Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

Krysis wrote: Quote: My liberty means nothing to you?

If was part of your 'liberty' to kill me, then you'd have a point. Since it isn't, no i don't care for it. I maintain that you can do whatever you want to yourself just as long as you don't kill me with you. It really can't get any simpler then that.

So should I be banned from driving my car past you when you're walking on the pavement? Since overrall that presents a higher health risk you'd have a better case.

Krysis wrote: Your right when you say:
Quote: It is none of your business what I eat, what I drink, or what I smoke

So why the hell do you have to make it my business by smoking in my face?

Well its not like smokers light up by you on purpose to annoy you. I'd sometimes wish they'd ban cheesy wossits from being consumed within certain radias because those crisps stink, but alas there is no enshrined right to be protected from mild temporary discomfort.

[Krysis]

Quote: So should I be banned from driving my car past you when you're walking on the pavement? Since overrall that presents a higher health risk you'd have a better case.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Stick to the the topic. What you do with your car on the road and whether i get run over by it has nothing to do with how your smoke is strangling me in a pub.

Quote:
Well its not like smokers light up by you on purpose to annoy you. I'd sometimes wish they'd ban cheesy wossits from being consumed within certain radias because those crisps stink, but alas there is no enshrined right to be protected from mild temporary discomfort.

I love how you compare "mild temporary discomfort" with long term health problems and death. How about getting your priorities right?

[Lord Hargreaves]

Krysis wrote: Quote: So should I be banned from driving my car past you when you're walking on the pavement? Since overrall that presents a higher health risk you'd have a better case.

That has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. Stick to the the topic. What you do with your car on the road and whether i get run over by it has nothing to do with how your smoke is strangling me in a pub.

Well the point I was trying to make was that in both cases - driving a car and smoking - I am exercising a civil liberty which harms the health of those around me. Not only that, but they are harming others in the same way - expelling smoke which others would breathe in - but in many ways car fumes are far more dangerous. If harming the health of others is the only criteria necessary for banning an activity then why not ban cars too?

Quote: Quote:
Well its not like smokers light up by you on purpose to annoy you. I'd sometimes wish they'd ban cheesy wossits from being consumed within certain radias because those crisps stink, but alas there is no enshrined right to be protected from mild temporary discomfort.

I love how you compare "mild temporary discomfort" with long term health problems and death. How about getting your priorities right?

I said that because this is what I consider the real issue: you'd ban smoking in pubs not because you're worried about a tiny increase in the chance of getting lung cancer twenty years down the line, but because the smoke coming from the next table is annoying you. In this sense, just like with the crisps, you're argument is based on an enshrined right against "mild temporary discomfort".

Lets outline my basic position on this:

Yes, most statistics used show a slight increase in the chance of non-smokers developing lung cancer when they are subjected to consistent passive smoking, for example people working in pubs, or people living in a home with another smoker etc. This is true enough. But a number of things should be brought to attention:

1) When we're talking about "average" passive smoking, i.e. people going about their life and coming into normal contact with smokers, the increase is so negligable that it is rarely if ever greater than the degree of error and so statistically insignificant.

2) Even statistics which show a clear link between passive smoking and say lung cancer are just that - statistics. This is not science. No one in a lab proved a link, since we still don't even know what causes cancer - if we did we might have got a bit further in finding a cure! No, these are based on surveys - dudes with clipboards asking "do you have lung cancer? If so can you remember how often you were around people who were smoking?" etc. Its hardly heresy to question this stuff.

[borntorun]

Well, i support the concept of the smoking ban. I suffer from asthma and smokey environments have caused me to feel extremely uncomfortable and once or twice to vomit and have to leave the concert/pub/whatever.

There's no sensible reason to smoke, it isn't good for you, it isn't good for your friends, and it isn't good for society. The faster we ban this the better.

scanning through this thread there seems to be alot of "by banning smoking you violate my liberty", well i'm sorry, but the right to smoke is not an inaleinable human right and by partaking of this activity my liberty is infringed upon - you violate my right to clean air, to good health.

The comparisan with cars is not valid, most people, the vast vast majority, benefit from the existance of cars, smoking yields no benefits.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Would you support banning smoking completely?

[Pebble]

Quote:
1) When we're talking about "average" passive smoking, i.e. people going about their life and coming into normal contact with smokers, the increase is so negligable that it is rarely if ever greater than the degree of error and so statistically insignificant.


Provide some figures then. You can claim that there is a negligable risk yet you have privded no linked studies or evidence.


Quote: 2) Even statistics which show a clear link between passive smoking and say lung cancer are just that - statistics. This is not science. No one in a lab proved a link, since we still don't even know what causes cancer - if we did we might have got a bit further in finding a cure!

Actually the disease is caused by cancer causing chemicals (carcinogens) which are present in huge quantities in cigarettes and therefore in the smoke they emit.

Quote: No, these are based on surveys - dudes with clipboards asking "do you have lung cancer? If so can you remember how often you were around people who were smoking?" etc.

Actually I provided you with a study carried out with proper scientific methods and published in a well known and respected medical journal.



On a complete ban? I support your right to waste your life in your own home. Though I would urge you to reconsider, especially around young children.

[Ssushi]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Would you support banning smoking completely?

The point is not to ban smoking but to stop unwanted passive smoking... Everyone knows this... :roll:

[Ben_Huh]

Ssushi wrote: Lord Hargreaves wrote: Would you support banning smoking completely?

The point is not to ban smoking but to stop unwanted passive smoking... Everyone knows this... :roll:

That may be the main point, but not this individual's feeling:

Quote: There's no sensible reason to smoke, it isn't good for you, it isn't good for your friends, and it isn't good for society. The faster we ban this the better.

Given its context, it seems that he/she may be advocating the out-right ban of smoking.

[Krysis]

Quote: Well the point I was trying to make was that in both cases - driving a car and smoking - I am exercising a civil liberty which harms the health of those around me. Not only that, but they are harming others in the same way - expelling smoke which others would breathe in - but in many ways car fumes are far more dangerous. If harming the health of others is the only criteria necessary for banning an activity then why not ban cars too?

How can you possibly compare the two? A road is there for a car to drive on. A pub is not there for smokers to smoke in. Your analogy doesn't work as the situations are in different circumstances. You'd be right in saying that car fumes are more dangerous, but your forgetting that cars are in the open air and so the smoke is far far less dangerous then turning a pub into a chimney.

Quote: I said that because this is what I consider the real issue: you'd ban smoking in pubs not because you're worried about a tiny increase in the chance of getting lung cancer twenty years down the line, but because the smoke coming from the next table is annoying you.

Had it been only that i wanted smoking banned because it annoyed me, i wouldnt have a case and you'd be right. But that is not the only problem is it? Fact of the matter is, its damaging to my health and its even worse because its annoying. Had smoking simply damaged my health and not been annoying then i would still want it banned. Stop prancing around hypothetical situations and stick to the point.

Quote: Yes, most statistics used show a slight increase in the chance of non-smokers developing lung cancer when they are subjected to consistent passive smoking, for example people working in pubs, or people living in a home with another smoker etc. This is true enough.

More than 50 studies of passive smoking and lung cancer risk in never smokers have been published over the past 25 years. Most show an increased risk, especially among people with a high level of exposure. To evaluate this information, meta-analyses have been conducted whereby the relative risks from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant risk of lung cancer risk among non-smokers living with smokers. The risk is in the order of 20% for women and 30% for men. Furthermore, studies of non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at work show an increased risk of lung cancer of the order of 16 to 19 per cent. The IARC review led the authors to conclude that “This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers.”10

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html
Slight increase indeed...

That also pretty much rebuffs your their only statistics comment and how no link can be proven. Actually, just read the rest of that site and all your comments that are based on no studies are rebutted.

[borntorun]

Put it this way, if tabacco was discovered today and some drug company wanted to sell it then it would be highly unlikly that they would get a license. The only reason smoking isn't already illegal is historical curiosity.

Ban the filthy habit, it's anti-social and inconsiderate and in the long-run everyone will agree it was the right decison.

[Ben_Huh]

Quote: Ban the filthy habit, it's anti-social and inconsiderate and in the long-run everyone will agree it was the right decison.

Who's the government to tell me or anyone else what we can/can't put in our bodies?

[battleax86]

Ben_Huh wrote: Quote: Ban the filthy habit, it's anti-social and inconsiderate and in the long-run everyone will agree it was the right decison.

Who's the government to tell me or anyone else what we can/can't put in our bodies?
The same people who tell us that putting narcotics in our bodies is illegal (even in private), public intoxication is illegal, and being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle is illegal. To be perfectly honest, I don't see too many of us conservatives protesting these rules. Why then, should we protest something that follows the same principles? Nobody's saying that you can't smoke. You just can't do it when it poses a health risk to people who choose not to smoke.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Krysis wrote: Quote: Well the point I was trying to make was that in both cases - driving a car and smoking - I am exercising a civil liberty which harms the health of those around me. Not only that, but they are harming others in the same way - expelling smoke which others would breathe in - but in many ways car fumes are far more dangerous. If harming the health of others is the only criteria necessary for banning an activity then why not ban cars too?

How can you possibly compare the two? A road is there for a car to drive on. A pub is not there for smokers to smoke in. Your analogy doesn't work as the situations are in different circumstances. You'd be right in saying that car fumes are more dangerous, but your forgetting that cars are in the open air and so the smoke is far far less dangerous then turning a pub into a chimney.

Thats exactly what it is for.

Krysis wrote: Quote: I said that because this is what I consider the real issue: you'd ban smoking in pubs not because you're worried about a tiny increase in the chance of getting lung cancer twenty years down the line, but because the smoke coming from the next table is annoying you.

Had it been only that i wanted smoking banned because it annoyed me, i wouldnt have a case and you'd be right. But that is not the only problem is it? Fact of the matter is, its damaging to my health and its even worse because its annoying. Had smoking simply damaged my health and not been annoying then i would still want it banned. Stop prancing around hypothetical situations and stick to the point.

I still make the point that the stop smoking (SS) brigade is largely fueled by dislike of smoke and a generally intolerant attitude, which convieniently grabs hold of studies on passive smoking to try and sway those with less fascistic-like views. There is obviously a case to answer on the health risks of passive smoking, but I am not fooled into thinking it is the core driving force.

Krysis wrote:
Quote: Yes, most statistics used show a slight increase in the chance of non-smokers developing lung cancer when they are subjected to consistent passive smoking, for example people working in pubs, or people living in a home with another smoker etc. This is true enough.

More than 50 studies of passive smoking and lung cancer risk in never smokers have been published over the past 25 years. Most show an increased risk, especially among people with a high level of exposure. To evaluate this information, meta-analyses have been conducted whereby the relative risks from the individual studies are pooled together. These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant risk of lung cancer risk among non-smokers living with smokers. The risk is in the order of 20% for women and 30% for men. Furthermore, studies of non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at work show an increased risk of lung cancer of the order of 16 to 19 per cent. The IARC review led the authors to conclude that “This evidence is sufficient to conclude that involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers.”10

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/passive.html
Slight increase indeed...

That also pretty much rebuffs your their only statistics comment and how no link can be proven. Actually, just read the rest of that site and all your comments that are based on no studies are rebutted.

Well, firstly none of what you quoted particulary disputes anything I said. I never disputed that "involuntary smoking" (although going into a smokey pub to enjoy a pint is hardly an "involuntary" action) has health risks for those with specific exposure to it.

Secondly, the use of percentages in the argument is as misleading as usual. We are told that "studies of non-smokers exposed to environmental tobacco smoke at work show an increased risk of lung cancer of the order of 16 to 19 per cent." Assuming, lets say, that 1 in 100 people will get lung cancer - and then we round up this statistic of 16-19% to say 20% to make it easier to work with, this would then mean that now 1.2 people in 100 people will get lung cancer. Now consider 1/4 of the population smoke, and then we start to get a sense of proportion finally.

Thirdly, if you put "meta-analyses" into Google to define it, you get:

Quote: A method of summarizing previous research by reviewing and combining results from multiple studies.

So essentially we understand these statistics are reached at by number-crunching previous statistics. Hardly "science"

[Krysis]

Ben_Huh wrote: Who's the government to tell me or anyone else what we can/can't put in our bodies?

With that same note, who are you to put toxic fumes into the air i breathe?

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Thats exactly what it is for.

I'm sorry what? Since when is a pub there for people to smoke? The whole point of a pub is for drinking be it alcohol or otherwise.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Well, firstly none of what you quoted particulary disputes anything I said.

It makes it clear that your "slight increase" is actually 20 - 30% .

Lord Hargreaves wrote: I still make the point that the stop smoking (SS) brigade is largely fueled by dislike of smoke and a generally intolerant attitude, which convieniently grabs hold of studies on passive smoking to try and sway those with less fascistic-like views. There is obviously a case to answer on the health risks of passive smoking, but I am not fooled into thinking it is the core driving force.


The only person doing any fooling is you fooling yourself. Why not take off that tin foil hat and join us in the real world? People want smoking banned in public spaces because its bad for them and want to breathe clean air, simple as that. Whether or not you choose to believe it is your problem, but when you do decide to come back to the real world we can possibly have a proper discussion.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: So essentially we understand these statistics are reached at by number-crunching previous statistics. Hardly "science"

A meta analysis has more force then any single study. How can you not see that? There are hundreds of scientific studies that have been conducted to prove the effects of passive smoking, a meta analysis puts all this together and tells us that all the studies show us there is a link. Many studies, spanning many years gives us only more proof of what is being said. The meta-analysis itself is not science, the hundreds of studies on the otherhand, that is science and the fact they all show similar results only gives more reason to ban smoking in public spaces.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Assuming, lets say, that 1 in 100 people will get lung cancer - and then we round up this statistic of 16-19% to say 20% to make it easier to work with, this would then mean that now 1.2 people in 100 people will get lung cancer. Now consider 1/4 of the population smoke, and then we start to get a sense of proportion finally.

Lets assume what you say is true. You seem to be forgetting that this 1.2 people are actual people. With family and friends, and your letting them get lung cancer just because anytime they want to go out for a drink they have to breathe in this smog? Your letting them get lung cancer for someone else's nasty habit? I'd like to know if you'd have the same attitude had this 1.2 people been your friends and family who get lung cancer simply for wanting to enjoy themselves in a pub.

[maxtsu]

Someone has already pointed out that a smoking ban reduces the number of smokers. Seems logical, more people will quit. Stats in Ireland has proven this.
If more people quit smoking, then if I was a tax-payer in that country, I would be happy.
Less smokers with various, very expensive to treat, lung problems. Not to mention lung cancer. Is less weight on the health service.
And more chance my childern will get to see a doctor if they suddenly have a medical problem.

Smokers are a health burden in their country.
And the rest of the tax-payers will have to pay for their expensive health treatments.

[Pebble]

maxtsu wrote: Someone has already pointed out that a smoking ban reduces the number of smokers. Seems logical, more people will quit. Stats in Ireland has proven this.
If more people quit smoking, then if I was a tax-payer in that country, I would be happy.
Less smokers with various, very expensive to treat, lung problems. Not to mention lung cancer. Is less weight on the health service.
And more chance my childern will get to see a doctor if they suddenly have a medical problem.

Smokers are a health burden in their country.
And the rest of the tax-payers will have to pay for their expensive health treatments.

Yes, but you shouldn't build the case against smoking on tax cuts, the tobbacco industry is a huge earner for the government, the majority of the cost of a pack of cigarettes in this country is in fact tax. I'm not sure if smokers cost more than they spend in tax, in fact, if anyone has figures for that then i'd like to read them...

They are however a health burden. Passive smoking kills innocent people, that's a fact.

[antonio62]

maxtsu wrote: Someone has already pointed out that a smoking ban reduces the number of smokers. Seems logical, more people will quit. Stats in Ireland has proven this.
If more people quit smoking, then if I was a tax-payer in that country, I would be happy.
Less smokers with various, very expensive to treat, lung problems. Not to mention lung cancer. Is less weight on the health service.
And more chance my childern will get to see a doctor if they suddenly have a medical problem.

Smokers are a health burden in their country.
And the rest of the tax-payers will have to pay for their expensive health treatments.

But if they die early they will save the government loads in pension payments, early health care costs and the other benefits being old gives you.

[Lord Hargreaves]

After smoking, what next for the health fascists? Here are a few things to give the SS brigdade a bit of perspective on the "health risks" of passive smoking:

Quote: BEING SLIM: A new study has revealed that, rather than being content and confident, slim people struggle to deal with life's woes. Anxiety and mental suffering often dominate their lives - to such a degree that they are much more likely to commit suicide than large people.

Source: Independent (12 December 2005)

HOLIDAYS: More infections will pass from animals to humans in the future as growing numbers of people take tropical holidays, researchers warned. Increasing human contact with wildlife meant that emerging infectious diseases such as bird flu and severe acute respiratory syndrome (Sars) will become a greater threat to public health, said Dr Andrew Cunningham, of the Zoological Society of London.

Source: Press Association (25 November 2005)

ORAL SEX: Several recent international studies have provided evidence of a link between mouth cancer and a virus that can be spread by oral sex. But the risk of contracting oral cancer via any means is low (about one in 10,000 people will develop the disease).

Source: Guardian (22 November 2005)

WORK: Workers who are unhappy in their jobs are more likely to experience emotional burnout, have reduced self-esteem and suffer from anxiety, according to new research. Depression and anxiety were now the most common reasons for people starting to claim long-term sickness benefits, overtaking illnesses such as back pain, said the report.

Source: Daily Mail (17 November 2005)

ASPARTANE: Italian researchers are challenging the safety of aspartame, the low-calorie sweetener found in NutraSweet, diet sodas and thousands of other food products. Rats that have been fed the sweetener can develop cancer, the researchers report, even at doses below the recommended limits for people. However, experts note that this recent study was conducted in an unorthodox way, and critics are finding it tough to understand how the sweetener could cause cancer.

Source: Nature (18 November 2005)

DECAFFEINATED COFFEE: Decaf coffee could increase the risk of heart disease. The drink can raise levels of a type of blood fat which produces harmful cholesterol, a survey found. However recent research has also suggested that antioxidants in coffee can ward off high blood pressure and that one or two cups a day can halve the risk of liver cancer and cut the chances of bladder cancer.

Source: Daily Mail (17 November 2005)

VITAMINS: Millions of people could be risking their health by 'overdosing' on vitamins. Research by Norwich Union found that four in ten GPs believe patients are taking too many of the supplements in total ignorance of potentially serious side effects.

Source: Daily Mail (17 November 2005)

HAIR DYE: A key ingredient in products used by men to disguise their grey hair has been banned by Health Canada because it is suspected of being a carcinogen and reproductive toxin.

Source: Ottawa Citizen (8 November 2005)

HAMBURGERS: Eating hamburgers more than once a week nearly doubles the risk of asthma attacks and wheezing in children, according to research carried out on 1300 New Zealand school pupils.

Source: New Zealand Herald (8 November 2005)

SONS: Giving birth to and raising several sons could be bad for the long-term health of mothers, according to a study. Sons could be especially costly for the mother for several reasons: they are, on average, born heavier and place more physical stresses on the body; and they raise levels of testosterone in their mothers' bodies, which can age the immune system, making it less able to defend the body.

Source: Daily Telegraph (2 November 2005)

TELEVISION: Watching TV may stunt children's brain development and lead to anti-social behaviour, new research claims. Study author Dr Aric Sigman, at the British Psychological Society, urged the Government to issue guidelines on viewing amounts.

Source: Daily Mirror (3 October 2005)

POPULARITY: Popularity may be hazardous to a preteen's health, according to a new study that shows popular preteens are more likely to start smoking at an early age than their less popular peers. Researchers say popular students tend to be trendsetters and model behaviours that others strive to emulate, which could prompt smoking to spread more rapidly among preteens.

Source: WebMD (15 September 2005

MODERN LIFE: An estimated £53.5bn of public money is being spent putting right the social ills caused by people trying to escape the pressures of our consumer-orientated society, according to a new report from the Cardiff Business School.

Source: icWales (5 September 2005)

SHOWERS: Taking a shower could give you brain damage, new research from the US suggests. It can expose people to dangerously high levels of manganese, a poisonous metal dissolved in water that has been linked to damage to the nervous system.

Source: Daily Mail (4 July 2005)

BEING SCOTTISH: Having Celtic genes or even just living in Scotland could put people at far greater risk of heart disease. Researchers at Edinburgh University revealed that an unknown "X-factor" - not linked to the usual suspects of poor diet, smoking, lack of exercise and poverty - appears to be responsible for those living in Scotland having a 50 per cent higher chance of getting the potentially fatal condition than people south of the Border.

Source: Scotsman (24 June 2005)

TALKING: Thousands of call centre workers are at risk of damaging their health because they talk too much. British trade union UNISON claims one in 50 call centre workers is at risk from this "industrial disease" adding that "voice loss" is costing the UK £200m a year, a figure set to double over the next ten years.

Source: The Register (20 June 2005

When there is a higher percentage chance of getting heart disease because you're Scottish than getting cancer from passive smoking - hopefully the point begins to sink in :wink:

[Lord Hargreaves]

Something else to chew on:

Quote: Deaths from traffic fumes in Scotland are higher than those caused by passive smoking, according to the Scottish Green Party.

The Greens have called for tougher action against air pollution in Scotland's cities.

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm

When, say, going outside is more dangerous to your health than passive smoking - hopefully the point begins to sink in :wink:

[Pebble]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Something else to chew on:

Quote: Deaths from traffic fumes in Scotland are higher than those caused by passive smoking, according to the Scottish Green Party.

The Greens have called for tougher action against air pollution in Scotland's cities.

MSP Patrick Harvie said spending 24 hours in Glasgow city centre was the equivalent of smoking 15 cigarettes.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4401628.stm

When, say, going outside is more dangerous to your health than passive smoking - hopefully the point begins to sink in :wink:


Analogy: Just because there are murders we should stop trying to solve rapes?

This does not make passive smoking 'ok' or remove th risk from passive smoking, it merely shows us another undesirable side to our society. Realistitically no-one penalises cars to a huge extent in this country because the public transport network is so sub par it wouldn't cope.

Something like putting a congestion charge into every major centre of population might be worth looking at.