Public smoking bans for or against?

You can pick certain articles out which seem to support the notion that passive smoking is dreadfully harmful, or others which show no significant effect. Medicine is not a 'black-and-white' science. Common sense would indicate that inhaling smoke isn't a very healthy activity, but the passive smoking hysteria has very little basis in hard fact.

 

There's nothing in the first article about passive smoking, and no more than a sentence or two in either of the others. All 3 are mainly about primary smoking.

None of these articles look like incontrovertible research to me.

Edit: Saab, you said earlier that science was guesswork, that it had the same chance of being right as creationism. If you really believe that, then presumably you don't believe that it's proved that primary smoking causes lung cancer (since that's a link shown by science, you must think it's just a guess), let alone passive smoking. So you have no basis for being opposed to smoking on health grounds at all.

-- Ian

 

The IARC dug themselves into a hole when they did a big study of passive smoking using non-smokers who lived or worked with smokers and the only statistically significant result was that non-smoking children of smokers had a reduced risk of lung cancer compared to the non-smoking children of non-smokers.

Paul

 

No disrespect to you, Saab, but I can now see why you're so for a smoking ban. Based on the number of venues that are smoke-free, it must be a fairly dull choice of places you have there...

I agree wholeheartedly with a ban in restaurants - smoking while eating is freakin' disgusting - even to a smoker like me it makes me feel sick. Mind you, I've almost weened myself off of smokes and have gone from umpteen rollies (in a pub) a time to maybe 2 cigars every fortnight, and I'll crack that one next

Ian - it was some dude who started on me 'cos I was rambling on and on about sh1te in a Stella haze on a bus (I don't remember that part of the night!). That's why I never drink that crap any more.

BTW - ALL pubs recycle the piss from the urinals; they chill it, put it through a sodastream, and bottle it out back. The end result is called Buddweiser. King of beers? Prince of piss morelike (the best line in "Shopping" )

 

Trying to test whether passive smoking is a health risk is very difficult to do. Trials such as the one Paul mentioned involve people who live/work with smokers but that doesn't really tell you anything about whether they necessarily inhale more smoke than people who don't live/work with a smoker. A non-smoker who lived/worked with a smoker is likely to try and avoid the smoke as much as possible. The amount of smoke you typically inhale in a packed smoky pub with poor ventilation is much, much more. However, it would be difficult to find volunteers for a properly run trial to be regularly subjected to those kinds of levels of smoke.

The fact that that kind of exposure makes my eyes water and gives me a sore throat tells me it's not doing my health any good at all.

Michael.

 

Yes, but at least it's an educated guess, and based on good evidence.

Creationism (6000 years old was the figure quoted to me by an expert on this) is just a made-up story from the Fundamentalist wing of the Christians, who seem to imagine that their new religion is more important or more valid than all the other religions which predated it, and all the other religions which are still currently practised around the world.

To teach it in schools is child abuse because educated people will snigger at these children if & when they talk about creationism.

 

no hysteria from em at all,it either damages your health or it doesn't,and as you say,common sense would suggest it does.

And I agree re the child abuse claim I mentioned above,I am a believer in science,I was simply offering evidence that at any one moment in time science will be wrong about many things,you just need to use it to make your own educated guess about the world we live in.My educated guess is that passive smoking is harmful to your health and therefore should be banned in public places.
ps it was Professor Dawking

As for fundamenl Christians,thats a good point,particularly when we hear about radical Muslims terrorising the world.What exactly is Bush if he isn't a radical/fundamentalist Christian terrorising the world? bit off topic I admit

 

Agreed re Bush & Blair - shining examples of the Christian approach to life.

I understand that you think that passive smoking is bad, and it's intuitively correct, but I'm just trying to point out that the evidence is patchy at best, and many studies fail to show any detriment. Added to this is "publication bias", by which I mean that "negative" studies, which do not show up the "expected" results, tend not to get published in the journals.

If there is an effect, I suspect that it is pretty weak, otherwise it would be very easy to show.

 

apologies for the number of spelling mistakes!

anyway,yes,health scares do seem to be one sided,its impossible to make a rational decision without actually subscribing to the Lancet yourself.Take the triple versus single jab arguement,how on earth could anyone make any sense of that? No link to autism at all,and now i think the doctor or his work has been discredited and yet there has been a 15% drop in some London boroughs,and low and behold measels makes a comeback.

It just seems that if some scientist somewhere publises a thesis its presented by the press as a scare.Very irresponsible and extremely unhelpful.



My wife still makes me drink a gallon of cranberry juice because a dentist said it would help some part of my interior.

 

Ok then could you show us the article and in which journal did the Prof said this?

 

Yes, he was apparantly dismissed from his post because of an undeclared large amount of money which apparantly came from a source with a vested interest in the outcome of the research.

 

So, the link between passive smoking and health may not be proved.

I find it pretty hard to believe there are no effects, but as others have said, you'll be able to dig up quotes and figures to back up either side.

But if there's a possible link, (and IMO, a very likely one), then shouldn't we be taking these steps just in case?

I'm generaly for freedom of choice, and the idea of taking action where you ban something "just in case" would normaly tend to make me cringe. But the fact that this is even possible (though MOre like "probable ), should be reason enough to take some steps.

The freedom of choice should be weighted with those who don't want this probable risk.

I'm sure research will continue. I'm sure the tobacco industry, who have no doubt got plenty of knowledge already, will be very eager to prove how bollox passive sMOking is Infact, with the potential hit their profits could take, I'd imagine they'd be throwing MOney at the research to prove it asap!

So, besides all the other effects (smell, rough throat, stinging eyes etc...), shouldn't it therefore be with what the, apparant, majority of people who would prefer steps were taken?

Also, for those who say they doubt it's effects due to lack of undeniable proof....

If you have young kids of your own, or other young relatives, (In Ian's case it'll probably be Great Great Great Great Grandchildren), would you be happy to puff away infront of them? Safe in the knowledge that there's no undeniable proof of course.

 

It was on Radio 4. Desert Island Discs, 23 Feb 2001.

-- Ian

 

"Isn't it weird how Creationists look so un-evolved?", Bill Hicks.

Funny, he was a chain smoker, gave up and died of prostate cancer. It's a cruel world.

 

I dont think passive smoking is as harmful as made out. You get the throat irritation simply because you are not used to it. We breathe in carcinogenic fumes all the time in our towns and cities, and they are just as bad, if not worse. I dont suppose it does you any good to be fair, but I dont think its quite as bad as its made out to be.

 

To quote the mighty 'Hickster' again : "Non smokers die every day.".

 

For an alternative take on some of the evidence and opinions being expressed here:

www.bupa.co.uk/health_information/html/health_news/270503smoke.html

 

Exactly - anyone here who drives a car and wants to ban smoking is a hypocrite; the amount of carcinogenic crap that comes out of one of those must be huge - with or without a "cat". Ditto buses etc.

In fact, if you want to lower the risks of cancer, ban industry and electricity (especially mobiles, and radio transmitters, whether that be TV, microwave link, whatever. In fact, go the whole hog and ban reproduction, since birth might end up giving you cancer in later life!

I still feel it's up to the individual to weigh up the pros and cons of safety in their life. That's why I'm hoping they'll still have some smoking pubs after the ban.

 

thats like saying you are a hypocrite if you care about animal wealthare and yet you wear leather

the 2 are completely different

 

Not daily I hope :yikes: