IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags smoke

Reply
Old 16th January 2007, 03:11 AM   #241
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
No, that's demonstrably not true. Had it been about discouraging smokers per se, then tobacco would certainly have been banned.
I think they would have been smart enough to realise that that would have been well nigh on impossible to achieve, at least at the outset. However, some individuals active in attacking smoking do see this as their long term goal

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
The issue is strictly about employee safety, and that is the only legitimate issue that such a ban could conceivably be based on.
I was talking more generally about the attack on smoking. Obviously it can't be banned at present - too much resistance by smokers and lobbying of politicians by cigarette companies - so let's see how else we can have an effect. I'm not sure what has been achieved in the USA, but here in Australia, there has been a sustained attack on smoking with the gradual introduction of bans on advertising on television and radio, to bans on advertising at sport venues except for sensitive sports such as motor racing, to banning it from those sensitive sports as well. There has been the legal requirement to place a warning on every packet of cigarettes that smoking is bad for your health, gradually expanded to include more specific warnings regarding heart disease, emphysema, lung cancer, etc, to graphic pictoral presentations of the health effects of smoking. There has also been a gradual introduction of banning smoking in public places, reataurants, work places etc etc.
In other words, there has been a general attack by government on smoking ostensibly because of the effects on the health of the population but perhaps more cynically because of reduction in health care costs - at least this is how it has been put to them by organisations attacking smoking.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
.It's not even based on the potential for harm from PES in general, otherwise there would be a ban on smoking around children at all (being that PES has been determined to be primary or significant contributing factor to many childhood disorders, as well as SIDS).
In Australia some of the warnings on cigarette packets, as well as tv advertising, does address this issue and the result is that most parents will not smoke around their children or allow others to smoke around their children. Most smokers cannot even smoke in their own home - they are virtually forced by public opinion to go outside to smoke.
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2007, 06:16 AM   #242
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
 
Euromutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Because that really isn't the objective of most smoking bans. Bans are made on places of employment, and are there to protect employees, not patrons, from an unnecessarily hazardous work environment.
You're correct in that that is what the bans are ostensibly supposed to achieve, but as I've remarked before in this thread, I believe that to be a fig leaf. As I remarked back then, I believe the "workers' protection" argument was seized upon by the anti-smoking lobby because there was no way anyone could make a case that the power of the state should be applied to prevent people from smoking in bars just because some (potential) non-smoking patrons didn't like it; see the usual arguments along the lines of "you don't go to a bar for your health" etc. Moreover, as I also stated, if it were genuinely about protecting the physical wellbeing of alcohol servers, any study purportedly showing a causal relationship between ETS and cardio-pulmonary disorders would be secondary to an actual survey of bar staff asking "do you want a smoke-free environment?" I am unaware of such surveys being conducted, or at least their results being referred to when smoking bans were being considered. In addition, I can think of other threats to the health of bar staff for which no campaign has been mounted on a scale even remotely comparable to that waged against ETS. Prolonged exposure to high noise levels surely threatens the health of bar/club staff, but all regulation of which I am aware only limits the amount of noise an establishment can inflict on the surrounding area, not on those within. Campaigns to restrict (or ban outright) sound systems for the sake of the workers are conspicuous only by their absence.

Originally Posted by BillyJoe View Post
I was talking more generally about the attack on smoking. Obviously it can't be banned at present - too much resistance by smokers and lobbying of politicians by cigarette companies - so let's see how else we can have an effect.
I think I covered that before too. The main reason smoking has been banned in so few countries (none, to the best of my knowledge) is that taxes on tobacco provide substantial and convenient revenue to the governments in question; many proposals put forward by the ministry of health of some country to curb smoking are more often than not shot down by the ministry of finance before any tobacco company ever needs to start lobbying legislators. Also, tobacco taxes can be hiked at short notice to cover budget shortfalls or pay for pet projects (like "oral health care initiatives" and "readiness for school" programs for under-5s in California) without too many people objecting.
__________________
"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. Hed been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

by birth, by choice
Euromutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2007, 06:49 AM   #243
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
...hmmm, yes. I had the tax angle in there originally but I had one of those rare occasions where I lost my entire post when I pushed the submit button. Goddamn!
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2007, 03:15 PM   #244
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by a_unique_person View Post
You can't ban tobacco any more than you can ban alcohol. Both are here to stay, but the management of them is the issue.
They can certain ban both, and likely would if it were not for the tax revenue, public opinion, and strong industry lobbies. Many other substances, some less harmful than either alcohol or tobacco, are banned and have been for a great long time.

That doesn't mean such bans are, or have the potential to be, effective; but that certainly hasn't stopped attempts in the past or present, and wouldn't in the future.

But, again, that point is moot, since the bans haven't been about general "health" or "safety", but strictly and specifically about workplace environment, and minimizing non-consensual exposure to known hazards.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2007, 03:24 PM   #245
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by BillyJoe View Post
In Australia some of the warnings on cigarette packets, as well as tv advertising, does address this issue and the result is that most parents will not smoke around their children or allow others to smoke around their children. Most smokers cannot even smoke in their own home - they are virtually forced by public opinion to go outside to smoke.
Warning lables and restriction of advertising is a different issue from banning them outright. Many, many products have warning lables, some of them pretty ludicrious considering the actual hazards involved. And many products cannot be openly advertised in some venues; although that has changed. Tobacco product advertising is not nearly as restricted in the US as it appears to be in Australia.

And all the warning lables haven't really done much to put a dent in smoking in the US, particularly in the home. Most smokers are adamant that they should be allowed to smoke when and where they want, and will typically smoke in their homes despite having full knowledge of the hazards to themselves and their families. Hazards that many attempt to deny or play down despite the prevalence of childhood illnesses and disorders strongly linked to PES.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th January 2007, 03:50 PM   #246
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Euromutt View Post
Moreover, as I also stated, if it were genuinely about protecting the physical wellbeing of alcohol servers, any study purportedly showing a causal relationship between ETS and cardio-pulmonary disorders would be secondary to an actual survey of bar staff asking "do you want a smoke-free environment?" I am unaware of such surveys being conducted, or at least their results being referred to when smoking bans were being considered.
False dichotomy. 1) Not all employees are fully aware of the dangers of PES exposure, although most are. 2) Surveys have been done, and have overwhelmingly shown that employees do, in fact, support smoking bans; and that workers will choose employment at businesses that are smoke-free over those that allow indoor smoking. In many regions empoyees have requested workplace smoking bans, but that larger employers were not always amenable to such requests.

Recent studies also show that not only do smoking bans not harm businesses, but that they may actually provide a boost in both patronage and employment.

Zagat Restaurant Survey Provides More Evidence that New York City’s Smoke-Free Law Is Not Hurting Business

Testimony of Gregory N. Connolly, D.M.D., M.P.H. Director, Massachusetts Tobacco Control Program

Fairly representative examples from a much larger body of evidence available.
Quote:
In addition, I can think of other threats to the health of bar staff for which no campaign has been mounted on a scale even remotely comparable to that waged against ETS. Prolonged exposure to high noise levels surely threatens the health of bar/club staff, but all regulation of which I am aware only limits the amount of noise an establishment can inflict on the surrounding area, not on those within. Campaigns to restrict (or ban outright) sound systems for the sake of the workers are conspicuous only by their absence.
False equivalence.

Loud noise cannot cause cancer or other degenerative disorders. At worst, prolonged exposure can cause tinnitus and contribute to deafness. Noise can be blocked by the simple expedient of wearing hearing protection, which is extraordinarily simple and easy to do. Indeed, many industries in which employees are routinely exposed to potentially injurious noise levels mandate the use of hearing protection ranging from full-coverage "clamshell" ear protectors, to small foam earplugs. I've even noticed a number of employees at local nightclub and concert venues wearing hearing protection.

Also, hearing damage is dependent as much on the type of noise, as it's volume, and the sort of music and volumes prevalent in most club and bars being at the lower end of the spectrum. Duration of exposure is also an important factor that should be considered.

Banning loud noise isn't necessary for employee protection, since protective gear is available which completely eliminates the problem without providing a noticible inconvenience or reducing their ability to perform their jobs. There is no such equivalent for PES exposure.

Two logical fallacies in as many claims; pretty typical for the pro-smoking arguments.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2007, 04:35 AM   #247
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Warning lables and restriction of advertising is a different issue from banning them outright.
Perhaps I 'll just say "depends on how you look at it". I have already pointed out how those driving the anti-smoking effort look at it.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Many, many products have warning lables, some of them pretty ludicrious considering the actual hazards involved. And many products cannot be openly advertised in some venues; although that has changed.
Cigarettes are a special case though from the point of view of labelling. But I have already stated that as well.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Tobacco product advertising is not nearly as restricted in the US as it appears to be in Australia.
Seems so.
The whole of one side of every cigarette packet is anti-smoking advertising. No adverts of TV, radio, print media, sporting venues. No smoking in clubs, shops, and restaurants. Mothers will not let you smoke in the same room as their children

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
And all the warning lables haven't really done much to put a dent in smoking in the US...
Statistics in Australia are very different:
1983: males: 40%; females: 32%
Today: males: 18%; females: 16%

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Most smokers are adamant that they should be allowed to smoke when and where they want, and will typically smoke in their homes despite having full knowledge of the hazards to themselves and their families. Hazards that many attempt to deny or play down despite the prevalence of childhood illnesses and disorders strongly linked to PES.
It is embarrassing to be a smoker in Australia. You are a second-class citizen. A pariah.
Do not come here.
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2007, 06:59 AM   #248
Euromutt
Graduate Poster
 
Euromutt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,092
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
False dichotomy.
If there's a dichotomy here, it's of your making. You were the one who claimed that "are there to protect employees, not patrons." I don't contest that smoking bans do protect employees, but I do question the notion that that is the driving factor behind the bans, rather than an incidental effect.
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
1) Not all employees are fully aware of the dangers of PES exposure, although most are.
Given that the purported dangers of ETS have been bruited across the First World for over a decade, I find it hard to believe that such a creature still exists as a bar employee who is unaware of said dangers. (I say "purported" because the science supporting that notion was pretty shoddy up to the time this thread was started, even though I acknowledge that more solid evidence may have emerged in the interim.)
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
2) Surveys have been done, and have overwhelmingly shown that employees do, in fact, support smoking bans; and that workers will choose employment at businesses that are smoke-free over those that allow indoor smoking. In many regions employees have requested workplace smoking bans, but that larger employers were not always amenable to such requests.
I allowed for the possibility that such surveys had been conducted; my contention was that they did not, and do not, play a significant role in the anti-smoking lobby's case for smoking bans. Certainly, there's no reason they should have in Washington state. As I've noted repeatedly, even prior to the passage of Initiative 901, 85% of restaurants and bars were already non-smoking, and that number was only set to increase. You've mentioned that this club of yours was established to circumvent "some of the more ridiculous strictures of the local liquor laws." As it happens, I hold a Class 12 permit, which means I am legally licensed to tend bar in the Evergreen State. From the Mandatory Alcohol Servers' Training (MAST) I had to undergo to acquire that license, I am aware of those "more ridiculous strictures" you mention. I was also informed by my MAST instructor that, as a result of said strictures, people willing to tend bar in Washington state are in short supply, and anyone with a Class 12 or 13 permit who is halfway competent can more or less have his or her pick of jobs. Given that 85% of establishments requiring licensed alcohol servers were already non-smoking prior to 901, it's no stretch to assume that any licensed alcohol server who wanted to work in a non-smoking environment within reasonable commuting distance should have had no problem doing so. Ergo, anyone who was working in a smoking establishment was almost certainly doing so voluntarily. So what the hell did we need Initiative 901 for?
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Recent studies also show that not only do smoking bans not harm businesses, but that they may actually provide a boost in both patronage and employment.
[...]
Fairly representative examples from a much larger body of evidence available.
You know how, in actual science, there's no such thing as "the exception which proves the rule" because, in fact, exceptions disprove the rule? I have two words for you: Pierce County. Following the introduction of the smoking ban by the Pierce County board of Health in January 2004, smoking bar patrons took their custom to King County and the Indian reservations instead. And yes, it hurt the industry; alcohol servers in Pierce found themselves with way less in tips, if they didn't get laid off altogether.

I've stated earlier in this thread that the "a smoking ban will hurt the industry" argument has its limitations, in that most bar-patronizing smokers will continue to patronize non-smoking bars when there are no smoking bars available, but such statistics always relate to blanket bans. I've never seen statistics indicating that non-smoking establishments did better when bar-going smokers had alternative venues. And before you ask "what about a limited area like New York City?" I would point out that there's snobbery involved, which skews the results. Residents of NYC pay exorbitant rents (and other cost of living expenses) for the privilege of living in the Greatest City in the World; it follows that they'll be damned before they seek nightlife outside the city. Once you start seeking your nightlife in New Jersey or Long Island instead of in NYC, you might as well become a commuter!
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
False equivalence.
I said that "no campaign has been mounted on a scale even remotely comparable to that waged against ETS." Obviously, hearing damage (as an example) does not come close to the purported effects of ETS, but my point was, and remains, that there is oddly enough no campaign on, say, 40% of the scale of the anti-smoking campaign to eliminate loud noises in bars.
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Loud noise cannot cause cancer or other degenerative disorders. At worst, prolonged exposure can cause tinnitus and contribute to deafness.
As it happens, I know two people, one of whom a good friend, who committed suicide because tinnitus affected their quality of life beyond the point that they thought said life was worth living. By contrast, I know one person whose death is directly attributable to smoking (and we're not talking ETS; this guy smoked two packs a day for thirty years), and he didn't have to commit suicide.
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Noise can be blocked by the simple expedient of wearing hearing protection, which is extraordinarily simple and easy to do.
Speaking as a former soldier, I'm happy to inform you that noxious fumes can be blocked by the simple expedient of wearing a respirator.
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I've even noticed a number of employees at local nightclub and concert venues wearing hearing protection.
Well, fortunately, the means exist for said individuals to protect themselves. The question remains why said employees should have to bear the responsibility of protecting themselves from your preferences in crap music played too damn loud, but should be protected from the health problems I might conceivably impose.

No, wait, I know! It's because you're all about workers' rights just as long as it doesn't inconvenience you!
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Banning loud noise isn't necessary for employee protection, since protective gear is available which completely eliminates the problem without providing a noticible inconvenience or reducing their ability to perform their jobs. There is no such equivalent for PES exposure.
False equivalence. Protection from ETS does exist, in the form of respirators. The distinction between bar staff having to work in self-purchased respirators and self-purchased hearing protection is one of degree, not of principle. Why should the staff be expected to buy ear plugs when the music could simply be turned down a few decibels?

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Two logical fallacies in as many claims; pretty typical for the pro-smoking arguments.
No more typical than for anti-smokers. This coming from the guy who claims that:
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Most smokers are adamant that they should be allowed to smoke when and where they want, and will typically smoke in their homes despite having full knowledge of the hazards to themselves and their families.
Do you have evidence to back up those claims? See, I'm a smoker, and I do try to be considerate towards non-smokers. I'm fine with not smoking in stores, offices, etc. My wife suffers from asthma, and we have an infant, so I don't smoke in my own house. Most of my friends are non-smokers, and those that are smokers live with either non-smokers or small children or are conscious of property values and also don't smoke in their own homes. We all step outside to smoke, in western Washington, i.e. precipitation country. I don't know a single smoker in Washington state who smokes in his or her own house; smoking in a local bar was the only option for indoors smoking open to myself and most of my acquaintances, and since the passage of 901, we don't even have that.
__________________
"Sergeant Colon had had a broad education. Hed been to the School of My Dad Always Said, the College of It Stands to Reason, and was now a post-graduate student at the University of What Some Bloke In the Pub Told Me." - Terry Pratchett, Jingo

by birth, by choice
Euromutt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th January 2007, 11:26 PM   #249
Clu
Scholar
 
Clu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 86
Hi y'all... I can honestly say that there were complaints from smokers when they had to go out (or go to designated areas) but these complaints have lessened in both number and force. Not to mention that as I said in a previous post that you dont have to smell like you spent the night bathing in smoke...
Clu is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th January 2007, 02:12 AM   #250
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Yeah, smoking is a dying habit. Not original, of course.
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2007, 11:17 AM   #251
Ivor the Engineer
Philosopher
 
Ivor the Engineer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 9,536
Back from skiing in Austria in one piece Not enough snow It is common to see people who are into exercise, healthy eating and who are smokers. It's also very rare to find a non-smoking area in a bar or restaurant.

I was wrong about the leaders of a country not having the guts to ban smoking and tobacco -

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4012639.stm
Ivor the Engineer is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th January 2007, 04:07 PM   #252
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Ivor,

We didn't have any worthwhile snow all last winter and the local mountain had none at all.

I once saw a man light up a cigarette after running a marathon.

I think bans on tobacco sales will happen everywhere "in the fullness of time" (perhaps when the percentage of smokers falls below a level that can be ignored for political purposes ?5%)

BJ
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2007, 03:17 PM   #253
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by BillyJoe View Post
Statistics in Australia are very different:
1983: males: 40%; females: 32%
Today: males: 18%; females: 16%
Nothing in your post indicates that that is the result of your warning lables.

I seriously doubt that warning labels have a statistically significant effect on the individual smoker's decision to light up. Far more likely is that it's the effect of greatly improved knowledge of and education about the dangers of smoking, and a changed social attitute toward smoking resulting in less peer pressure in favor of it during the time when most smokers start (teens and early 20s).

Reminds me of one of my favorite Denis Leary quotes:
"There's a guy, I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been in the news a lot lately ... apparently this is his life's dream cause he's going country to country, he has a Senate hearing coming up in the next few weeks, and this is what he wants to do: He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger! Yeah, he wants the whole front of the pack to be one big warning. Like the problem is that we just haven't noticed yet. Like he's gonna get his way and all of a sudden smoker's around the world will be like, 'Yeah Bill, I've got some cigarettes -HOLY S***! These things are bad for you? I thought they were good for you. S***, I thought they had vitamin C in 'em and stuff.' You f***ing dolt, it doesn't matter how big the warning are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarettes that came in a black pack, with a skull and crossbones in the front, and called TUMORS, and smokers would be lining up around the block, going 'I can't wait to get my hands on these things. I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up.' Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the f***ing cigarettes, ok!? They're a drug, we're addicted, ok!?"
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2007, 03:53 PM   #254
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by Euromutt View Post
If there's a dichotomy here, it's of your making. You were the one who claimed that "are there to protect employees, not patrons." I don't contest that smoking bans do protect employees, but I do question the notion that that is the driving factor behind the bans, rather than an incidental effect.
Given that the actual text of the ban legislation, at least the ones I've read (several) so far, are worded strictly with regard to employee safety, and not the health of the general populace, it's a safe conclusion that the purpose was, in fact, the stated employee safety. Can you cite a regulation that contains language applying to general public health?
Quote:
Given that the purported dangers of ETS have been bruited across the First World for over a decade, I find it hard to believe that such a creature still exists as a bar employee who is unaware of said dangers. (I say "purported" because the science supporting that notion was pretty shoddy up to the time this thread was started, even though I acknowledge that more solid evidence may have emerged in the interim.)
Your irony meter must have been broken when you wrote that. Pay specific attention to these two parts: "I find it hard to believe that such a creature still exists as a bar employee who is unaware of said dangers" and "I say "purported" because the science supporting that notion was pretty shoddy up to the time this thread was started". See the contradiction there?

It's just that kind of dismissive woo that ignores the reams of studies on the dangers of PES that have been published in the last 10, and in particular the last 5, years, that is the reason that I used the qualifier "fully" in my statement. Some knowledge is out there, definitely. But a lot of it tends to get downplayed, thanks to a number of bogus (and eventually debunked) studies by tobacco industry shills that supposedly "refute" the dangers.
Quote:
I was also informed by my MAST instructor that, as a result of said strictures, people willing to tend bar in Washington state are in short supply, and anyone with a Class 12 or 13 permit who is halfway competent can more or less have his or her pick of jobs.
That must by why close to half of the the nearly-dozen licensed bartenders I know here in the city are unable to find bartending jobs, and typically work as waitstaff or baristas instead.
Quote:
I have two words for you: Pierce County. Following the introduction of the smoking ban by the Pierce County board of Health in January 2004, smoking bar patrons took their custom to King County and the Indian reservations instead. And yes, it hurt the industry; alcohol servers in Pierce found themselves with way less in tips, if they didn't get laid off altogether.
I've seen a lot of anecdotal claims about a number of areas and businesses. Nothing with any actual factual data to back them up. Care to provide a citation? Since all the actual studies done have so far shown just the opposite.

And if "85% of restaurants and bars were already non-smoking, and that number was only set to increase", then it really couldn't have made that big an impact, could it?
Quote:
And before you ask "what about a limited area like New York City?" I would point out that there's snobbery involved, which skews the results.
Translation: "Anedcotes that support my assertions are scientific fact, hard data that refutes my assertions are obviously the result of some other factor, and therefore do not refute my claim". I suggest you do more reading, since studies in other areas that have enacted bans have shown little to no negative impact, and in some areas quite a bit of positive impact.
Quote:
I said that "no campaign has been mounted on a scale even remotely comparable to that waged against ETS." Obviously, hearing damage (as an example) does not come close to the purported effects of ETS, but my point was, and remains, that there is oddly enough no campaign on, say, 40% of the scale of the anti-smoking campaign to eliminate loud noises in bars.
Did you completely
Quote:
As it happens, I know two people, one of whom a good friend, who committed suicide because tinnitus affected their quality of life beyond the point that they thought said life was worth living.
Sounds like tinnitus most likely wasn't there biggest problem. Oh, and did earplugs just not exist in their world? (Also sounds extremely far-fetched, but I'm not going to get into that debate right now.)
Quote:
By contrast, I know one person whose death is directly attributable to smoking (and we're not talking ETS; this guy smoked two packs a day for thirty years), and he didn't have to commit suicide.
By contrast, I have a number of friends, aquaintances and family members who have died or been hospitalized due to the direct effects of smoking or exposure to PES, or complication of an existing condition resulting from smoking or PES. So do my anecdotes trump your anecdotes, or would you prefer, as I would, to stick with actual, scientific evidence.
Quote:
Speaking as a former soldier, I'm happy to inform you that noxious fumes can be blocked by the simple expedient of wearing a respirator.
Speaking as a reasonable human being (and also a former soldier), do you have to go to a special school to become that deliberately obtuse? So waitstaff and bartenders wearing respirators that seriously impede their ability to perform their jobs, are the equivalent of wearing hearing protection that doesn't have a significant impact on their ability to perform their jobs.

See, it's this kind of woo-woo thinking and resorting to blatant logical fallacies that eliminates any sympathy I have for the pro-smoking crowd.
Quote:
False equivalence. Protection from ETS does exist, in the form of respirators. The distinction between bar staff having to work in self-purchased respirators and self-purchased hearing protection is one of degree, not of principle. Why should the staff be expected to buy ear plugs when the music could simply be turned down a few decibels?
No, the false equivalence is yours, since the protection methods have dramatically different impacts on the ability of employees to perform their jobs. Which anyone with more than three active brain cells can clearly see. The degree of difference is so large that it constitutes an effective difference in kind.

Oh, and unlike your previous claim, potentially harmful noise exposure is regulated by OSHA, and employers are required to provide hearing protection to employees when the noise level exceeds a particular threshhold.

Quote:
I don't know a single smoker in Washington state who smokes in his or her own house; smoking in a local bar was the only option for indoors smoking open to myself and most of my acquaintances, and since the passage of 901, we don't even have that.
Then you must know practically no one. The only smokers I know (and over half the people I know smoke) who won't smoke in their residences refrain exclusively because of rental/lease agreements that prohibit it (and a few even ignore that restriction and smoke inside anyway).

But the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"; and the studies showing strong, direct links between numerous childhood ailments and disorders, including SIDS, is adequate proof that the majority of smokers do, in fact, smoke in their residences.

Guess you'll just have to buy an umbrella and cope right along with the rest of us.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st January 2007, 06:54 PM   #255
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 6,626
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
See, it's this kind of woo-woo thinking and resorting to blatant logical fallacies that eliminates any sympathy I have for the pro-smoking crowd.
[And everything else luchog wrote in that post]
Hear! Hear! It's nice to see someone with the time and resources to back up a lot of the points I've been making in this thread.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2007, 03:10 AM   #256
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Nothing in your post indicates that that is the result of your warning lables.
You're right. I was using labels as a stand-in for "anti-smoking measures". Sorry, I thought actually that's what we were talking about.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
I seriously doubt that warning labels have a statistically significant effect on the individual smoker's decision to light up. Far more likely is that it's the effect of greatly improved knowledge of and education about the dangers of smoking, and a changed social attitute toward smoking resulting in less peer pressure in favor of it during the time when most smokers start (teens and early 20s).
Yep, the whole anti-smoking push.


Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Reminds me of one of my favorite Denis Leary quotes:
"There's a guy, I don't know if you've heard about this guy, he's been in the news a lot lately ... apparently this is his life's dream cause he's going country to country, he has a Senate hearing coming up in the next few weeks, and this is what he wants to do: He wants to make the warnings on the packs bigger! Yeah, he wants the whole front of the pack to be one big warning.
Done.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Like the problem is that we just haven't noticed yet.
Yeah, I agree. A big full faced coloured photograph of a diseased lung is no more noticeable than a single black and white line stating that "Smoking is a health hazard".
Did anyone say denial?

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
Like he's gonna get his way and all of a sudden smoker's around the world will be like, 'Yeah Bill, I've got some cigarettes -HOLY S***! These things are bad for you? I thought they were good for you. S***, I thought they had vitamin C in 'em and stuff.'
Yeah, strawmen are easily set alight.

Originally Posted by luchog View Post
You f***ing dolt, it doesn't matter how big the warning are. You could have cigarettes that were called the warnings. You could have cigarettes that came in a black pack, with a skull and crossbones in the front, and called TUMORS, and smokers would be lining up around the block, going 'I can't wait to get my hands on these things. I bet you get a tumor as soon as you light up.' Doesn't matter how big the warnings are or how much they cost. Keep raising the prices, we'll break into your houses to get the f***ing cigarettes, ok!? They're a drug, we're addicted, ok!?"
Firstly, addicts are known to give up their habit occasionally. Secondly, there is collateral damage - the not-yet smoker. Anyway, as I say, it's part of the anti-smoking push and that push is succeeding in reducing the number of smokers (in Australia at least).
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2007, 07:48 AM   #257
roger
Penultimate Amazing
 
roger's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 11,465
Originally Posted by Euromutt View Post
Obviously, hearing damage (as an example) does not come close to the purported effects of ETS, but my point was, and remains, that there is oddly enough no campaign on, say, 40% of the scale of the anti-smoking campaign to eliminate loud noises in bars.
Well, it is trivially simple to find a bar that is quiet, thus there is no pressing need or desire for legislative solutions to the problem. I hate loud places and smoky places. I can easily find quiet places. Prior to smoking bans, finding smoke free places was very, very difficult. Basically the only way to do so was to find a nearly empty place, and hope that no smoking customer was seated near you after you were seated. There's no need for the sonic compaign, outside perhaps the worker's safety reason, hence, no push for it.
roger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2007, 03:57 PM   #258
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by BillyJoe View Post
Done.
Yeah, I agree. A big full faced coloured photograph of a diseased lung is no more noticeable than a single black and white line stating that "Smoking is a health hazard".
Did anyone say denial?
Yeah, strawmen are easily set alight.
Firstly, addicts are known to give up their habit occasionally. Secondly, there is collateral damage - the not-yet smoker. Anyway, as I say, it's part of the anti-smoking push and that push is succeeding in reducing the number of smokers (in Australia at least).
So I take it that hyperbolic humour isn't a big thing in Australia? Or are you just personally unaware that the comment was from a commedian
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd January 2007, 08:01 PM   #259
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
Oh yeah. Well, a comedian is someone who makes a point in a humourous way. Very effective sometimes. But you can laugh and still disagree with his point.
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2007, 12:09 PM   #260
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,201
Originally Posted by BillyJoe View Post
Oh yeah. Well, a comedian is someone who makes a point in a humourous way. Very effective sometimes. But you can laugh and still disagree with his point.
Yes, but pointing out "logical fallacies" in hyperbolic humour is kind of like stomping goldfish on the sidewalk.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd January 2007, 02:05 PM   #261
BillyJoe
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,531
...unless someone's using it to prove a point.
BillyJoe is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.