Regarding the smoking ban

[smoger]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

Sorry I said I wasn't going to post but I'm addicted


Find me one piece of literature that says short term non consecutive exposure to second hand smoke will cause unreversable (as in your body won't heal itself) ill effects. All I hear is how even for a 20 year, pack a day smoker (a hell of a lot more carcinogens that you would get hanging out in a bar a couple hours a day a few days a week) within 10 years you chances of seeing ill effects from your habit drops to 10% of a smokers (and continues to drop for the rest of your life. Is it safe to assume someone exposed to signi***antly less smoke for a signifigantly less period of time will recover signi***antly faster(I really dont know, I have not seen any studies even touching on this issue)? I'm sure you know this but I want to point it out anyway, unlike damage to your lungs, hearing loss is not reversable.

heres some key quotes i found about second hand smoke..

"Secondhand smoke causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."

"Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces."

"Only 15% of smoke is inhaled by the smoker. The other 85% goes directly into the air to be inhaled by nonvoluntary nonsmokers."

"The American Lung Association reported that 20% of the population is at risk of developing lung disease from second hand smoke."

in case you dont know the scope of this,.. thats fifty nine and a half million americans. all because you want to be able to smoke indoors instead of simply stepping outside.

"Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6 Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers."

By deciding to go to noisy bars/clubs? short term exposure has little/no ill effect for most people, it is long term that you can expect to see a problem? Sounds like you are using the same reasoning for this issue as I am for smoking.

its different, because the music is PART OF THE REASON everyone goes to a club or concert or what have you.. smoke is not something that people go to a restaurant for. employees at these types of places, like i said before, wear earplugs more often than not.

and remember,.. the main push of this is to protect employees of these places. tho it is great for everyone

[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by smoger

heres some key quotes i found about second hand smoke..

"Secondhand smoke IS ESTIMATED TO causes approximately 3,000 lung cancer deaths and 35,000 heart disease deaths in adult nonsmokers in the United States each year."

"The American Lung Association reported that 20% of the population is at risk of developing lung disease from second hand smoke."

The data you cite was attained from a study by the EPA and the results have been challenged by the Congressional Research Service for the methods used in attaining the data, here is there repot:
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95.htm

Some of the problems they address are:
1)their results were announced before the study was completed.
2) The results were attained through meta analysis. My girlfriend ( a bioligy major) explained to me the problem with that. Basically with meta analysis you take the findings of other studies and puts them together, so if any of the studies are inaccurate it will throw off the entire study, also in doing a meta analysis you can pick and choose the studies that will alter your findings to what you want them to be.
3)The studies relied primarily on questionnaires to the case and control members, or their surrogates, the determine EST exposure and other information pertinent to the studies. As you may know questionaires are one of the most inaccurate wasy to perform a study, and this is multiplied by the fact that many of the questionnaires were filled out by surrogates making the information second hand and even more inaccurate.
4) the largest study they used in their meta analysys was the Fontham study which at the time was still incomplete. When the study was completed it showed a small increase in risk that the CRS referred to it as "a positive risk that was barely statistically significant."
5)The EPA based their numbers on a meta analysis of just 11 studies. The analysis showed no increase in risk at the 95% confidence level(the standard used in evaluating the results of a study).
6) To meet their already announced statistic of 3000 deaths the EPA had to double their margin of error.
7) The relative risk shown by the EPA's results was 1.19 (thats where the 20% number came from). A relative risk factor of less than 2.0 is usually said to be insignifigant and due to error or bias.

Also
In 1998 Judge William Osteen after reviewing the EPA's report declared it null and void; Judge Osteen record shows he more often than not sides with the government is tobacco cases and in 1997 ruled in favor of the EPA and their right to regulate tobacco. Two of the reasons he declared the study inaccurate are as follows:
1)"The record and EPA's explanations to the court make it clear that using standard methodology, EPA could not produce statistically significant results with its selected studies. Analysis conducted with a .05 significance level and 95% confidence level included relative risks of 1. Accordingly, these results did not confirm EPA's controversial a priori hypothesis. In order to confirm its hypothesis, EPA maintained its standard significance level but lowered the confidence interval to 90%. This allowed EPA to confirm its hypothesis by finding a relative risk of 1.19, albeit a very weak association. EPA's conduct raises several concerns besides whether a relative risk of 1.19 is credible evidence supporting a Group A classification. First, with such a weak showing, if even a fraction of Plaintiffs' allegations regarding study selection or methodology is true, EPA cannot show a statistically significant association between ETS and lung cancer."
2) he also stated "there is evidence in the record supporting the accusation that EPA "cherry picked" its data. Without criteria for pooling studies into a meta- analysis, the court cannot determine whether the exclusion of studies likely to disprove EPA's a priori hypothesis was coincidence or intentional. Second, EPA's excluding nearly half of the available studies directly conflicts with EPA's purported purpose for analyzing the epidemiological studies and conflicts with EPA's Risk Assessment Guidelines."

the complete ruling can be found here: http://www.forces.org/evidence/epafr...les/osteen.htm

Originally Posted by smoger

"Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces."
"Nonsmokers exposed to secondhand smoke at work are at increased risk for adverse health effects. Levels of ETS in restaurants and bars were found to be 2 to 5 times higher than in residences with smokers and 2 to 6 times higher than in office workplaces."

"Only 15% of smoke is inhaled by the smoker. The other 85% goes directly into the air to be inhaled by nonvoluntary nonsmokers."

Did these finding come from the same report? I did not read it (it's something like 600 pages). If not please show me where the data came from.

Originally Posted by smoger

"Since 1999, 70 percent of the U.S. workforce worked under a smoke-free policy, ranging from 83.9 percent in Utah to 48.7 percent in Nevada.6

Thats a nice fact to know but how does it support your argument, becides saying "see everyone else is doing it"

Originally Posted by smoger

Workplace productivity was increased and absenteeism was decreased among former smokers compared with current smokers."

What does this prove becides the fact that smokers are harming THEMSELVES by smoking. I am also curious to know if absenteeism in non smokers also decreased

Originally Posted by smoger

its different, because the music is PART OF THE REASON everyone goes to a club or concert or what have you.

And some people go to these places to relax, have a drink, a smoke and listen to music.

Originally Posted by smoger

employees at these types of places, like i said before, wear earplugs more often than not.

The effectiveness of normal ear plugs (not those big ones that cover your entire ear) if I remember correctly is sonething like 10dB drop max, if a band is playing at a bar the noise level is over 100dB; 100-10=90....still in the unsafe range but a big improvement. So explain to me why a big improvement is ok in this case but not when it comes to second hand smoke (see my previous post advocating the stricter regulations on air quality for ALL places of business).

Originally Posted by smoger

and remember,.. the main push of this is to protect employees of these places. tho it is great for everyone

I think I have addressed this enough in this thread and I'm tired of typing.

[99SL2_Modder]

I don't know how statistically inclined you guys are, but you do realize that establishments have gained 15% in revenues since the ban, right?

That's not a loss, but a gain.

It works. End of complaining.

[thewake]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

I will try to find some info on the the closure rate of prior years, and although it would only give you a rough idea, it should be enough to prove their is an effect.

It would provide more evidence. You should also try to find closure rates for the years following the immidiate post ban years. If the statistics show a definite decline then you would still need to look closer to see why the places closed.

It is, but from my experience and im sure yours as well it is much easier to find a non-smoking eatery than it is to find one that allows smoking. Your arguement was some places it is harder/impossible to find one.

It is only easier if you like fast-food. Most places that actually have a wait staff still allow smoking. At least most of the places I have been lately. A good number of the national chains still allow smoking even.

The best solution is to quit and then you could join our side of this argument.

[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by 99SL2_Modder

I don't know how statistically inclined you guys are, but you do realize that establishments have gained 15% in revenues since the ban, right?

That's not a loss, but a gain.

It works. End of complaining.

Where did you find this info and what establishments are you referring to. Also is it safe to assume the businesses that manage to stay in business after taking the intiial hit will see some sort of increase because of less competition.

[WrxJC]

yeh, i havent actually READ this whole thread, but all i wanna say is...remeber PROHIBITION, if that didnt work, why are they trying so hard for cigarettes?? Ever been killed by a smoking driver?? It just all bullcrap to me. And those "truth" commercials about smoking, theyre not actual facts BTW.

[mostasteless]

Originally Posted by thewake

It would provide more evidence. You should also try to find closure rates for the years following the immidiate post ban years. If the statistics show a definite decline then you would still need to look closer to see why the places closed.

I'm still trying to find unbiased information, either it is hard to come by or I am suck at teh web

Originally Posted by thewake

It is only easier if you like fast-food. Most places that actually have a wait staff still allow smoking. At least most of the places I have been lately. A good number of the national chains still allow smoking even.

I am only speaking from experience but most of the diners im my area have become non-smoking over the last 2 years or so. But I will not argue with you on that because I'm sure yopu travel more than I do so have more experience.

Originally Posted by thewake

The best solution is to quit and then you could join our side of this argument.

Easiest, but I don't know about best

[2point4DSM]

Originally Posted by wrxjrl

And those "truth" commercials about smoking, theyre not actual facts BTW.

The truth commercials are actually paid for by the tobacco companies as part of their settlement. And why would they actually try to make any kind of believable truth commercial about their products.....

[thewake]

Originally Posted by mostasteless

I'm still trying to find unbiased information, either it is hard to come by or I am suck at teh web

You and me both.

I am only speaking from experience but most of the diners im my area have become non-smoking over the last 2 years or so. But I will not argue with you on that because I'm sure yopu travel more than I do so have more experience.

I don't have exact statistics either way. I guess because I am sensitive a place with no current smokers, or smokers nearby who have been out for a smoke will make the place seem like it is not smoke free to me.

There is no really unbiased stuff out there that is easy to find. Perhaps if one of us was at a large reasearch university the library might have something.

[thewake]

Originally Posted by wrxjrl

yeh, i havent actually READ this whole thread, but all i wanna say is...remeber PROHIBITION, if that didnt work, why are they trying so hard for cigarettes?? Ever been killed by a smoking driver?? It just all bullcrap to me. And those "truth" commercials about smoking, theyre not actual facts BTW.

Perhaps you should read it. There is some enlightening information here.

Tobacco has a very well earned negative image. I may be old, but not quite old enough to remember prohibition, however this is not tobacco prohibition, it will remain legal to purchase and use in private.

I have needed serious medical attention (ER visit) because of cigarette smoke in the environment, it would be hard for me to post had I actually been killed.

I am also appalled at the casual nature smokers will litter and trash an area because of thier habbit. Especially when they drive.