Smoking Bans are Fascist

[Guitar Shark]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
I'm surprised to read this post from an American.

It is the scary argument here where we have free health care.

The reaon I find the argument scary is that it is equally applicable to a ton of shit like dangerous sports, eating pizza, booze, not taking enough exercise etc.

To me NONE of that has anything to do with government.

Also incidently in a welfare state country like the UK or Canada smokers save the taxpayers a ton of cash by not living long.

A lot of the anti smoking facists seem to forget that we all die of something. The most expensive thing that you can get is some dribbling 90 year old ex lawyer living in a state old folks home who if they had smoked could have died in a massive heart attack at 65 costing us all fuck all.

It's a dumb argument.

Cheers!

I agree that we all die of something. But I've read studies which show that smoking related illnesses are much costlier to treat than other illnesses, simply because smoking affects a much larger group of people. In America, those costs take the form of higher health care costs for everyone, including non-smokers. Higher treatment costs, higher insurance rates, and reduced insurance availability. The problem is actually greater in America than in other countries with nationalized health care systems. Our health care costs are skyrocketing out of control and nobody seems to be addressing it.

[Seshmeister]

http://www.forces.org/evidence/long-list.htm

... And they call this science!
THE LONG LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE JUNK SCIENCE OF PASSIVE SMOKE


PREFACE

May 4, 2005 - The public's growing awareness that the studies on passive smoke are statistical trash along with the knowledge that the health authorities are representing such trash as scientific evidence is a positive development. Many readers, however, have asked us for an exhaustive list of the reasons why these studies are trash.

The health authorities often state or imply that "smoking is indefensible." That statement is absurd. Smoking is perfectly defensible because none of the alarms swirling about passive smoke have any scientific foundation, while those regarding active smoking are huge exaggerations as well. Both are entirely based on incalculable factors. Let's set aside active smoking for now and consider the "dangers" of passive smoke that are the bases of smoking bans enacted to "protect the health of nonsmokers" - a protection that has no actual basis since passive smoke has never been demonstrated statistically or scientifically as dangerous, or risky. Thus what is indefensible is the false representation of evidence by authority. Such false representation is easily demonstrable.



THE LONG LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE JUNK SCIENCE OF PASSIVE SMOKE

The claims of exposure are not authentic. Exposure is not measured. The studies actually measure nothing, but rely on the vague and grossly imprecise recall of queried subjects who attempt to evoke in a few minutes their individual lifetime memories of passive smoking exposure.

Errors in individual exposure recollection, most likely large, are unknown ,and are unknowable. Digitized numerical claims of exposure are, therefore, incongruous and impermissible. Their numerical representation gives an impression of reliability and precision that is demonstrably false and misleading.

A recall bias has been demonstrated to be larger in subjects, who are more likely to amplify their recall of passive smoking exposure as a justification for their disease, with lung cancer or cardio vascular disease.

A misclassification bias has been demonstrated to be larger in subjects with lung cancer or cardio vascular disease because they are more likely than healthy subjects to classify themselves as nonsmokers.

A mismatch error of cases and controls is inevitable because the groups compared are not homogeneous and differ in many characteristics other than recall of passive smoking exposure.
Confounding errors by definition are likely to be more prevalent among lung cancer and cardio vascular disease cases. Confounders are all other known and unknown potential causes of lung cancer and cardio vascular disease that interfere with the specific attribution of risk to passive smoking.

Probable errors of disease diagnosis are seldom addressed by passive smoking studies.
Publication errors have been found to favor the publication of studies that claim associations of increased risk.

Statistical errors of sampling and statistical significance are grossly inconsistent among passive smoking studies owing to the feeble differentials of exposure recall and the small number of subjects in each study. A majority of studies have not reached statistical significance. In any event, significant or not, the statistical indices of all passive smoking studies are illusory because they are derived from the grossly illusory and misleading numerical renderings of vague individual exposure recalls.

Results from different studies have not been consistent and reproducible.

Epidemiologic criteria of causal inference (the Hill criteria) are not met by passive smoking studies.

Attempts to summarize the results of different studies by meta-analysis statistical techniques are illegitimate. Results are obtained by pooling heterogeneous and selected studies, giving arbitrary preferential weights to certain studies, which, in any case, are handicapped by the sources of error listed above.
What must an epidemiologic study warrant?

A study must warrant that its numerical representations of individual lifetime ETS exposure recalls are true measures of actual exposures.

A study must warrant that an exposure recall bias affects cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

A study must warrant that subject selection and misclassification biases affect cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

A study must warrant that known causal confounders affect cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

A study must warrant the accuracy of pathological and diagnostic records.

The results from different studies addressing the same subject must be consistently reproducible.
In any study, the statistical margin of error of reported risks should reach no less than the 95% level of significance.

If the above criteria are met, the results of a study should also be consistent with Hill’s criteria of causality. (See below)

Meta-analysis summations shall not be credible unless performed on the basis of all available studies. Such studies also must be of homogeneous design and conduct, and must have met the above criteria of validity.

Given that the above is universally and medically accepted as epidemiological practice:

It is incontrovertible that no extant study can warrant that the numerical representation of individual lifetime ETS exposure recalls is a reliable measure of actual exposures.

It is incontrovertible that no extant study can warrant that ETS exposure recall bias affects cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

It is incontrovertible that no extant study can warrant that subject selection and misclassification biases (and other biases) affect cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

It is incontrovertible that no extant study can warrant that known causal confounders affect cases and control groups, and exposed and non-exposed groups at the same rate.

It is incontrovertible that no extant study has warranted the accuracy of pathological and diagnostic records.

It is incontrovertible that results from different studies addressing the same subject have been grossly inconsistent and not reliably reproducible.

It is incontrovertible that only for a random minority of studies has the numerical margin of error of reported risks been at or below the 95% confidence level of statistical significance.

It is incontrovertible that no study of ETS has met Hill’s criteria of causality.

It is incontrovertible that no meta-analysis summation of ETS studies has been performed on the basis of all available studies, of studies that are of homogeneous design and conduct, and of studies that have met the above criteria of validity.

Hill's criteria

1) Strength of an association is a clue to causation, although a strong association is neither necessary nor sufficient to affirm causality, and a weak one is neither necessary nor sufficient to deny causality.

In the case of passive smoke it is clear that the associations are extremely weak, as confirmed by the authoritative opinions below:

National Cancer Institute - “In epidemiologic research, relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias or effects of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” – National Cancer Institute, “Abortion and possible risk for breast cancer: analysis and inconsistencies,” October 26, 1994.

Sir Richard Doll - " ... when relative risk lies between 1 and 2 ... problems of interpretation may become acute, and it may be extremely difficult to disentangle the various contributions of biased information, confounding of two or more factors, and cause and effect."
“The Causes of Cancer," by Richard Doll, F.R.S. and Richard Peto. Oxford-New York, Oxford University Press, 1981, p. 1219.

WHO/IARC - “Relative risks of less than 2.0 may readily reflect some unperceived bias or confounding factor, those over 5.0 are unlikely to do so.” - Breslow and Day, 1980, Statistical methods in cancer research, Vol. 1, The analysis of case control studies. Published by the World Health Organization, International Agency for Research on Cancer, Sci. Pub. No. 32, Lyon, p. 36
FDA - “Relative risks of 2 have a history of unreliability” - Robert Temple, M.D. Food and Drug Administration Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Letters, September 8, 1999

FDA - "My basic rule is if the relative risk isn't at least 3 or 4, forget it." - Robert Temple, director of drug evaluation at the Food and Drug Administration.

Average cancer risk elevation for exposure to passive smoke: about 20% (relative risk=1.2)
Average cardiovascular disease risk elevation for exposure to passive smoke: about 30% (relative risk=1.3)
Quality of methodology and data gathering on passive smoke in all studies: trash



2) Consistency of results from different studies is an obvious attribute of true causal relationships.

Epidemiologic studies of passive smoke are grossly inconsistent, and epidemiologic associations that are inconsistent are quite unlikely to be true.
3) Specificity requires that a cause leads to a single effect, which is seldom the case in multi-factorial epidemiology.

Passive smoke has been claimed to cause many different effects.
4) Temporality. That effects must occur after the cause has a chance to act is a self-evident and trivial criterion of causality.

5) Dose-effect relationship is a useful criterion of causation, but does not resolve the matter.

Such an effect is the exception in passive smoke studies.
6) Plausibility. Whether an association is biologically plausible or not remains a matter of individual speculation and is far from being objective or conclusive.

7) Coherence. Agreement with other information may be a corollary attribute but not evidence of causation.

8) Experimental evidence. Experimental evidence in humans would indeed constitute proof of causation, but it is unavailable in the case of passive smoke.

9) Analogy is open to imagination and remains an invalid criterion of causation.
CASE CLOSED

The above are not opinions: these rules are the basis of science, epidemiology and statistics, rendering the supposed importance of the authority releasing the study - or the entity financing it - irrelevant. These fundamental rules are systematically violated to "square the balance", justifying prohibition, fulfilling an ugly thirst for power, as well as enacting the pharmaceutical agenda.

Even setting aside the violations we have demonstrated, the studies still demonstrate nothing, but they are nevertheless touted by the health authorities as if they meant something.

This is the reason why anti-tobacco operatives at all levels continue to refuse public debates on the validity of their junk science and the truthfulness of their statements.

[Hyman Roth]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
....If you can't cope with a bit of second hand smoke then basically you are fighting against natural selection and shouldn't be able to survive anyway. You are too weak and not good for the species.
....

Cheers!

I just had to log in and say:

LMMFAO!!

[Hyman Roth]

Originally posted by Seshmeister


...

The reaon I find the argument scary is that it is equally applicable to a ton of shit like dangerous sports, eating pizza, booze, not taking enough exercise etc.

To me NONE of that has anything to do with government.

...

Cheers!

Are you saying here that regulating the health and safety of the citizenry is not a legitimate function of government?

[binnie]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
Exactly!

I wish I didn't smoke so I could make this argument more strongly without seeming predjudiced.

I was with an American in Buenos Aires at a restaurant outside and the guy started screaming at a couple who were walking along smoking 50 feet away.

He smoked 3 packs a day for 30 years up until a couple of years ago.

I bet the reastaurant idiot mentioned earlier in the thread was an ex smoker. Ignoring the kids thing which is fine, smoking Nazi's are divided between hypochondriacs and ex smokers who still crave nicotine. The latter particularly annoy me because the hypocrisy is astonishing. That cunt Bloomberg is an ex smoker.

We were told forever that over 99% of people who got lung cancer were smokers. How come now all of a sudden there is this bunch of super delicate people like FORD that collapse in the presence of some smoke?

If you can't cope with a bit of second hand smoke then basically you are fighting against natural selection and shouldn't be able to survive anyway. You are too weak and not good for the species.

Seriously though the anti smoking nazi shit is out of control. If it was so fucking terrible then all we need is that smoking is illegal in public areas without them getting a smoking license. To get it maybe they should have to provide good AC or whatever. The delicate people could just avoid such places.

Last year we got the hardcore no fucking nonsence NYC/Irish smoking ban. If for example you are a truck driver who owns his own truck it's illegal for you to smoke in it as that's a place of business. It became illegal for me to smoke in my office even although I owned the business and all my staff also smoked.

Like the majority of smokers I am sensitive about it. My kids have never even seen me smoke never mind caught some fumes. Even if I'm outside walking along the road and I see someone walking towards me with a kid I cross the road.

There's an inevitability about this though which comes down to 2/3rds banning 1/3 completely. Half of Europe, California and NYC have already done it and I think in a couple of years time the only place you will be able to smoke in a bar will be in South America or Africa.

Oh and FORD as regards the peanut allergy, nuts are banned on planes so it does affect other people but fortunately nuts aren't yet banned from the intermet.

Cheers!

I think that closes the argument, good points there Sesh...

[Ellyllions]

Originally posted by Hyman Roth
Are you saying here that regulating the health and safety of the citizenry is not a legitimate function of government?

That's a sticky one for me. Socialistic government allows the overseeing of all public behavior. And I'm completely opposed to that on a micro-managing scale.

Construction of public use facilities should be regulated for safety, workplaces should be regulated for safety, but not the individual person's can do's/can't do. I fail to see the use for protecting people from themselves.

People keep talking about the taxing of the health care system here in the US and that's always been another confusing aspect to me. Our healthcare system is business based. So it seems that the more customers the system gets, the more money it makes. (Which is really how it works...) Since it's up to the medical professionals to tell the CDC what their patients are suffering from and why again we run into the prejudices of human beings. Besides, how many pot smokers lying in the ER actually tell the doc that they smoke the weed? How do the doctors record that data if they do? Afterall, smoking pot is a crime unless you're a celeb in CA....

To add, we have an enormous amount of non-citizen patients who come here when they get seriously ill and can't get the kind of medical attention they need in their own countries. So if we're trying to cheapen the healthcare system by eliminating tobacco use, shouldn't we take a look at the treatment for visiting foreigners (who have no health insurance) and the illegal aliens who try to cross the sea or the desert to get here that we treat free of charge? You do know that every illegal that dies within our borders gets an autopsy ($1100) at our expense, right?

If we really want to work on the healtcare system costs, we should put a cap on health insurance costs, and STOP frivilous ambulance chasing lawsuits.

Take away the government's tobacco money and we might just be in economic trouble.

Shesh, I have also found ex-smokers to be very bitter in the anti-smoking argument.

[Big Train]

Originally posted by FORD
When it affects my health, it's my business. And I'm not talking long term lung cancer risk here, I'm talking immediate effects from allergies.


There simply is NO way to have a healthy environment indoors where smoking is allowed. So the rights of the many (general health) should outweigh the "rights" of the few (tobacco addicts) in this case.

And comparing any of this to nagging wives, bratty kids, drunk drivers, or idiots on cellphones doesn't change the facts.

There is simply no way?

So you are saying if there was a place that was specifically for smokers, a bar lets say (which is segregation I might add...didn't know you value your health above civil rights of others), that would not be enough, as it is impossible to contain smoke, it would be coming through the walls and infecting passerby's and the stores next to it? I think your going a bit far here.

Not ignorning your "facts" , just wondering how on Earth a smoker can possibly satisfy these nuts persecuting them.

[Ellyllions]

Well, there has been attempts by business owners to open establishments that were to be for smokers but they can't get permits in their towns and ended up with protesting in city coucils because it was a "health risk" to non-smokers.

The argument they brought was that "they should be free to go anywhere they want without being exposed to another person's cigarette smoke, even if it is a SMOKE-friendly establishment". They said that because it caters to smokers it's against the non-smokers civil rights.

It's like non-smokers have all the rights they want, but smoker's can't do ANYTHING for themselves. It's all bullshit. What if....just what if smokers starting caterwalling as loud as non-smokers?

BWAHAHAHA

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Seshmeister
http://www.forces.org/evidence/long-list.htm


... And they call this science!
THE LONG LIST OF METHODOLOGICAL ERRORS IN THE JUNK SCIENCE OF PASSIVE SMOKE

sorry, sesh, but i think you may be a bit biased on this one, and that's possibly coloring your response to the (admitted) hyperbole that many of the zealous anti-smoking groups use.


(as i'm sure you know) the article you provided does not say scientifically that it’s impossible for fire to weaken steel (whoops! sorry, wrong conspiracy thread ) that it's impossible that breathing passive smoke produces an increase in the incident of lung diseases. the article says that none of the current clinical studies have been conducted properly.

in other words, the meat of the article doesn't directly call the dangers of passive smoking "junk science."


now, like i said, i'll give you that most of the anti-smoking groups use statistics to exaggerate. saying that smoking increases your likelihood of getting lung cancer by 2200%!!!! may be true, but doesn't actually mean much if the non-smoker's chances are 0.07%. yes, smokers might be 22 times as likely to get lung cancer, but they'd still be 98.48% NOT likely to get it.

and, those appear to be the actual numbers:
overall lung cancer incidence
increase in incidence of lung cancer for smokers


so, anyone who claims that SMOKING WILL DEFINITELY KILL YOU! is obviously exaggerating the danger. but at the same time, it seems clear that smoking does increase one's likelihood of getting lung cancer.



now, for argument's sake, i'll actually assume that the above article on passive smoking junk science is completely correct that there have not been any actual, controlled scientific studies on the effects of passive smoke (which i'm not altogether sure is the case, but doesn't actually matter right now.)


still, logically speaking, if active smoking carries SOME level of increased health risk, how in the world would it be possible that passive smoke inhalation carries ZERO risk?

again, i'm not talking limited exposure, like a 2 hour dinner at a smoke-filled bar twice a week.

nor do i assume that prolonged exposure, such as 8 hours a day, 5 days a week waiting tables in a smoky bar will produce the exact same increase in the incidence in lung cancer as in active smokers.

so, obviously, if the actual incidence of lung cancer in ACTIVE smokers is marginal (1.52%), then prolonged exposure to passive smoke would likely be even more marginal. but at the end, is it logical to assume that it's completely zero?

[Ellyllions]

From what I understand it does somewhat boil down to genome science; in that people who are genetically predisposed to become ill with the trigger being smoke inhalation are more likely than someone who doesn't have that same illness as predominate in their genetic make-up or familial history.

In effect, making it somewhat impossible to make a generalization based on fact. From this angle it becomes more personalized. One may, while another may not.

Peter Jennings died of lung cancer without ever taking a draw off a cigarette. My uncle lived to the ripe old age of 80 without having one smoke free day in almost 60 years, and it wasn't lung cancer or heart disease that killed him.

[binnie]

For those who argue the "health" angle: car fumes can effect you in precisley the same way as cigarrette fumes.

Are you suggesting a ban on motor transport.

Perhaps we could bring back horse and carriges? Oh, wait some people will be allergic to horses too so that's out of the question.

My point is, legislation can begin to border on the ridiculous.

[Ellyllions]

I think we should ban the domesticus felinius myself.

They're ugly, hateful, moody, and TONS of people are allergic to them.

[binnie]

Originally posted by Ellyllions
I think we should ban the domesticus felinius myself.

They're ugly, hateful, moody, and TONS of people are allergic to them.

Elly, I bet you can be quite a fesity kitty when you want to be!

[steve]

Part of the problem with the argument against a “smoking ban”, or “shitting on someone else’s dinner in a public restaurant ban”, or any type of ban for the “common good” is the counterpoint argument that it encroaches on one’s “freedom” – as if we live in a free society.

We don’t live in freedom. Almost no one on the planet does. And despite car-commercial rhetoric thrown around lightly, no one really wants freedom.

We live in societies with rules. In the best cases, the rules are law and not by decree of some thug. In perhaps the best cases folks get to vote in elections and decide laws by pre-agreed (or just decreed a long time ago, but eventually accepted) -upon majority percentages (51%, 67%, 76%, etc…)

Police officers
Stop lights
Taxes
Selective Service
Private Property boundaries
Trademarks & Patents
HEALTH DEPARTMENT ENFORCEMENT (of which there are a million rules, of which smoking bans are increasingly becoming a part of)

These are just a few examples of the devices which folks have agreed are necessary tools to conduct their lives. All prevent the individual’s freedom.

[Ellyllions]

What bugs me about all of this?

The same people who want to live by John Lennon's "Imagine" are the ones who are barking mad about being subjected to cigarette smoke.

Everyone live in harmony...except "you".