Smoking Bans Are Based on Bad Science

So . . . it looks like second-hand smoke may not be a big deal after all.

Smoking Bans Are Based on Bad Science
Jacob Grier, Slate

". . . When the Helena study and its heirs were originally published, a few scientists noted that the results were wildly implausible and the methodologies deeply flawed. So did a handful of journalists, including Jacob Sullum writing for Reason (to which I am also a contributor) and Christopher Snowdon in England. Yet their criticism was generally ignored. Studies reporting miraculous declines in heart attacks made global headlines; when better studies came along contradicting those results, they barely registered a blip in the media. As Jonathan Swift said in an apt aphorism, “Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it.” Too late to help smokers banished from public life.

There were good reasons from the beginning to doubt that smoking bans could really deliver the promised results, but anti-smoking advocacy groups eagerly embraced alarmism to shape public perception. Today’s tobacco control movement is guided by ideology as much as it is by science, prone to hyping politically convenient studies regardless of their merit and ostracizing detractors.

This has important implications for journalism. As health journalists take on topics such as outdoor smoking bans, discrimination against smokers in employment or adoption, and the ever-evolving regulation of e-cigarettes, they should consider that however well-intentioned the aims of the tobacco control movement are, its willingness to sacrifice the means of good science to the end of restricting behavior calls for skeptical scrutiny. . . ."

They still stink or does the article make that go away too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't want to be sitting by smelly assed smokers blowing their crap in the air.

Now, I don't have to.

AliHajiSheik said:

They still stink or does the article make that go away too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

maybe if Jack posts article which claims that smoking is actually a health benefit, i can stroll down to the Walgreens for a pack of ultra light 100s and take the habit back up again.

but even then, i wouldn't do it, because **** that.

Smoking bans are **** because people can just not go to places that allow smoking if they don't like it.

beefheart said:

I don't want to be sitting by smelly assed smokers blowing their crap in the air.

Now, I don't have to.

Click to expand...

You didn't before either.

AliHajiSheik said:

They still stink or does the article make that go away too?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

beefheart said:

I don't want to be sitting by smelly assed smokers blowing their crap in the air.

Now, I don't have to.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but the smell remains.

beefheart said:

I don't want to be sitting by smelly assed smokers blowing their crap in the air.

Now, I don't have to.

Click to expand...

Because it's all about you...


What about smell assed smokers who don't mind sitting next to smelly assed smokers?

I am all for a private business telling smelly assed smokers to keep their smelly assed habit out of their establishment.

I'm not however for private business being told by the government and other self righteous pricks whom they can and can't cater to and what they'll be allowed to have within the confines of their establishment.

It's that whole freedom thing, it's a real bitch, I know...

ChezC3 said:

Because it's all about you...


What about smell assed smokers who don't mind sitting next to smelly assed smokers?

I am all for a private business telling smelly assed smokers to keep their smelly assed habit out of their establishment.

I'm not however for private business being told by the government and other self righteous pricks whom they can and can't cater to and what they'll be allowed to have within the confines of their establishment.

It's that whole freedom thing, it's a real bitch, I know...

Click to expand...

I don't want your damned smoke around me when I eat, or am at a bar. Smokers have places where they can go and pollute each other, and let the other patrons dine in peace.

beefheart said:

I don't want your damned smoke around me when I eat, or am at a bar. Smokers have places where they can go and pollute each other, and let the other patrons dine in peace.

Click to expand...

It's all a matter of changing tastes. For centuries the smell of tobacco smoke was considered pleasant.

beefheart said:

I don't want your damned smoke around me when I eat, or am at a bar. Smokers have places where they can go and pollute each other, and let the other patrons dine in peace.

Click to expand...

That's fine. You have every right to frequent an establishment that doesn't allow smoking. I don't like smoking around me when I eat and I'm a pack + a day smoker. IDK, what your laws are in your state but here in IL no, we don't have places we can go. It's banned in all restaurants and bars. Now back in my barfly days this would have been a huuuuge issue. Jack Daniels and the Marlboro Man were my two best buds. And where ever one was the other was right there with him.

Now, it don't matter cuz I don't frequent bars anymore but i feel for those poor bastards sitting outside sucking down a square in the freezing cold. It's ridiculous.

No reason bars can't allow or disallow smoking at their own discretion. Same for restaurants.

You don't like it? Don't give them your dollars. If you really got a hankering for what they serve, put up with it or order take away.

What you're supporting is putting your will, your choice, your preference ahead of someone else, and using the government to be your bully.

***And to go even further, I'll reveal I don't smoke in my own house. Moved to a place that never had smokers and smelled what I was all about. Didn't like it so I changed the way I do things. So I'm not saying that you don't have merit in saying that it's a disgusting smell, I agree, I'm just saying you've no right to tell others what they should or shouldn't allow or tolerate.

beefheart said:

I don't want your damned smoke around me when I eat, or am at a bar. Smokers have places where they can go and pollute each other, and let the other patrons dine in peace.

Click to expand...

Do you own the bar? If not, then where do you get off telling anyone want to do there?

Henrin said:

Smoking bans are **** because people can just not go to places that allow smoking if they don't like it.

Click to expand...

Or smokers can just get over their smelly habit cuz no matter it's health/harm it's still a public nuisance.

beefheart said:

I don't want to be sitting by smelly assed smokers blowing their crap in the air.

Now, I don't have to.

Click to expand...

Yup...still a public nuisance.

Fishking said:

Or smokers can just get over their smelly habit cuz no matter it's health/harm it's still a public nuisance.

Click to expand...

So are many perfumes...

Fishking said:

Or smokers can just get over their smelly habit cuz no matter it's health/harm it's still a public nuisance.

Click to expand...

If you don't like smelly smokers then don't visit the establishment. No one ever said you had to go the bar, ffs.

Fishking said:

Or smokers can just get over their smelly habit cuz no matter it's health/harm it's still a public nuisance.

Click to expand...

Until recently the smell of tobacco smoke was considered pleasant by most people.

Fishking said:

Or smokers can just get over their smelly habit cuz no matter it's health/harm it's still a public nuisance.

Click to expand...

That's funny. I say the same thing about boozers. And yes, alcoholic beverages stink.

beefheart said:

I don't want your damned smoke around me when I eat, or am at a bar. Smokers have places where they can go and pollute each other, and let the other patrons dine in peace.

Click to expand...

And There used to be plenty of restaurants that were no smoking even when some where.. and there were bars that had no smoking. So you had that option before.