Hayes: This is the most pointless argument in the history of pointless arguments, but I'll make it easy so you can win and feel good about it. <i>Today, May 3, in the year of our Lord 2002, I hereby decree that Hayes Street is right and infallible on the subject of second hand and part-time smoking. I further declare that I know nothing on the subject and acquiesce to his obviously superior knowlege on the subject and agree not to argue with him again on the topic from this day forward, so help me God.</i> Hope that soothes the savage ego. <-- smilie
YES! Good God I knew this day would come! Thank you Thank you. No applause please... In all seriousness, I find it pretty amusing that I can take the wrong side of the most one sided argument in history, a side against which almost 100% of public presumption is arrayed, and STILL no one will step forward to actually defend the 'science' they so vigorously assume is fact. Especially when those same people, like Jeff, are really well informed, and so articulately defend most of their other positions on this BBS. And you might be interested to know that I do smoke, but I don't in my home. I have a daughter that I would never risk harm to, no matter what the statistical significance of the risk is. I understand that it is intuitive to believe smoke can hurt, even second hand smoke. But that is because my threshold for her is zero risk. I would not/do not, however, feel you can apply a non-scientific standard, which is different than that used for other air quality standards, based on intuition. In the policy arena there should be a scientific standard used (and there is) for minimum risk threshold. And I was really amazed when I examined this particular issue up close, and found such a discrepancy between what I assumed was scientific fact, and what was actually scientific fact. Oh, and I apologize for calling your point 'crap scientism.' I have the flu and was particularly cranky last night at 2 something o'clock as I could not sleep because of my illness. Obviously, you had gone out and read the EPA Report, which you had not done the last time we clashed on this topic, and that is commendable.
The overwhelming evidence is that second hand smoke is one of the major environmental causes of increased lung cancer. There isn't much debate on this from scientists not funded the tobacco industry. There are experimental lab studies that unequivocally show nicotine has specific harmful effects of developing fetuses in rats. It is very likely this is true in humans. In fact a number of public health folks are saying using patches and n. gum may are not advisable strategies to help pregnant women quit smoking because it is the nicotine specifically that appears to be doing the harm. Additionally, public health folks are estimating much of what we thought results in "crack babies" may never well have been more accurately described as "nicotine babies". Of course the latter term makes far less of a sexy story is far less palatable for the public--it is easier to single out crack mother. This misattribution is similar to your argument in the other thread HS, if someone smoked crack and smoked cigarettes and the baby wasn't fully developed it may been coded a "crack baby" when in fact the result could have been more do to smoking or do to both interacting. I will admit this line of research is young and is far from conclusive at this point, but it certainly does bring into question whether smoking and nicotine specifically is safe for pregnant women. Just another tidbit, not only did tobacco companies try to make cigarettes as addictive as possible, they added chemicals to suppress the bodies negative natural reactions to tobacco smoking (basically substances to numb the bodies response and to suppress nausea). I don’t think there have been comparable practices in the food and beverage (Busch, Miller) industries but if they are than don’t be surprised if they get sued as well.
DS, I don't think that is so. As I've pointed out above, the majority of ETS conclusions are ridiculous. Most, like the EPA Report, are merely political white papers that depend on studies that never actually measured ETS levels in anything resembling a scientific process. And although it is true that the research against your ETS conclusions are funded mostly by Big Tobacco, your conclusions are merely funded by the opposite lobby. The government research dollars are paid for results that conclude ETS is harmful. The government does not pay for contraditory research. Researchers know this. Just as the government will not give research dollars into the positive effects of mar1juana. And the anti-cancer lobby is huge, and they continue to get lots o cash by acting as doomsayers. Every side has their own interests involved, so merely saying that Big Tobacco has lied before does not mean everything they say is always a lie. For instance, you might say 'well look HayesStreet, we're talking about doctors and people committed to life saving, not a big corporation.' And to that I could reply, 'Sure, the same people who (and we've all seen this documented) conduct thousands of unnecessary medical procedures every year for the almighty buck. The same people who fudge medical research to get a pharmaceutical product out for their patron Rx company so they can make billions before the bad side effects are discovered.' Nobody is innocent and pure. I can't imagine that smoking is good for a pregnant woman. Even Big Tobacco now admits that smoking causes lung cancer, but ETS is another matter entirely. And consider this. The anti-smoking lobby has tried for decades to outright ban smoking. In this country, however, the courts and the legislatures have consistently recognized the right of the individual to choose their own fate. After all, your right to swing your fist only ends at my nose, correct? So its quite convenient that now that same lobby now has in ETS the argument to achieve its long awaited goal? At least you should admit that it is a curious development in light of their YEARS of losing battle after battle in forum after forum. No doubt Big Tobacco really screwed the pooch by using the additives. That certainly is a step further along that what we (at least so far) know about the practices of the food and beverage industry. But consider: they put salt on peanuts in a bar to make you drink more. Should the bars be liable for your liver disease? If the criteria for liability is that you use your knowledge of human consumption processes to increase the purchase and digestion of a product you know is harmful at the levels you would like the consumer to digest, then certainly fast food and beer companies would be liable. Especially if you add in the effects of advertising as they are now doing when considering tobacco liability.
HS, I have a more full developed response to this in the Euro thread. Federally supported studies show nil effects and opposite as expected effects all the time--many times to the embarrassment of the feds and researchers who know they have to publish the studies anyway. It is nowhere near the degree of top-down control as in industry funded studies. Additionally, federal (but not state, a FAR smaller portion anyway) research on tobacco does not come from tobacco tax (where you could argue bureaucratic self-interest is largest) but from the general fund (mainly income taxes). You are right that Big Tobacco doesn't always lie and their research isn't always faulty--but they only let publish what they want to. I won't say some degree of national politics couldn't trickle down in federally supported research, but the researchers not the government publish the findings (see Euro thread for more info). I am not denying self-interest isn't at play as well, many researchers would love to prove nicotine is a huge protective factor for AD because it would have lead to a NEJM or JAMA publication for instance and probably a lot of money from pharm companies to translate those findings to medical treatments--we can really raise the costs of cigarettes if they become part of a medically proscribed regimen to combat AD . You are right after some many many decades of fighting it tooth and nail they admitted smoking "causes" lung cancer (before it was just "an association" of some 100 fold risk and thus not a "proven cause"). Believe me, they are fighting it with ETS but if you asked scientists not involved in the debate probably 95/100 will say they are wrong about ETS as well--it is just another delay tactic because they don't want total nationwide public bans on smoking indoors. If you they can prove for instance in their own internal documents that candy makers knowingly put additives to get people to excessive drink alcohol perhaps. Similarly, if Busch adds a substance in their beer that also provokes an urge to drive, or further a substance that masquerades a persons sense of their own inebriation they would probably get sued too. It is not just tobacco companies, other companies (e.g., Ford) get sued all the time for deliberately ignoring or covering up risks they pass on to consumers. Sure there are abuses (McD's and the hot coffee), but a lot of times such suits bring societal good IMO. BTW- personally, I am not for a complete ban of smoking. I am all for limiting exposure to those who choose not to smoke as well as for for taxing it along with most drugs that currently are illegal.
Most of this is overlapping with our discussion in the other thread, so I just consolidated over there. I did just want to point out something on this particular passage. Certainly the industry is fighting ETS to delay public bans on indoor smoking (the free market/governmental paternalism implications of which we could discuss if you wish). But again the flip side is true. The anti-smoking lobby has latched onto the ETS issue as a justification for their long sought after ban on smoking. Two massive lobbies/interest groups duking it out. Neither is altruistic in their motives. No public ban results in more money for Big Tobacco. Public bans result in more money flowing into the anti-smoking coffers.
