Ty Webb wrote:Art galleries, jeweler's cyanide, etc, are specious analogies.

Specious? Hardly. I have yet to whip out an analogy that involves nature!

Mayfair wrote:I couldn't open a bar and say no blacks or gays or jews or handicap people since there are places for those folks to go instead of my place.

You could in northern Idaho.

Ty Webb wrote:

As for just not going into a smoky bar or restaurant...where do you go if they're all smoky?

I submit that if it is truly the collective will that dining and entertainment establishments are smoke-free, then there will be plenty of smoke-free dining and entertainment establishments to visit. The person who runs the place can make the choice based on the preference of his clientele.
What I'm wondering is why does non-smoking policy have to unilaterally intrude upon venues where smoking is the demonstratred preference of the majority of those who provide their business? I'm not saying it's anyone's right to smoke wherever they want to. I'm not saying a business owner has to accommodate smokers who may drop by; only that he should be able to if that's what he and his customers want. Because it is his private space. He has financial responsibilities for the space which are unshared by anybody else. He has the right to refuse service. He has the right to exclude - say, for lighting up in a non-smoking establishment. In any real way you'd care to name, it's his, just like a print shop, a bail bonds office, or a recording studio.
I remember about seven years ago in Vancouver, a tobaconist in Gastown was hosting this Cuban farmer for a week. He was a "Master Cigarmaker" or somesuch (I'm no expert.) He'd sit there in the shop all day long and roll cigars and chat with any who came by if they spoke Spanish. You could only buy one to take away, but you could buy two and smoke one there in the shop while reading a newspaper. Not anymore. "Public space," you know.

After reading a bit about the Surgeon General's new study, I can't help but think that it is merely building upon data from the old Surgeon General's study on second hand smoke, which, if you look around a little, has some debatable flaws. This latest study seems to me like a freshened-up press release for the whole smoking ban crusade. A little political move to keep it in the media.

I'm at work and don't have time to argue a point-by-point scientific analysis, so I guess this post will just seem invalid to many. But, I feel the media has grabbed this whole thing because it's a good story that will attract readers (among other possible reasons).

There are many examples of scientific studies where the media merely tows the line of the study without much of a critical eye. You can't really compress the debatable issues of an involved scientific study into a little newspaper article. If you get a bunch of truly unbiased scientists together looking at any study, they will argue about how the data was obtained, the validity of control groups, etc. -- all things that can question the absolute credibility of a study. I see little discussion such as this in the mainstream media's coverage of second hand smoke studies. I believe this is because it is bad politics (or business) to argue with something that people are so easily scared of.

I guess some might go hunting on the net and spit a bunch of the Surgeon General's stats at me. I could then go and find a few reported flaws of the Surgeon General's study. The point is, I just can't believe that second hand smoke is all that dangerous. These studies are many times carried out by researchers who have their conclusions already in place -- they'll present their findings in any way they can to prove what their funding sources want them to prove (because then they'll get more funding and they'll still have a job). How did the CDC obtain their "estimates"? What was the process of determination? I never actually heard about non-smokers getting lung cancer or heart disease just because they hung out in smoky bars. The studies will have me believe it's an alarming problem... but where is the supposed actual evidence of this danger in every day life? It's not a connect the dots thing like smoking itself, where you can see that people who smoke are more likely to get cancer.

Some may say I'm a fool to argue with the general scientific consensus, but there are still other well-educated scientists that aren't buying what the much-hyped study is dishing out. I understand that I am in the minority here and that some of the noise being made about the holes in these studies is expressed by scientists that used to work for tobacco companies (or it's being voiced by libertarian columnists). But there are others who will admit that the statistical margin representing the health risk in these studies is relatively small if you factor in other variables that are unaccounted for (such as economic status and the questionable methodology of these studies). It's a case of selective science. Just because one might question the methods of the study, they're screamed at and labeled as a mouthpiece for big tobacco.

I just don't see enough warning signs to group second hand smoke in the same category as hazardous chemicals or any other public health risk. Therefore, I don't believe it is a threat that a group like OSHA (or whoever) should be concerned with. I think it's politically popular to rail against cigarrette smoke and many are all too happy to have their distaste for smoke justified by a supposedly "case-closed" scientific study.

Chromodynamic wrote:I don't mind being around second-hand smoke and I am certain I will not die of something related to it.

I am making a deliberate attempt to "hijack the thread" here.

Please read the following unfinished sentence:

"I am certain I will not die of ..."

Now, please finish this sentence.

Thanks!

Angus Jung wrote:"I am certain I will not die of ..."

My asshole! From being kicked in it! Or Balls! All of you!

Angus Jung wrote:"I am certain I will not die of ..."

aerobics!

Angus Jung wrote:

"I am certain I will not die of ..."

Shark attack. A boyhood obsession with sharks led to a phobia which I'm not especially proud to harbour still. It compels me to avoid places where they've ever been sighted, particularly the coastal waters of Australia and South Africa and the mouths of rivers everywhere. I will never be attacked by a shark.

Angus Jung wrote: Please read the following unfinished sentence:

"I am certain I will not die of ..."

Now, please finish this sentence.

Thanks!

I PROMISE YOU I WILL NEVER DIE.

Angus Jung wrote: Please read the following unfinished sentence:

"I am certain I will not die of ..."

Now, please finish this sentence.

Thanks!

I am certain will not die of second-hand smoke. I am fairly confident that the first-hand smoke will prevail.