why ban smoking?

Read my post again. It was NOT just the fact that it was funded by pro-tobacco groups. The research done is FLAWED (as in the actual process of research). I have explained this to you in my last two posts. There were big holes in the methodology; one of them was there were no reports of the smoking status of EITHER spouse involved in the study for at least 26 years. The other was the fact that it wasn't actually their own data. They "piggybacked" the data of the cancer study done by the ACS. The fact that both researchers received funds from Big Tobacco merely adds to their aforementioned errors.

As I recall, I did NOT refer to another study on this matter, so please stick with this one for now. I saw something fishy in the one that YOU mentioned, and did some research on it as well. Needless to say, I doubt the validity of the Enstrom/ Kabat study based on my own research on the topic. I read the link you mentioned, and I have to say, it is a rant blatantly defending the researchers and the tobacco industry in every aspect. Just because the researchers' decisions were JUSTIFIABLE does NOT mean the research itself is valid. It's questionable enough that he thinks there is an "anti-tobacco industry with vested interests" prowling on Big Tobacco and unsuspecting smokers.

No, the point YOU are making is the fact that there are controversial studies on both sides of the coin. And I have to agree. This does not necessarily mean that you are right. This does make you and your cause the "victim". And just to be clear, if there were a study funded by "the anti-smoking vested interests" and had outrageous claims about second hand smoking, then I would certainly be doubtful of that as well. But OF THIS PARTICULAR STUDY, I remain a skeptic based on my personal research and the sources that I examined.

 

Let me just add a response to what was said earlier about exhaust fumes.

Car manufacturers are always trying to reduce the emissions from car exhausts to make them more eco-friendly and safer for cities. There is also something called road tax if you don't know. One of the principles of this tax is that people who have high carbon dioxide emissions pay a higher tax for polluting the environment for others.

I fail to see tobacco companies doing the same. Why don't smokers pay a tax of sorts as they are polluting the air and killing everyone around them slowly, the same as cars. The thing is most smokers probably also have a car and are polluting the environment twice as much.

What if tomorrow they made crystal meth legal? Would it still be socially acceptable to whip out a syringe and give yourself a quick fix. What if you were smoking it in a public place and exposing others to the same effects? And for all the smokers out there, why don't you kick the habit and live a better lifestyle. Maybe then society won't shun you for your drug habit. (Oh noes hes telling us how to run our lives!)

No one wants to buy houses or cars that the previous owner has been a smoker. People advertise it as a selling point. e.g.

Vauxhall Corsa 1.2
Good runner
2 previous owners
Never been smoked in!!!

 

Pack of smokes in California cost about $3.50 (used to), in new york they can get up to $10.00... No tax...?

 

When you were doing research on the study, did you look at both sides of the argument, for and against it, or just ones against it? Of course, if you look at studies mainly against it you're going to find arguments against it. You got to look at it from both sides. Honestly, both sides might just be BS'ing about it so it's hard to find out exactly what the truth is, but I just went it got it straight from the horses mouth (Enstrom).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2164936

And sorry if I made you repeat yourself a few times, you made me repeat myself too. The neat thing about it is that the main opponent to the study was the one that originally gave them the initial information! And even if they continued following the spouses for 26 years after the other spouse quit, died, or whatever (which is unknown if they did any of those things, according to you and critics atleast), what about all the smoke in the environment? Isn't this study about second hand smoke? The smoke that is oh no everywhere? Or were these people placed into a bubble and not allowed to leave so that they can alter the data to look like whatever they want? Think about what this topic is about, and what people are saying- ban smoking, because there are smokers everyone threatening our health. So these same people are being exposed to this smoke still, yet at the end of it all, they still found no causal relation.

And why don't you want to look at other studies done by anti-smokers? Because they use the "flawed" techniques that you claim Enstrom used?

If you have the time, really, read through his defense of his report.

 

And did you do the same? Because what you are doing is discrediting anything that does not support your ideas. Your defense is that your study is absolutely right and all the other sources are "exaggerating" and "BS'ing". I see valid points from either points of view. Logically, secondhand smoke would be proportionately less dangerous than actually smoking. That does not, however, make it completely safe. And this is the point that you fail to understand.

On Enstrom's defense, let's get one thing clear about this. Any scientist in Enstrom's position would defend his/ her research to the limit. And we have to see it that way. This is like the main suspect of a murder trial's testimony being favored instead of those of independent witnesses. I read his defense, and can see why he felt as if he was being "attacked". I see the decisions he made during the course of the research was justifiable (in terms of funds, methods) but it DOESN'T make it correct. Again, you need to understand the difference between justifiable and entirely valid.

What does this prove? You are on the mindset that the ACS are a so-called "anti-smoking vested interest" and dismissed the report because it was "against their ideology". That is a possibility. Another possibility is that they themselves realized that this study was erroneous and did the right thing as part of the scientific process. The fact that they went against it after it was published even though they provided the funds does not mean that your point has been proven.

That is the problem with the flawed methodology. It could be interpreted either way. You need to realize that the MAIN subject of this study was COUPLES (i.e. spouses, husband-wife). Right from the start, the study purposefully DID NOT take into account other sources of second hand smoke. I won't argue about that now, because it serves as a fixed variable for the study. But the kicker is they stopped reporting on the smoking status for a full 26 years. WHAT WERE THEY RESEARCHING THEN? Your response was "what about all the smoke floating around?" "that would have killed them if secondhand smoke was dangerous". This is a purely baseless "what if" question. Remember, the study did not mention any outside sources of smoke. Again, you have the researchers to blame for NOT PROVIDING the information in the first place (even though it was justifiable), so that we could at least know for sure. What happened to the research subjects for the full 26 years is open for speculation either way. Therefore, it does not prove your point.

It's not that I don't want to look at other research. I would certainly do so if I had the time. But we are, at this point in time, debating over the validity of THIS study. It would seem as if you are trying to shift the topic to prove your point right.

I suggest you read this, it is a compendium of the rapid responses on the Enstrom Kabat study including the researchers' defense. I think this is the most unbiased source to form an opinion of the subject
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7398/1057#32294

 

Why would I suggest you look at both sides of the arguments if I didn't already do so myself? It's kind of hard NOT to find things that would go against smoking and this study. Why do you think I was mentioning the frustration of looking at all of these studies? There are critics for any study, there just so happens to be more for any study that goes against popular belief. You call this study faulty, and so do these critics, but the "erroneous" methodology they say that Enstrom use are the same as those used in anti-smoking studies! I'll use metaphors and analogies because you guys seem to like that. It's like having a guy up at bat using a jet-propelled bat, and when the guy for the other team tries to use one, the umpire calls a foul!

I have a few of the rapid responses, and "unbiased" would mean someone in the middle with no true opinion for or against giving an opinion. Majority of the people seem to have something out against it, and many of them use the same logic to discredit the study- one that you seem to hinge upon quite a bit.

Really, though, they seemed like they were on to something, but if you give it some thought, it really doesn't add up. So, they say that the "ever" smoker couples and "never" smokers are exposed to the same amount of smoke because they encounter ETS pretty much everywhere... So oh no! It is flawed because there can be no true "never" smoker! But wait... wait wait wait wait! Why aren't they all dying and hacking up their lungs? Why do the numbers for diseases nearly stack up with each other? If they aren't all dying... and they all presumably have been exposed to the same amount of smoke, why aren't ALL of them suffering from health risks?!?! I don't know, I don't think anyone knows or wants to think about it. The study is far too flawed because we're constantly exposed to smoke.

Oh crap, I think I just found something out! We're all exposed to tobacco smoke! We're dead! All dead! My poor old grand parents who died from natural causes, my parents who suffer from no heart and lung diseases who were exposed to constant cigarette smoking from their parents, I'll have to tell them they'll contract cancer from ETS and die horribly. I'll have to tell all of the old men and women at the bar I go to that all of the ETS in the air in the bar is going to kill them soon, very soon, because they all have cancer.

Oh Enstrom, you evil son-of-a-bitch! How dare you indirectly get money from a disbanded tobacco funded company that randomly dumped whatever money they had left to a University you happened to work at... How could you? How could you use the same tactics as the EPA to handle your research! How could you say that second hand smoke is perfectly safe and actually healthy, even though all you really said was that the effects of second hand smoke does not match up to its exaggerated claims! How could have I said that second hand smoking is so safe that I visit the nursery's at hospitals to blow smoke into infant faces to help strengthen them, although I never really said that! About it being safe, and the babies!

Seriously, it just seems like one guy made one response to the thing and then everyone after that reached into his pants to jerk him around and just restate what he said a different way. Telling me the same thing over and over again doesn't necessarily make it true. Those responses are about as unbiased as a fat, white, republican at a gay pride parade.

Woops, I'm wrong, I'm reading through it as I write this. This guy, Daniel F. Hass said, something different. Ellen C G Grant says something different as well, but she goes off on tangent and starts talking about a study she never actually cites... which is funny because Mr. Hass brings up a good point (the same one I made) about how everyone is attacking the methodology behind the study. That brings me to another question I want to ask... Did you read Enstrom's study, or just look at the opinions people made and based yours off of that? Metaopinioning are we? It's starting to look that way.

And how exactly would me changing the subject turn it into an instant win for me? And how am I changing the topic? I'm just trying to find out why, exactly, you attack the methods that Enstrom used, but seem to believe that it's just perfectly fine and dandy that anti-smoking studies that used the same methodology are perfectly legit? I think that's pretty related, since they're about the same subject, and employ the same methods. Are you just afraid to go there? If you knock his methods, wouldn't that mean you disagree with the anti-smoking studies methods? Doesn't that just put you in a conundrum then, if you disagree with both sides of the study? Are you a bad enough dude to justify the EPA study while at the same time say that the same methods they used were just fine and Enstrom's aren't?

edit: still reading, martin heilweil, PhD had a good one too, who actually pointed out the flaws and the not-so-flaws of the study. After that, it's the same beat-the-dead-horse argument of "everyone was exposed to ETS before then!" without bringing of the fact that hardly any of the people in the study suffered from any diseases, hence the conclusion... Seriously, is it THAT hard to see? So what if the "ever" and "never" smokers were exposed to the same amount of smoke... they weren't all dying from various diseases, were they? I feel like that further credits the damn report!I can't even think up a stupid analogy to compare that to.

Just keep reading past those guys, you'll have to ignore the guys using the same damn argument because it gets old FAST. Some guys come up with new ones, and there's actually some amount of support for it, which surprises the hell out of me. I see a lot of the same points I brought up that other people have brought up- and most of them have PhD's, makes me feel special.

 

*sigh* Score one for anger! Thanks for the sarcasm, buddy.

I pointed you to the BMJ link because, for one, it had arguments SUPPORTING it and AGAINST it. And it wasn't from a link called "The Smokers Club" or "nosmoke".

I said no such thing. In fact, YOU were the one bringing up the so-called "other studies". I DON'T believe it's fine to use flawed methods, no matter which side of the debate it's on. I never said I was all for the EPA. If you have something against the EPA, take it up with them. As a matter of fact, I had stated in my earlier post the following:

You brought this one up, and I rebutted it. It would imply as if you are using the failure of other studies to help prove your point. If the EPA studies which you seem to bring up a lot here are methodically wrong, then I would treat them as so. But what you are doing here is merely saying "The other studies used the same faulty method, therefore mine is right". It just means that they are ALL subject to scrutiny and skepticism and are all flawed. After skimming through the "anti-smoking EPA sponsored" studies, it would seem that most of them are inconclusive as well. In fact, NONE OF THE STUDIES on smoking, whether the end result supports correlation of second hand smoke to disease or does not support it, are quite conclusive; including your own Enstrom/ Kabat study. Your arguments seem to me like you're debating the unfair treatment this study gets compared to other studies, rather than proving this study is valid in its own right.

The fact that the researchers had recorded no data on smoking status past 1972 means that the end result is open for speculation. That's the problem, it's inconclusive. They COULD all have stopped smoking. That's possible. They could have been exposed to the same second hand smoke and still had no effect on them. That's possible too. They could ALL have fucking died. Hell, that's a possibility too. My point is WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE what happened. If the researchers HAD taken the data for those 26 years, I would not see much of a problem here.

You know, I, too, am tired of repeating and drilling down words from my last post. Note that I said the following:

Did YOU even read the study? My alarm bells were ringing once I saw one of the tables only put down the smoking status until 1972 and cited no other source of secondhand smoke.  The pot calling the kettle black, are we now? From what I've seen of your post, your arguments FOR the Enstrom study are directly from that link you mentioned:

http://www.smokersclubinc.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2224

In fact, that's your past few posts in a nutshell right there.

 

Sarcasm =/= anger. You've been really pissed off this whole time and I really don't get why and you seem to enjoy skipping certain points I make. You did mention in one post that I was trying to change the subject in order to make my point correct, which makes no damn sense. Stop trying to misquote me on things and make it out that I'm saying things that I am not. Nowhere did I say that because other studies used "flawed methodology" does it make the study I cite correct. The point I am driving you towards is that you call this study flawed, but pretty much all studies involving anti-smoking use the same methodology. What I'm trying to drive you towards is this, if all of the research is flawed, then who is right? We don't fucking know, do we? Then why the hell are you arguing a point that may not even be the truth based on your opinions?

And I did read the study, I don't just read what other people say then act like an authority. I don't see this "missing" time span you mention at all. If you mean that they checked on them in the 70s and again in the 90s, how are they missing them? They mention in the study if their spouse died (for both never and ever smokers). I mean, what the hell are you getting at? That between the 70s and 90s they took a rocket ship to space, stayed away from smoking in a controlled environment, returned to Earth and ruined the statistics by not being exposed to ETS the whole time? They are the same people after that time, nothing has changed about them. They are still in environments exposed to ETS, and they haven't shown any significant change in their health or lifestyle. They still eat the same, have the same routines, aren't dying from horrible diseases etc. Why does this apply to the popular concern of ETS? Everyone, and I mean frickin' everyone seems to think that ETS is hiding around every corner and any dose at all is going to KILL YOU AHH! What this study is trying to debunk is the incredulous claims that anti-smoking studies have made about how dangerous second hand smoke is. They followed people who smoked who are exposed to ETS, and people who lived with a spouse who smoked etc., but they weren't all dying from horrible diseases.

There's even a chart on the study that takes into consideration the ETS exposure in the workplace and general life, and they all go up to the 90s.

Anything I've said about this study I've taken from my own speculation. You failed to mention whether or not you read the study or if you ready critiques from the opposing side of your view, you just seem to be dodging the point entirely. I've taken the time to try and respond to everything you say, but you seem to skip over certain things I question you about. When I found this study, all I found was people saying "The methodology was flawed from the start because ___________" so I read the abstract, checked out some charts, and read the closing of the study. It wasn't very easy finding any support for the study, and the ones who supported it actually had varied defenses and opinions. The ones opposing the study were saying the same thing- beating a dead horse with a stick, reviving it with shock paddles, then beating it to death again.

^^^^^^^^^^ And about that... Enstrom said in his defense that the critics had only an unfinished report, and not the whole deal, which is why they were probably arguing about the "flaws" of the study. They whole "they don't take into consideration the work place and general life!" is completely shot down when you look at the whole study. It's right there, in one giant column.

 

Comprehension: do you dig it? I admit, it's getting to be a meaningless debate if you do not try to pay attention to what I'm actually saying. Note that I had agreed on the inconclusiveness of most of the studies on this subject. But what I'm getting at is this: you're confusing the unfair treatment this study gets with how this study is not flawed. I'm also questioning which is right, but what you are doing is using that fact (again, the discrimination of this study) to prove your point. I propose we agree on the fact that NONE of them are conclusive. Anyways, let's rewind one post over...

You assert that you've read it. Even though the basis of your arguments seems to be from link that you've given me. I have mentioned that I have also read it. I formed MY OWN opinion about it. I looked at the charts, and read the conclusion. Again, at first read I thought it was inconclusive. Not because I was shilling for the EPA nor because I'm an "anti-smoking activist". You see, I also believe that there IS exaggeration in second-hand smoke, in the sense that it ISN'T nearly as dangerous as actually smoking. That does not mean, however, that it does not affect human health.  Also just because people have the same opinion about it does not necessarily mean that they are somehow stooges or shills for "anti-smoking vested interests". Remember, this is a conflict of interests; there are also pro-tobacco groups that are more or less the same. You are of the opinion that you are being persecuted (even victimized) by these "anti-smoking vested interests". You think that everyone else is fucking paranoid of ETS and they are all out to get you.I don't understand why you are ranting about the EPA/ the conspiracy of experts/beating horses with sticks.

You know what? Let's go back to the beginning

And that's a fact. I still stand by my statements about why it was inconclusive (i.e. flawed). INCONCLUSIVE. NOT WRONG, BUT INCONCLUSIVE. I do not support second hand smoking, and first-hand smoking.

 

I smoke and I wish i didnt but think of this:

Did you know that someone whos smokes and quits suddenly may develop serious health problems and a weakened immune system if their body isnt ready. We need to respect eachothers opinions and it seems like a lot of people in here show very little interest in the respect for smokers and of course this will cause disinterest and spite. Think about it

A pack of smokes is roughly $5.... a non smoking aid such as the patch is $60+ and even more for medical aid

who are the real criminals?

You should be looking at your government officials and big business tabacco... were victims also, and if you wanna try and argue that then it just shows your ignorance.

p.s. if you want statistics i have bucket loads of them too

 

*looks at above post*
[facepalm]

You DO know what "addiction" means, right? A pack of smokes a day at 5 bucks for 365 days is a shitload of money you could be spending on a more worthy cause. The tobacco companies withheld and spread FUD on the fact that actually smoking is bad for your health. So, it's hard for me to place them as the victims. I try not to be ignorant, but who are we kidding here. They are out to make money at the expense of our dependency on cigarettes and our health.

Oh, I respect smokers by simply not caring, as long as their smoke does not disturb me.

 

We all know smoking is bad but there not ever gonna ban it, it's a major money source for the goverment.

 

There's studies right now that CLAIM secondhand smoke (as in the smoke that a smoker exhales) is just as bad, if not worse for others that smoke the cigarette. Asthma, ear infections, cancer, so on. I'm sure if you go online, you can find out about groups that find out what kind of chemicals are in tobacco in cigarettes for example. Some examples are formaldehyde and even a chemical that can be found in hair removal products. These kinds of chemicals are being burned and the smoke is inhaled into the lungs, absorbed, and then discharged for others to inhale. But another thing to consider is, tobacco was originally a plant, right? Then how the heck did so many decades later, cigarettes are laced with these kinds of chemicals? Perhaps it isn't in the tobacco, but it is in the paper or filters that the cigarettes are made of. I don't know. I do not smoke. I don't intend to smoke. But I do know that there's information like that out there, and if you wonder about something, there's at least one person who thought the same thing out in the world and might have answered it.

 

They are not banning smoking in China.

http://www.independent.ie/world-news/no-butts-as-china-makes-officials-smoke-1728594.html

What a messed up world we live in.

 

Location based bans are understandable. Like in a public area. I'm cool with that. In my own house I should be able to do as I please. My lungs, my decision to destroy them with delicious tobacco and mariju....

 

I just read something about those "quit" patches...I heard they give you cancer...

As to the one who mentioned the side effects from quitting too early from smoking-you forgot to mention the "mental" side effects.

My mother used to be a somoker, and soe was her whole family, all of them did on her side, but when she got married she tured into a closet smoker...dad hated smoking or smokER's.

Before she quit she was all laid back, fun loving, but when she did, as of many other's I've seen, changed, but my mother was the worse case, easily aggrivated, never backs down, and her overall health just to add insult to injury, hasn't been the same ever since, but that could just be damage to lungs, all I know if I'm forced to open soft drink bottles for her after dad closes them...

But quitting on your own, without the patches, might be the better choice, no money to something that MIGHT give you cancer (some free newspaper called the Mx given out in the city mentioned a study was made, can't confrim if ligit, but never went wrong with that newspaper) and of course save money...

But here is my whole 2 cents-whoever thought of inventing the thing mus not have had any idea the problems it causes, before and after quitting, it changes people...

And thanks to my dad's brainwashing (no joke) I reactivly ethier run, pretend to cough, or if I know the person, try to put the thing out, the smell irritates me (that and I onced had asthma and thus have been sensitive to breathing in crap)...

But of course, they can't stop them all, the goverments get money from the tobacco companies to keep running, hell (again the Mx) I hear the chinese goverment is forcing officals to buy the dam things!

And what's worse, if it WERE outlawed, it would still be taken, but just under the rader like soo many drugs, you know the ones...

I want to WISH for the tabacco plant to just die out or be made extinct, but there would be a reason wh that will never happen...



As for location based bans...they don't work, no smoking under covered areas..BULL they do it anyway, BULL they do it in public bathrooms, BULL you tell them it's agaist the law and they will sumon 10 people from nowhere and beat you down, and BULL, they just don't care...

Not all smokers are inconsiderate/violent/annoying, but here in melbourne, I've seen or heard about many of these instances, and it's sickening to know...

Plus our city has enough smog anyways, it's hard enough to breathe that crap in, let alone cigs...

 

damn. i thought this was america. let people do as they please. and dont bitch about second hand smoke if u dont like it, then leave. just like when you hear someones shitty music at the beach. you have no right to tell them i dont enjoy your music change it. you either suck it up and listen, or leave. same with smoking. its the same argument!!
and nobody is arguing that its not healthy, smokers know.

and i dont smoke.

 

Marijuana's only illegal because the government can't tax it.

Why?

They can't tax produce.

 

1. Its a digesting smell on women or man.
2. A real bad turn down!
3. Bad for the health.
4. Doesnt do crap on stress ( seriously i want to punch these idouits who says but its stress free! thats all bull!)
5. Smoking nearby bystanders can kill you with lung cancer!
6. If i find out that i got lung cancer cos my mate smokes ill kill him instead.
7. Seriously harmful!
8.Though isnt bad as alcohol cos you only have one liver! lol

 

All the people around you will also smoke, so think of your children!