Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Suzy, you wrote, "How can I accuse you of cherry picking when I specifically ask you to choose the studies that you want me to read? If I do that, I lose the privilege of accusing you of cherry picking."
Oh! Ok. In that case let's start with Otsuka:
Otsuka, R. et al. Acute Effects of Passive Smoking…. JAMA. Vol 286. #4. 2001)
since that is the study that is often held up as showing the deadly effects of being exposed to smoke for even short periods of time (30 minutes). Would you like to read it first so that you can defend it against my criticisms?
You then wrote, "Why should hotels put ash trays in non-smoking rooms? Do they not put them in smoking rooms any more? " Ordinarily there's no reason for them to do so, unless they suspect that some guests might find someone to bring back to the room and be hesitant about throwing them outside to smoke, but maybe that doesn't really happen in hotels nowadays. In a hotel that provides NO smoking rooms however, it's quite reasonable to expect, as you indicated earlier, that some smokers will violate the rule. Thus, if the hotel is truly concerned about fires and the safety of its guests and it agrees with your opinion about smokers then it should provide ashtrays.
And you wrote, "The bit I posted was for historical purposes. Why does it worry you so much?" Doesn't worry me at all Suzy. It was irrelevant to the topic though and I was afraid it might upset Katiana.
And finally you wrote, "I suspect that if you claim to be serving prime beef and you are really serving a lower grade, that you will find yourself in hot water. I do not buy your argument that it is good business to lie. Eventually, someone blows the whistle. What happens to your business then?"
You clearly didn't understand the example I gave: the ones making the claims about their beef and their business were the ones serving the better grade of beef. My argument was that they most certainly wouldn't want to spoil their success by encouraging a law that would remove their unique advantage. If they were concerned about lying they'd simply say nothing while hoping their silence would encourage the status quo.
I personally think that the government should help all addicts end their addictions. That's what UHC is all about - promoting general welfare, re: the Preamble to the Constitution.
You are assuming that everyone who supports smoking bans is a Democrat? I don't think so.
I am assuming to some extent and I'd have to study each state's voting records.
In the state where I live - Michigan - the majority by quite a margin, of legislators who voted in favor of the smoking ban were Democrats. Then signed into law by Jennifer Granholm ( flaming liberal ).
It was shoved down our throats by Democrats whose ideology justifies and requires the trampling of my rights.
"Where does Obama smoke?
Not inside the White House — Hillary Clinton effected a smoking ban in the building when her husband was president. Reportedly, when the "Smoker in Chief" wants to light up, he pops out to the West Colonnade, which connects the Oval Office to the Rose Garden. There are no known photos of Obama smoking while president."
SuzyQ, I do indeed remember the hockey stick curve, and how silly it was. It took a fair amount of pretty good data for the "handle" and then threw in a bunch of wonky data for the "blade" to make a pretty graph while pretending it actually represented something scientifically significant.
But I'm mainly interested in knowing how you reconcile your statement that it is possible to drink a Class A Carcinogen and "not harm your health" with maintaining that even the lowest exposures to another Class A Carcinogen are so harmful that government intervention into private lives, homes, and businesses is needed.
Just because you do not understand the methodology does not make it "wonky."
Just as you do not understand that your linear theory of causation applies to all biological systems. It does not.
I would hope the President would be considerate enough not to do that. He does not smoke in his own home, why should he smoke in mine?
If I had the privilege of hosting him in my home, I would indeed respectfully ask him not to smoke in my living room.
I would invite him to sit on my couch and have a cigarette with him. After a few drags, when Obama became a bit more relaxed, I'd ask him to tell all of his Liberal followers to stop intruding into every aspect of my life.
I'd bring up The Constitution - but, then that would be the end of our visit.
Katiana, you wrote, "Re: Michael's desire for "proof" that "any real harm to health that would come to people from staying in a hotel where some rooms allowed smoking", I think plenty of evidence has been posted that shows that coronary events go down immediately with smoking bans."
Katiana, and I could post plenty indicating it doesn't. The largest scale research in the area, the NBER study, the 74 city study, the 7 state study, and even, I believe, the vaunted IOM study (after its published and underplayed correction) all showed pretty much no effect. These results are all quite recent, just within the last two years or so, and yet they all mirror the findings of the Kuneman/McFadden study that was turned down by the BMJ in 2005. See my article at the American Council for Science and Health for more on that if you wish:
Unfortunately, the BMJ passed such findings off as not being "of general interest" and indicated that finding smoking bans did NOT reduce heart attacks really didn't add anything new to what was already known.
Katiana, you also wrote, "Also, if a person travels often, exposure to the SHS from a motel room could reach high enough doses to cause cancer/other health issues." Kataina, is this something you simply believe as an article of faith or is it something you can back up by presenting some actual scientific studies? You may remember that I have already requested similar research from you several times and you've failed to provide it.
And you wrote, "I posted earlier about non-smoking stewardesses who had smoking related health issues."
I'm sorry. I missed that posting. When I came in here we were talking mainly about hotel-related levels of exposure -- a very different story than exposure in pressurized airplane cabins shared with smokers in the same space and with VERY little ventilation. Some might consider such discussion to be a "deflection."
And finally your wrote, "Which brings up another point, the employees. Now a lot of you will say the employees have a choice of where to work, but the reality of the work world is that a lot of these people probably cannot find another job that meets their skill set, especially in a smalll town." Katiana, I do not think this thread is about the sort of hotels where they require their employees to spend significant amounts of time entertaining guests in their rooms. For employees that are simply rolling a dinner cart into a room the duration of exposure makes the concern simply silly, and for those who clean a room after guests have left the exposure level descends into the same regions I've been waiting for you to show actually cause concern.
If you're talking about "thirdhand smoke," I'd refer you to my analysis at:
and, of course, invite your criticisms of it when your other research is completed. However, at least in my opinion, anyone who actually spends TRILLIONS of years cleaning rooms in hotels to begin with has problems a lot larger than "thirdhand smoke" exposure.
SuzyQ, you wrote, ""Pub groups throw around blame for the decreasing sales and pub closures – first it was the smoking ban, now it's rising alcohol prices and increased competition from shops and supermarkets."
Yep, sad to say, but the British pubs that survived the devastation of the ban (I note you had no comment on the pub closure rate increasing by over 1,000%) are now desperately looking for other means of survival. If they can convince the government to hike prices for direct consumer sales while lowering them for the pub trade maybe they can keep the rest of the pubs from being destroyed.
Actually, I did not write that. I was quoting another person's opinion. Her opinion is that pub closures are due to many factors, and the ones that are closing are doing so because they are not competitive.
And now you state that there should be financial penalties for stores that sell booze in order to keep non-competitive pubs open. Really?
Quote:
You also wrote, "It's hard to compete when people's idea of a good Saturday night has now shifted to involve a couple of friends, a bottle of wine and The X Factor."
Very true. The shift occurred immediately after the smokiing bans were introduced and rose in the years afterward. The causality of the bans as the main factor can be seen when one does a cross-country and cross-time comparison looking at Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and England. Their bans kicked in at different times and their pubs then failed at different times. You can see the actual figures if you like at Christopher Snowdon's site:
He's the British historian I mentioned earlier, but you might not like his figures: he's also the author of "Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: A History of Antismoking."
That was also a quote of another person's opinion.
So people who have decided they prefer an evening at home with friends to an evening at the pub should start going back to pubs in order to keep more pubs open?
Ever stop to think that they may prefer to just spend less money, particularly in the current economic climate?
Quote:
Suzy, you went on to say that drinking at home "also removes most of the negative side-effects associated with pubs – drink-driving, antisocial behaviour and aggression are far less likely to manifest themselves when you've spent the evening in your own front room."
The observation on drunk driving may be true, although I believe Adams and Cotti did a study about two years ago that found a slight INCREASE in drunk driving deaths after bans. However, as far as antisocial behavior and aggression being "less likely to manifest themselves" after hubby drinks more cheap booze at home than he would have imbibed at the pub you might want to talk to some battered wives about that.
Again, I did not write it. I quoted another person's opinion.
And now drinking in a pub is less likely to contribute to spousal abuse than drinking at home? Do you have a study for that?
Quote:
And finally you wrote, "Why should the public pay for anyone's business losses? Why should I pay someone to be a bad businessman?"
Losses? Odd... I thought the ban wasn't going to cause business losses. Maybe someone else had made that claim. As to your paying for them, I hadn't realized you were either a lawmaker or a paid member of an antismoking group. It's hard to tell from your profile. However, you should have nothing to worry about as long as bans don't cause business losses you'll have nothing to lose, right? And meanwhile, you'd have your smoking ban!
Why would you say no to that? Unless I actually *have* changed your mind on all this.
Why should I pay someone to be a bad businessman?
I did write that.
It was in response to your suggestion that casinos be supported financially. Why should I support a failing casino any more than I would a failing movie theater or a failing automobile dealership? Now that is misdirection to the nth degree.
Just because you do not understand the methodology does not make it "wonky."
Just as you do not understand that your linear theory of causation applies to all biological systems. It does not.
SuzyQ, please point out the post where I said I believed in a strictly linear theory of causation.
I noticed you have not addressed the point of your being forced to pay, as either a lawmaker or as paid member of an antismoking group, for business losses caused by smoking bans if such a legal agreement were made with those groups. Would you care to expand on that? Or were you simply mistaken when you said you'd be forced to pay in such a situation?
I personally think that the government should help all addicts end their addictions.
What if the "addict" doesn't want to end his/her "addiction" to a legal product...in this case, tobacco?
Quote:
That's what UHC is all about - promoting general welfare, re: the Preamble to the Constitution. Then this silly discussion wouldn't be necessary.
This has been addressed before. If there on no checks on what can be done in the name of the "general welfare", then the whole point of the Constitution, which is to restrict the powers of the government, is negated.
"With respect to the two words 'general welfare,' I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators." --James Madison (known as the Father of the Constitution).
Thus, if the "General Welfare" clause were understood within its proper context and intent, then this silly justification wouldn't come up.
Last edited by TexasReb; 01-05-2012 at 01:26 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
" Ordinarily there's no reason for them to do so, unless they suspect that some guests might find someone to bring back to the room and be hesitant about throwing them outside to smoke, but maybe that doesn't really happen in hotels nowadays. In a hotel that provides NO smoking rooms however, it's quite reasonable to expect, as you indicated earlier, that some smokers will violate the rule. Thus, if the hotel is truly concerned about fires and the safety of its guests and it agrees with your opinion about smokers then it should provide ashtrays.
