Forums
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/king-cigarette-ban-create-smoke-123656142.html
Sad to see this happening in the UK, the home of Dunhill and Samuel Gawith. This is truly the most pressing issue of our time when youth smoking is at an all time low! It boggles my mind why the tobacco industry gets attacked so fiercely in this day and age.
Not surprisingly unfortunately. Banning will only create more of an interest in smoking among younger people and create a new criminal class. This type of “moral legislation” seems common worldwide. In the US, there is a major push to ban menthol cigarettes that will only create new problems, while real problems go unaddressed. I’m reminded of a quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.
C.S. Lewis
Wise words from CS. Thanks for posting them.
One would think that the ineffectiveness of Prohibition would be a lesson to all who want to legislate morality. But then I suppose they think they'll be able to do it better.
Hear! Hear! ...I've read that first sentence of this C.S. Lewis quote in several places before, but this is the first time I've seen the whole paragraph. It clearly and succinctly puts the situation in perspective. Thank you for that.
I'm am sure all the non tobacco folks will go "good I don't smoke so it doesn't affect me".
My question to them is what's next?
Alchohol...Here in the Netherlands, that's where it's headed. So what will they tax more to make up the difference?
Yes, people like that seem to love government overreach until it affects something that matters to them.
Maybe they should tax the exercise nuts. Hey,I take a long brisk walk every morning but some of these folks are crazy. Running in the rain, blistering heat, blocking traffic. Anyway just my 2 cents.
I used to be one of those crazy exercise nuts... 30 years ago. ...now it's lunting ...I DO run my mouth a lot ...does that count as exercise? (ha, ha)
The draconian laws in New Zealand were designed to prohibit youngsters taking up the habit and to alleviate the pressure on health care systems from lung cancer patients etc. Cigar and pipe smokers are collateral damage. On health forms the question is do you smoke is not ever about cigar and pipe smokers but JUST cigarette smokers. Vaping is a growth industry and many school yards have clouds of chemicals above the students. I can buy kava over the counter which is a drink which is similar to alcohol in sedative feel good. It is very cheap but mixed with water looks like dirty bath water. Singapore has stringent laws I believe and in Nepal I think it is totally banned but they have lots of poppy products as substitutes but I am unsure of this.
The newly elected government of New Zealand have said they will repeal the law on the grounds that it will drive smokers in to the grip of the black marketers & line organised crime gangs pockets with cash that should be taxable, this loss of revenue would have to be passed on to the rest of the population meaning a massive tax rise. Very much like what happened during prohibition in the USA.
No surprise to me. The Revolution attacks good things; smoking is a good pastime for men, so it is attacked.
The sad thing is that legislation such as this is often knee-jerk and never thought out. It is based upon a group of people doing something supperficial to feel good. It gets backing from those that dont take the time to think for themselves or ask questions.
To my knowledge there has never been a true or accurate study of the health affects of premium tobacco use (pipes and cigars). Such data would be truly difficult to come by now. Legislation that bans tobacco in all iterations is largely based upon studies of cigarette smokers and chewers. I imagine that we will see vaping data before too long. It fails to address key differences in premium tobacco use such as not inhaling and the lack of added chemicals.
Should such a distinguising study ever be conducted, I would expect it to show some surprising results. There are a few studies that touch on this but the methods and data pools are questionable. They do, however tend towards showing that the harm may be from added chemical more than the tobacco itself. If anyone knows of a good body of research I would love to check it out. Until then, I guess we just keep on hoping that freedom wins out.
There has been ONE study and showed the health risks are considerably lower.
https://www.cigaraficionado.com/article/fda-funded-scientific-study-on-premium-cigars-released
Interesting. I wonder what the numbers would have looked like in the 1950s when about half of adult men smoked a pipe.
I’m collecting and storing tobacco partly in preparation for a ban. I don’t yet have enough to last an average lifespan, but I’m working on it!
Yes. This.
Not only will this legislation - or threat of it - be an immediate windfall to tobacco companies as citizens buy out what’s left, it will be of great profit to “exporters” in countries across the border.
Oop. I’ve said too much. 🤫
Same here. It's already too expensive to buy tobacco where I live (Netherlands) so I have to go to Germany to get it.
King Charles the III reached the throne after retirement age, and perhaps he should look for professional aid to evaluate his capacity to reign keeping his nose away from the intimate life of people.
Laws should only exist to prevent me from harming others. They shouldn't exist to protect me from myself. I detest punitive treatment by people who believe they know better than I do about what is and isn't good for me. Provide education and allow me to make my own choices. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Unalienable rights provided to us by our Creator and the U.S. Constitution. It's that simple.
Is no one here conflicted about smoking pipe tobacco? It *does* hurt others - those you live with, and the dog -- as much as any second-hand smoke does. Try Googling tobacco AND polonium, and see.
I only smoke outdoors and usually alone. Unless another fellow smoker joins me. I drink beer too. So far, my lungs and kidneys have been holding up very well. Thank you for your concern.
Do you drive a car? Are you aware of the harm you're causing to our environment. Even the electric cars! Just the waste and toxic effect of billions of 1800 pound lithium-ion batteries. Once the batteries stop functioning, what would we do with all that toxic waste? Billions of 1800 pound lithium-ion batteries! Think about it. God forbid, if you happen to become involved in a horrific traffic accident, do you realize that you could hurt others that ride with you, even kill them, including the dog? It would be so much safer if a person would just walk or ride a bicycle to their destinations.
Do you use high voltage electricity in your home? do you realize how dangerous high voltage electricity is? How many house fires have occurred because of negligent use of high voltage? Not to mention the dangers along with the tremendous amount of pollution generated from the power plants themselves. Chernobyl ring any bells? Nuclear melt down? Is it fair that we all should have to suffer nuclear contamination just because people want to have high voltage electricity in their house? Think about all the pollution caused from burning all the coal that the majority of power plants use for fuel. This entire world could be so much better and safer without power plants and high voltage electricity.
@ChollyWheels ...conflicted? No. ...not in the least. Are you at all conflicted? If so, please deal with it as you see fit and leave others to do the same. No offense intended, but, you brought up the subject, so I will get up on my soap box and speak freely.
Frankly, I am convinced the anti-tobacco fear-mongering and tobacco-shaming about second-hand smoke - especially polonium - is mostly junk science. Also, it is focused on cigarettes, not pipe tobaccos, which differ in composition and manner of ingestion. On the other hand, there is no excuse for smokers being rude or inconsiderate of others by exposing them to second-hand smoke when they object to it. But, second-hand smoke is not the "assault" the haters make it out to be. The real "assault" is the blanket accusation against all smokers of harming and being inconsiderate of others. Find me one example of a jerk smoker, and I will find you ten examples of respectful, conscientious smokers; even more so among pipe smokers in particular.
Here's my short rebuttal to "second-hand smoke" polonium fear-mongering.
Concentration compared to food: The way radioactive polonium (Po-210) gets into tobacco leaf is exactly the same way it gets into all crops - root uptake from the soil. Generally, it is not present in high enough concentration in any crop to be a serious problem. Technically, it is present in all grains and leafy vegetables, and dairy and meat products - but in statistically insignificant concentrations UNLESS radioactive phosphate fertilizers are applied. One study from the Florida Institute of Phosphate Research suggests the average American diet exposes internal organs to polonium radiation levels "equivalent to tobacco use".
Decay: Po-210 has a radioactive half-life of 138 days. This means that from the time Po-210 atoms are taken up from the ground into a tobacco leaf to the time that leaf is smoked in a pipe, those Polonium atoms have a 50% chance every 138 days to decay into Lead (Pb). Practically speaking, this means a blend that takes 2 1/2 years from plantation to pipe will have 99.2% of it's initial Po-210 atoms decayed into Pb, with only 0.8% remaining. Also, curing and processing will vaporize and release some portion of the initial Polonium given it's very high vapor pressure and extremely low volitilization temperature. (Some studies place it as low as the boiling point of water)
Delivery: So, the pipe is lit! Any Lead and Polonium is bonded strongly with solid surfaces at this point. So, virtually all the Lead will remain in the ash. The Po-210 can be released in the form of vapor or attached to particulate matter in smoke. However, the majority of Po-210 is likely to also remain in the solid ash residues after combustion. The cooler the burn, the less will be released.
In plain point of fact, there is greater risk of cancer in eating the phosphates we INTENTIONALLY ADD to ALL processed foods - (which are known to be harmful, including being carcinogenic) - than in all the Polonium I will exhale or ingest in my whole life of pipe smoking. Should I feel conflicted for feeding processed foods to my family (and pets)? I consider it ridiculous on the face of it. So, should governments remove preservatives from food or legislate dietary requirements because some choose poor diets for their family? I think not!
Another example: Sugar is abused much more than tobacco is. There are more preventable Type-2 Diabetes deaths every year than total "second-hand smoke" cancer deaths from all of time - which isn't really even a track-able thing - because it's just a virtue-signaling accusation, not a real objective statistic.
RANT OVER. I AM PUTTING MY SOAP BOX AWAY NOW. CHEERS!
Thanks for a thoughtful reply! For one thing, it makes me less guilty about poisoning the dog (and the occasional human). That part about polonium and lead isotopes bonding to the ash is a cheerful thought (note to self: never snort tobacco ash).
But I don't get the "junk science" accusation. The Polonium thing seems like the only reason second-hand smoke could be so deadly - no chemistry explains it. And the research on tobacco smoke and polonium goes back to the 1960s -- how much more established could it be? It's there, it's sticky, and there is no safe amount.
And sure, food is contaminated too, especially when grown with phosphate fertilizers, and some foods more than others (bananas, brazil nuts). But in general it passes through the body: gone! Smoke in comparison is sticky, and supposedly the trachea (that part where the tubes diverge, one to each lung) is a radioactive hot-spot, at least in cigarette smokers.
Consider also that it takes about 7 years for smokers (again, cigs) for their lung cancer risk to return to something close to baseline -- as if they never smoked. That is the time within which the cells of the lung have been totally replaced by the body's natural replacement of old cells. Not a coincidence.
FWIW, the wiseheads on Reddit's r/radiation forum also think my concern about polonium in pipe smoke is misguided -- partly because the dose is so long, but also because the smoke contains many more immediately worse things. So not entirely a comfort.
But I don't get the "junk science" accusation
It's simple, really. Chemistry IS a hard science. Experiments, studies and research done to advance our knowledge of reality, which are conducted following the well-established process skills of scientific inquiry - these are true science. A key element of true science is that it's experiments must be framed in such a way as to be (A) falsifiable, and (B) consistently repeatable to the same conclusion. However, "studies" and "research" done to advance a proposed and predetermined "finding" (which ignore requirements A and B), funded by those who benefit from that outcome, - are junk science - even when published in respected peer-reviewed journals. I know it's alarming. I want to be able to trust the "experts", too. And, going against "accepted science" is a one-way ticket to being "canceled" and labeled an "anti-science" kook.
No sane person wants to believe that those with political power and the ability to fund whatever "accepted science" advances their agenda would actually do so. Science can still be trusted. Powerful interests with agendas can't.
Hopefully, I was able to provide some perspective based on real science to the "second-hand smoke polonium" scare. It really is just a scare - even if it began in the 1960's. I was an elementary-school student then, and well remember the "Nurse" visiting our classroom with a cigarette-smoking gizmo with a cotton-filled glass jar for "lungs" and a pump. She demonstrated the cotton being blackened before our eyes by EVIL cigarettes. It terrified me. That was the point... same as polonium... radioactive... scary! Poison! Run!!!
Having said that, I really, really want to drop this rag. I was careful to say, "I am convinced...". It's my scientifically informed opinion. There is no benefit to arguing the finer points. Junk science is BY DESIGN unfalsifiable. I won't even try. The argument of actual science against "accepted science" always goes something like this:
AGENDA: How can we prove cigarettes are evil? Is there polonium in tobacco leaves?
SCIENCE: Yeah, usually undetectable traces, and it rapidly decays into...
AGENDA: Any? Ever?
SCIENCE: well, yeah, some, sometimes. We can look closer to get more accurate data...
AGENDA: Any is good enough. Can it get in the air when you smoke it?
SCIENCE: It's not that simple. It can vary widely. Here are the pertinent factors to quantify and analyze...
AGENDA: That's not what I asked. Any? Ever?
SCIENCE: Well, technically, yes, in some scenarios, but it usually shouldn't matter because...
AGENDA: GUILTY!!! Cigarettes are evil!!! Cigars and Pipe Tobacco, too, in the bargain!
SCIENCE: Don't you want to consider actual data to inform people what they can do to minimize their risk? All that's necessary is to...
AGENDA: MURDERER!!!
SCIENCE: um... am I still on the payroll? ...cuz we could do a study to determine the actual risk of...
AGENDA: GET OUT!!!
SCIENCE: ...I was just leaving
There is no winning. Either you get it, or you don't. More power to you, either way.
Also, @ChollyWheels, I want to commend you for having the courage to take the contrarian view in a forum that is, by definition, a pro-tobacco echo chamber. Respectful discussion is refreshing and educational.
(...comedy argument part 2)
AGENDA: What? Science? Are you still here?!?
SCIENCE: I just came back to get my plant, my pipe and my autographed picture of me and Einstein smoking pipes together in his office. Oh, and my research notes.
AGENDA: Leave them. Remember, I paid for them. They're mine. Besides, the new guy says they're loaded with stuff he can use in our next media campaign. Oh, and don't forget to leave your badge on the way out. He's your twin brother, so we're hoping people don't notice you're gone.
SCIENCE: Not twin! Half brother. Same dad. Different moms. Mine's Athena. His is some temple prostitute of Aphrodite. Very embarrassing.
JUNK SCIENCE: Hey, Bro! Sorry 'bout your job. Tough break! But, hey! Keepin' it in the family! Mom says, "Hi!" Yeah, it's a 2-for-1! She's my Media Relations Director. Science ain't so hard with good PR.
@Joseph, you are not only patient but entertainingly witty! I got stuck when Cholly said (there can be so much said in such a short paragraph):
“The Polonium thing seems like the only reason second-hand smoke could be so deadly - no chemistry explains it.“
- Make random assertion and present it as a fact. “Second hand smoke is deadly”. Said unnecessary dramatically to engender an emotional response. It’s sooo serious!
- Determine that there is only one thing that could explain the random assertion. “It must be the aliens from alpha beta 446!” Oh, sorry I meant “polonium”.
- Debate the merit of that one thing being the cause of the random assertion from the standpoint of “prove me wrong”.
- Close the statement with “no chemistry explains it”. In other words, I don’t need science to justify my belief, it can’t prove my belief wrong. I just wanted to tell you this in a slight handed way before you waste your time challenging my belief with actual science.
What would Socrates say? Even for the potential entertainment of engaging in a discussion with that as the context, I couldn’t find it in myself to engage. I applaud your fortitude.
You're welcome to ignore me. Sure, I'm an idiot!
But are you familiar with https://scholar.google.com? It's a good and free way to find research papers. For example, try this:
polonium "second hand smoke"
Typed exactly as shown.
You'll see there's literally decades of research on the subject... even analysis comparing the polonium content of various types of tobacco, and translating exposure into the cumulative X-ray equivalent. True, it's almost exclusively focused on cigarette smoke, but the second-hand smoke stuff applies to us, too. And to the dog, and everyone else enjoying the "room note."
We all takes our chances, whatever our choices. I probably stashed more than enough McClelland Yenidje Supreme for my life expectancy -- and will continue to smoke it. Steamworks, too. Gawith & Hoggarth American Black Cherry, Anniversary Kake... I could go on.
But to me, the fact I smoke is not be a reason to ignore the results of that Google search.
If science and scholarship were hooey and "all contradictory" your cell phone wouldn't work. There are scientific subjects (and smoking is one of them) in which there is very little doubt on many points.
I don’t think you’re an idiot at all and I never said that. I won’t ignore you since you addressed me directly here, that would be rude. I simply pointed out the structure and context for your assertion, the foundation of how you are approaching the subject. I don’t feel that the subject could be rationally discussed under the context you presented. You have only made the same points in slightly different ways, context and framework for discussion remains the same.
I do feel sympathy for anyone who would be wracked with concern because of a habit or behavior they engage in. In this case, it may have been adopted from a segment of society attempting to shame others for their behaviors, that has certainly been happening for some time, I don’t know. But I do know who the only person is who can free themselves from such concerns.
@ChollyWheels, So far, you're 3 for 3 on ignoring everyone's input here. Now, you've directly challenged and accused the most polite and helpful member of this forum. You haven't moved an inch, but, continue to aggressively insist your ignorance is correct because the AGENDAs that control the big megaphones say so.
@Ted did NOT call you an idiot, but, I'm getting very close to...
If there can be progress in your learning, ask away! If you've come here to $H!T Google on us, you didn't hear a thing I've said. That doesn't offend me. It was my own misunderstanding that you actually were asking questions you wanted the answers to.
My mistake. I didn't actually waste my time, because others (who do want to learn) will likely benefit.
But, your mistake was to "SEA LION" this thread - Three strikes and you're out. You've outed yourself as a troll.
We know where you stand. Thank you. Now move on, please. There are plenty of other threads on this forum where I can learn from your experience. This isn't one of them. Post an interesting personal intro thread, or reply to one of the interesting polls, or the Desert Island Blend thread. Are you worth knowing? Be a cohort, not a sea lion.
From not on, any "sea lion" behavior from you on this thread will simply be replied SEA LION by me and ignored. ...and I recommend others do the same until you either change or move on.
“We know where you stand. Thank you. Now move on, please. There are plenty of other threads on this forum where I can learn from your experience. This isn't one of them. Post an interesting personal intro thread, or reply to one of the interesting polls, or the Desert Island Blend thread. Are you worth knowing? Be a cohort, not a sea lion.“
Hear! Hear!
I like the SEA LION thing btw. 🙂
I am more worried about the chemicals thrown into the air by people vaping in enclosed spaces, and even more so by the 100'000 tonnes of microplastics thrown into the air each year by automotive tyres and brake pads, and not mention the soot from diesel. That stuff cannot be good for the lungs and body in general.
I would like to see a complete blood analytic of politicians involved on anti-tobacco laws. I´m sure it will reveal interesting things.
Here in Brazil, a truck full of weed got caught by police recently, when they investigate everything they realize the truck belong to a politic that fight against legalization.
I believe it´s like that concerning all kind of prohibition, there is "someone" earning more with the things running in the black market.
I read that some US states with very strict tobacco regulations have legalized marihuana. Increíble.
Bingo. For every study that shows one thing, there is another to contradict it. In the end, those of us fortunate enough to have been granted the capacity to do so, need to cultivate and cherish independent thought. I am going to go cultivate and cherish right now over some Dark Twist. Here's to freedom of thought, speech and (sort of) piping. Cheers.
Are you seriously doubting that tobacco smoke injures health? What's the theory -- that this war against our favorite drug is totally premature, irrational or driven by some secret agenda other than public health, or all three?
I first smoked a pipe when I was 16 (Middleton's Cherry! Ehrlich's Pemberton!), but only started smoking regularly in my very late 60s, and lately I've been obsessed with hoarding and smoking my favorites (can't find Tudor Castle? I own all that is left!). My joke is it will kill me in 20 years, har har har.
But I worry every time my dog coughs.
Jesus, man! Stop smoking in the same room as your dog!! Simple!
Personally, I smoke outside. As I live in the countryside, there isn’t a living creature within breathing distance of my secondhand smoke, except perhaps the occasional bug. Furthermore, I would never even consider forcing others to breathe it.
Get a grip of yourself and stop being so inconsiderate, if you really believe your smoke harms your dog.
This is now happening in Europe.
Germany made Cannabis legal back in February (although apparently it's not that easy to buy and there are some restrictions).
A few years ago, Switzerland made it legal, but only Cannabis that contains less than 1% THC can be sold in shops (as of 2013, possession of regular cannabis is no long a criminal offence if under 10 grams, you just have to pay a 100 Franc fine on the spot, so essentially a tax). Granted, the number of people who smoke cannabis here is incredible. On a side note, that likely doesn't compare to the incredible amount of cocaine consumed in the Swiss ski resorts and cities. Swiss cities account for 5 of the top 10 European cities for consumption of the white powder, Zürich is in second place behind Barcelona. It's insane.
And somehow we pipe smokers are a huge problem....
I doubt and I question. I am suspicious of a great many things. I am far more worried about what has been put into tobacco than the pure leaf itself. Pipe and cigar tobacco has far fewer additions than cigarette tobacco does. Is it safe? I don't know. Am I worried? I am more worried about the ill effects of chemicals added to food, PFEAs water, BPAs in plastics. Give me a good pipe tobacco over fast food poison anyday. Tobacco was used medicinally in ancient China. Natives in South America would swallow tobacco smoke then burp it out to alleviate stomach maladies. Good luck turning a profit from a doctor that prescribes some nicotine in the place of modern medicine. I eat organically, I don't drink soda, I grind my own organic coffee beans. I drink only filtered water. And I smoke pipe tobacco. Those are my choices and I accept whatever comes from those choices. I accept others who's choices differ from my own but I do not accept those who would choose for me.
I'll put in my 2¢.
All things are a gamble in life. Too much anything can kill you. Some are more deadly. Do I like seeing a 18yo smoking cigarettes? No way. This is primarily because I know it's very quickly becomes an addiction. I have been there. I've lost someone dear to me from that horrible addiction.
Now I don't think pipes and cigars are in the same addictive realm as cigarettes.
Legislation should be separated between inhaled tobacco and non inhaled tobacco. I never saw anyone get up at 11pm and run to the store for a ounce of Half and half because they need 1 more pipe smoke. Lol. I certainly did it with cigarettes.
Health wise I'm sure pipes and cigars are not healthy. But neither is a Italian sub with extra oil and vinegar. Yum. I digress. Adults should be able to choose their vices. Be it pot, pipes, cigars, gambling, alcohol or eating unhealthy. I've done most every dangerous and unhealthy thing possible at one time or another. If I don't put others at risk it should be my choice. I try to never have anyone else pay for my choices.
Just a thought 🤔
I agree with all that. The only distinction is second hand smoke - what we do affects others, at least indoors with the windows closed.
And I am not speaking from a moral high-ground here. It's cold today -- air filters on, filters on pipe, and the window open but not much.
I also understand the frustration others here seem to have with science. Some fields (especially nutrition related!) are notoriously subject to change (in 1992 my nurse girl friend told me carbs are harmless; now apparently they are the devil). And in all fields there seems to be an epidemic of papers being retracted because the results could not be replicated. There is a temptation (to quote The Sopranos) to conclude nobody knows nuthin'.
And some of that applies to tobacco, too. Try to use https://scholar.google.com/ to learn the latest thinking on whether tobacco prevents or causes Parkinson's disease, or Alzheimer's -- the conclusions are all over the place! And add to that research focuses on cigaret smokers -- not exactly the same thing!
But is second-hand smoke bad? Almost certainly.
Meanwhile I'm trying to figure why John Aylesbury - Sir John's Flake Virginia is so highly rated. It seems in the same category as (say) Peretti's Ampersand and Barclay Rex's Barclay Slice -- just different toppings. It improves to my taste the more it's aired out. There are worse ways to assassinate oneself.
@Zigmeister67, your 2 cents is more like 2 million dollars! Hard-earned, simple, honest wisdom from experience! Truly golden. It should've been left to stand alone as the final word in this debate about over-reaching, heavy-handed anti-tobacco legislation. Sorry it got "second-hand smoked" by a SEA LION.
It's no longer just progressive busybodies combatting "vice" or mere petty tyrants behind this. Our increasingly socialized societies, wherein the tax base funds health care for more and more people, is now used as fiscal justification for eliminating things that might otherwise be negligible in their effect on the entire population. They can (and will) eliminate anything they want if they can spin it as some kind of threat to public health... but if you pay close attention you'll notice them being bizarrely selective about what constitutes a threat and what does not.
I love pipe smoking, but I try to be realistic.
So what's your interpretation of this -- fake news? I think the legislatures trying to kill smoking are driven by what they think are the facts. Possibly they are not mad.
https://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c2161
Results After adjustment for secular and seasonal trends and variation in population size, there was a small but significant reduction in the number of emergency admissions for myocardial infarction after the implementation of smoke-free legislation (−2.4%, 95% confidence interval −4.06% to −0.66%, P=0.007). This equates to 1200 fewer emergency admissions for myocardial infarction (1600 including readmissions) in the first year after legislation. The reduction in admissions was significant in men (3.1%, P=0.001) and women (3.8%, P=0.007) aged 60 and over, and men (3.5%, P<0.01) but not women (2.5% P=0.38) aged under 60.
Conclusion This study adds to a growing body of evidence that smoke-free legislation leads to reductions in myocardial infarctions. It builds on previous work by showing that such declines are observed even when underlying reductions in admissions and potential confounders are controlled for. The considerably smaller decline in admissions observed in England compared with many other jurisdictions probably reflects aspects of the study design and the relatively low levels of exposure to secondhand smoke in England before the legislation.
but I try to be realistic.
No... You're not being realistic, you're just falling for social engineering masquerading as science.
The main topic of this thread is encroachment of individual liberties in the name of "the greater good".
You keep sea lioning every new post, arguing for increasing totalitarian control, whether you know that's what you're doing or not. Karl Marx would be proud.
So what's your interpretation of this -- fake news?
No. It's JUNK SCIENCE! Definitely related, but not the same thing. Gotta have junk science to "back" the AGENDA. Gotta have a big megaphone to spread the AGENDA. Call it whatever you want, but, the talking heads just say what they put on the teleprompter. Their role is not to inform, but to influence. But, that's a whole other topic. Back to this so-called "study"...
Yes, this "retrospective analysis of short term impact of SMOKE-FREE LEGISLATION" is a particularly juicy example of "JUNK SCIENCE" exhibiting all the earmarks I described above. You set me up with a softball pitch. I will hit it out of the park for you.
I will be blunt. This is a prime example of insecure bureaucrats shielding their agenda behind Group-Think disguised as scientific critical thinking.
Point 1: FATALLY FLAWED STUDY DESIGN - CORRELATION does not prove CAUSATION. The thesis of this "study" was to merely show a potential correlation between A and B, without every proving the degree and agency of CAUSATION of B by A through repeatable and documented RESEARCH of actual cases. There's a name for this: propaganda. Any real self-respecting scientific institution would turn down the proposal of conducting a study to show a mere correlation between A and B, especially when asked to present that correlation as causation in their findings with the color of scientific authority. So, it is safe to assume that no real scientists were harmed in the making of this propaganda - only science itself.
Granted, real math was used. But, as Samuel Clemens (aka Mark Twain) has famously said, "Figures can't lie, but LIARS can figure."
Point 2: AGENDA-sponsored - It was proposed and funded by the Anti-Tobacco lobby specifically to promote a political agenda. They don't even hide it... It's in the title, for Pete's sake! Scratch the surface, and you immediately find that this is funded by whoever funds The UK Centre for Tobacco Control Studies and The Department of Social and Political Sciences, University of Bath. ...hmm
Point 3: AGENDA-conducted - The list of authors includes NO SCIENTIFIC BONIFIDES. This is a "mop-up" and "prop-up" puff piece by anti-tobacco political activists - some, wearing white lab coats. Others, not even pretending to be scientists. For example, Anne Gilmore's credentials are listed as a "clinical reader and senior lecturer". Roy Maxwell was a "senior analyst" at South West Public Health Observatory, which exists only to influence public health policy. These two appear to have done all the heavy lifting here - none of it scientific.
Point 4: PREDETERMINED OUTCOME - The goal was to (and I quote) "...add[s] to a growing body of evidence that smoke-free legislation leads to reductions in myocardial infarctions."
[Side-note: the word "evidence" is being gang raped in this sentence. It's cringe-worthy.]
Starting from this conclusion, it was a simple (but tedious) matter of Anne and Roy sifting through the available historical data, filtering and re-filtering the input, and crunching it through various statistical models until - voilà!!!, (and I quote with emphasis added), "After adjustment for secular and seasonal trends and variation in population size, there was a small but significant reduction in the number of emergency admissions"
Point 5: SCIENTIFIC RIGOR SQUELCHED - There was no NEW longitudinal study done here. This was a "meta-study", twice removed from actual RESEARCH, which presented "new findings" over selectively re-massaged old data as if it were new research. It's not. And, it's "findings" were accepted as valid by virtue of being referenced in the media and parliament.
That's "Having your cake".
Then, when real scientists, and the general public, provided valid criticism of obvious process errors and invalid assumptions, THEY WERE SHOUTED DOWN, demonized and ostracized as outliers.
In this particular case, they downright censored the normal PEER REVIEW process with the excuse that - (this is so classic of petty tyrants, rules for thee but not for me) - no peer review was allowed because it was only a "meta-study", not new research. If you can understand bureaucratic mumbo-jumbo, read it for yourself in the PEER REVIEW tab of the Article. The last paragraph is a veiled threat to those censored peers that they better not publish their criticisms elsewhere, because big brother is watching you!
That's "..and eating it, too."
coup de grâce
If you read this far, congratulations! The final blow to this "study" is the undisputed (but censored) scientific fact that the actual (un-adjusted) data showed an overall decline in hospital admissions for
myocardial infarction - beginning PRIOR TO the legislation taking effect - with the trend line merely continuing the downward trend afterward. So, even a statistical correlation had to be manufactured, let alone an un-provable causation. And, there is no data whatsoever to correlate SECOND-HAND SMOKE to any of this in the first place.
> You keep... arguing for increasing totalitarian control
Nope. I'm not defending England's or anyone's laws.
I'm just alarmed by the commonly accepted view that second-hand smoke is deadly. Period. And not alarmed enough to stop buying Pebblecut on Tinbids. Maybe that makes me a hypocrite or something worse - I won't argue about that. And maybe that makes me a sucker for junk science.
> It's JUNK SCIENCE!
You could be right. But what would you say is behind that?
Is it just laziness, or ineptitude or a cover story for some corrupt way politicians benefit? Because on the surface it's sincere scientists of every country coming to an anti-tobacco conclusion despite the economic power of big tobacco.
If there's a line of scholarship anywhere in the world that says second-hand tobacco smoke is harmless I'd love to see it.
Hypothetically, there are individuals sent to create profiles on boards for the sole purpose of directing opinions on hot topics in a direction desired by the State. One clue may be that these vociferous individuals won't post much else relative to the time that they've been a member of a forum...a mere handful or two of posts made in a handful of years, for example.
Hypothetically.
target="_blank"
