

    The ALA, AHA, ACA, US PHS all state it is a killer, although they all base that on the original (and discredited) EPA survey <- That is the news report for the original survey incase you were interested
    I'm working my way through the various IARC monologues, and it's hard going, but I'd rather try to establish what it said than rely on a news report by an organisation that, allegedly, has very suspect objectivity. Heartand's own website is fairly unapologetically pro-smoking, has had management of tobacco companies (Philip Morris) on it's board, if the recipient of tobacco funding funding. Roy Marden said in 1994 that he was

    working with the Heartland Institute in the planning of a health policy forum for state-level think tanks to develop a unified strategy and action plan, and in the use of their fax-on-demand technology to promote health care positioning consistent with our interests to legislators, public opinion makers and the public
    He was a member of Heartland's board, and the Manager of Industry Affairs for Philip Morris (a tobacco company). As late as 2006, Heartland partnered with the National Association of Tobacco Outlets to run "a campaign to change public opinion about tobacco."

    While the fact that Heartand seems to have a long-standing and intimate relationship with the tobacco industry doesn't necessarily mean that what they say is false, it certainly leads me to suspect that it's going to have a very definite spin and means I'm not going to place much credence, personally, in their objectivity.

    As I said earlier, there are certainly problems with designing analyses of data to draw cause and effect conclusions, and that's the basis of the toxicology versus epidemiology argument, there being a whole raft of hard to assess factors that distinguish between whether a substance can cause, for instance, cancer, and whether it actually does, on any significant scale. But, it's those very awkward factors that mean that statistical analysis is going to be about all we have to rely on, and from what I've seen and read, the evidence for cause and effect is substantive.

    My view is that if you're deciding a case like a smoking ban, you have to balance the rights of smokers to smoke where they want, against the rights of non-smokers not to be affected (whether medically or just by the thorough unpleasantness of other people's smoke), and you have to draw a balance because there's one thing in all this that is absolutely certain - whether you impose a ban/restriction or don't impose one, a lot of people aren't going to be happy with the situation. Given the situation, I think there is sufficient medical grounds, let alone social ones, for a ban on smoking in public places because we didn't ought to be waiting for categoric proof of the dangers before we act to protect people, and I still haven't seen anything to alter that opinion. If it can be clearly shown that no significant risk exists from second hand smoke, then perhaps it'll be time to look at it again, and decide if the smoker's right to smoke in public places trumps other people's right to not have smoke inflicted on them in public places. Personally, on that basis alone and regardless of medical harm or not, I support a ban because I'm sick of other people's smoking ruining my meals in a restaurant, for example. Now it's my turn, and the turn of others like me, for peaceful enjoyment, and the smokers can either wait for a fag, or go outside.

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Gloucestershire, UK
    0 times in 0 posts
    Hasn't affected my local, they still smoke inside!

  3. #83
    Senior Member Stringent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    155 times in 117 posts
    • Stringent's system
      • Motherboard:
      • Intel DQ57TM
      • CPU:
      • Intel i5 760
      • Memory:
      • 8GB
      • Storage:
      • 1TB
      • Graphics card(s):
      • NVIDIA Geforce 260GTX
      • PSU:
      • Corsair HX620
      • Case:
      • Coolermaster Centurion
      • Operating System:
      • Microsoft Windows 7 Ultimate x64
      • Monitor(s):
      • Dual Iiyama 24"
      • Internet:
      • Patchy
    Quote Originally Posted by Saracen View Post

    It would certainly be naive to take any old statistics at face value, and if you're referring to surveys (which, I'd point out, are not the same thing at all as a scientific evaluation of factual data) then yes, the phraseology of questions is critical.
    I totally agree. However despite scientific study, they seem to change their minds anyway on a regular basis.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Smoking Ban........noooooooo!
    By Blitzen in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 26-03-2007, 01:24 AM
  2. Best news in ages! Smoking Ban Date set!
    By Bazzlad in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 118
    Last Post: 21-12-2006, 06:36 PM
  3. Smoking ban in all pubs and clubs
    By Agent in forum Question Time
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 20-02-2006, 11:04 PM
  4. Wetherspoon pubs to ban smoking
    By Steve in forum HEXUS News
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 31-01-2005, 10:25 PM
  5. One Packet Of Cancer Sticks Please.
    By Stewart in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 92
    Last Post: 01-07-2004, 10:07 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts