I can sympathise in principle with your argument against banning smoking in bars.
In New York, smoking in bars is illegal.
Crispy wrote:
In New York, smoking in bars is illegal. | |
Perhaps I didn't leave enough "wiggle room" in my argument. I never meant that second hand some is completely safe. I just call into question how bad it really is. Smoke, in general, is never good for you, but how bad is it? Enough to complain about the smoking section in restaurants? Well, actually, if you don't like it, go to the restaurant manager and tell him, that is going about it the right way. Back to the point, how bad is second hand smoke.
I don't doubt that you should avoid it, at least in enclosed areas without much ventilation, but why does that mean that smokers should stop? Is it going to kill you to walk into a bar to deliver a package? Or any short period you might be exposed against your will? Even still, I think prolonged exposure, like that of a bar tender, is probably not that bad. I've never heard of a bar tender who didn't smoke dying of second hand smoke. Granted, I haven't looked, but I would think that would be something the anti-smoke nazis would latch onto. I guess I am kinda asking to be wrong with not stating facts. But in my quick searches, I came up with a bunch of statistics, but no evidence at all. They claimed so many people died of smoking, and so many people died of second hand smoke, but they never claimed how they got these numbers. The never claimed what it was that these people died of(Because the smoke doesn't have a knife it drives into people's heart). It is similar to my attempt at research into global warning. Bunch of claims and little evidence, on both sides of the argument. I guess it is a hazard of the Internet. | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
I don't doubt that you should avoid it, at least in enclosed areas without much ventilation, but why does that mean that smokers should stop? Wow, wow, wow. I am confused now Danial.Beta. Whose side are you on? Earlier you were bashing smokers saying you wouldn't let them go out on breaks to smoke because you hate smoking. You also said if you owned a business you wouldn't let them smoke anywhere on the business property. Now you are saying you don't care where/if/when they smoke. I am confused. | |
If it is my choice, then I say no, but it isn't my choice when I am not the boss. I think that people are over stepping their bounds when they start making laws to stop it.
When I told people they couldn't take smoke breaks, I was the boss. I didn't, however, tell them they couldn't smoke when off the clock in the employee smoking areas. I didn't have the right to tell them they couldn't smoke where the company had told them they could smoke. | |
"Hey son, would you like some cancer? Don't worry, it's only a little bit of cancer. Go on, you know you want to. It can't hurt that much!"
Let's sum up. In the red corner we have stacks of solid scientific evidence to show that cigarette smoke is very, very bad for you, whether first-hand or second-hand. In the blue corner we have... a handwavy argument with no facts to back it up that throws around terms like "anti-smoke nazis" and asserts that smokers have the unassailable right to harm other people's health. Hmmm. Danial.Beta wrote: I've never heard of a bar tender who didn't smoke dying of second hand smoke. Granted, I haven't looked, but I would think that would be something the anti-smoke nazis would latch onto. I clearly remember at least one case of a woman who worked at a bar getting lung cancer and suing her employer for not doing anything about the smoke-filled environment she had to work in. I'm not certain whether she won or not but I think she did. | |
Crispy wrote:
Let's sum up. In the red corner we have stacks of solid scientific evidence to show that cigarette smoke is very, very bad for you, whether first-hand or second-hand. In the blue corner we have... a handwavy argument with no facts to back it up that throws around terms like "anti-smoke nazis" and asserts that smokers have the unassailable right to harm other people's health. Hmmm. The thing is, I've never seen any evidence that shows that second hand smoke, at least in areas with some ventilation, does much of anything. And I use the term "anti-smoke nazis" because I know people who actually try to claim that they would not feel bad if someone killed every smoker on Earth. There are people out there with extreme views on smoking, going both ways I'm sure, and that was the only term I could think up to accurately describe them. I clearly remember at least one case of a woman who worked at a bar getting lung cancer and suing her employer for not doing anything about the smoke-filled environment she had to work in. I'm not certain whether she won or not but I think she did. Well, perhaps that is the case. I would say, if you worked in a bar without ventilation 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, sure it could(and probably would) cause problems. But that would be the employees job to quit if they didn't like it. Most jobs have health hazards, and second hand smoke is nowhere near the worst. I don't doubt that second hand smoke is bad for you, I call into question as to how bad it is. And I ask for evidence proving that it warrens banning in all public places. Nobody here has brought evidence to the table. Including me. I just get tired of hearing statistics without evidence. | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
The thing is, I've never seen any evidence that shows that second hand smoke, at least in areas with some ventilation, does much of anything. Try a few posts back. As I said, given the statements presented there, the onus is now on you to prove that it doesn't do "much of anything". You still haven't done that. Smoke does not tend to dissipate to a large degree if there's merely "some ventilation". There were covered paths at one of my old schools; quite open to the outdoors, not even in a courtyard or anything, just a sheet of painted corrugated iron on top of a few poles, about 3 metres high. Smokers would occasionally congregate under them, and the smoke just wouldn't go away unless there was a pretty stiff breeze. It's very good at lingering. Well, perhaps that is the case. I would say, if you worked in a bar without ventilation 5 days a week, 8 hours a day, sure it could(and probably would) cause problems. But that would be the employees job to quit if they didn't like it. Most jobs have health hazards, and second hand smoke is nowhere near the worst. So then another employee gets hired, and they have to put up with the cancer instead. Oh joy. That's hardly a socially responsible policy. You're also assuming that most employees are in a position to just quit if they don't like it. A lot of people can't get jobs that easily. If they don't have a strong bargaining position with their employer (as is the case for many) then they're kinda screwed. I don't doubt that second hand smoke is bad for you, I call into question as to how bad it is. Like I said before. "It's only a little bit of cancer..." | |
Crispy wrote:
Like I said before. "It's only a little bit of cancer..." Well, I call into question that it will give you any cancer. I did a little more Googling, and found a few sites. Now, this is the Internet, and it's not impossible to lie, but I'll give you what I found. http://www.forces.org/evidence/evid/second.htm http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html (Doesn't link to sources) http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html(Doesn't link to sources) I looked on the other side of the argument, and I couldn't find one that cited sources, and most of them claimed that someone else said that second hand smoke was bad for you, so they just dittoed them. | |
That forces.org article reads like a conspiracy theory website, the Straight Dope article basically concludes that it could go either way, and I wouldn't believe anything that Fox News said.
Personally I don't see how it's possible for second-hand smoke to not be a factor in cancer when we know that first-hand smoke is. It's basically the same stuff! Less concentrated, but not filtered. | |
But concentrations matter a lot. It's how much our body can handle. I'm not big for the "It makes since, so it must be true" way of thinking. I'm wrong too much because of that.
You are right, I actually thought about if I should use the fox news one or not, because I don't believe fox. The forces.org does list sources though, which gives it a good deal of credit in my mind. They just seem to list thing's they have found, I wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory site. They actually list evidence, unlike most conspiracy theory sites which just quote each other. Which, ironically, is what most of the sites claiming second hand smoke was the devil did. | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
The forces.org does list sources though, which gives it a good deal of credit in my mind. They just seem to list thing's they have found, I wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory site. They actually list evidence, unlike most conspiracy theory sites which just quote each other. Mmm. I gave it a closer read and it still read like a conspiracy theory site. Lots of hyped-up language, railing against the Big Government bogeyman, badly structured page, an over-reliance on colours and ALL CAPS SCREAMING THE TRUTH TO THE WORLD; "THE STUDY THE WHO DID NOT WANT YOU TO SEE"!!!! ... Oh, and animated GIFs all over the place. You get the picture. If you look at the front page, it's very clearly a site with an agenda. Notice the smoking ads on the side? I love the most recent news article. "England: the secret plans to turn us all vegetarian"! LOL. Help, help, the sky is falling! With a link to the Daily Mail no less, one of England's most notorious tabloids. Notice that the quotes from the "leaked email" merely say that it would be a good thing if lots of people switched to a vegan diet. It does not advocate forcing people to do anything. The only implication that they want to force people to do anything comes from the article writers, not from the primary source. Bad, bad tabloid journalism. Here's a quote from that article on forces.org that I particularly like: "Once upon a time, secret government plans were for military defence against enemy invasions. Not anymore: now the plans are against freedom of choice, self-determination and for utter control of personal lifestyle. The enemies of personal freedom work hard, and they have managed to penetrate the highest level of government. Those enemies are medical associations, the pharmaceutical industry, antismokers, anti-fatsos, and, in general, the anti mentality." Now there's an enemy-at-the-gate thesis to make George Bush proud! Further down the page: "The good news is that we can do something about [skim milk]: refute healthism as an ideology". Oh, no, not a dreaded -ism! Run, run, run from the gathering -isms! First terrorism, now healthism! Oh the humanity! It just goes to show that you can make anything sound sinister just by appending an "ism". Breaking news: Drivingism is rampant on our roads! Hide your children! The more I look at that site, the less credible it seems. Initially I was just vaguely skeptical; now I wouldn't believe a word they say. Yes, they cite papers, but who's to say they're not being very selective? Given the shoddy qualities mentioned above I'm not inclined to trust them at all. | |
Good points, and they could be being selective. Problem is, I found it hard to find evidence going the other way. A lot of A~=B~=C so A=C logic, but little evidence.
| |
Well, what sort of evidence do you want? I can't imagine many people offering to participate in a study where they sit in a smoke filled environment waiting to develop cancer.
I thought the American Heart Association was a fairly trustworthy source, but here's a few more: Facts You Should Know About Second Hand Smoke-About.com -"3000 nonsmokers die every year from lung cancer caused by ETS [Environmental tobacco smoke]" -"The U.S. Environment Protection Agency (EPA) has classified second hand smoke as a Group A carcinogen." *About.com is accredited by the Health On the Net Foundation, which promotes reliable and trusted online health information. Secondhand Smoke - MedlinePlus -"There is no safe amount of secondhand smoke." *A .gov site operating as a service of the NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE and the NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers - National Cancer Institute -"In 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) determined that there is sufficient evidence that secondhand smoke causes cancer in humans and classified it as a Group A carcinogen (2, 6). In 2000, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) formally listed secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen in The U.S. National Toxicology Program’s 10th Report on Carcinogens. " -"The known health effects of exposure to secondhand smoke include lung cancer, nasal sinus cancer, respiratory tract infections, and heart disease" *Another .gov site. Lists 9 references They all seem to be saying about the same thing: Second hand smoke is bad for you! Here's another good article, although I don't have time to read it: Setting the Record Straight: Secondhand Smoke is a Preventable Health Risk - Environmental Protection Agency All these were found with a simple Google search of "second hand smoke statistics" | |
Finally, someone actually brings evidence to the table.
I read through those, and they do mention some studies and whatnot, mostly just the EPA though. It's quotes like this "Heart disease mortality - an estimated 35,000 to 62,000 deaths are caused from heart disease in people who are not current smokers, but who are exposed to ETS" that bother me. They never claim there is a link, just someone has died of heart disease and someone they knew smoked. This is very common on the sites. They do provide some evidence, which is what I wanted people to provide. They claimed they thought it was right to ban smoking, but had never done any research on the topic, and only felt that they had the right to prevent people from annoying them. Even still, banning smoking in places like restaurants and supermarkets is find. But banning it in bars, and outside is just silly. I am all for requirements for better ventilation for anywhere that wants to keep smoking inside their buildings, but I'm against telling people they can kill themselves with alcohol, which does kill second hand, but they can't smoke while doing it. It is clear that there are health risks involved in second hand smoke, I just wish more people would actually provide proof when they start claiming. Which was my original point, but I got way off. | |
Crispy wrote:
Like I said before. "It's only a little bit of cancer..." Unlike other things, getting only a little bit of cancer is in fact better than getting a LOT of cancer. Pregnancy and death are examples of things to mock at that, but cancer I wouldn't say. I mean if you catch a small patch of cancer early you can remove it and it really won't affect you. If you catch a big patch of cancer, even if you catch it early that big amount will affect you after removal. Of course regardless of the size if the cancer SPREADS, well then you can say "Only a little bit..." "I only killed her a little bit." "I only got her a little pregnant." "I only got a little bit of cancer...but caught it early and removed it." See the difference Crispy!? ;p | |
The problem is that you're not guaranteed to find it early. A little bit of cancer can easily turn into a lot of cancer before it's detected, unless you're lucky or you have a regular screening regime.
Also, if you've had cancer before, you're more likely to have a relapse - either because they missed a few cells, or because of the same reasons that caused the cancer in the first place. | |
First, Danial.Beta, I want to commend you for being skeptical even amid lots of propaganda and poorly expressed, poorly backed opinions and refusing to equate "but its obvious lolz!!1" with evidence.
However, I ask you this: if cigarette manufacturers are convinced of second hand smoke's dangers enough to print warnings like "ACCORDING TO THE SURGEON GENERAL, SECOND HAND SMOKE IS HARMFUL TO CHILDREN" in <font size="+3" color="red">big red letters</font> on the side of their cigarettes, then what more convincing do you want? And, if you really seek more convincing, why do you keep going back to the same sources -- like internet anti-smoking shock and propaganda sites -- for solid facts? Check your local hospital, check your university library, and check some reputable medical news sources, such as peer-reviewed medical journals. They contain a decade's worth of scientific, reproducible, well-documented research that lays the facts out plain as to the dangers of second hand smoke. Skepticism is good. When you persist with it over many days without making headway or educating yourself, it becomes belligerence. | |
It seems I have indeed managed to convince you that second-hand smoke is dangerous, since you haven't disagreed with anything I've said. I'm glad you've seen the light on that one. ("Light", geddit? Geddit?!)
I can sympathise in principle with your argument against banning smoking in bars. Personally I think that banning smoking in public places is a great idea, but I recognise that this is purely down to self-interest on my part. =)