Apathy Sketchpad

I hope you sent on those statistics to Dave. If not, send them to the national office of statistics along with Dave’s own figures to see if they can all be published together. That will go well when he does his next bout of bollocks research

I love the bit where he tries to batter you into submission with an array of technical terms for types of study that you don’t know whether your example study was or was not.

What I generally find astonishing about this position is that it accepts that ‘first-hand’ smoke is dangerous, but second-hand smoke is not. I think there’s a real market opportunity here. We just need to devise a new kind of cigarette that only produces this second-hand smoke. Safe smoking for everyone!

That’s not possible. What we need is some kind of smoking robot whose titanium lungs can take the brunt of the the first hand smoke and leave the harmless old second hand smoke for everyone else to enjoy. Five or six of them carefully positioned around the bar would probably suffice. Perhaps they could be coin-operated.

I think we have come across this Dave Hitt type before. The bit about making conclusions based on assumptions being valid or not, sounds a lot like Stavros.

Hey, I have a beard… ;-)

Anyway, good on you, Andrew :-)

Stavros used to make his conclusions based on whether they were lies or not. For those of you who don’t know him, he only believed lies and turned away from the truth at all opportunities

Is “Dave Hitt” Cockney Rhyming slang for something?

How do you know 1000 people die every year due to Radon when it is nearly impossible to determine?

I didn’t do that study, did I? Ask the people who did it that.

I can name three.

Elise Moyden
Edward Cunningham
Edgar Rowntree.

WOW, they all start with E. Only people who’s name begins with E can be affected by radon gas.

Shoudn’t you know if the findings are true if you are going to use them in your argument?

I don’t see why. Like I said, the study could be fictional and still serve as a good example.

You cannot claim that 1000 people die from radon then say that you dont know who dies from radon because it is impossible to know. If it is impossible to know then you cannot know that 1000 people die from it. This is not a good example.

But the whole point is that you can know that. Take the dice example: If you have a die and roll it three million times and it comes up six a million times, that’s twice as often as you’d expect, yes? From that you can conclude that the die is loaded. But how do you know which sixes were because the die is loaded and which were just the natural half-a-million sixes you’d have expected? The answer is that you don’t. There’s no way to know that, but we do know roughly how many there were: there were half a million, give or take. It’s statistics. This sort of thing is precisely what statistical analysis if for. If you can’t wrap your head around that then I’m afraid that’s a fault with your head, not with the argument.

You could equally well argue that being hit by a truck isn’t bad for you because people die all the time and we have no way to prove that all the people who’ve ever been hit by trucks wouldn’t have died at that same moment anyway.

To apply the same argument to the Radon case, they can tell more people die because there are higher rates of cancer development around areas where Radon is accumulated around the house after seeping in from the ground. How could there not be? Radon randomly decays emmiting alpha particles. If you lived in a house where you were surrounded by atoms emmitting alpha particles which then have fun ripping through your DNA causing mutation and cancerous cell production you probablility is you would develop cancer. If there are more cancer case developments around these areas, theres more deaths due to cancer. Thing is people who live in Radon filled houses firstly, sometimes don’t know it, secondly, also live in the world where they are literally surrounded by carsinogens (including eating burned food, apparantly), and thirdly are human. Its quite difficult to tell where these cancer cases developed but it IS possible to notice that theres a higher rate of deaths due to cancer in Radon cases. It’s been linked. Once you know how many more cases on average than your non-radon affected town its a simple ratio calculation. Done by people who know what they’re talking about. I dont pretend to have done these studies, but I also dont pretend I know how the myogenic cardiac tissue in some people randomly spazzes out and stops working for a bit, it still happens. You dont have to know how everything works to know it still happens.

I never said people didnt die from radon. I said that you cant make a claim that 1000 people die and then say it is impossible to tell who actually died from it. You cant make a definite claim that 1000 people die if you dont know. You can claim that it does cause death, but dont know how many or to who.

Also, loaded die would land on six everytime. That is the purpose of loading die.

Well, no, it might not be 1000 in any given year. It might be 986, or 1023. Like I said when I first brought it up, “It would be impossible even to pinpoint the exact figure accurately.” To be honest I’d say it’s pretty unlikely that the study turned up a figure as round as 1000. Probably it’s a rounded number.

But the point is that it’s about 1000 on average. If you want to quibble over the last couple of digits (known to mathematicians as the “least significant” digits) while ignoring the one known to mathematicians as “the most significant digit”, then that to me suggests your priorities are wrong.

While the ‘name three people’ argument is no good, the cold harsh reality is that no really good study proves second-hand smoke kills. You can use inference to imply that is smoking kills then secondhand smoking must too, just to some lesser degree. It is just the size of this ratio that needs to be cleared up. So long as we don’t know this ratio, we don’t know how to adjust our behaviour. Government and corporations (to avoid litigation) feels the need to play it safe. That’s fine for now, and seems to settle things.
But let us remember before we get too high and mighty about dissenters, that the cold harsh reality is that no really good study has proven that second hand smoke kills (at the risk of repeating myself). Dave Hitt represents those in the public who don’t want our liberties erased on the basis of “playing it safe”. We still need the studies – we cannot just ban smoking forever on the basis of a “maybe”.

Lewis summed this up very well in the comments above.

It would seem that you are the twat. Dave Hitt’s website is eminently funny and based on facts. He isn’t saying that SHS isn’t harmful, He’s just saying that you can’t pin down how harmful it is in numbers. His example of someone saying each cigarette takes 13 minutes off your life lays this out perfectly. It damages your health but it doesn’t remove exactly 13 minutes of life. Saying that is stupid, or twatlike. It’s what you are doing. I have emphysema from SHS, growing up from birth in a smoke filled environment. I hate smoking and have never smoked. It’s harmful whether it’s first or second hand but HOW harmful cannot be turned into numbers. That is what he’s arguing against.

“That’s a semi-valid analogy. Yet, if SHS were so dangerous that it’s killed a million people in the past twenty years, why can%u2019t the very people who make a living selling the dangers of SHS come up with three measly names?

Because there aren%u2019t any, that’s why.”

It seems to me thats exactly what he’s trying to say, bigdog

I don’t have any quibbles with the general idea that Dave Hitt is arguing: that people sell the dangers of second hand smoke without as much evidence as they imply and they quote the dangers using misleading statistics.

But I deeply object to his methods for doing so: in pitching against what he sees as bad use of science and statistics he uses arguments which he himself has admitted to me are flawed. That makes him at least as bad as anyone else involved, and in many ways far worse, because at least the other people aren’t criticising each other for doing it while they’re doing it themselves. If he wants to argue for honesty in the debate he should be prepared to bring some of his own. Otherwise he’s just being a twat.

Also, he repeatedly makes two assertions. The first is that we can and will never know how dangerous second hand smoke is. The second is that second hand smoke is safe. How can he know both of these things?

He can’t. And yet he repeatedly asserts both. (bigdog just said he never claimed second hand smoke was safe, but he does: he said that there aren’t three people who’ve died from it near the top of this very page.)

You might notice that I make no claims about the dangers of second hand smoke whatsoever. I merely object to his arguments and his arrogant attitude. People tend to assume I’m arguing second hand smoke is dangerous because I’m arguing with someone who says that it is safe. And also because I’m so opposed to smoking in public, on the grounds that slowly poisoning the general public any other way is illegal and I don’t believe in making exceptions for people because they have dangerous drug habits. I believe in rehab for people with dangerous drug habits.

But I’m not going to get into that argument with Dave Hitt, because that would mean talking to him. And he’s a twat. I just want you to understand that even if he is arguing a case which is true that doesn’t make his arguments correct, or even sane. That’s why maths tests insist that you show your working out. I don’t really care if smoke is dangerous. It’s annoying and inconsiderate and can be toxic to some people, and there’s just no need for it, and that alone is reason enough to ban it in my book. But I do deeply care about intellectual honesty, and Dave Hitt doesn’t appear to possess any.

Lastly, let me point out that this discussion is taking place on my public website. Mine and Dave Hitt’s discussion took place in closed email. Dave Hitt does not like the general public’s opinions about his site being visible to people reading his site. Why do you think that might be?

I’m sorry Andrew… but, you appear to be somewhat of a moron. Your analogies are nonsensical. The massive flaw in your dice analogy should be painfully obvious to anyone with a brain more developed than that of the average eight year old: Seeing the die rolled, and landing on six, four hundred times in a row is analogous to actually having the names of four hundred people who died from second hand smoke.

A much better analogy for your argument would go like this: I rolled a die four hundred times in a completely darkened room where it was impossible to see the result of any roll. But, I proclaim that the die landed on six four hundred times because I’m convinced that the die was loaded. Therefore, asking to see the real-world results of the four hundred rolls is stupid and pointless because, by power of proclamation, I’m right and you’re wrong!

What Dave Hitt is asking for is to actually see the results of the die roll. In fact, he’s not even asking for all four hundred results, he only wants three of four hundred! “Give me the names of victims” is the same as “Tell me what number the die landed on.” What Dave Hitt is asking for is real-world, empirical evidence that corroborates what the epidemiology “suggests.”

Dave Hitt’s “name three” challenge is a very, very strong logical argument. And, you seem to have completely missed the point of it. The argument is not really: “If you can’t find anyone who has ever died from SHS, that means that nobody ever has.” The argument is “If you can’t find anyone who has ever died from SHS, then we CAN’T KNOW if anyone ever has. And, it is SUGGESTIVE that the stats are flawed.” As such, are we justified in pushing legislation that is highly restrictive to people’s personal liberties based on what we “suspect” without any solid, empirical, independently verifiable evidence? If we’re being told that an absolute torrent of people have died from SHS, then logic dictates that it should be a simple matter to locate three of them. If we can’t locate them it doesn’t mean that what they are telling us is wrong. It may be suggestive of such, but what it really means is that we can’t really know if it’s wrong or not. And, any claims to the actual veracity of the statement becomes nothing more than conjecture. In short: You don’t know how many people have died from SHS, and until you find some actual people who have, the statistics are not empirically verifiable and it is intellectually irresponsible to make any absolute claims regarding the dangers of SHS.

In the words of Richard Feynman: “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with the experiment, it’s wrong!” When/if you ever learn to think independently and critically, you’ll realize that one of the most important and fundamental tools in your arsenal for weighing truth is comparing what is told to you against your real-world experience. If 50,000 corroborative, epidemiological studies come out tomorrow that all say that 99% of people who have ever chewed bubble gum grow third eyes in the middle of their foreheads, I want you to think back over your life. Ask yourself: “How many people have I known that have ever chewed bubble gum? How many people have I ever heard of that have grown third eyes in the middle of their foreheads?” If you can’t come up with a number that comes anywhere close to 99%, then the safest conclusion is that the studies, no matter how ‘beautiful’ they were, no matter how ’smart’ the people who conducted them were, are most likely B.S.

How many people are they telling us have died from second hand smoke? Exactly how much related death am I able to verify? If the answers to those two questions don’t come close to matching, then the safest conclusion that a truly independent, critical thinker can come to is: “It tells me nothing.”

And, in closing, as further evidence to just how much of a moron you actually make yourself out be, it should be noted that on your web page, which opened by calling people “morons”, claim that the reason certain people disagree with you is because they’re morons (Which suggests that if they weren’t morons, they would be agreeing with you – ipso facto: Those who don’t agree with you are morons… even though you, quite irrationally, suggest the exact opposite) you later state that one of your main objections is Dave Hitt’s “arrogant attitude.” So, not only are you a moron, you’re also a hypocrite. And, more importantly: You state: “I make no claims about the dangers of second hand smoke whatsoever.” Then, in THE SAME PARAGRAPH, you state “…I’m so opposed to smoking in public, on the grounds that slowly poisoning the general public any other way is illegal.” A statement that is not only entirely self-contradictory, but also entirely false – Automobiles are not illegal, certain chemical pesticides are not illegal, alcohol (Which evaporates a class ‘A’ carcinogen into the atmosphere at many more times the CFM than the average smoker) is not illegal, certain industrial cleaning products are not illegal, etc., etc., etc.

I’m sorry. But, you sir, are demonstrably a moron!

You have once again missed the point of the die analogy. The point is that if you roll a die 400 time you expect to get about 67 sixes, so only 333 of the rolls were affected. It does not represent a list of 400 names of people who died from smoke, it represents roughly 333 names of people who died of smoke and roughly 67 names of people who would have died anyway. And there’s no way to know which are which. Nor is there any way to know exactly how many of each there are.

Crucially to this argument, there is not one of those 400 rolls about which you can honestly say “if that had been a fair die, that roll would not have been a six”, because you don’t have that information. So if I asked you to name three rolls that wouldn’t have been sixes had a fair die been used, you can’t. But we both know there are almost certainly well over 300 of them.

That’s the point. I’m not trying to argue that smoke is dangerous (though I consider that it pretty obviously is), or that it should be illegal to smoke in public (though again I believe this). My argument is that Dave Hitt’s “name three” challenge is exactly as impossible whether or not smoke has ever killed anyone, and that makes his argument invalid and wrong — even if it is attempting to prove something that is true. I’m certain Feynmann, being the great genius that he was, would have backed me up on this point: don’t assume the reasoning is sound just because the conclusion is correct.

I agree that his argument is (or rather, once you get past his layers of bullshit becomes) “If … we CAN’T KNOW if anyone ever has … it is SUGGESTIVE that the stats are flawed.” But I do not agree that that is a sound argument. As I demonstrated with the die analogy: we can’t know that you wouldn’t have rolled 400 sixes on the trot with a fair die. Granted the odds against it are 5 quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion quadrillion to one against (I worked them out), but we can’t know. That’s how statistics work: even though you can’t point to even one roll of the die and say “that was only a six because the die was loaded”, we have nevertheless proved beyond any reasonable doubt that it is. In the case of SHS, the numbers are more even so we don’t end up with such stupidly large numbers at the end of it. But the principle is the same.

“And, in closing, as further evidence to just how much of a moron you actually make yourself out be, it should be noted that on your web page, which opened by calling people “morons”, claim that the reason certain people disagree with you is because they’re morons (Which suggests that if they weren’t morons, they would be agreeing with you – ipso facto: Those who don’t agree with you are morons… even though you, quite irrationally, suggest the exact opposite)”

Yes, that was a joke. Sometimes I do that.

Oh, and here is a direct quote from one of Hitt’s emails to me:

I know that it’s an impossible task. It can’t be done, even if the numbers were legitimate. But the numbers aren’t legitimate, and this is just a fun way to point it out and get people to think about the issue.

You see that? Even Dave Hitt, who originated this argument, thinks it is a invalid! Stop trying to defend it! It’s completely pointless — both sides of this argument are agreed so you, an outsider and a rather rude one at that, have adopted the orphaned position that I set out to attack, Hitt abandoned, and now nobody else believes. Stop it. You look like a fool.

And he double-spaces after a full-stop. Would you trust a man who does that? I wouldn’t.

I didn’t miss any point. I know exactly what you’re trying to say with your analogy. My argument is that your analogy does nothing to undermine the “name three” argument. And, as such, the argument is still a valid one.

In a nutshell, you’re saying that you have a die that may or may not be loaded. You cast the die four hundred times and on any given roll it may land on any number either purely by chance, or because of an artificial bias toward a certain number present in the die – there is no way to tell which was responsible for the result on any given roll. But, if you roll the die many times and a single result occurs far above chance, it’s a safe conclusion that the die is loaded. I.e. – It’s not necessary to distinguish which rolls actually were chance, and which were influenced by the bias in the die.

Am I right? Good.

Now, you believe this is analogous to Hitt’s argument in that the epidemiology says (basically) “We have a bunch of people who were exposed to SHS, and a bunch that weren’t. Many more people who were exposed died than those who weren’t exposed. Ergo: SHS kills many people.” Hitt says: “If your conclusion is true, then name three.” (He is, in effect, asking which of the die results were by chance and which because of bias) You say: “The fact that three can not be named does not have any bearing on the conclusion of the epidemiology, as it is not necessary to say which deaths were a direct result of SHS, and which were the result of some other factor. Look at me roll this die 400 times to prove it!”

Right again? Good.

The problem is, your die analogy is meaningless when it comes to undermining the “name three” argument. The best your analogy can do is to argue: “This is why the epidemiology, at face value alone, is not necessarily wrong.” Which, of course, does absolutely nothing to undermine the “name three” argument, as the argument exists because the reliability of the epidemiology itself is in question. If you tell me that you’re a space alien from the planet Zargon-5, I might have an argument as to why you’re not. If my argument doesn’t prove you’re not a space alien from the planet Zargon-5, (of course, I’d have a very difficult time actually proving such a thing) it doesn’t mean that my argument is invalid, and it sure as hell doesn’t mean that you’re a space alien from the planet Zargon-5!

I’ll try to put it in clearer terms: Hitt says the epidemiology is flawed. The response is “No it isn’t!” So, Hitt says “If there’s so many people who died from this, then name a few.” With your dice analogy, you’re countering that by saying “Just because they can’t, it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re wrong!” Well… sure… But, It doesn’t bleeding well mean they’re right either! That is NO argument in favor of the veracity of the epidemiological conclusions. Try to follow: The failure to provide three names argues against the veracity of the epidemiology: If it is claimed that MILLIONS of people have died from it, but nobody is able to locate even three of them, it’s fairly reasonable to conclude that there is a good possibility that the claim is fallacious – especially because the data itself is in question. It doesn’t prove an error, but it is suggestive of one – you, yourself seem to agree with this. But, all you’ve done with your dice analogy is to show how the “name three” argument doesn’t PROVE that the epidemiology is flawed. The “name three” argument therefore still stands as a fully valid argument. It isn’t proof – it’s an argument, and still a very valid one. If Hitt has since abandoned it, that’s his problem, not mine.

Of course, if the data were rock-solid and unquestionable, it would be a different matter. Then a body count would be entirely unnecessary. But, the data isn’t rock solid – it’s very, very fragile epidemiology. The entire basis, the very foundation, of the whole argument is the reliability of the data – and you completely fail to take that into account. So, you’ve managed to show, with your analogy, that the “name three” argument isn’t PROOF the conclusion is wrong. Big Deal! So what? It’s meaningless. We already knew that. The argument, however, still stands.

You say people died? Show me dead people! Until you can, all you have are highly dubious numbers on a page. I’m sure that you want everyone to believe they’re just as good, but brother they just aint. And, no flawed die analogy is gonna make it so.

Also, my half-hearted apologies for being “rude.” But, I happen to not agree with you, and I don’t appreciate being called a moron because of it – In fact, I happen to have it on pretty good authority that I actually am not a moron. So, if you’re going to dish it out…

I’m going to make one thing as clear as I can before this debate goes any further: Nowhere on this page have I made any claims about the dangers of second hand smoke. I don’t really care if it’s dangerous or not. I’d honestly rather it wasn’t because that would mean I was a little safer than I otherwise am.

My argument is not that smoking is dangerous; it is that the “name three” argument is a spurious one. Take, as an example, the statment “people with ginger hair are often over fifteen feet tall”. That statement is false. It would be impossible to name three ginger people who are over fifteen feet tall. But take as another example the statment “radon gas causes cancer”. This statement is true, but it would be equally impossible to name three people killed by radon gas.

The point here is that the “name three” argument can, if it is valid, disprove a statement which is true. Therefore it is not valid. This has no bearing on whether or not smoke is dangerous, but it has enormous bearing over whether it is right for Hitt to use the “name three” argument to defend smoking.

You say “The best your analogy can do is to argue: “This is why the epidemiology, at face value alone, is not necessarily wrong.”", and I agree with that. But Hitt is using the “name three” argument to demonstrate that the epidemiology is wrong. He repeatedly states that if nobody can name three people that smoke has killed then smoke has never killed and I have repeatedly constructed scenarios that show that logic is flawed.

If Hitt really understand statistics as well as he appears to then he ought to be able to construct an argument which is coherent and not flawed. If he doesn’t, then his criticisms of statistical surveys should probably be ignored.

Clearly you’re having trouble, so I’ll repeat something again: I am not trying to argue that second hand smoke has ever killed anyone. You say “You say people died? Show me dead people!”, and I say, “No, for fuck’s sake, how many times? I am not saying people died. I’m saying that showing you dead people is impossible if they did and if they didn’t, so the fact that I can’t proves nothing!”.

And for reference, my point is not “that the “name three” argument isn’t PROOF the conclusion is wrong”. My point is that the “name three” argument doesn’t even suggest the epidimiology is wrong.

Okay. Perhaps you’re not a moron. Perhaps you’re a perfectly intelligent person with some kind of major mental block when it comes to logic and statistics. I’m sure you’re good at cryptic crosswords or geography or something.

And also, whether or not the argument is valid (which patently it isn’t) doesn’t really have any bearing on my main point, which is that Dave Hitt is a twat, because Hitt himself admitted to me that he agrees that it is nonsense. The fact that he uses the argument while holding this opinion suggests to me that he uses it because he thinks most people won’t realise it is invalid, which indicates that he is a twat.

QUOTE: “I’m going to make one thing as clear as I can before this debate goes any further: Nowhere on this page have I made any claims about the dangers of second hand smoke.”

Quote: “…I’m so opposed to smoking in public, on the grounds that slowly poisoning the general public any other way is illegal…”

Ooook, fine!?!?!?

Quote: “You say “You say people died? Show me dead people!”, and I say, “No, for fuck’s sake, how many times? I am not saying people died. I’m saying that showing you dead people is impossible if they did and if they didn’t, so the fact that I can’t proves nothing!”.

Of course it proves nothing. I’ve already said that. But, that doesn’t invalidate the argument any. An argument doesn’t have to provide proof of something in order to be a valid argument. The fact that you can’t show me dead people argues that all you have is speculation and conjecture based on highly suspect epidemiology. It’s up to you to counter that argument, and so far your only counter is “You can’t prove that it’s wrong!” Well “You can’t prove that it’s wrong” is not an argument.

The epidemiology makes a claim. The “name three” argument asks for tangible evidence to support that claim. Saying “It’s impossible to provide such tangible evidence” does not invalidate the request.

The fact of the matter is, if you can’t show me dead people, then you can’t know if anyone has ever died. Period! You can have your speculations, but you can’t know. And, saying “the ’show me dead people’ argument is invalid because I can’t show you dead people.” is patently absurd. It flies in the face of the most fundamental tenets of logic. The argument remains valid, and the more dead people there are supposed to be, the more valid the argument becomes. You’ve done nothing to show otherwise. And, yes, the same holds true for Radon gas. The difference is, the epidemiology that draws the conclusions regarding Radon isn’t nearly as suspect.

Regardless of what you want the argument to be, the issue is much bigger. Health authorities present the epidemiology as unquestionable fact. They say X amount of people ARE dying every day because of this. (Not we “suspect”, or have “reason to believe”) They treat the numbers almost as divinely revealed truth. They attempt to convince (and are frighteningly successful at it) the general public that it is an unquestionable fact that people ARE dying in droves as a direct result of their exposure to SHS, and this is their justification for their discriminatory practices and the stripping of liberties from people. The “name three” argument is valid in showing that there’s nothing unquestionable about it. It is little more than highly suspect speculation and conjecture based on highly suspect epidemiology. If they KNOW that X amount of people have died, then they MUST have a body count. If they can’t provide any of those bodies, it is suggestive that they don’t have a body count. If they don’t have a body count, then they don’t KNOW. If they don’t know, and are saying that they do, they are engaged in deception. It’s simple logic, and saying “They can’t provide bodies, therefore they don’t have to, therefore the request for them to do so is invalid.” is ridiculous. It does nothing to alter the fact that the “name three” argument demonstrates that the numbers are speculative numbers being presented as fact.

I don’t know how to put it in simpler terms… If you want a reasonable person to believe that the existence of X amount of dead people is fact, then you HAVE to provide the dead people. There’s no other way to do it. No amount of conjecture, inference, belief, estimation, etc. will work. Until you do provide the dead people, all you have is speculation. Saying “It’s impossible to provide the dead people.” ONLY states that it’s impossible to ever move it out of the realm of speculation. And, since that speculation is derived from highly suspect epidemiology, the speculation itself must be seen as highly suspect. Until such time as you provide the bodies, that doesn’t change and the argument remains a valid one.

I’m new to this little debate, but surely you saying:

“The epidemiology makes a claim. The ‘name three’ argument asks for tangible evidence to support that claim. Saying ‘It’s impossible to provide such tangible evidence’ does not invalidate the request,”

is like me saying:

“Well, you say Leonardo da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa. Then show me video footage of him painting it! That’s the only way to prove he painted it. You saying that finding proof is impossible does not invalidate my request for proof. Otherwise all you have is highly suspect historical record.”

Do you see how me asking for proof of a type that I know to be impossible to provide serves no purpose in furthering my argument except perhaps to deflect attention away from my dubious claims about the lack of evidence?

[quotes]

Ooook, fine!?!?!?

Fair point, but the thing is about cigarette smoke, it contains about 70 different toxins. Obviously it is poisonous; the only question is, is it toxic enough that we should worry about it? Personally, I’m prepared to accept a little poison in exchange for transport and electricity, but I’m not prepared to accept it just because someone in the same bar as me has a dangerous drug habit they want to indulge in public. I think that’s spectactularly selfish of them. So I’m opposed to smoke because it’s poisonous, but not necessarily because it’s dangerous, if you follow.

Of course it proves nothing. I’ve already said that. But, that doesn’t invalidate the argument any. An argument doesn’t have to provide proof of something in order to be a valid argument.
What? Of course it invalidates the argument! If the argument doesn’t provide proof of something, what the hell is it for? “Name three” is perhaps useful as an analogy, or maybe as a hook or a snide remark or an aside, but Hitt is using it as a logical argument and it simply isn’t one.

It does nothing to alter the fact that the “name three” argument demonstrates that the numbers are speculative numbers being presented as fact.
That’s exactly my point: these are not “speculative” numbers. Statistics, and therefore fields such as epidemiology which rely on statistics, cannot ever definitively prove anything. They deal with error margins and measures of certainty. You end up with a result that says there is an X% chance that smoke kills, say, a thousand people a year, a Y% chance it kills a hundred, and whatever. Once you have a lot of independant studies that all give a fairly high value for X or Y you quote the results as fact because they’re the best facts you have, and arguing with them is petty at best unless you have a bunch of other studies that have opposing conclusions. Whether or not the studies in this specific case, that of second hand smoke, were all properly done and reported honestly is a seperate issue, and one which I don’t pretend to know enough about to make claims about, but the fact remains that that is how statistics is done (or should be), and even when they are you can’t name three. You’re not supposed to be able to name three. Criticising statistics for not giving a list of names is like criticising a car for not being able to fly. Sure, it’d be great if it could, but it can’t and was never supposed to.

What you are arguing is, essentially, a philosophical point called The Problem Of Induction. Hume demonstrated it in the 18th century by saying the statement “all swans we have seen are white, therefore all swans are white” couldn’t be proved unless you see all the swans in the world. (The point was further hammered home a species of black Swan was discovered – the example tends to be “all ravens are black” now instead.)

[Watch as I intimidate him with detailed background knowledge I mostly got off Wikipedia! Hehe. Don't tell him!]

I am not going to sit here and argue philosophy with you because we will be here for ever. The point here is that if you have a bunch of studies that all say “there is a 98% chance that second hand smoke kills at least X people a year” then it is not dishonest to state that figure as a fact because the alternative is to show a graph of deaths versus likelyhood and that will only mean anything to mathematicians. It’s gibberish to the man in the street. Generally the detailed version of the results is somewhere in the small print, like on toothpaste adverts where they say “This toothpaste reduces plaque by 67%” and then have the source of that figure in little white letters at the bottom of the screen.

That last 2% is Hume saying “ah, but it could just be coincidence. There could be a whole flock of yellow ravens just around the corner, all sat packing spheres into a box with a 77% packing fraction and breathing second hand smoke from green swans and suffering no ill effects”. And there could. Perhaps all that dark matter scientists can’t find is a flock of Invisible Pink Space-Ravens. But how likely is that, really? Well, in this example, it’s roughly as likely as winning something on the lottery on Wednesday.

But that is basically what Hitt is saying when he repeatedly states or implies “you can’t even name three people killed by second hand smoke and therefore there aren’t any“. That is the part I have a problem with. Until the word “and” all he’s saying is that the figures we have for smoke related diseases all carry heavy error margins with them, which of course they do and it’s wise to bear that in mind, and that part of the “name three” argument is quite a clever way to make that point. But when you add “therefore there aren’t any” the statement turns into “it can’t be proven, therefore it isn’t true”, which, although a reasonable sounding statement, turns out to be wrong. In fact, there are a great many things that are true but can’t be proven. Paradoxically, this has been proven, although it’s perhaps worth noting that we couldn’t name three things that are true but haven’t been proven because by definition we can’t know that they’re true without proving them.

Have you heard of a thing called “the halting problem”? Essentially, it is a question that has been mathematically shown to be unanswerable. It asks “will this computer programme ever end?”, and there’s no way to know without running it and seeing what happens, and even if you do that, as long as it’s still running you don’t know if it will end today, tomorrow, or never. So it’s impossible to prove that a programme won’t halt and therefore it is, in the general case, impossible to answer the question, but there is still an answer; there must be, because it’s a question about mathematics and all things are defined in mathematics, even if we can’t ever know what the definition is. This shows us that some things are true but cannot be proven, in which case expecting such definitive and simplistic proof as a list of dead people is not always reasonable, and the fact that such proof cannot be identified does nothing to suggest that this proof does not exist. Second hand smoke does contain toxins (we know this from direct analysis of said smoke), and is more-or-less certainly responsible for at least three deaths over the last fifty years. I mean, even tea cosies have killed more people than that, so that’s not to say it’s dangerous, just that there will be three people out there somewhere who were, however improbably, killed by it. And those people had names, and names can be listed and lists can be emailed to people called Dave. This is all known fact. The fact that it’s not possible to identify which names should go on the list doesn’t alter the fact that the names exist.

Essentially, Hitt is saying “all ravens we have seen so far are black, therefore the yellow ones must be hiding”, and while Occam’s Razor should tell you everything you need to know about that idea, he’s saying it in an abstract way so that the flaw in the logic is not obvious. People reading his page would be forgiven for thinking he had managed to prove smoke wasn’t dangerous (or at least to prove that we had no evidence that it was) using his “name three” argument, and if he’s doing that on purpose, which I have good reason to believe that he is, then that is dishonest of him. This is compounded by the fact that he repeatedly accuses everyone else of dishonesty and the fact that I, and probably others, have shown him it is dishonest and he still continues to spout his lies. Hence, he’s a twat. You see how this works, surely?

Every year about 3500 people die in road accidents in the UK. During the coming year another 3000 will die. Nobody can name any of them. Does this mean it won’t happen?

I wonder if the pro-Hitt comments will stop now that posting a comment requires you to have at least enough understanding of maths to add two numbers…

Someone on the xkcd.com forums mentioned this comic strip in a wholly different context the other day, and I thought it very relevant. I like to imagine Dave Hitt sat at home thinking “well how is that supposed to be funny?”

http://web.archive.org/web/20011027002011/http://dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/images/dilbert2001182781025.gif

You know what?

http://tinyurl.com/3aav3f

Much easier.

Your an idiot. Anyone who has any eductaion realizes the use of statistics is a valid measure of tendency. For you just to call someone a twat because you don’t understand the reasoning proves your ignorance.

By the way, try spell check next time you publish your site.

But 65% of statistics are made up anyway. 15% of people know that.

Also, there are far too many people called Paul replying to this; and each one has their own special level of intellegence.

paul (with no capital P), when you tell someone to spell check their text you should probably start the post with the correct form of “you’re.” It makes me wonder exactly how much education you must have had to have made such a stupid mistake. We all agree statistics are a valid measure of tendency, assuming they’re valid and free from bias, infact that’s somewhat the point. Andrew is arguing that “name three” is the most stupid way of trying to disprove statistics to have ever been thought up.

I think Dave Hitt is a retread Tobacco Institute Apparatchik who is funded by Big Tobacco to fill the internet with bilge. He has been quite successful for an imbecile…

What puzzles me about Dave Hitt’s weird argments is why he thinks secondhand smoke is so wonderful, regardless of whether someone can name 3 persons who absolutely died from it or not. The nonsmokers who are exposed to secondhand smoke without their consent have a valid belief that their risk of developing health problems is increased by this involuntary exposure. Most recently, their concerns are supported by an extensive review of the scientific literature by the State of California. Even without knowing the exact probability of this health risk, or the exact shape of the cause-effect curve, most nonsmokers have concluded they do not want to subjected to this risk without their consent. Hence, a strong case can be made for restricting smoking in public places, which is clearly more injurious to the health than other common restricted acts, such as spitting or uninating in public. Again, the most puzzling question is why Dave Hitt has chosen to champion the unfettered exposure of everyone to secondhand smoke. One can only assume that Dave Hitt receives funding from the Tobacco Industry to spread his irrational position that the 20% of the people (the smokers) should be allowed to expose the 80% of people who are not smokers to several thousand pollutants wherever and whenever the smokers want. Regardless of the irrational arguments by tobacco industry puppets, it is clear that the nonsokers have decided, “We’re not going to take this anymore!”, and the Nation has adopted a wise course of enacting smoking restrictions in public places with no turning back.

A couple of thoughts on this spirited little
debate…Dave Hitts` “name three” arguement has one fatal flaw –his conclusion.The fact that nobody can name three people who died of
second hand smoke ( or anything else for that
matter ) does not necessarily invalidate any and every study that runs counter to his beliefs.
While his conclusion is clearly little more than arguementative, I believe the question itself -name three- is still valid.
Any time a person dies the cause of death is
provided. Until death certificates start listing “cause of death” as passive smoke, the “name three ” question will remain a valid
reponse to anyone claiming SHS is killing people.

C.T seems to have missed the point of this
arguement completely. If 3500 people died in
British car accidents last year,every single
one of them could be named. Who died,where they
died,and how they died would all be easy to
identify. Furthermore,statistics do not guarentee future events, they merely measure
past tendencies. Nobody can name 3 people
who will die in car accidents that have not
yet happened. Nobody can even claim for sure
that these accidents will happen.Statistically,
it seems highly probable,but there is still no
absolute guarentee it will occur. If and when
these accidents take place however,all the victims will be named.

I think the die analogy has one flaw,which
seems to be common among many anti-tobacco
groups. In the die analogy,once the stats prove that a 6 has been rolled many more times
than one would expect,the automatic conclusion
is that the die is loaded. No other possibility
is explored. Was the table level? Was the surface smooth or not? Was the die rolled by a machine or a human? Were than any other factors
that could lead to the results being so far from random? None of these possibilities ever seem to be investigated. When looking for a certain answer, it seems best to only ask one
question.

Wayne:To disagree with anti-tobacco legislation, does not make one a front for
tobacco companies.The big tobacco propaganda
machine has been dismantled and muted. I find it highly ironic that the anti-tobacco industry ( and it`s most definitly an industry) is now responsible for misleading the public for the sole purpose of reaching
their own private goals.

Wayne: I find these statements of yours very curious:

#1: “Even without knowing the exact probability of this health risk, or the exact shape of the cause-effect curve, most nonsmokers have concluded they do not want to subjected to this risk without their consent.”

#2: “One can only assume that Dave Hitt receives funding from the Tobacco Industry to spread his irrational position that the 20% of the people (the smokers) should be allowed to expose the 80% of people who are not smokers to several thousand pollutants wherever and whenever the smokers want.”

I ask you, how does a nonsmoker give his or her consent to being exposed to SHS? I always thought that if you walk into a bar, in which you know people are smoking, you have given your consent to SHS exposure. If that does not constitute consent, then please tell me how a nonsmoker can give consent.

Secondly, I don’t believe Dave Hitt would ever argue that smokers should be allowed to smoke “wherever and whenever the smokers want”. For example, no one would argue that a smoker should be allowed to smoke inside YOUR house. Further, I think most people would agree that governments can decide whether smoking is allowed or not on GOVERNMENT property. Dave Hitt would probably argue that the issue of smoking should be decided by the property owner. You keep talking about “public places”, but I suspect you really mean privately-owned places, like bars and restaurants.

Wayne: As a follow-up, who is acting more voluntarily: (a) a nonsmoker walking into a bar that he knows allows smoking; or (b) a smoker who lights a cigarette and takes a drag?

A good argument could be made that the nonsmoker is acting MORE voluntarily than the smoker. At least the smoker can claim that his action is compelled by a physical addition to nicotine. But what’s the excuse of the nonsmoker who walks into a smoker-friendly bar?

It is easy to respond to these comments. First, active smoking in a bar exposes everyone else — smokers and nonsmokers alike – to the smoker’s pollution. Because of the high fine particle emission rate of each cigarette — 1.4 mg/min — the concentarionts in bars readily reach unusally high levels above 100 micrograms per cubic meter, contaminating the air for everyone in the room, including children, workers, and nonsmokers. (There are numerous scientific papers in the peer-reviewed literature on cigarette emission rates and the incredibly high concentrations measured in bars, sports taverns, and restaurants with active smokers, which drop to negligible levels when the smoking is restricted.) To summarize, the smokers’ personal actions ruin the air quality for everyone present, making it impossible for anyone to visit without inhaling high concentrations of fine particles into their lungs or absorbing CO into the blood. It is not clear why 20% of the population feel they have a right to expose the other 80% to the same pollutants at excessive concentraiotns that would not be permited for health reasons in outdoor air by federal law (i.e., the Clean Air Act). Nor should smokers have a monopoly on contaminating the air in all the bars and restaurants so no one else can visit. The smoker creates the pollution, so the smoker should be required to keep the smoke pollution to himself — by restricting the smoking to his own home.

On the second point, I believe Dave Hitt believes that smokers should be allowed to smoke “wherever and whenever the smokers want” in PUBLIC PLACES, not just in their homes. The question is whether the smoker has a right to contaminate the air of places open to the general public, which includes not just bars but also sports taverns, restaurants, hotel lobbies, elevators, restaurant patios, stores, casinos, church bingo games, etc. When this entire list is considered, the nonsmokers, which are in the clear majority (i.e., 80%), will have no place to go where they can avoid the pollutants at the unhealthful levels generated by the smokers. (By “unhealthful level” I specifically mean exceeding a score of “100″ on EPA’s nationwide Pollutants Standards Index.) A total of 16 states have passed restrictions on smoking, including California and New York. The trend toward limiting secondhand smoke exposure is worldwide, with Italy pasisng laws restricitng smoking in public places in 2005 and France passing similar laws in 2006. The trend is clear. Dave Hitt’s views do not seem to be gaining support anywhere. I rest my case.

SteveLee:

Okay, so the non-smokers in the bar have signalled by entering it that they are at least happy enough with the smoke that they would rather be exposed to it than sit at home on their own al night. But there are two key points there that you have missed. The first is that that doesn’t constitute consent. That constitutes coersion. There’s really no non-smoking bars or pubs to speak of, the the smoke-free alternative social scene simply doesn’t exist. Taking the only available option is not the same as being okay with it. If it was then Microsoft would be the mostpopular company going.

Secondly, nobody ever worked behind a bar because they enjoyed it. They do it because they need money and it’s fairly easy work to get. They have a right to a clean and healthy work environment, just like office workers get (and then go and pump carcinogens into the barsaff’s).

First of all, neither Wayne nor Andrew answered my question. How does a nonsmoker give his or her “consent” to SHS exposure? If you can describe instances in which exposure is “involuntary” and “without consent”, surely you can describe when exposure is “voluntary” and “with consent”. Come on. Give it a try.

Second, I find Andrew’s argument, that walking into a bar and being exposed to SHS is “coercion”, a bit over the top. No one is (or has ever been) prohibited from opening up their own smoke-free bar. And no one is forced into a smoker-friendly bar at gunpoint. A customer certainly does not HAVE to be in a bar; there are no necessities of life inside. And the fact that the market currently doesn’t provide what you want on every street corner doesn’t prove you’re being “coerced” when you walk into a smokey bar. That’s just silly.

Third, I must take issue with Andrew’s last point. I think MOST people who work in bars do so because they really like it. They like the tips. They like meeting people. And based on many personal observations, the vast majority of them smoke.

I’ll agree that most people don’t and can’t run their own businesses, so they have to seek employment from others. That would justify some sort of general workplace smoking ban–based not on health concerns, but general worker “comfort” (a lot of people find SHS intolerably annoying). But, it would not justify a comprehensive workplace smoking ban with no exemptions. I think most workplaces should be allowed to have an indoor smoking lounge. And businesses in the hospitality industry, whose “product” is providing a venue for smoking (such as bars) should also be exempt.

I would bet that, at present, about 97% of all private businesses are smoke-free. Anyone who doesn’t like SHS can easily avoid it 100% of the time, and anyone who wants “protection” from SHS already has it, provided they can resist the urge to walk into (or seek employment at) the nearest smoker-friendly tavern.

No, I never said people were forced to go into smoker-friendly bars. What I said was that no viable alternative exists. The alternatives are, as far as I can see, staying at home or walking an extra three miles to the non-smoking bar, neither of which are remotely satisfactory. You can’t assume someone is OK with a smoky environment just because they’re unwilling to give up their social life to avoid it.

Voluntary, consensual exposure to second hand smoke is when you say “do you mind if I smoke?” and I say “no”. When you effectively say “I’ll let you have a social life if you let me smoke” and I reluctantly accept those terms, that is not the same thing. It’s like saying it’s not really rape if you threaten to kill them first — they gave their consent by accepting your gracious offer of not killing them, surely?

For the record, I cannot recall the last time I heard the phrase “do you mind if I smoke” — and I find the fact this idea didn’t occur to you very telling.

In my experience of friends who’ve worked in bars, yes, they mostly do enjoy it. But they work there for the money and because it’s convenient — it’s hardly a career, is it? They do it when they need some extra pocket money. Again, often no viable alternative source of income exists, especially for students.

So why should they have to put up with an atmosphere full of poison for the benefit of a group of inconsiderate drug addicts?

Andrew, so in your world, nonsmokers should have a veto over smoking everywhere and always? Why?

I’m not surprised you don’t hear “do you mind if I smoke” anymore. I think smokers are pretty fed up with the current attitudes against them, and have so few places in which to smoke anymore, that they’re not going to ask anyone around them if they’d like to exercise the type of veto against smoking that you seem to believe nonsmokers should have.

Nowadays, most nonsmokers are itching to have the government screw smokers over by imposing 100% smoking bans everywhere, so why would smokers go out of their way to be nice to nonsmokers in the few places they’re still allowed to smoke? What goes around comes around.

Andrew, so in your world, nonsmokers should have a veto over smoking everywhere and always? Why?

Er, because the smoke might kill them? Because the smoke smells absolutely foul? Because the smoke sticks to their clothes and makes the non-smoker smell bad? Because the smoke stains clothes? Because the smoke might give them a nasty disease? Because people look a bit disgusting with two big plumes of grey smoke coming out of their nose? (Really, that’s just wrong.) Because the smoke might aggravate their sore throat or asthma? Because they might be a recovering tobacco addict who would prefer not to inhale any tobacco? Because they might be scared of becoming a tobacco addict by inhaling tobaccoo? Because they might not want to breathe in any smoke today?

The air around us belongs to us all. If you want to pump gases into it, make sure that the other people using it don’t mind. It’s just common courtesy. Do you think it’s acceptable if people walk around carrying burning tyres or with month-old fish down their trousers?

This is, I think the key:

I think smokers are pretty fed up with the current attitudes against them

That attitude is new, you see. The old attitude was that it was OK to stink out a room by filling it with poisonous gas for your own pleasure. That attitude is outdated and a bit stupid, but people like you seem to have enormous difficulty letting go of it — probably because it’s convenient for you as it allows you to smoke in peace. You’ve convinced yourself it’s true, which was easy because it was the prevailing attitude for so long. But times are changing. Move with them.

OK. So your position is that SHS is dangerous? I think we need to discuss who has the burden of proof on this issue.

I know in an earlier post, you didn’t think a burden of proof should be imposed on either side of this debate. That’s true, if the only issue is an academic one (i.e., is SHS dangerous or not?). But when we’re talking about using the government’s police power to take away the private property rights of a bar owner (i.e., the right to decide whether or not to allow smoking in the bar), I do think your side needs to bear the burden of proof on this issue.

So, unless you can defend the science of the anti-smokers on SHS, then you have to back off on asserting any right to dictate smoking policies to bar owners.

That is the issue with smoking bans. In order to overturn the private property rights of the bar owners, you must prove that SHS is dangerous. Asserting that it “might” be dangerous isn’t enough. If you are simply “worried” about the health effects of SHS, but are not prepared to prove that SHS is dangerous, it seems that the courteous thing for you to do is to leave the bars (and smokers) alone.

Andrew, by the way, does your veto power over smoking apply everywhere? Suppose you come to my house and I want to smoke. Do I have to bend to your wishes? Why/why not?

Bear the burden of proof? Okay. Have you tried searching PubMed for scientific papers on the subject? It’s already been proven that second hand smoke is dangerous. Whoever has the burden of proof, it is not required for me to drag up the individual papers every time I want to write anything on the subject just in case someone challenges it. I can just cite the accepted fact that the smoke is toxic and treat it as a given.

Right, that was easy. (Although I don’t accept that we should bear the burden of proof, because if we do then what’s to stop you starting burning tyres or injecting us with cyanide? Would we then have to run away and do science until we’ve proven they’re dangerous, whereupon you could just start throwing mouldy food at us and vomiting recreationally in supermarkets? I mean, I know there’s no reason to assume that you would do that, but the principle is sound: if you want to pump known toxins into our air then I think it’s reasonable that you should be able to prove it won’t kill us first.)

In reply to your second post, if you ask me over to your house then light up without even asking me if it’s OK, then you’re a really shitty host. If you want to be a shitty host then that’s your prerogative, but you’re not going to win the £1000 prize on Friday’s programme, and your guests will choose a different host for the next meeting.

Because they can, you see. They can’t just choose to go to a non-smoking bar for their next drink, because the bloody things don’t exist.

Part of me thinks that Andrew writes these arguments himself under false names. Nobody can be as dumb as a lot of these commentators.

Except smokers, apparantly.

Wow, Andrew. I guess I should ignore everything that came before on this thread? What about all the discussion about relative risks of less than 2.0? Does your evidence meet or beat this scientific threshold?

Is the 1992 USEPA study, with its RR of 1.19, part of your proof? Is the fact that the USEPA study was thrown out of court by a U.S. District Court in 1998 as junk science part of your consideration?

How about the 1998 World Health Organization study, which WHO wanted to bury after it was completed, because it showed no connection between SHS and lung cancer (and even had a quirky finding that children exposed to SHS were LESS like to develop lung cancer later in life)? Is that part of your proof?

What about the most comprehensive study to date, published in the May 17, 2003 issue of the British Medical Journal, which used American Cancer Society data on more than 118,000 Californians from 1960 to 1998, and which concluded there is no causal connection between SHS and lung cancer? Did you consider that? Can you ignore that study?

Andrew, all you can demonstrate right now is that there are some studies out there with inconclusive findings on the health effects of SHS. Nothing definitive. Sorry, you haven’t met your burden of proof.

The definition of a Puritanism is that aweful feeling deep down inside, that someone, somewhere, somehow might be having a good time. This seems to describe the anti-smokers very well when it comes to banning smoking EVERYWHERE.

Oh, and besides calling me a “shitty” host, you haven’t answered my question. Can you veto smoking in MY house? Why/why not?

This points raised by SteveLee remind me of an anology in which 20% of the people are addicted to a peculiar drug that causes them to uninate frequently in an uncontrolled manner. Whenever they go swimming in a public pool, they must pee in the pool every 15 minutes due to their drug addiction. Many of the other nonadicted swimmers in the same pool object to being exposed to the adicted persons’ pee, and they object to the color of the pool water turning yellow (i.e., analogous to a smoky room) and violating health-based water quality standards (analogous to federal air quality standards). Some of the nonadicted persons find they get terribly sick from the pee in the pool water, and they raise concerns about their own health and the health of their children. Unfortunately, the adicted persons (the smokers) claim they have a right to pee in public swimming pools and their peeing rights should not be abridged, because of some inalienable personal freedom to pee in public pools that they alone posesss. They respond, “We enjoy peeing in the pools, and we won’t stop unless you prove with 100% certainty that exposure to our pee is a public health problem for every swimmer.” Wise public policy and common sense dictate that the adicted persons do not have an inalienable right to pee in public swimming pools, and the children and adults who want to swim there should not be exposed to other peoples’ uriine. Should the other swimmers not be able to use a public pool, simply because the peeing persons are adicted and have the problem that they contaminate the water, making it turn yellow?

Regarding the science of whether secondhand smoke is hazardous to one’s health, which SteveLee appears to want to debate, one must wonder, “Is he a scientist? We scientists have a forum for carrying out such debates. The health risks from the pollutants in secondhand smoke have been widely evaluated hundreds of scientists, and no brief email exchange can contribute much to the science, nor is it the proper forum for carring out such debates. Of special interest in this regard are the federal Air Quality Criteria Documents published by EPA and updated every few years, which are typically 500 pages in length and review the latest available science in considerable detail. Several of the pollutants covered by these documents are major components of secondhand smoke. Outside panels of science advisory boards review these documents and make recommendations on which health-based air quality standards ultimately are adopted for the Nation. Does SeveLee believe he knows more about the science than these reveiw panels? After the scientific review process, proposed standards are open to widespread public comment, and all the comments submited by members of the public are responded to. If SteveLee does know more than these scientists and review panels, then the proper forum is for him to write a letter to the peer reviewed journals that publish the originqal papers indicating which scientific investigators or studies have made errors and the significance of these errors. If his technical points are valid, then I am certain his comments will be published, and the offending scientists will respond.

Finally, I would not abridge the freedom of any smoker who wishes to smoke in their own home, because I think an addicted person who needs to pee endlessly should pee at home. I do, however, have concerns about children living in the home of a smoker, since exposing children to secondhand smoke can be viewed as a form of child abuse. I believe it is commonly accepted that the state has right to intervene in other forms of child abuse. If there are no children present, however, then I believe the smoker has a right to smoke at home, staining the interior color of his walls with his own yellow-brown nicotine to his heart’s content.

What if somebody wanted to open a bar for smokers only ? What if the wait-staff,bartenders,DJs,bandmembers,cooks,patrons,
and owners,were all willing to keep their
horrible little habit to themselves? Would that
be acceptable? Or is SteveLee right? Is the idea of smokers being treated like human beings
and enjoying their life to much for the anti tobacco crowd to endure?
In almost any debate on smokers/ non-smokers
rights, the anti-tobacco forces, seem to quickly move from science ( which,this page proves, is not accepted as undisputed fact )to disdain and name calling. “Inconsiderate drug
addicts” was,I believe, the term Andrew used to describe 1/4 of his fellow citizens.

Wayne. I guess you and I are just different. When you see a yellow swimming pool, you dive in and complain about it afterwards. But I skip the first part.

Wow, Andrew. I guess I should ignore everything that came before on this thread? What about all the discussion about relative risks of less than 2.0? Does your evidence meet or beat this scientific threshold?

I do not accept that a scientific study which shows a relative risk of less than 2 is inconclusive. It was Dave Hitt who said that and I have made my opinions of him and his thought processes abundantly clear.

Second hand smoke does not double the risk of death. Expecting that a study should show a relative risk above 2 is therefore stupid. This is why Satan invented error bars. (Trust me, anyone who’s done a physics lab module will tell you error bars are the work of the devil.)

Andrew, all you can demonstrate right now is that there are some studies out there with inconclusive findings on the health effects of SHS. Nothing definitive. Sorry, you haven’t met your burden of proof.

It is wholly untrue to suggest that “all you can demonstrate right now is that there are some studies out there with inconclusive findings on the health effects of SHS”. All you can demonstrate by your post is that there are at least three studies, to which you have (apparently arbitrarily) attached great importance (”the most comprehensive study to date”, you said), which do not suggest a link. There are a great many other studies that do show such a link. This is why God gave us meta-analyses.

The thing that really puzzles me about your position is the motivation this supposed band of evil “anti-smoking” (a term invented by inconsiderate smokers) groups has for trying to get smoking banned. You seem to think there’s this huge cartel of people with a lot of money behind them whose aim is to ban smoking… why, exactly?

The only reason anyone wants to ban smoking is because it’s dangerous. If it wasn’t dangerous, then surely there would be no “anti-smoking” movement.

I mean, which sounds more likely to you: that the WHO did a study, found it didn’t give the results they wanted but thought that if they released it people would misinterpret the result as hard evidence that smoking is safe and tried to bury it to avoid that happening, or that the WHO did a study, found that smoke was perfectly safe and actually good for you, accepted its conclusion, and then chose to spend a lot of money campaigning for a smoking ban anyway? That is not how the WHO operates. That’s not how anybody operates, unless they have a hidden agenda. Please, if you expect me to believe that that is what happened, then tell me what the hell that hidden agenda might be, because I honestly can’t figure it.

Oh, and besides calling me a “shitty” host, you haven’t answered my question. Can you veto smoking in MY house? Why/why not?

Actually, I did answer your question, albeit not in as clear language as you may be used to. You may smoke in your house. If you do it around visitors without their permission then you’re a cock, but you’re free to be a cock if you really feel the need. But you might notice you get less visitors in future — they’ll go to houses owned by better hosts. This option does not exist with regards to bars as almost all bars allow smoking, so the argument cannot be extended thereto.

Wayne. I guess you and I are just different. When you see a yellow swimming pool, you dive in and complain about it afterwards. But I skip the first part.

See, you keep on repeating this idea that there exists some alternative to smoke filled bars. I for one do not consider staying at home an acceptable alternative, and nor, I think, do you. If you keep up with this without offering any explaination of the position I will declare you a troll and ban you from commenting on this site in future.

“Inconsiderate drug
addicts” was, I believe, the term Andrew used to describe 1/4 of his fellow citizens.

No, I only applied the term “inconsiderate drug addicts” to the people who are addicted to the drug nicotine and lack the consideration to put out their cigarettes when surrounded by people who don’t enjoy it. I think that’s reasonable, don’t you?

“Second hand smoke does not double the risk of death. Expecting that a study should show a relative risk above 2 is therefore stupid.”

Really? I guess you haven’t actually read anything on Dave Hitt’s website. Here’s what he points out:

Fact: As a rule of thumb, an RR of at least 2.0 is necessary to indicate a cause and effect relationship, and a RR of 3.0 is preferred.

“As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of 3 or more before accepting a paper for publication.” – Marcia Angell, editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

“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.

“Relative risks of less than 2 are considered small and are usually difficult to interpret. Such increases may be due to chance, statistical bias, or the effect of confounding factors that are sometimes not evident.” – The National Cancer Institute.

Are the quoted people and organizations all “stupid”?

Andrew, regarding motivation, I think most anti-smoking activists think smoking bans are an effective tool to get smokers to quit. But I think that’s a bit like trying to thread a needle with a sledgehammer. It’s unlikely to achieve your objective, but likely to cause a lot of collateral damage.

Andrew, let me help you out with my question about your right to veto smoking in my house. You don’t have such a veto because it’s my house, not yours. If you accept that principle, then you need to accept the same result when it comes to privately-owned bars and taverns. They’re not your property.

But in your world, your desire to go out and drink, and have everything EXACTLY the way you want it, is paramount and trumps the bar owners’ private property rights.

Are the quoted people and organizations all “stupid”?

No.

You see, if you choose to take the (utterly arbitrary) threshold of RR >= 2.0 then that means that — and I shall quote Hitt right back at you here because apparently you (for some reason) believe things he says — “some risks are just too small to measure“.

What this means is that if you take that threshold then it is impossible to assess the risks of second hand smoke using epidemiology.

My position is that this does nothing to invalidate the epidemiological studies that have been done. What it means is that when we look at a conclusion like “our paper suggests that passive smoking increases the risk of cancer by 25%” you have to think “but is that because of the smoke?”. A smaller RR is not conclusive on its own but it is still evidence. If you combine it with lab-based studies that show tobacco smoke contains 4,000 toxins and 69 carcinogens, then it becomes (more) conclusive.

People who are exposed to environmental smoke seem to get cancer 25% more often than people who aren’t and smoke contains carcinogens in levels deemed dangerous by air pollution legislation. What are the odds that that is a conincidence, really?

Andrew, regarding motivation, I think most anti-smoking activists think smoking bans are an effective tool to get smokers to quit.

Steve, I think most “anti-smoking” activists don’t really give a damn if smokers quit or not as long as they don’t do it around other people or push it onto others. And if they don’t, why do they want you to quit? You’re just begging the question: “anti-smoking” activists want a smoking ban because they’re so anti-smoking.

Nobody is that determinedly “anti-smoking”. They’re just anti-people-being-given-cancer-by-drug-addicts. “Anti-smoking” is a term smokers invented to make people think the smoking ban was just an attack on them.

Andrew, let me help you out with my question about your right to veto smoking in my house. You don’t have such a veto because it’s my house, not yours.

Agreed.

If you accept that principle, then you need to accept the same result when it comes to privately-owned bars and taverns. They’re not your property.

If you accept that principle universally and without reference to context then yes. If you accept it but also realise that in real life there are other things to consider then you’l find things just aren’t that simple.

But in your world, your desire to go out and drink, and have everything EXACTLY the way you want it, is paramount and trumps the bar owners’ private property rights.

You see, you’ve turned this back into a “rights” discussion. Only now, since you’ve accepted you have absolutely no right at all to blow poison in my face, you’re suddenly a champion for the poor beleaguered barmen.

What if the publicans decide to allow stabbing in their bars? Is that okay? This isn’t a question of “[having] everything EXACTLY the way [I] want it”; this is a question of very slow and randomised murder being committed by dangerous drug addicts right under the noses of a police force who don’t have the legislative authority to prevent it (until July anyway).

(See, I can use patently biased and overly emotive language, too. The point is that private property rights have limits on them. Publicans do not have the right to allow people to break the law in their pubs. You have the right to smoke at home if you are alone or if the people around you do not mind you smoking. If someone else is there then you do not have the right to smoke, but you do have the right to throw them out and then smoke. If they choose to stay then they’re trespassing and have only themselves to blame if they’re hurt in the process. As such you have the right to effectively say “I’m going to smoke. You can leave or stay, but either way I’m still smoking”. But if you do then as I’ve said, you’re a really shitty host.)

“If you combine it with lab-based studies that show tobacco smoke contains 4,000 toxins and 69 carcinogens, then it becomes (more) conclusive.”

Andrew, what substance do you suppose can cause dangerous indoor concentrations of the following toxins and carcinogens (among others) when burned?:

dibutyl phthalate, diethyl phthalate, toluene, styrene, benzene, ethyl benzene, naphthalene, acetylaldehyde, benzaldehyde, benzene-ethanol, 2-butanone (methyl ethyl ketone), and aerosolized lead?

The answer is scented candles. http://www.faculty.uaf.edu/ffrap/EQE%20693/Module%2001/1A%20Risk%20and%20Safety/Scented_Candles.html.

Truth is, if you burn just about anything (and tobacco is generally no worse—and sometimes far better—than other things you can burn), you’ll get a mixture of various toxins and carcinogens. Combustion just does that to things.

Listing the chemicals in tobacco smoke proves absolutely nothing.

If you claim the right to ban smoking in pubs, then you bear the burden of proving this is necessary for public health.

Point of fact: Contrrary to SteveLee’s speculative comment that smoking bans are “…likely to cause a lot of collateral damage” and are ineffective in getting smokers to quit, there are many lessons available from California’s statewide smoking ban enacted in 1996 that contradict these far-fetched conclusions. I live in Californina and was surprised that the ban was so successful and that no “collateral” damage (whatever that means) could be observed. The bars and restaurants that previously permitted smoking complied immediately and went smoke-free, and they are still smoke-free and prospering today with many happy patrons. If the smokers were inconvenienced at first, the many new customers who flooded into the bars and restaurants to breathe the clean air made up for the loss of a few lost smokers. Today those patrons who are still smokers respect the clean air laws by stepping outside periodically to smoke. Over the 11-year time period since adoption of the smoking ban, smoking rates in California have declined to reach some of the lowest smoking rates in the nation, and lung cancer rates in California also have shown a significant drop. Instead of collateral damage, there was collateral benefit, and the result was clean, healthful air everywhere, a win-win-win for everyone.

(I’ve taken the liberty of replacing the broken link with the one that worked and deleting the second post. Hope that’s OK. If not, nuts to you; I’m exercising my private property rights.)

Ah, the old stalwart “If You Ban Smoking You Also Have To Ban”. It’s an old classic. In general, it’s irrelevant because all that is going to do is get somking and certain scented candles banned. In this specific case it’s irrelevant because there are roughly as many public places that have scented candles on the go as there are non-smoking bars in English city centres — they’re pretty easy to avoid (without comprimising your lifestyle) and as such don’t pose a health hazard.

So, Wayne, why are they still smoking in Stockton? And if you took a poll of bar owners in California and asked them if they’d like to see the smoking ban repealed, how would they answer?

I’ve seen a list of the bars that have closed in California since the ban, and it’s quite extensive.

Andrew, my point with the scented candles it not “two wrongs make a right”. Rather, my point is that if you don’t worry about scented candles, even though they spew out lots of nasty chemicals, you probably shouldn’t worry about SHS for the same reason.

Oh, and I respect your private property rights. Thanks for fixing the defective link.

I’ve seen a list of the bars that have closed in California since the ban, and it’s quite extensive.

Have you ever seen a list of bars that closed in the eleven years running up to the ban? Bars close. Unless you have a control group, take your list elsewhere.

Oh, and I won’t listen unless there are twice as many bars on the first list as the second, becuase otherwise your relative risk is less than two and by your argument your opinion is therefore irrelevant.

Andrew, my point with the scented candles it not “two wrongs make a right”. Rather, my point is that if you don’t worry about scented candles, even though they spew out lots of nasty chemicals, you probably shouldn’t worry about SHS for the same reason.

But the situation is different with candles. You can blow them out and they won’t be cross. You can not light them in the first place. And crucially, they’re not commonplace in public spaces. Also, there’s no epidemiological evidence that they are being used dangerously like there is for cigarettes.

Still awaiting an answer on the smokers only
bar. Acceptable or not ?

SteveLee’s statement that just about anything you burn creates a “mixture of various toxins and carcinogens” is correct. This is because combustion is basically a pollutant-generating process, especially incomplete combustion. Thus, incense, candles, and wood smoke all deserve serious scrutiny indoors. What is unique about the cigarette is the extremely high amount of fine particulate mass it emits — 14 milligrams per cigarette. This is why, despite its small size, the cigarette creates so much visible smoke — remember the visible smoke plumes from Bogart and Becall in the film “To Have and Have Not.” SteveLee is right that a scented candle emits a great number of toxic volatile organic compounds, but, unless the candle flickers and is deprived of oxygen, it does not emit very much fine particulate matter mass. Fine particles from cigarettes are coated with polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are extremely toxic, and, after years of health reasearch that is summarized in the EPA Critera Document on Particualte Matter, fine particulate mass are the only pollutant category that EPA regulates in which scientific studies in more than a dozen cities have been shown to be highly correlated with excess daily deaths. There are many published peer-reviewed scientific papers confirming this relationship both in the U.S. and in other countries — the daily excess deaths listed on the death certificates are from respiratory problems. (To satisfy Dave Hitt, yes it actually is possible to get the names of the people who died, although their names are not usually published in the scientific papers out of respect. With a little effort on his part, instead of just idle conjecture, Dave Hitt actually will be able to get the names of 3 or more of the persons who died on the days with these corresponding high particle concentrations, and the counts of the total number of dead persons can be found in the published scientific papers. )

The problem with the cigarette and cigar is that, unlike candles, cigarettes usually are smoked repetitively indoors, one after another, and smoking has been shown to increase indoor fine particle concentrations, on a 24-h average, by 30 micrograms per cubic meter, with some residences as high as 100 micrograms per cubic meter. A single cigarette smoked in a 41 cubic meter bedroom causes a peak fine particle concentration of 300 micrograms per cubic meter that does not decay for many hours. (I can supply the reference citation on this paper if anyone is interested.) These numbers can be compared with the EPA health-based air quality standard of 35 micrograms per cubic meter on a 24-h average, which is not supposed to be exceeded outdoors more than once per year. In summary, the cigarette, with its extremely high fine particle emissions of 14 milligrams per cigarette, is one of the most potent sources of harmful indoor air pollutants for its size known to man. With a smoker smoking a pack or more (20-30 cigarettes) per day indoors, the indoor air quality to be unhealthful because it will exceed the EPA health-based air quality standards over a 24-h period. QED

Still awaiting an answer on the smokers only bar. Acceptable or not?

Under today’s law? Yes. It’s called a “pub”. (Though the bar would still be required to be non-smoking for the benfit of staff.)
Under July’s law? No. That would be in clear violation of the smoking ban.
Morally? In real life it’s an utterly irrelevant question, because what you are suggesting is essentially the system we have now: people have the option of setting up smokers’ bars (albeit ones that tolerate non-smokers) or non-smoking bars. Smoking bars are more profitable so that is what everybody does. That is the system we have now and which isn’t working.

So no, that’s not acceptable.

Wayne and Andrew:

Regarding the comparative hazard attributed to SHS, check out this link to a Washington State Department of Ecology brochure on wood smoke. In particular, check out pages 14 and 15 of the brochure.

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/92046.pdf

According the USEPA data cited in the brochure, the lifetime cancer risk from wood smoke is 12 times greater than the risk from SHS, and the risk from auto exhaust is 36 times greater than SHS. Plus, wood smoke persists and causes damage in the lungs much longer than SHS.

Andrew, you seemed to have missed my point. I`m
not suggesting the system we have now. I`m
suggesting the complete and total separation
of smokers from non smokers. If smokers, based
on the scientific data you have provided,willingly segragated themselves ( and
their SHS ) from the non smokers of the world,
why would that be unacceptable?
You have made it quite clear that you hold
no grudge against smokers,so long as they
don`t pollute your environment. In this case
they would only be polluting their own environment. Isn`t this what you`ve been fighting for all along?

SteveLee, you are correct that the particulate matter emitted by fireplaces is quite toxic. I know this from my own research, since for more than 10 years I have conducted measurements of the emissions from wood burning sources. However, nearly all the emissions from residential fireplaces go up the chimney and do not usually cause high pollutant concentrations in the home of the fireplace user. Instead, the ambient fine particle concentrations surrounding the home and entering other homes can reach concentrations outdoors in the surrounding neighborhood as high as 70 micrograms per cubic meter. Thus, we need more public attention given to restricting wood burning in our crowded neighborhoods. Unfortunately, the cigarette is an even more potent generator of indoor air pollutants than a fireplace. Unlike a fireplace, which has a chimney to exhaust the smoke to outdoor air, all the smoke from the cigarette is emitted indoors, where it stays until the home’s air change rate gradually reduces it over a period of hours. At 14 mg per cigarette, cigarettes become a gigantic indoor source, far exceeding the indoor emissions from a burning fireplace, and, as I said above, a single cigarette smoked in a bedroom causes the air to reach 300 micrograms per cubic meter. I know this for a fact, since I made these measurements myself, and they are published in a peer reviewed scientific literature. (A recent text book, “Exposure Analysis”, by Ott, Steinemann, and Wallace, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2007, summarizes many of these findings.)

Regarding your comments about the cancer risks, I regret that you seem to have missed my main point. The health effects caused the pollutants in secondhand smoke are not limited to cancer. Cigars are gigantic emitters of carbon monoxide (CO), and CO enters the blood at 242 times the rate of oxygen, tying up the hemoglobin molecule and thereby depriving the brain of oxygen. The physiological consequences of CO exposure are well understood, with over 100 years of scientific consensus about the effects of this pollutant. Yet measurements I made with a personal monitor at a cigar party in a San Francisco restaurant showed that people at the restaurant were exposed to CO concentrations exceeding the federal health-based standard of 9 parts per million for 8 in the restaurant due entirely to the secondhand smoke emitted from the cigars. (These results also are published.) Similarly, you can easily see that health effects of fine particulates, a major constituent of secondhand smoke (based on hundreds of studies reviewed in the latest 500-page EPA Criteria Document on Particulate Matter) are not limited to cancer. Elevated fine particulate matter concentrations, at levels that are even less than those measured in today’s restaurants with smokers, cause acute respiratory problems, leading to death among susceptible persons. These deaths usually occur within 24 h of the elevated particle concentrations, and the health effects have nothing to do with cancer (Again, the names of the dead people would be available to Dave Hitt, if only he bothered to do his homework.)

In summary, it is a giant mistake to conclude that the only health effects associated with secondhand smoke are in its role in causing cancer. This conclusion is just scientifically incomplete, and it is similar to avoiding all the truth by reading just half a book. The pollutants present in secondhand smoke, in their own right, have a long history of known chronic and acute adverse health effects, and, further, smoking causes the indoor concentrations of these same pollutants to become higher than we are willing to tolerate in the environment outdoors, even in our most polluted cities, thereby exposing nonsmokers to pollutant concentrations that are horrendously high. To grasp the really high numbers, all you need to do is to read the published papers, or, as I have done, you can make your own measurements.

These are the basic scientific facts, and they are well-documented. It still seems strange to me that some people selectively read the literature, as you may have read my comments above, and assume falsely that cancer is the only adverse health effect caused by secondhand smoke.

Angus,

I’m not going to answer your question as it is because I don’t really think it makes sense.

I mean, you can’t segregate smokers completely. You just can’t. There’s no way to tell is someone is a smoker or not, and most friendship groups include smokers and non-smokers, so the only way you can do it would be if the non-smokers’ bars allowed smokers but not smoking and the smokers’ bars allowed non-smokers and smoking.

Which is the system we have now. I don’t see how else it could possibly work.

SteveLee: Here’s my thoughts concerning the “Smoking in your own house while you have visitors” conundrum, although this may well have already been stated.

Would it not perhaps be polite and courteous to ask your visitors, “Do you mind if I smoke?”. Your visitors have to respect your home and in turn you’re probably expected to respect their health wishes. Regardless of whether or not you believe SHS is harmful, they may think it is. You can’t offer a vegetarian a meat sandwich just because it’s your home and you believe eating meat is okay, and you can’t drill a hole in someone’s head without asking them first just because you think it will cleanse their soul.

Of course, as I’ve said, this has probably already been suggested, and you’ve probably already said, “But it’s my home, I can do what I want!”, which again is you pretty much being a dick.

Andrew,
It is with some reluctance that I find
myself agreeing with you.All I`m looking
for is a system where both smokers and non
smokers can go out and enjoy themselves,
without detracting from either groups`
pleasure.Separating the two groups completely,
simply seemed the easiest way to accomplish
this goal.No other alternatives ( ventilation,
separate smoking rooms etc.) seem to satisfy
both parties.
It is obvious to me that the non smoking
lobby is going to win this little fight
( they already have really),which bothers
me, only because the victory is due to
government intervention instead of good sense,
smart choices and economic opportunities.
In a world where the overwhelming majority of
people are non smokers ,any business catering
to said group would seem to be a guarenteed
money maker. Few,it seems, have even bothered
to try.Instead, we have lobbied the government,asking them to make our choices for
us,and they have been more than happy to oblidge.
After 40 rocky years the non smoking movement
has finally reached critical mass, and now appears to be unstoppable. While I don`t believe this is a bad thing ,in and of itself,
the methods used to get here worry me greatly.
When goverments create legislation,” for my
own good” I get very nervous. I`m afraid we have opened a door here that won`t
be easily closed,and those who are pleased now,will soon be filled with regret. I say all
this without malice or rancor,but merely with
sadness and resignation. I hope no one in this
debate is overweight,because obesity is next up
on the save-the-world-from-itself to do list,
and those effected may soon find themselves on this side of the fight.

Andrew, Ben, and the others, I think your discussions about secondhand smoke on Andrew’s site are extremely thoughtful and reasonable. It is true that restricting smoking in public places — locations to which the general public has access — is an idea whose time has come, and similar restrictions, which began in California, probably will be adopted worldwide. I respect the concerns expressed by some of you that restrictions by governement on its citizens “for their own benefit” may eventually go too far. I agree this could happen. However, I don’t think secondhand smoke is a good example of government regulation run amok, because there are real victims. One of the main reasons that restaurant managers complied promptly with the 1996 law in California (or else closed) was not fear of government; rather, it was fear that an employee or a patron would sue the restaurant owner. That is, fear of legal redress by one of the victims (such as an employee) exposed to sechand smoke. As one manager of a large restaurant told me, “our investor owners are perceived to have deep pockets, so we fear a patron or an employee will sue us in court due to their exposure to secondhand smoke.” Thus, to reduce the risk of a lawsuit, this restaurant, which was only marginally profitable at the time, closed completely. Since that time, it has reopened as a classy new restuarant that is larger and more popular than ever before, and no smoking is allowed.

Wayne,
The systematic elimination of choices due to
fear of lawyers,instead of ,fear of government
somehow seems even less appealing.At least governments are elected,and ,in theory , responsible to the masses.Lawyers on the other hand, are all to often driven solely
by profit. A lawsuit,whether it serves the public or not, will proceed if there is enough
money to be had .It is to weep.

I don’t know, Wayne. I’ve been in some homes and restaurants where the air is pretty thick with wood smoke from a stove or fireplace. I’ve even noticed this in places that ban tobacco smoking.

But it seems public health restrictions are decided on the basis of popularity. We ban smoking indoors, because most people don’t smoke and despise the habit. But we do nothing with respect to wood smoke, because most folks like the sights, sounds, and smells of a wood fire, and think it’s romantic.

I think the old maxim, “The solution to pollution is dilution”, holds true. A facility with a good ventilation system should be able to protect all but those with the most serious lung problems from the short-term effects of smoke exposure, be it SHS, candles, incense, or wood smoke.

By the way, how did they get away with a cigar party in a San Fransisco restaurant? How would that be remotely legal?

Angus,

I thought your last post was a good one,mostly. I think, though, that the best (and probably only) way we’re ever going to get both smokers and non-smokers out together having a good time is if the smokers don’t smoke while they’re doing it. Ultimately whether banning smoking is the first step down a slippery slope or is a sensible public health precaution is a matter of how dangerous it is.

I am not qualified to decide that but I think it is. Steve and yourself are also, as far as I’m aware, not qualified to decide that, and you apparently think it isn’t. (Wayne is if anything over-qualified to decide that. Perhaps we should all listen to him.)

Steve,

Most laws are, ultimately, decided on the basis of popularity. We call it democracy. It’s not ideal but it suffices.

And I imagine the cigar party was either before the ban or as part of a lock-in. (In Britain at least you can usually get around most licensing laws if you lock the door, thus making the premises totally private.)

Wayne,

Thanks. Always nice to hear that from someone who actually knows the subject.

Edit:
And I love that I’ve had 80 comments on “Dave Hitt Is A Twat”, mostly debating aspects of some logical argument, and nobody has accused me of ad hominem against Hitt. It amuses me greatly.

Wayne,
In your last post you stated that there were
real victims of SHS. Name three,lol.Sorry lad,
but I just couldn`t resist the opportunity to
bring this thing full circle.

Andrew,
Smokers can`t go out and enjoy themselves
if they`re not allowed to smoke( nature of
the beast ,I`m afraid) If they could,we wouldn`t be having this debate.

Wayne,
I`ve never heard some one refer to that brown
paste, that passes for air in L.A. as ” clean
and heathful.”

A long life of luck and laughter to all..it`s been fun.

Wayne: Help my understand your point better.

You know a lot about the components of SHS and their concentrations, and I think we can both agree that short-term exposure to SHS (and other forms of smoke) can have severe consequences for people with serious lung conditions (acute asthma, COPD, etc.). But what, if anything, does this say about the short-term or long-term effects of SHS exposure on the average bar-goer?

My position is that the studies out there don’t show a strong connection (if they show any connection at all) between SHS exposure and long-term effects, such as lung cancer. And I’m not aware of any serious short-term effects that SHS exposure has on the average bar-goer (unless you consider smelly hair and clothes a serious effect). Any major health issues seem to be limited the immediate effects that SHS exposure has on people who are especially sensitive to any kind of smoke.

Are you saying anything different here?

Angus,
If smokers can’t enjoy a night out without a few cigarettes then, all political correctness and right-to-choice arguments aside, they are dependently addicted to a very dangerous drug. I don’t think it’s healthy for a society to cater to that kind of addiction. The sooner these people realise that smoking isn’t somehow “exempt” from the same addiction-related problems that other drugs have the better for everyone, and changing the law to prioritise non-smokers is a good way of making that point.

Steve,
The reason there are no really good direct studies of the long term effects of second hand smoke is because it would be unethical to conduct one — there are all kinds of checks in place specifically designed to stop scientists conducting studies that basically say “you breathe this poison for a year and we’ll see how many of you get cancer”.

Look up “fine particulate matter health problems” or something on Google and see if you can compile a list of potential ways to die from it. I found “lung cancer” and “chronic bronchitis” pretty quickly. So if we know that smoke contains particulate matter, in high concentrations, and we know that particulate matter causes death, why should we bother to prove explicitly that smoke causes death?

Andrew,
I wouldn`t say society exactly caters to
smokers,would you ? Tolerates them maybe,ridicules them would probably be
more accurate. It`s easy to be critical of
one persons` addiction ,yet forgetful of
our own.I agree that it seems somewhat pathetic,that a
smoker,denied his habit,will not enjoy a night
out.But what about the others? How much fun
would they have if their favorite pint,port
or whisky was made unavailable.
Debating addictions,in and of themselves,is
a very tricky subject,for just about everyone
has an addiction to something…morning cup
of coffee,afternoon tea,evening drink of
brandy.Food,booze, gambling…almost everybody
partakes in some activity that they should avoid.It`s where we draw the line( and who
draws the line) that worries me. While smoking is probably the most harmful,legal addiction
available at present,what happens upon it`s
elimination? What comes next? Who gets to decide?

You see, this is exactly what I mean. You compare an addiction to nicotine to a morning cup of coffee or a pint of lager on a night out, and say things like “just about everyone has an addiction to something”, which simply aren’t true.

I don’t have any addictions. Not really. Yes, I like a drink, and yes, I like coffee, and in addition to that, periodically I can overdo it on the sugary drinks, but equally I can go for extended periods without any of those things and barely notice. Whereas you said, not nine hours ago, “smokers can’t go out and enjoy themselves if they’re not allowed to smoke”. If you can’t go out for a few hours without a fix then you are a drug addict, plain and simple. That’s what being a drug addict means.

And generally, our society frowns on that. It builds rehab centres to help addicts out of it, and prescribes methadone, and has special meeting where you sit in a circle with relative strangers and admit you’re a bit messed up. But for nicotine, what do we do? Why, we allow you to indulge your habit in public, even though it’s both irritating and toxic to the people around you, then we put vending machines there in case you run out! And then, in case that was somehow insufficiently helpful, we allow you to take cigarette breaks throughout the working day and still get paid the same as non-smokers! I think that’s catering for your addiction, don’t you?

Only because smoking’s been accepted for so long, people have got used to the idea that it’s somehow not really a drug addiction, not a proper one; it’s just a thing you do when you go out, like drinking, or karaoke, or shouting inconsiderately loud. So when people suggest that perhaps it shouldn’t just be an accepted part of the social scene everyone (or at least, most smokers and a handful of non-smokers — usually ex-smokers) gets all up in arms about it because it doesn’t occur to them that other people view it as just another dirty drugs habit.

The bottom line is that if you can go for a few hours without a cigarette then the smoking ban doesn’t really affect you, and if you can’t then the problem is firmly on your end.

Secondly, why do you assume anything has to “come next”? It is, as far as I can see, nothing more than a very poor “slippery slope” argument, trying to make out that if smoking is banned the logical and inevitable next steps are to ban drinking, and then ban fast food, and then ban having fun.

But they’re not. Because those things don’t hurt anyone except the people who do them (except when those people get drunk and violent, but in principle they’re supposed to be arrested for that so the system, in theory, is sound). The smoking ban doesn’t exist for the benefit of smokers; if it did it would be a blanket ban on all smoking backed up by a system of rehabilitation so smokers could get their lives back on track. It exists to protect non-smokers. Nobody needs protecting from caffeine which is in my bloodstream. If they did, I would be the first to ask it to be banned.

Hey look, DRA (Apparently Derek R. A.) has his own little blog:

http://myblog.ottawaarts.com/archives/2007/01/andrew-from-apathy-sketchpad-turns-out-to-be-a-moron/

Isn’t that cute?

Angus,

It is easy to name 3 victims of secondhand smoke. The victims I am referring to here are anyone who does not which to be exposed to secondsmoke in a public place, such as a restaurant or tavern, but who is nevertleless exposed. Before California passed its laws restricting smoking in public places, there were millions of these victims, and I can easily name dozens of personal friends who felt sick due to the high pollutant concentrations from secondhand smoke once found in public places . The nonsmoking 80% of the population now demands the freedom to breathe clean air, which an arrogant minority (20%) insists on polluting, therby abridging the freedoms of the nonsmoking majority.

SteveLee,
Your comment that you’ve been to some restaurants and homes that are pretty thick with wood smoke implied that you think we should tackle reducing pollutant exposures caused by wood smoke. I agree. It does not logically follow that therefore we should ignore cigarette smoke. It is a fact that a single cigarette, with its PM emissions of 14 milligrams, causes much higher indoor PM concentrations than a typical fireplace, whose smoke mostly goes up the chminey. In my comments above, I listed some of the numbersof the measured concentrations. If you do not beleive these numbers, then you should read the many published papers or make your own measurements.

SteveLee, I apologize for not answering your question about how I could find a cigar smoking party in San Francisco. Yes, as Andrew suggests, the measurements were made on a special night that the restaurant set aside for cigar smokers before the 1996 California law went into effect. The CO monitor was hidden under my jacket so as not to cause any others to change their behavior, and the restaurant was filled with many cigar smokers, who paid $140 for the dinner and the opportunity to “enjoy” smoking cigars in the company of others. As I indicated above, the monitor measured carbon monoxide (CO) concentrations in the restaurant above the federal ambient air quality standard of 9 ppm, which should not be surprising, because cigars are notorious for generating high levels of CO. Although this cigar party was “private” in the sense that only consenting adults paid the admission price, many waiters, cooks, and other restaurant employees also were present. Even more interesting, some of the adult cigar smokers brought their underage sons and daughters to the dinner. I guess you can argue that all the employees and underage children consented to be exposed to the high levels of secondhand smoke by their presence, but this argument about their consent is pretty weak, since the nonsmoking employees were there only because it was their job to be there.

This study is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal if anyone is interested. A good review of scientific studies of this kind is in the recently published book, Exposure Analysis, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2007.

SteveLee, you also make a sweeping generalization that the solution is dilution. I am sorry to disagree with you, but the mathematics of indoor air pollution shows that enormously high air change rates are needed to reduce indoor concentrations to acceptable levels. This comes back to the simple problem that a single cigarette emits 14 milligrams of PM-2.5, a fact that no one disputes, and it takes an enormous volume of fresh air moving at a high rate of speed to reduce these concentrations. I wrote a paper published in the scientific literature on this topic, and I can give you the reference citation so you yourself can go over the numbers if you would like.

It strikes me as strange that the folks who are not familiar with the published engineering papers on the lack of effectiveness of dilution as a solution to smoking indoors are willing to express strong opinions contradicting the results of these engineering analyses.

When the California law restricting smoking indoors was about to be passed, several restaurant owners proposed building special-purpose smoking rooms with independent ventilation systems, but they found the cost of such a room usually exceeded $150,000 for all the ventilation and duct work required, and the high air change rates caused the room to feel windy and uncomfortable to its occupants. Dilution as a solution quickly lost favor in California, and I doubt it will work anywhere else.

SteveLee, you accept the idea that the short-term health effects from secondhand smoke are bad, but you wish to challenge the long-term health effects. Adverse health effects are deleterious to the person’s health whether they are long-term or short-term. I am again reminded of the addicted persons who want to who want to pee in the public swimming pools (the smokers) when other people are present (the nonsmokers) and insist that they will not stop peeing in public pools until the nonsmokers provide irrefutable evidence that they are getting sick or dying from the pee. Whether long-term or short-term illness, I do not think anyone has an inalienable right to make others sick. Also, I do not think that healthy swimmers should be required to find another swimming pool just because 20% of the people can’t control their own peeing and want to pee in public.

Regarding the long-term health effects, SteveLee expresses a vague lack of conviction that the scientific studies of the long-term health effects of secondhand smoke are valid. In any scientific discussion, it is necessary to discusss the specific studies and the specific faults they have. Without referring to reference citations, all the points one tries to make are vague “hand-waving arguments” devoid of specificity and not convincing. This is why we have the peer-reviewed scientific literature where one can write clear arguments about the technical flaws or errors in specific studies and send them to the journal editors. Anyone who feels there is a problem with a specific study should send his or her comments to the editor of the journal that published the study. As far as I can tell, no specific studies are being mentioned and no specific comments are being provided.

If you feel the “weight of scientific evidence” simply is not sufficent, then this is a fairly complicated conclusion on your part, and one can only wonder when assessing the credibility of this conclusion, “What are your scientific credentials for making such a statement?” and “What type of scientific arguments regarding which studies do you have to support your conclusion?”

Regardless of what one may think about the long-term health effects of tobacco smoke, the short-term effects are well documented, and smoking bans eliminate the short-term health effects on nonsmokers for certain. This is a sufficient reason to ban smoking in public places. Period.

Will there be a prize to the 100th commenter of this blog entry?

I don’t know. I’ll decide after I see who wins.

Can I just draw the readers’ attention to two other pages on DRA’s site?

http://derekaudette.ottawaarts.com/smoking.php
http://derekaudette.ottawaarts.com/smokingFAQ.php

I’ve noticed a few things here. The first is that neither page has a public comments section. The second is a list of links that all go to people with an obvious vested interest in keeping smoking legal (and Hitt). The third was the extremely poor (but remarkably insistent) attempts to equate public health measures with fascism.

But my favourite bit is this:

Two anti-tobacco crusades, similar to today’s, took place twice within the 20th century. Both, and probably non-coincidentally, directly preceding world wars. The first, in the U.S., directly preceded World War One. The second, conducted by the Nazis, directly preceded, and was concurrent with World War Two. This was likely no coincidence.

Anti-smoking measures produce wars!

Really, Derek?

Name three.

Andrew, you have the patience of a saint. Either that or you’re an argumentative arsehole who’s using his powers for good. Either way, I salute you.

Another Andrew
Also in Leeds

I like how, to comment on Dave Hitt’s page, you need to have a neverending lexicon of words consisting more than seventeen letters, otherwise you’re yelled at for being moronic.

The problem I have in this whole “Dave Hitt” is a twat thing is the irrational hang-up on one argument. Just because the man makes one bad argument does not mean he’s right. He may be a twat, a dick, a douche, a retard, a moron, or whatever other pleasant name you can come up for him, but it doesn’t mean he’s wrong about everything just because he’s wrong about one thing.

I think he brings up a lot of valid points about the science warning against the dangers second hand smoke is weak. It doesn’t necessarily follow that because inhaling the smoke directly is dangerous that inhaling secondhand smoke is dangerous. One must prove that. Dave Hitt simply says the science behind it isn’t good and he explains to you how you can verify it yourself. You don’t have to believe him, you can verify it yourself.

I don’t blame him for being adversarial with you. You really didn’t see his point. (Even though it didn’t address yours.)

I think that comment has a mixture of good and bad points in it. It’s certainly true that in addition to the “name three” gibberish, Hitt does make some sense. But “name three” is right there on the front of his website, it’s linked by many other websites, and it’s become a sort of centrepiece for his entire anti-ban stance. I think it’s important to attack it because it is, largely thinks to Hitt, a very commonly cited pro-smoking argument.

I know I wasn’t very receptive to his points, but that’s because I saw no interest or obligation to take his points on board: I emailed him, not the other way around. Before he’s allowed to make his own arguments, he has to acknowledge that he’s listened to and understood mine. That’s how an adult conversation works. Otherwise you end up with scenes that could have been taken from that Jon Sweeney Scientology documentary. As you say, his point didn’t address mine, so they were irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

It doesn’t necessarily follow that because inhaling the smoke directly is dangerous that inhaling secondhand smoke is dangerous.

Er, it what?

Either the smoke is toxic or the smoke is not toxic. You can’t say “oh, it might only be toxic to the person holding the cigarette” because then if science proved it was toxic even if someone else held the cigarette, all Hitt would have to do would be to put on a hat and say “It doesn’t necessarily follow that because inhaling the smoke from someone without a hat on is dangerous that inhaling smoke from someone wearing a hat is dangerous.”

The idea that smoke might be selectively toxic depending on who is holding the burning material is really the kind of thing that the person making the claim has to prove. You don’t get to assume it’s true until it’s debunked.

Almost at that magical 100th post.

Yeah. If anyone posts a stupid spammy comment just to claim #100, I’ll be very, very cross.

…shit.

Maybe magic is how passive smoking doesn’t help kill people?

Magic,seems to play a big part in the second hand smoke debate. How is it possible that fewer smokers than ever, in fewer places than ever, are hurting more people than ever? Magic?

Hey, yeah!

Also, according to Google Analytics nobody visited this site until I installed Google Analytics’ tracking code. So logically, Google Analytics has increased my web trafic by infinite percent! Thankyou, Google Analytics!

Interesting. Let me be more specific.

Magical properties of second hand smoke:
#1… There is no safe exposure to SHS( according to the U.S. Surgeon General).That makes it the only substance in the world that can`t be diluted down to non-dangerous levels.
#2… SHS is a cause of SIDS.I find this one most interesting. Nobody knows want causes SIDS.It`s not even a disease,just a discription of symtoms.How is it possible to have an unknown cause of death and still blame SHS.Futhermore ,how can only some deaths attributed to SIDS ( in houses were parents smoked) be blamed on SHS while others are not?
#3…asthma- same deal as SIDS. The actual cause of asthma is unknown. We know some things that can trigger an asthma attack (SHS is one of many)but we don`t know the root cause. Nonetheless, the Surgeon General has stated that SHS can cause asthma. Even more interesting is the fact that in the developed world, the number of smokers-and places they can smoke-continue to decrease, while the number of asthmatics continue to increase.

Well okay, let’s assume for the moment that everything you just said is true. (I’ve not checked any of it myself.) All it tells us is that the US has a bad Surgeon General. And given that the US has a bad President, I don’t really see how that should surprise anyone.

And whether or not the Surgeon General talks rubbish about second hand smoke, I’d certainly never deny that there’s a lot of rubbish talked about it on both sides of what I generously call “the debate”. Such as this idea that if I can’t name three people who’ve been killed by second hand smoke then it isn’t dangerous.

The debate will never get anywhere if people don’t question things that other people say. That’s why I wrote to Hitt in the first place. But you can’t have it both ways. Okay, so the Surgeon general (maybe) talks rubbish, but for you to generalise — even implicitly — from there to “all opponents of public smoking talk rubbish” is at least as bad.

Not that it really matters, but I just don`t understand how your mind works.
You started this page blasting Dave Hitt for having no intellectual honesty, yet, with a shrug of the shoulders, dismiss the fact that the U.S Surgeon General appears to have none either.
The fact that many people on either side of this debate talk rubbish should not excuse the Surgeon General from doing the same. It`s his job to be above politics,persuasion,money etc.America in general, and California in particular have been spear-heading the anti smoking movement for some time,based greatly on the findings of the Surgeon General.Yet, with very little research, I`ve found three statements,that, if not outright lies, are at the very least, extremely misleading.Laws are being created based on these statements and all you can say is “they have a bad Surgeon General.”
As for your final paragraph,I didn`t imply anything about ” all opponents of public smoking” I was simply trying to clarify my earlier question regarding fewer smokers hurting more people.

Well, “there is no safe level of exposure to X” is a pretty awkward statement. Smoke is like ionising radiation: even one atom/photon/whatever can kill you, so there’s no level of exposure that can be called “100% risk free”, so if that’s what you mean by “safe” then the statement is true. (The converse of this would be something like alcohol. The effects of alcohol are cumulative, and as such there is a level which is 100% risk free. I’m simplifying here.) But for most everyday purposes “safe” isn’t defined as “100% risk free” — we draw a line at maybe 99.5% risk free — and by this new definition all substances can be diluted to a safe level except homeopathic arsenic. If you want to call the statement misleading, fair enough, but I wouldn’t say it’s black and white.

I wouldn’t pretend to know the literature well enough to address the others. It is the Surgeon General’s job to do that. If he’s doing it badly then that is obviously a terrible thing and he should be fairly openly and publicly removed from his position. Certainly there’s a very obvious possibility that he (or whoever quoted him) confused “asthma” with “asthma attacks”, which are caused by smoke. It is, of course, also a Surgeon General’s job to know that difference and communicate it clearly (not that that will ever stop everyone misunderstanding). I only “dismissed” it because I wasn’t talking about the US Surgeon General.

As for your final paragraph,I didn`t imply anything about ” all opponents of public smoking” I was simply trying to clarify my earlier question regarding fewer smokers hurting more people.

No, you weren’t. None of those things have anything to do with amounts of smokers, the quantity of places they are, or how many people they hurt. Those are just accusations about surgeon generals. What does he have to do with it?

Please, “surgeons general”.

The Surgeon General has a great deal to do with it. He`s validating debatable science with misleading statements, and in my opinion, he should be above such things.While I agree with you that some people will always misunderstand or misinterpret what public officials have to say,I find it rather disturbing, when some one, whose knowledge,integrity and athourity, which are considered to be beyond question,come up with such easily questionable conclusions.

That is disturbing.

I just don’t see what I’m expected to do about it. I’m not doing to defend a demonstrably false statement, but if I agree with you and say “the US has a bad Surgeon General” then I get told off for being dismissive.

Do you want me to start a “The Surgeon General Is A Twat” page?

Now that made me laugh. I think you might have stumbled onto a brilliant idea.I like your religous crackpot of the month bit, and this could be even better.Think of it, the possiblities are endless. You could have a “twat of the day”, hell, you could have a “twat of the hour” and never run out of worthy subjects. Think of the names also…”To Have and Have Twat”.. “To be or twat to be..”… “Some Like it Twat”… again, the possiblities are endless. It would revolutionize the internet as well, for it wouldn`t take long for some kid to google the word twat, hoping to find porn, instead winding up on the worlds’ largest political/social open debate. Do it man, you`re on the threshold of greatness.

I wonder how long that would take to get sued for libel. Of course, if it were to win…

Hang on, who looks for porn by Googling “twat”?

Dunno, it would be funny if Dave Hitt did and found himself,don`t you think? As for libel,you can get sued for anything these days, but think of the fun to be had in the meantime.

Hahahaha

Look what Hitt’s done now: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/2007/07/19/the-20000-tax-increase/

Here is the title and first paragraph of this entry:

The 20,000% tax increase.
No, that is not a misprint. Congress is trying to implement a tax increase that will be 20,0000% in some cases.

The extra B is for “BYOBB”. The ironing is delicious. And other decreasingly relevant Simpsons quotes.

I expect he’ll fix it soon enough.

Just so there’s a link, here’s the second Dave Hitt article:

http://www.apathysketchpad.com/blog/2007/09/24/dave-hitt-is-still-a-twat/

I am puzzled by this discussion of the science in the report of the Surgeon General, because no scientific research study in the report itself is discussed. All we learn is that Allie thinks the science is “weak” without mentioning any particular studies in the report or what is wrong with them. For example, there are many published papers in the scientific literature that show a relationship between secondhand smoke and Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), but no mention is made of any of these specific studies or what Allie thinks is wrong with time. It is impossible to show that the science behind some policy is “weak” without citing the specific studies on which this policy is based and what aspect of these studies is faulty. This problem causes much confusion and often happens when nonscientists, or persons unfamiliar with scientific methods, try to discredit scientific research with which they do not have familiarity. Without mentioning any author and scientific study on which the Surgeon General’s report relies and without stating what is faulty about that particular study, the discussion gets us nowhere. Nothing is proved and nothing can be learned. Some recent research on the science of secondhand smoke exposure is highlighted on the new web site tobaccosmoke.org.

”
Are the quoted people and organizations all “stupid”?

and I shall quote Hitt right back at you ”

I’m pretty sure that quotes found on someones site are still those person’s quotes, and not the site creator’s. i actually had another friend who was skeptical about the seemingly high required RR. we googled a medical jounrla, and looked at the studies. sure enough, they all fit the criteria, with ones with LOW RR being announced as “inconclusive”

“What this means is that if you take that threshold then it is impossible to assess the risks of second hand smoke using epidemiology.”

So if one science fails to prove you right, use something else?

“My position is that this does nothing to invalidate the epidemiological studies that have been done.”

Too bad modern medicine doesn’t share your position, huh?

“What it means is that when we look at a conclusion like “our paper suggests that passive smoking increases the risk of cancer by 25%” you have to think “but is that because of the smoke?”. A smaller RR is not conclusive on its own but it is still evidence. ”

let me rephrase your words a little more clearly: “A smaller RR is not evidence, but it is still evidence”. err, what?

People who are exposed to environmental smoke seem to get cancer 25% more often

which is not what an epidimiological study means at all. to use your dice analogy, that’s like throwing a die 6 million times, getting a six 1,250,000 times, and announcing to everyone the die is loaded.

I’m pretty sure that quotes found on someones site are still those person’s quotes, and not the site creator’s.

That quote is from an email Hitt sent me.

So if one science fails to prove you right, use something else?

Yes. If the first science had proved me wrong then I’d have said “oh, then I’m wrong”. It didn’t; it (arguably) failed to answer the question at all. You can’t prove a null-hypothesis simply by failing to reject it. So you try another method until you find one that works. I’m astonished that you would consider this contentious. I cannot being to fathom how your mind must work.

Too bad modern medicine doesn’t share your position, huh?

That would indeed be a problem, were it true. Presuming you looked at a reputable journal (which is at best moderately likely from a Google-meta-analysis), then if those studies weren’t valid then they wouldn’t have been funded, accepted by an ethics committee or published.

let me rephrase your words a little more clearly: “A smaller RR is not evidence, but it is still evidence”. err, what?

Congratulations on inventing the most obvious straw-man argument ever.

which is not what an epidimiological study means at all.

Surely all I did there was to quote the result of the experiment?

to use your dice analogy, that’s like throwing a die 6 million times, getting a six 1,250,000 times, and announcing to everyone the die is loaded.

Good analogy. Let’s apply standard stats to that, shall we?

Right, the number of sixes is predicted by the binomial distribution, and the odds of getting a quarter of a million excess sixes can be calculated. Once calculated, though, it can’t be easily displayed because it’s so close to zero. This is called a p-value. It is quite different to an RR and this one is so low that there is not a scientist on Earth who wouldn’t upon seeing it immediately reject the null hypothesis that this is an unbiased die. This analogy perfectly demonstrates my point that a low RR can be statistically significant if you have a large enough N.

What was your point, exactly?

But the point is that bars, restaurants, nightclubs and so on are private property, to which members of the public are admitted by invitation only.

Smoking is a filthy habit, but what adults willingly do on private property is frankly none of the government’s business — and especially when that private property happens to be a members-only club.

I believe it should be entirely up to the publican / restarateur to decide whether or not smoking is permitted in their establishment. If, as suggested by the number of people gushing things like “At long last, I will be able to enjoy a drink in a pub without smelling like an old ashtray” pre-ban, there is genuine customer demand for non-smoking establishments, such places would be successful.

Because the truth is, smokers were never forcing non-smokers to breath their second-hand smoke. Every single non-smoker in an environment where smoking used to be permitted was there by their own choice: customers already knew before they went in, from the absence of “No Smoking” signs, that smoking would be permitted; and staff could always have asked about smoking policy during their job interview. If you were warned but did it anyway, whose fault is that?

If there were no non-smoking pubs in your town, then why did you not approach your friendly bank manager with a proposal for a business opportunity, and open your own pub? There was never a law that you couldn’t eject customers for smoking.

If staff don’t want to work in an environment where they will have to breath in smoke, then that’s a matter between them and the management. They can always withdraw their labour (maybe even go and work in one of those non-smoking bars that would have sprung up like mushrooms when the non-smokers decided to do something about it); and if the management can find anyone to replace them, well, more power to them.

Every single non-smoker in an environment where smoking used to be permitted was there by their own choice

That would be true were there a reasonable alternative. Socialisation is a basic human need, and in the absence of a reasonable number of non-smoking venues, we’re not there by choice.

If staff don’t want to work in an environment where they will have to breath in smoke, then that’s a matter between them and the management.

That would be true if smoke was harmless or people worked purely for pleasure. You have to assume that people can’t just get another job. Bar work is easy to find and to do, and it’s a common resort for students who need work with strange hours and short contracts. They’re not there by choice.

what adults willingly do on private property is frankly none of the government’s business

That would also be true if smoke was harmless. Regardless of whose property you’re on, the law of this country doesn’t allow you to kill people, however slowly, just because they don’t mind. And if it did, you’d need a lot more “consent” than the absence of a sign.

If there were no non-smoking pubs in your town, then why did you not approach your friendly bank manager with a proposal for a business opportunity, and open your own pub?

Congratulations: that might just be the least practical suggestion ever.

“If staff don’t want to work in an environment where they will have to breath in smoke, then that’s a matter between them and the management.”

Well, that’s ridiculous for a start. Working in a pub for three years, I can tell you that this isn’t the case. The only two smokers in our staff is the barlady that nobody likes and the landlady. In the first two years of working there, the whole staff had to put up with leaving our shifts with clothes that stunk of smoke. This was after *work*, so we didn’t even get the chance of having a fun night drinking. The reason why the landlord (who has never smoked) didn’t ban it was because, well, that would have been an even MORE rubbish idea, and we would have had the shitest income any pub has ever seen.

Back in the day, you couldn’t really ban smoking from a pub without putting a sign above the door stating “Abandon All Hope Ye All Enter Here”. This was because a lot of people who go to the typical “old man’s pub” are, in the majority, old men. Old men like to smoke. It’s true. I’ve never seen an old man with a nicotine patch. Not in my area anyway.

My favourite thing from the whole affair is one old man coming up to me in August and yelling “Ooh, it’s a bloody disgrace this government! Taking away our right to smoke! What will they do next? Not allowing us to BREATHE?”

…

Andrew
You say socialization is a basic human need and that there are not enough alternatives to keep non smokers out of smoky pubs. This strikes me as quite an overstatement. There are dozens of ways for people to fulfill their need for social interaction without ever setting foot in a pub.There are countless teams, clubs, leagues, organizations and groups one can join that exist completely away from pub life.But let`s say you`re right; attending the local pub is the be-all and end-all of human interaction.What would you consider a reasonable number of non smoking venues?Would it be a hard number,like five per square mile? If so, after the number of non smoking venues is reached, could some smoking pubs attempt to do business?Or does it have to be a percentage?If so can it be less than 100 per cent?

You then say we should assume that people can`t just get another job.Why should we assume that? People can and do get other jobs. When was the last time you where served a pint by a sixty-three year old barmaid,looking forward to retirement after slinging drinks for forty years?

Next you claim that the law forbids slowly killing people even if they don`t mind.This is true unless you`re the government. Despite many different campaigns explaining,in detail, how deadly smoking can be, they still allow the sale of tobacco.( I realize of course, that this isn`t your fault)It`s the ” slowly killing people” part with which I take issue. The science simply can`t support such a statement. The best(or worst) you can say about second hand smoke,using only the most damning studies, is that it can increase the risk of contracting a disease that might kill you.

Finally you say that opening your own pub is the least practical idea ever.Why? This is the essence of the free market.With an 80% share of the market you`d think a non smoking pub would be a goldmine.Oddly enough, I`d love the chance to service the other 20%, but it`s no longer allowed.It`s illegal for me to even try.

There are countless teams, clubs, leagues, organizations and groups one can join that exist completely away from pub life.

That’s true unless you’re stuck in a job that only ends at 7PM. Then you’re at home or in the pub. Or a bar. Or a club. Or…

What would you consider a reasonable number of non smoking venues?Would it be a hard number,like five per square mile? If so, after the number of non smoking venues is reached, could some smoking pubs attempt to do business?Or does it have to be a percentage?If so can it be less than 100 per cent?

You’re going to try to draw me into some ridiculous quota-based suggestions here, aren’t you? Put it this way: if there had ever been a non-smoking pub within practical walking distance of my house, or even a reasonably priced non-smoking pub or bar anywhere in Leeds I probably wouldn’t care so much about the ban. There wasn’t.

A ‘hard number’ would be a masterstroke, though — you’d have rural councils being required by law to open pubs in the middle of the country for the benefit of one farmer.

You then say we should assume that people can`t just get another job.Why should we assume that? People can and do get other jobs. When was the last time you where served a pint by a sixty-three year old barmaid,looking forward to retirement after slinging drinks for forty years?

Well, for the record it was last Thursday, but that’s in no way relevant.

The example I gave was, as I recall, students. I know a lot of students, postgrads and mature students, and none are in their sixties. Bar work is ideal for students: it’s not too hard, there’s a lot of it near (and in) universities, and the hours fit in neatly around even a 9-5 lecture timetable so it’s generally about the only thing they can practically do. It would seem to me fantastically harsh to say “we want 50% of young people to go to university”, and then take away their grants, and then fill the only workplace they can reasonably enter to get some money back with carcinogenic gases. I don’t think you can justify that by arguing that some people enjoy the carcinogenic gases.

Finally you say that opening your own pub is the least practical idea ever.Why?

Oh my god.

First, I’d have to get a big loan to buy the place. Then I’d have to look into how to run a pub. I’d have to look into all the various employment rules (although not for some reason the one about having toxic gases in the workplace which was perversely suspended for pubs). I’d have to hire staff and learn how to pay wages. I’d have to quit my job, which I like, and I’d have to find a location. And after all that, I may very will lose all my money — there are very few independent pubs around and there must be a reason for that. And then, presumably, I’d have to get all my friends to go to this new bar instead of their usual haunts, or else I wouldn’t be able to get any benefit.

If you really think that’s a practical alternative to just putting up with the smoke for a bit, then you’re so utterly moronic that it doesn’t seem worth engaging with you.

Oddly enough, I`d love the chance to service the other 20%, but it`s no longer allowed.It`s illegal for me to even try.

Is it? My word, I hadn’t noticed.

This comments thread is epic.

Also, the advert below it is currently showing a lovely picture of a smoking shelter.

I’d like to add that the government won’t ban smoking outright due to the amount of tax they levy on tobacco sales

hey.. all i can say is you’ve tried your best.. for that keep it up !! now lets hope n pray mr.dave dies of lung cancer soon!!!

Andrew you do amaze me. You claim to be a scientist,yet you talk like a politician. You spend two years, an advocate for, and defender of, indoor smoking bans, but now you say ” If there was a reasonably priced bar anywhere in Leeds you probably wouldn`t care so much about the ban.” “Reasonably priced” …. That strikes me as an odd qualifier.That begs the question; what do you consider ” reasonably priced” ? Also , does that mean there are many, or even a few, unreasonably priced non smoking pubs in Leeds?

Sorry, I`ll get to the point now. I oppose smoking bans for one simple reason ; they prevent consenting adults from enjoying a legal product inside privately owned buildings.
It`s that simple really… consenting adults, legal product, privately owned buildings.Are you opposed to this idea?It seems that many are these days. If you truly are, then, enjoy, it`s your world now lad.

One final question…. When you patronized pubs before the smoking ban, were you really worried about your health?

That begs the question; what do you consider ” reasonably priced” ?

I suppose what I really meant was “priced similarly to the average bar”. I didn’t like being charged a premium for clean air. There were, at the time, two non-smoking bars to my knowledge: Arcadia and Oxygen. They were the two of the most expensive bars I knew of, and Arcadia was far out of my way.

I don’t mean “If there was a reasonably priced bar anywhere in Leeds then it would be okay” but I personally wouldn’t care so much. Realistically, if it doesn’t affect me personally somehow, the plight of smoke-breathing bar staff ranks pretty low on my mental ‘World Problems Priority List’.

I oppose smoking bans for one simple reason ; they prevent consenting adults from enjoying a legal product inside privately owned buildings.
It`s that simple really… consenting adults, legal product, privately owned buildings.Are you opposed to this idea?

That is a good argument, and obviously in principle I agree, but you being pragmatic about things, the ideal is not always the right thing to do and in this case the fact is that there’s no way to survive without an income and there’s often no way to get a suitable income without a job, so these ‘privately owned buildings’ are ones that people have no choice but to enter and I think it’s reasonable based on that to make a few inconsiderate people stand outside rather than fill them up with smoke.

When you patronized pubs before the smoking ban, were you really worried about your health?

Not especially. I hated that I couldn’t wear the same coat to work the next day. But then, I spent a few hours there a few nights a week. (I was a student.) That’s not the same thing as working there and having the repeated exposure that comes with working there.

I do know 3 people who died of secondhand smoke exposure, my mom, my aunt and my high school boyfriend’s mom. I am a person trained at Mayo Clinic as a tobacco control specialist. Dave Hitt is not an expert on anything he just wants smoking to be okay because it makes him feel better. Most smoker’s who I have counseled are depressed and need to work through that in order to be successful in quitting. Obviously Dave Hitt is in the denial stage and has some suppressed depression that he needs to work through. I feel sorry for him and more sorry for the loved ones around him who are breathing in his cancerous fumes from his smoldering cigarette which by the way is the deadliest part for nonsmokers.