Probably best to take a breather now.
England and Wales smokers, beware!
- Thread starter UTmaniac
- Start date
Probably best to take a breather now.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
To be fair, I wouldn't trust a TV show to give a definitive conclusion on health effects that need to be scientifically controlled.
I'd like to see the methodology of how you came to such results.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
To be fair I wouldn't trust an anti smoking campaign either.
A lot of the science surrounding second hand smoke is a complete joke.
I listened to a lecture few months back and the guy was talking about how the anti smoking groups are nuts and killing the pub industry and the rest.
If you actually look in to it, the evidence supporting second hand smoke is very weak.
You ever been in a car with someone smoking? It's like not even 0.5% of what you would get from even one proper hit on a smoke. Even if someone blows smoke in your face it's still doesn't get inhaled. It's just hysteria and gov public health over reach.
A lot of the science surrounding second hand smoke is a complete joke.
I listened to a lecture few months back and the guy was talking about how the anti smoking groups are nuts and killing the pub industry and the rest.
If you actually look in to it, the evidence supporting second hand smoke is very weak.
You ever been in a car with someone smoking? It's like not even 0.5% of what you would get from even one proper hit on a smoke. Even if someone blows smoke in your face it's still doesn't get inhaled. It's just hysteria and gov public health over reach.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I see you missed my post here: http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=28629518&postcount=34
The systematic review of over 200 studies is not 'very weak' evidence - to the contrary it is actually a very good evidence base.
But of course you'll ignore that.
The Pub industry was in decline long before anti smoking campaigning came along; it's been declining since the 1900s. Yes there is a correlation between the smoking ban and recent decline, but there are plenty of other factors too.
Taxation, regulation, the breaking up of the old system by the monopolies commission, and first and foremost, a decline in consumption of beer sales.
Taxation, regulation, the breaking up of the old system by the monopolies commission, and first and foremost, a decline in consumption of beer sales.
If we ignore the utter absurdity of this claim for a second, do you realise that smoke has other side effects that are not inhalation based? Ever heard of glue ear?
Last edited:
My post was aimed at the people in this thread who are clearly against smoking anywhere, full stop. We all, including children breathe in harmful pollutants day in day out, i don't see the anti smokers in here getting upset over that to the same extent as they do over second hand smoke.
For instance, how many people in here have often sat for a long time in traffic or in heavy traffic, or walked along a busy road full of traffic, or cycled along with all the traffic, do you all think your breathing in unpolluted air?
I agree, smoking around children isn't the best move, but lets have some reality.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
The anti smoking campaign has been big with a lot of government funding going towards finding negative effects of second hand smoke. There is massive incentive for these so called studies to come back with results negative towards second hand smoke. The many studies that show the oppisite are ignored by the public health fanatics and the busy body nanny's state people. You know the types who make it their business to decide what is best for everyone else.
Even if second hand smoke was a risk and it is not. It is their property, their car and it's their children, not the states. So they can shut up realy. Go put their over sensitive noses in to their own business for a change.
Even if second hand smoke was a risk and it is not. It is their property, their car and it's their children, not the states. So they can shut up realy. Go put their over sensitive noses in to their own business for a change.
Soldato
- Joined
- 11 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 12,660
Given the different sources of energy available - No, they're not necessary... They're just not as taxable, profitable or already in-place as viable earners.
In other words, you let yourself be harmed because someone else is making money off it.
And where is all that electric gonna come from? What powers the industry that makes the equipment for all these green solutions?
I agree - Ban all alcohol!
Fair enough, in the big scheme of things it is a necessary evil, it winds me up when you get the usual anti smokers airing some of their stupid views.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I don't think you understand what a systematic review is. It looks at the total body of evidence and accounting for potential publication bias. The scientific evidence shows there is a significant effect.
You can argue the libertarian stance that it's not the state to interfere; that's a philosophical discussion but the evidence does show it's harmful - that is not in doubt.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I agree - Ban all alcohol!
You joke but sometimes I wonder if the world would be a better place.
Given the different sources of energy available - No, they're not necessary... They're just not as taxable, profitable or already in-place as viable earners.
In other words, you let yourself be harmed because someone else is making money off it.
And where is all that electric gonna come from? What powers the industry that makes the equipment for all these green solutions?
I agree - Ban all alcohol!
Indeed, your response is better than what i posted
Deleted member 651465
Deleted member 651465
lolgroen
Soldato
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 11,698
- Location
- Surrey
There is NO DOUBT in the scientific community that second hand smoking can cause negative health effects.
In a closed environment this is much much more prevalent but outside or in a very airy environment the damage caused is much less if not non existent. The dangers to smoking obviously scale with the amount of smoke taken in. It takes very little smoke to smell the scent of a cigarette and much more to start negatively affecting your lungs. I cant see a reasonable argument to ban smoking in all public places though there is obviously good reason to ban it in concentrated areas, confined spaces or in entrances and exits to public buildings.
I heavily agree that many of the facts being thrown around in anti smoking campaigns are massive exaggerations because there is little to no effort in discerning differences in the effective danger between second hand smoking in small confined spaces and in a normal environment of which people smoke in now (smoking areas of pubs and such). This undermines the truth of the matter which causes people to have split opinions.
To the view of the smoker it discredits the second hand smoking research by slapping an aggressive slogan or summary to a study without providing context to the research example: 'Studies show second hand smokers can be xxx% more likely to get cancer'. This aggressive campaigning strategy has been seen for years and assigns a quantitative value of risk which is shocking and scary to a generalised term like second hand smoker. This includes those people who wait at a bus stop with the odd smoker waiting with them every other day to people who live with smokers who smoke in doors. These people have a huge difference in risk but the statement still stands because they used the words 'up to xxx% more'. If the study mentioned under what context it was taken, then a more accurate judgement could be made by the individual receiving the campaigns words but unfortunately moderate views and accurately described context does not make for a catchy and shocking 'fact', not enough to serve the purpose of the campaign (which usually jsut to get the popular vote, nothing.
To the anti smoker these campaigns are designed to fear monger rather than inform. If they did inform correctly then there wouldn't be such extreme views backed up by what is seemingly reasonable intentions like 'ban smoking in public, why should i have to die early so others can as well?'. There is little evidence of the effects of second hand smoke in an outside environment, yet the statement in the paragraph above does not discern the context of the study so many people would be purposely misinformed and believed they are in and have been under greater risk than they are from second hand smoke.
I am a smoker and agree with many anti smoking policies but am heavily against the misinformation and lack of context (when studies are cited) which drives the campaigns.
To be fair though the misinformation with these campaigns is nothing compare to the green energy campaigns from almost every side. People shouting for wind energy to fuel places the size of Britain with no idea on the actual cost to the environment in producing the hardware for it for example. Nuclear power has been facing bad press since its first implementation with threats of the cold war, and irrelevant power plant disasters stunting its adoption. Blame of Nuclear power disasters has been shifted onto the process rather than the method of implementation, which is like blaming an ideology rather than the person committing an atrocity in its name.
In a closed environment this is much much more prevalent but outside or in a very airy environment the damage caused is much less if not non existent. The dangers to smoking obviously scale with the amount of smoke taken in. It takes very little smoke to smell the scent of a cigarette and much more to start negatively affecting your lungs. I cant see a reasonable argument to ban smoking in all public places though there is obviously good reason to ban it in concentrated areas, confined spaces or in entrances and exits to public buildings.
I heavily agree that many of the facts being thrown around in anti smoking campaigns are massive exaggerations because there is little to no effort in discerning differences in the effective danger between second hand smoking in small confined spaces and in a normal environment of which people smoke in now (smoking areas of pubs and such). This undermines the truth of the matter which causes people to have split opinions.
To the view of the smoker it discredits the second hand smoking research by slapping an aggressive slogan or summary to a study without providing context to the research example: 'Studies show second hand smokers can be xxx% more likely to get cancer'. This aggressive campaigning strategy has been seen for years and assigns a quantitative value of risk which is shocking and scary to a generalised term like second hand smoker. This includes those people who wait at a bus stop with the odd smoker waiting with them every other day to people who live with smokers who smoke in doors. These people have a huge difference in risk but the statement still stands because they used the words 'up to xxx% more'. If the study mentioned under what context it was taken, then a more accurate judgement could be made by the individual receiving the campaigns words but unfortunately moderate views and accurately described context does not make for a catchy and shocking 'fact', not enough to serve the purpose of the campaign (which usually jsut to get the popular vote, nothing.
To the anti smoker these campaigns are designed to fear monger rather than inform. If they did inform correctly then there wouldn't be such extreme views backed up by what is seemingly reasonable intentions like 'ban smoking in public, why should i have to die early so others can as well?'. There is little evidence of the effects of second hand smoke in an outside environment, yet the statement in the paragraph above does not discern the context of the study so many people would be purposely misinformed and believed they are in and have been under greater risk than they are from second hand smoke.
I am a smoker and agree with many anti smoking policies but am heavily against the misinformation and lack of context (when studies are cited) which drives the campaigns.
To be fair though the misinformation with these campaigns is nothing compare to the green energy campaigns from almost every side. People shouting for wind energy to fuel places the size of Britain with no idea on the actual cost to the environment in producing the hardware for it for example. Nuclear power has been facing bad press since its first implementation with threats of the cold war, and irrelevant power plant disasters stunting its adoption. Blame of Nuclear power disasters has been shifted onto the process rather than the method of implementation, which is like blaming an ideology rather than the person committing an atrocity in its name.
Last edited:
That will never happen as the government would lose too much revenue.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
There is tremendous doubt no matter how many bias studies they stack up on top of each other. They set out to find negative effect from the start. I guess it helps when you have a blind faith in the current scientific community.
I agree the libertarian argument is separate and valid. It's a shame the state sides with the invasive nanny state and the public health fanatics over private property and indivudal liberty.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
I don't have blind faith at all. For most studies to be published in reputable journals they need to declare their funding and governance to be transparent in relation to conflicts of interest. This is all published and has been taken into account.
So I'll reiterate, the evidence is comprehensive and sound whether you like to believe it or not.