Should bars be smoke free?

Just a side note: as I opened the reply box a popup add opened and said "for help to quit smoking." That seemed weird.

Calm down, Cohen. I called NJRocket an idiot because his responses contain no reason or justification for his position. Basically, he's an idiot. I said you were wrong because society does not have to hinder my ability to frequent a smoking bar or restaurant to escape smoke, although I respect you as a poster.

The first problem is the media lumps all these figures together and therefore distort the findings, when there are findings to distort. If you'd like to point which specific studies you are referring to then I could respond a little more on point. Just to illustrate the point though, we could take the figure of 62,000 heart disease deaths related to smoking or to ETS: the main way these statistics are compiled is that a survey is taken of each patient and if they are a smoker, or they live with a smoker, one notch goes on their record. If they die of heart disease, the two are cross referenced and whammo, there you have a smoking related heart disease induced fatality. But again if you want to point to specific studies feel free.

Well, basically it all comes down to risk assessments since there are so many confounding variables that it is IMPOSSIBLE to conclude a definite link in any of these cases. Its the reason Big Tobacco didn't lose in court for so long. Every case they would stand in front of a jury or judge and point out the victim drank or ate a lot of salt or was stressed out or was fat or lived in a polluted neighborhood or worked at a factory etc etc. So let's keep in mind these studies try and measure whether or not there is an increased risk of cancer/heart disease etc. Some studies have found no increased risk, some have found marginal risk. But even those that measure some risk do not register anything close to the threshold found to be what they call 'statistically significant' for action on public health grounds. Like when you hear someone say there can only be so many part per billion of something in the water or air...that is because once you break a certain threshold the risk of danger is significant enough for the government to regulate. That significance is nonexistant in ETS studies.

Please keep in mind I am not a scientist, so if my language is rudimentary to some of you doctors or scientists that is why. My thesis was based on a public policy examination.

If we examine the EPA Report, on which much of the 'Peer Review' you cite above is based, there are many problems. Not the least of which is that the EPA announced their conclusion BEFORE they commissioned the study. Can you say 'money for a failing healthcare system?'

"The EPA manipulated, ignored, and cherry-picked data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. For example, EPA completely ignored two large studies published in the United States (Brownson and Stockwell) although these studies were brought to EPA's attention prior to its release of the final EPA Report. Borwnson is the largest study published on spousal smoking status and lung cancer and was sponsered by the National Cancer Institute. It reports no increased risk for overall exposure..."

"By generally accepted scientific convention at least a 95 percent confidence level is required in epidemiologic studies to conclude that an association is statistically significant. In its ETS assessment, EPA reviewed 30 published epidemiologic studies. The studies primarily address whether a nonsmoking woman's risk of lung cancer may be statistically correlated with whether or not her spouse smokes. The studies do not measure actual ETS exposure. Instead, they rely simply on questionnaire responses as to whether a woman's spouse smokes. These responses provide the only information on ETS exposure.

"Of the 30 published studies EPA relied upon, 11 were conducted in the United States. As originally reported, none of the US studies reports an overall risk estimate for lung cancer that is statistically significant...In total, 24 of the 30 studies reviewed by EPA--80 percent--as originally reported in the published literature do not support EPA's conclusion. One study even shows a statistically significant protective effect. In the face of these conclusions...EPA lowered the threshold for achieving statistical significance by lowering the standard 95 percent confidence level..to an unorthodox 90 percent confidence level. In altering the original analyses of the authors of the studies, the EPA doubled the possibility that any statistical significant association is simply a random and meaningless event. EPA's use of the lower 90 percent confidence level in the final report stands in stark contrast to (1) its use of the generally accepted 95 percent level in its 1990 ETS Risk Assessment, (2) the use of the 95 percent level in the original reports themselves, and (3) EPAs use of studies employing the 95 percent level in other carcinogenic risk assessments.

"Associations of less than 3.0 are generally considered in the scientific community and by EPA to be weak and unequivocal. Associations under 2.0 are considered to be extremely weak and are far more likely to be an artifact produced by chance, bias, or confounding, rather than strong associations....Of the 30 epidemiological studies analyzed by EPA in connection with its classification of ETS as a Group A carcinogen, 80 percent did not report an overall statistically significant association of ANY magnitude between ETS and lung cancer. Even ignoring statistiscal significance, all of the studies reported overall relative risks under 3.0, and 21 reported relative risks under 2.0. Six of those 21 even reported associations below 1.0....Dr. Morton Lippman, chairman of the committee of the EPA's Science Advisory Board (SAB) which reviewed the EPA Report, acknowledged the weakness of the association found by EPA when he noted to reporters at a press conference called to publicize the draft that the risk of ETS ws "probably much less than you took to get here through Washington traffic."

Yeah, well I think the part of the equation that most people forget is that these other sites have motives for what they do and say. Its like saying 'well the government says its true, so i believe it.' I think people do it selectively depending on WHAT we are talking about. In this case who really cares to fight this conclusion? As you've pointed out most Americans DON'T smoke, find it smelly or whatever. Now for years the anti-smoking lobby has tried to get smoking banned. But the Courts and the public have always said in response to the problems associated with first hand smoking, 'well its their choice.' No matter which route the anti-smoking lobby takes they cannot get around this basic core American ideal. You're freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose, right? So what the anti-smoking lobby has done is change their tactics completely to end around this problem. YOUR smoking is hurting ME because of the passive smoke. Convenient, no? And remember that just as Greenpeace may overstate the doom on the horizon and its close proximity to today, they do it because doomsaying gets donations. I'm not saying they are all completely corrupt, but often in life we see people convicted because 'if they didn't do it they probably did something else that they SHOULD have been convicted for' or in this case 'because Big Tobacco are proven liars and SHOULD be shut down anyway we can do it.' And also remember that there are other powerful lobbies at work. For instance, an EPA conclusion that ETS is harmful helped States sue Big Tobacco for healthcare costs, which relieve the States and the Federal government of those costs, whether or not they are related to smoking or ETS. Pharmaceutical companies want more and more people to try to quit smoking so they buy the highly profitable smoking cessation products, which add up to billions in revenue.

The Court ruled against the EPA because their methodology was so skewed that the result was basically trumped up. They were committing a fraud on the public. But as Gobbels said, if you tell a lie long enough and to enough people, it becomes assumed fact.

True. But if is true that smoking causes all of these deaths then why are there no such deaths in Western Europe and the Med due to smoking? Is it because there are also none of these lobbies active in Western Europe and the Med?

Yep. That's exactly what I posted above. But I think its a mistake to assume someone is lying merely because they are indicting the EPA or whatever. Hell, the AMA and AHA are both sitting with egg on their faces about the Atkins diet in light of this new study that just came out. If they are outright trying to shut down smoking, they are certainly capable of creating a false scientific consensus. How many studies have shown these same people operate on people for the money. Recommend shorter higher cost treatments for financial gain. To assume the AMA is some sacrosanct organization is laughable.

I don't think the portion of public that smokes is relevant to a conclusion one way or the other. Most of the public at least turned a blind eye to segregation and I don't think that is a good thing. The public can be wrong. And what is to be lost for the 75%? Some stinky smelly irritant. Add that to the more puritanical elements and the motives dovetail nicely.

You could scuba dive! But at least you've looked at some sites, which is more than most will do.

And keep in mind that even you are right, and there IS an increased risk from ETS, my argument that non-smokers can work through the market to create non-smoking environments still is a better option than trampling my choice unnecessarily.

 

Hayes: A more effective way to debate this one might just be to pull up your old posts and give the links.

 

Originally posted by HayesStreet
Calm down, Cohen.

I am.

...I said you were wrong because society does not have to hinder my ability to frequent a smoking bar or restaurant to escape smoke, although I respect you as a poster.

We disagree on that, it is opinion whether some peoples' rights to a smoke-free environment are greater or less than others' rights to create the smoke. Neither of us can be 'proven' wrong, so your 'wrong' statement was wrong.

Maybe you thought that I was getting worked-up over your use of 'wrong' and 'idiot', but that's not it. I was actually more interested in you getting worked-up over a topic of this nature. I think that you are obviously bright, but I was curious to see if you are one who has a proclivity to analyze then opine, or opine then analyze.

"The EPA manipulated, ignored, and cherry-picked data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. For example, EPA completely ignored two large studies published in the United States (Brownson and Stockwell) although these studies were brought to EPA's attention prior to its release of the final EPA Report. Borwnson is the largest study published on spousal smoking status and lung cancer and was sponsered by the National Cancer Institute. It reports no increased risk for overall exposure..."

You expended a lot of effort and time in your response. I don't know the source of your quoted materials...was it your thesis? Anyway, I perform enough analysis to know that statistics can be misinterpreted, misrepresented, or misunderstood. I am certain that you presented some valid points, and I don't have time to write a thesis tonight , but maybe you can help me with your first quoted paragraph here.

I believe that this is an addendum to the aforementioned EPA meta-analysis:


ADDENDUM: PERTINENT NEW STUDIES
Several pertinent studies on the respiratory health effects of passive smoking have appeared since the cutoff
date for inclusion in this report. The studies are cited here for the benefit of anyone who may wish to follow up on
these topics. The studies are briefly described below, and the authors' conclusions are presented. We do not formally
review these studies in this report, and the citations do not represent a full literature search. These new studies are
generally consistent with this report's conclusions that environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) exposure increases the
risk of lung cancer in nonsmokers and affects the respiratory health of infants.
Two of the new studies are case-control studies of ETS and lung cancer in U.S. female nonsmokers
(Stockwell et al., 1992; Brownson et al., 1992). Stockwell et al. conclude that "long-term exposure to [ETS] increases
the risk of lung cancer in women who have never smoked." Similarly, Brownson et al. conclude, "Ours and other
recent studies suggest a small but consistent increased risk of lung cancer from passive smoking."
In an autopsy study of Greeks who had died of causes other than respiratory diseases, Trichopoulos et al.
(1992) found an increase in "epithelial, possibly precancerous, lesions" in the lungs of nonsmoking women who were
married to smokers. The authors concluded that their results "provide support to the body of evidence linking passive
smoking to lung cancer. . . ." In a fourth study, a case-control study of ETS exposure and lung cancer in dogs, Reif et
al. (1992) found an association between lung cancer and exposure to a smoker in the home for breeds with short- and
medium-length noses. These results are not statistically significant, and the authors characterize their findings as
"inconclusive."
Finally, Schoendorf and Kiely (1992) conducted a case-control analysis of sudden infant death syndrome
(SIDS) and maternal smoking status (i.e., maternal smoking both during and after pregnancy [combined exposure],
maternal smoking only after pregnancy [passive exposure], and no maternal smoking). These investigators conclude
that their data "suggest that both intrauterine and passive tobacco exposure are associated with an increased risk of
SIDS."
ADDENDUM REFERENCES
Brownson, R.C.; Alavanja, M.C.; Hock, E.T.; Loy, T.S. (1992) Passive smoking and lung cancer in nonsmoking
women. Am. J. Public Health 82:1525-1530.
Reif, J.S.; Dunn, K.; Ogilvie, G.K.; Harris, C.K. (1992) Passive smoking and canine lung cancer risk. Am. J.
Epidemiol. 135:234-239.
Schoendorf, K.C.; Kiely, J.L. (1992) Relationship of sudden infant death syndrome to maternal smoking during and
after pregnancy. Pediatrics 90:905-908.
Stockwell, H.G.; Goldman, A.L.; Lyman, G.H.; Noss, C.I.; Armstrong, A.W.; Pinkham, P.A.; Candelora, E.C.; Brusa,
M.R. (1992) Environmental tobacco smoke and lung cancer risk in nonsmoking women. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
84:1417-1422.
Trichopoulos, D.; Mollo, F.; Tomatis, L.; Agapitos, E.; Delsedime, L.; Zavitsanos, X.; Kalandidi, A.; Katsouyanni, K.;
Riboli, E.; Saracci, R. (1992) Active and passive smoking and pathological indicators of lung cancer risk in
an autopsy study. JAMA 268:1697-1701.

http://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/ets/pdfs/addend.pdf

It seems like they did include the studies, just in an addendum, and that the studies did show an increased risk, no?

 

I would assume this topic is coming up often because non-smokers are taking their beef to the city councils, state legislatures, what-have-you. That is their form of protest.... like it or not.

I just don't know how effective going up to a bar owner and saying "I'm never coming back because of your smoking policy" is going to ever be. Chances are, the person won't believe you or won't care. And by the time it gets to be big enough numbers to notice, the bar is out of business and somebody else opens a new place and the process starts all over again. Not to mention that most people who decide to never go to an establishment don't go and tell the owner or manager that they're not coming back and why. For all we know, many bars have failed because they allow smoking (bars do fail all the time, after all).

For all we know, eliminating smoking won't have much of an effect on bars at all. Until it happens, we can't possibly know. I'm going to be skeptical that it would make that much difference because I heard all the dire warnings about restaurants when smoking restrictions were put in place in the Metroplex. Those dire predictions never came to pass. Perhaps bars will be different, but again, we can't know until after it happens.

On the other topic: The perception is that smoking is bad for those around who inhale the second-hand smoke. That may or may not be bad science, but that perception is hard to fight. For all intents and purposes, it's true because most people believe it to be true. To fight that perception is probably the biggest uphill battle since Sisyphus. And because of that perception, it becomes easier to get anti-smoking laws passed (whether the science supports it or not) because many politicians simply don't want to be seen as being pro-smoker (which can be seen as the equivilent of being "pro-deadly-second-hand-smoke" by many in many communities).

As I said, I'm not interested in banning smoking in bars. It doesn't matter to me one way or another because I am in bars so infrequently, and when I'm in them, there are hardly any smokers there anyway (and if a bar was too smokey, I would leave and probably never come back, though I wouldn't bother to tell the manager). And some smoke doesn't bother me.

 

We're not going to come to agreement on this. You say: let the market decide, but as long as some bars are permitted to allow smoking, none will ban it because they will lose business. If all continue to allow it, none will lose much business since the non-smokers' choice will be to club and get smoked or not club at all. (And FWIW, when clubs were too smokey, we did leave; did you ever have to leave because the air was too clean? I've had many meals in restaurants ruined because of a smoker nearby, or maybe it was blowing towards my child. Again, did clean air from non-smokers ruin your meal?)

That 'market' argument is really secondary to whether its right to subject non-smokers to the risk and annoyance of the smoker's habit. It is a health hazard, the magnitude of which being the unknown. Anyone who tries to deny it is only fooling themselves, IMO.

 

It already has been implemented in California and other locales.

http://www.accessatlanta.com/ajc/news/1002/11smoking.html

(Apparently I was wrong about New York being the last to consider it)

 

You're assuming that people who open bars do a lot of marketing research to determine what their potential clientele wants in terms of smoking/non-smoking. I'm not sure many people who open bars engage in that type of research before opening a bar.

They wing it. People have always smoked in bars, so they allow smoking in their bars. Non-smokers put up with it because they think they have to... because it's always been that way. Eventually, some non-smokers start to protest by going to city and state governments and trying to get laws passed that provide for a smoke-free environment for them. Bars are forced to stop allowing smoking.

Perhaps there is a large segment of the population who would attend smoke-free bars if they knew that was available to them. Unfortunately, people who opens bars don't think to open non-smoking bars for whatever reason. I doubt the reason, though, is based on extensive market research of the consumer.

The thing with offering products or services (such as a smoke-free bar) that are new to the populace (and a non-smoking bar would be something unique) is that sometimes people don't realize they want it until they're told about it and can experience it. But someone opening a bar would likely not want to take the chance that it would cause the failure of the bar (opening a bar is a risky business venture as it is) since there isn't a history of non-smoking bars (either successful or not) to fall back on.

In all honestly, getting the government to mandate the anti-smoking rule is likely the only way we'd ever see smoke-free bars even if 80% of the population preferred a smoke-free bar if given a choice.

 

Get over it. Seriously. I couldn't read past the first five or six posts without getting pissed.

I don't smoke. I can't stand smoke, or second-hand smoke. I don't smoke pot, I don't hit the pipe, and I don't have a gun.

But when I go in a bar, I know there are going to be smokers there. I deal. I act like an adult, ask other adults to move their ashtray/smoke flows (if the smoke is bothering me, which it always does), and they respond accordingly.

I can't think of any bar in America (and I've been/worked in some dives) that would ignore a patron asking an owner/bartender to do something about a smoker being inconsiderate about their second-hand smoke.

I hate smoking. I hate smoke. But geez...

Grow up, people, grow some balls and treat each situation individually and respectfully, and see what happens.

If not, get the hell out of the bar. It's a gotdamn bar, not a hospital lobby. Go find another place to destroy your kidneys or liver.

 

Wow, this is a tough one. I'm a non-smoker and glad about it. I have to say, I can't understand why people still smoke, unless they're addicted to it, more importantly, I can't understand how so many young people continue to adopt the habit. I'm amazed at how many student smokers I come accross during the course of a day.

Anyways, here's my view. First of all, the decision of allowing or banning smoking should belong to the owner of the establishment. I guess it's easy for restaurants to have none smoking and smoking sections than it is for a bar, but if it's possible, they're should be a seperation so that owners don't cut out a customer base. If you have a 2 storie bar, that's the easy solution, let the smokers have the 2nd floor. If you can't seperate them, then like I said, it's up to the owner. After that, it's up to the patrons. If you are a none smoker and can't tolerate 2nd hand smoke, then don't go to that bar. Well, I havn't been in many bars, so my experience has always been that I can avoid smokers, but just once, for sweet irony, I'd like to be able to do something that causes smokers to avoid me, just so that they know how the other half(i'm sure it's more than half) live. Maybe masturbation. . . Seriously, it's a habit, why can't we do it in public

 

I obviously hit a major nerve with Hayes Street by telling him that his thesis is full of bologna.

Anyway, I could care less who smokes what and where...my point is that no one, not Mr. "I wrote a thesis that I really believed and I will live my life quoting from it", the Marlboro man or the surgeon general can tell me that a smoke filled environment (such as a bar or restaurant) is as healthy as a smoke-free environment.

Do me a favor..read the entire thread before you make a comment that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

 

Sometimes the anti-smoking push isn't about the patrons (who choose to go to the bar -- and may only be there a few hours a week) but about the staff who must endure an eight hour shift in an unhealthy environment.

If you accept that prolonged exposure to second hand smoke is a health risk (I know that HS and some of the tobacco lobby may disagree) then isn't it the governments obligation to protect these workers from a hazardous work site? I realize the workers also 'choose' to work at these smoky bars, but they do so, in part, because of economic necessity. The government regulates against unhealthy work environments in many other industries, so is it really a stretch to ask them to do that here?

Just trying to fuel the fire.

Carry on.

 

Damn, I went to a friend's B-day party last nite at this restaurant bar in SoHo....had to leave after an hour b/c I just couldn't take the smoke anymore....didn't even get to eat some cake or mess around w/ the bday girl's younger sister.....this dude Bloomberg needs to come thru with that no-smoking ordinance soon

 

so you did an actual survey?