Should smoking be legal?

[blazedaces]

Posted by mistake indeed, blazed... I just hadn't finished replying yet.

Oh don't worry, I'll post another reply soon... do forgive me.

-blazed

 

[blazedaces]

Cf=) and Blazed:

... umm, you know that study you posted was funded by the tobacco companies. They publish bogus "studies" constantly that say things about how smoking and second-hand smoke is perfectly safe. It's a load of crap. Try providing something that ISN'T funded by tobacco companies. Ever hear of "conflict of interest"?

But it doesn't matter because even if you manage to find one, I can list 10 showing the damaging effects of smoking and second-hand smoke for everyone one you find. The studies are not in your favor.

Well, again, sorry about the last post. My bad.

Now, in response, please take the time to fully read this (from the same source I posted earlier):

Funding: The American Cancer Society initiated CPS I in 1959, conducted follow up until 1972, and has maintained the original database. Extended follow up until 1997 was conducted at the University of California at Los Angeles with initial support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program, a University of California research organisation funded by the Proposition 99 cigarette surtax (www.ucop.edu/srphome/trdrp). After continuing support from the Tobacco-Related Disease Research Program was denied, follow up through 1999 and data analysis were conducted at University of California at Los Angeles with support from the Center for Indoor Air Research, a 1988-99 research organisation that received funding primarily from US tobacco companies.24

Competing interests: In recent years JEE has received funds originating from the tobacco industry for his tobacco related epidemiological research because it has been impossible for him to obtain equivalent funds from other sources. GCK never received funds originating from the tobacco industry until last year, when he conducted an epidemiological review for a law firm which has several tobacco companies as clients. He has served as a consultant to the University of California at Los Angeles for this paper. JEE and GCK have no other competing interests. They are both lifelong non-smokers whose primary interest is an accurate determination of the health effects of tobacco.

This study was completely finished with funding not affiliated with any tobacco industry relations prior to 1999. This is a source that was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. It has real data and goes to great lengths to explain its findings. Peer-review means it was screened by a committee of professionals in related fields.

I still believe it be a legitimate source and unless you provide a real study with real data showing otherwise you can't assume otherwise. Please provide evidence instead of claiming that it exists. Many sources simply claim from an "authoritative" stance that second-hand smoke is detrimental to our health, but it's very hard to find actual studies showing so.

Just so you know, when I searched for this source (back in the older thread) I wasn't looking for a source that claimed this. I was looking for a source of real evidence (a study, actual data) that showed just the opposite. But I couldn't find any. I looked and this was the only thing I could find on short notice. If you look at that old post where I first showed this source in fact I'm arguing for the opposing side that I'm arguing for now.

-blazed

P.S. A claim that it's rude to smoke next to someone else is exactly like a claim that it's rude to fart next to someone else. Both are true. Are laws going to be put into effect any time ever making it illegal to fart in certain areas? No? Do you guys see how awful this argument becomes if you replace the word smoke with any other similar concept?

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Common sense, for Hitler, was to kill jews. If you don't support what you say with anything else than an opinion, you don't belong in the debate hall.

I have an idea, instead of getting your education from TV why not research? Hitler had Siphalis, which ate his brain away little by little. With all this bull**** you dig up, I'd reccomend a check up for you.

Since when is being rude a violation of someone's constitutional rights? The only reason to outlaw something is if it is so. PRIVATE places can do whatever they want, and I'm just as happy as you to see them ban smoking.

Ok, you about that? You're allowed to shoot someone if they're on your property. How does that say violation for you?

Yeah, I believe private places cannot do anything with illegal drugs, they cannot grow any drugs, they can't do any ****ing thing they want. When it's outlawed or banned, it's banned everywhere in the state or country.

I don't care if they ban smoking or not, just keep it away from people who don't want it. YOu must alot of time on your hands to object such a small thing.

Common sense is just the sum of prejudices you acquire in your lifetime. I think it is an objectionable thing.

..Or, perhaps knowledge that is widely known? Seriously, you're leading this topic nowhere.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

P.S. A claim that it's rude to smoke next to someone else is exactly like a claim that it's rude to fart next to someone else. Both are true. Are laws going to be put into effect any time ever making it illegal to fart in certain areas? No? Do you guys see how awful this argument becomes if you replace the word smoke with any other similar concept?

Ok, that's asking would you like a fly in your soup or e. coli in your soup. Both are disgusting, but one can be a hinderence on someone's health, maybe the guy's got asthma.

 

[cF=)]

I have an idea, instead of getting your education from TV why not research? Hitler had Siphalis, which ate his brain away little by little. With all this bull**** you dig up, I'd reccomend a check up for you.

Perhaps instead of digressing you should have understood my example as follow: common sense differs from a person to another. If your set of biased morals if what you call an argument, I'm rooting for you in the banning topic.

..Or, perhaps knowledge that is widely known? Seriously, you're leading this topic nowhere.

Repeating yourself doesn't change the fact that a widely known idea is not necessarily true. Religion has millions of followers, and it doesn't make it less despicable for that reason.

Ok, that's asking would you like a fly in your soup or e. coli in your soup. Both are disgusting, but one can be a hinderence on someone's health, maybe the guy's got asthma.

First, false choice. Blazed asked you to make a difference between smoking and farting in terms of ban worthy, which you never addressed. Then, explain to me why you're using the example of asthma, as if someone else's condition was related at all to the legality of a substance?! Peanut butter is still sold in supermarket even if some people are deadly allergic to it. What was the point you tried to prove with that? Are you trying to make sense at all?

 

[blazedaces]

Ok, that's asking would you like a fly in your soup or e. coli in your soup. Both are disgusting, but one can be a hinderence on someone's health, maybe the guy's got asthma.

First of all, this is a bad example considering that both a fly and e. coli can be detrimental for your health and can get you trouble from any health inspector (obviously the e. coli a bit more).

Still, you're missing the point. The entire idea of it being rude doesn't hold a valid point on whether or not it should be illegal. If you want to argue that second-hand smoke is detrimental to your health, then that's what your argument should be.

Now if that's your case then you need some evidence to support such a statement. And if you post a non-credited source I'm going to discredit it so be prepared. If someone here posts a source that has real data (like a respected study) then we'll have something to work with here. Until we do the burden of proof still rests on you guys and you have to stop just sitting there claiming things without evidence.

-blazed

 

[Biggie Smalls]

 

[cF=)]

stuff

Quick remark, I can't read and I see nothing funny with comparing substances to their common use. We drink Coca-Cola, but I could label this product as a rust remover (because it works). This wouldn't make Coca-Cola any more detrimental to health, so I don't know what to say about your provocative poster.

EDIT: I'll add something: the dangerousness of a substance does not determine if it's ban worthy of not. Alcohol should be on top of the list followed by acetaminophen if you care so much about casual substances causing deaths. We sure know though that you'll never see any of those removed from the market, so why would you hold a double standard on tobacco like we're currently doing with most illegal drugs?

 

[blazedaces]

stuff

Ok guys, actual study in peer-reviewed medical journal versus. poster that borders on propaganda... (it actually is propaganda by definition, but we'll ignore that for now).

While the picture may come from a legitimate source it hardly constitutes as evidence for your caused. I could go through that list, also showing examples of common uses we have in everyday life that we don't find dangerous with every single one of those chemicals, but what would be the point?

This is ridiculous. I am not trying to be offensive. This is a reasonable discussion. But don't post this kind of garbage and expect us to take it very seriously.

-blazed

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Ok guys, actual study in peer-reviewed medical journal versus. poster that borders on propaganda... (it actually is propaganda by definition, but we'll ignore that for now).

While the picture may come from a legitimate source it hardly constitutes as evidence for your caused. I could go through that list, also showing examples of common uses we have in everyday life that we don't find dangerous with every single one of those chemicals, but what would be the point?

Stop thinking you can change around my argument, I'm saying to limit smoking in closed in places because of second hand smoking. Who cares if you can name daily used **** that has one to or even three of those chemicals? Name ONE besides smoke that has all of that.

This is ridiculous. I am not trying to be offensive. This is a reasonable discussion. But don't post this kind of garbage and expect us to take it very seriously.

-blazed

Then don't defend pointless dribble by some random idiot.

 

[derek.haines]

Biggie, did you know that nearly every electronic device gives off radiation? I just figured you'd like to know, since you seem quite worried about things found only in the most miniscule of quantities that might POSSIBLY be detrimental to your health. Oh, and that cell phone you probably own? It's likely worse for you than a cigarette, so you'd better get rid of that too.

 

[Biggie Smalls]

Biggie, did you know that nearly every electronic device gives off radiation? I just figured you'd like to know, since you seem quite worried about things found only in the most miniscule of quantities that might POSSIBLY be detrimental to your health. Oh, and that cell phone you probably own? It's likely worse for you than a cigarette, so you'd better get rid of that too.

..Hey, Urkel, don't even try basing that on how second hand smoke has minor health risks without evidence, otherwise your little smartass explanation will crumble.

 

[blazedaces]

Stop thinking you can change around my argument, I'm saying to limit smoking in closed in places because of second hand smoking. Who cares if you can name daily used **** that has one to or even three of those chemicals? Name ONE besides smoke that has all of that.

I don't know about the first part. Where am I changing around your argument in the part you quoted?

Now, I'm going to make this really clear Biggie. A picture with a bunch of words on it does not constitute as evidence. Neither I nor anyone is going to take it seriously. If you keep arguing using this as your only source you're never going to get anywhere. The number of chemicals a product uses is not a valid argument for why it is detrimental to your health, nor is it a valid argument for why it should be illegal/banned.

Then don't defend pointless dribble by some random idiot.

Using an ad hominem argument makes you sound immature, that's all.

Again, what are you talking about? Who am I defending?

Lastly, what part of any of my arguments are incorrect? You have yet to attack any of my arguments. You simply restate your point of view and ignore all the points brought against it previously.

Again, if you're going to make a case for second-hand smoke being detrimental to your health then provide a legitimate source. Propaganda does not count.

-blazed

Edit: I didn't say that I could name products which used those chemicals. I believe I meant to say that almost every one of those chemicals has a perfectly safe and common use for it. This poster didn't even claim that any of those chemicals are necessarily detrimental (though a few obviously are), it just pointed out that they are also used in certain other things that sound "scary". This is propaganda in its fullest form.

 

[derek.haines]

..Hey, Urkel, don't even try basing that on how second hand smoke has minor health risks without evidence, otherwise your little smartass explanation will crumble.

Okay, check this:

Mobile phones 'more dangerous than smoking'

Brain expert warns of huge rise in tumours and calls on industry to take immediate steps to reduce radiation

By Geoffrey Lean
Sunday, 30 March 2008

Mobile phones could kill far more people than smoking or asbestos, a study by an award-winning cancer expert has concluded. He says people should avoid using them wherever possible and that governments and the mobile phone industry must take "immediate steps" to reduce exposure to their radiation.

The study, by Dr Vini Khurana, is the most devastating indictment yet published of the health risks.

It draws on growing evidence – exclusively reported in the IoS in October – that using handsets for 10 years or more can double the risk of brain cancer. Cancers take at least a decade to develop, invalidating official safety assurances based on earlier studies which included few, if any, people who had used the phones for that long.

Earlier this year, the French government warned against the use of mobile phones, especially by children. Germany also advises its people to minimise handset use, and the European Environment Agency has called for exposures to be reduced.

Professor Khurana – a top neurosurgeon who has received 14 awards over the past 16 years, has published more than three dozen scientific papers – reviewed more than 100 studies on the effects of mobile phones. He has put the results on a brain surgery website, and a paper based on the research is currently being peer-reviewed for publication in a scientific journal.

He admits that mobiles can save lives in emergencies, but concludes that "there is a significant and increasing body of evidence for a link between mobile phone usage and certain brain tumours". He believes this will be "definitively proven" in the next decade.

Noting that malignant brain tumours represent "a life-ending diagnosis", he adds: "We are currently experiencing a reactively unchecked and dangerous situation." He fears that "unless the industry and governments take immediate and decisive steps", the incidence of malignant brain tumours and associated death rate will be observed to rise globally within a decade from now, by which time it may be far too late to intervene medically.

"It is anticipated that this danger has far broader public health ramifications than asbestos and smoking," says Professor Khurana, who told the IoS his assessment is partly based on the fact that three billion people now use the phones worldwide, three times as many as smoke. Smoking kills some five million worldwide each year, and exposure to asbestos is responsible for as many deaths in Britain as road accidents.

And the electronics and radiation thing? How about this:

Many tests have been conducted to see how radiation alters the every day bodily functions. Personally, I think it is mind numbing that there are still no government endorsed health warnings on mobile phone boxes to let people know the truth and make their own minds up.

With the wealthy revenue that is in the mobile phone market, there is not much chance of any top channel publicly admitting a problem with mobile phones. Though even so, there has been many u-turns in recent studies and their results. Behind closed doors, many MPs are looking into the radiation threat with great detail. In fact, some local MPs have opposed new propositions to erect new masts in areas that have already had second mast planning rejected with local residence rallying support against it.

We do have to look at the sharp (unknown) increase in brain cancer in the last decade (which coincides with the recent technology boom.)

Well, In the Soviet Union, the radiation from mobile phones was used to cause brain damage on lab rats. Today, the evidence points strongly at radiation becoming a menacing threat to our modern day society.

EMFs And The Surrounding Dangers

EMFs (Electromagnetic fields) are emitted from all electrical appliances, some give more than others and some give out far more than the most powerful over head transmission lines. More importantly, many give out more than the recommended safety guide lines.

Typical safety guide lines are between 0.5 and 2 milligauss

Experiments have shown that a standard digital alarm clock emit a field of 6 milligauss

A computer can emit 20 milligauss

Whilst a mobile phone measures around 100 milligauss

 

[AltF4]

Blazed:

Dude, your "study" is bogus. I'm sorry.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20030515/secondhand-smoke-study-raises-ire

That was literally the first thing that google gave me. Given 5 minutes I could find even more people throwing red flags about how bogus that study is. But I think the American Cancer Society and The Surgeon General are good sources...

Newsflash: Breathing smoke is bad for you.

Secondly: Don't even get me going about that whole "cellphone radiation" nonsense.

You do know that there are radio waves going through your brain at every moment of your entire life, right? It doesn't matter how far away your cellphone is.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

EDIT:

AltF4 beat me to it.

Also the cell phone stuff is garbage. The wavelengths of light are non-ionizing. They can't possibly cause cancer that way because the photons are simply not energetic enough. And in this case, luminosity is irrelevant, it's only the wavelength of light that determines if it can ionize. As for magnetic fields, I've yet to see a link between field strength and cancer rates.

 

[blazedaces]

Blazed:

Dude, your "study" is bogus. I'm sorry.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20030515/secondhand-smoke-study-raises-ire

That was literally the first thing that google gave me. Given 5 minutes I could find even more people throwing red flags about how bogus that study is. But I think the American Cancer Society and The Surgeon General are good sources...

Newsflash: Breathing smoke is bad for you.

Secondly: Don't even get me going about that whole "cellphone radiation" nonsense.

You do know that there are radio waves going through your brain at every moment of your entire life, right? It doesn't matter how far away your cellphone is.

Alright, I concede. The study is bogus beyond any reasonable doubt.

Thanks for showing me. My goal in debating is honestly to seek the truth.

And I'm going to second his statement about "cellphone radiation". Let's please not get into it. This is a dead horse that I'm just tired of beating.

-blazed

 

[derek.haines]

Blazed:

Dude, your "study" is bogus. I'm sorry.

http://www.webmd.com/lung-cancer/news/20030515/secondhand-smoke-study-raises-ire

That was literally the first thing that google gave me. Given 5 minutes I could find even more people throwing red flags about how bogus that study is. But I think the American Cancer Society and The Surgeon General are good sources...

You're failing to realize who the American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General are, though. It'd sorta be bad for business if when the study came out they suddenly said, "Well, ****--Guess what we've been jamming down your throats for 30 years has been a load of bull. Sorry about that."

OF COURSE THEY BLASTED IT! They're the frickin' American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General. They exist almost solely these days because of smoking and anti-smoking special interest money, so they're not likely to come out and endorse it any time soon.


And, to everyone, I'm not trying to start anything about the cell phones--God knows nobody here wants to get me started on that--I'm just trying to get across the point that there exist things in virtually everyone's everyday life that has a possibility of killing us. The key is to get past the propaganda and make it to the ACTUAL POSSIBILITY, and the fact of the matter is that you can probably smoke 3 packs of cigarettes per day for your entire life without ever experiencing a crippling death at the cold hands of lung cancer, emphysema, and the GUM DISEASE GINGIVITIS. Does heavy smoking increase your chance of a potentially horrible, premature death? Sure it does, but so does working on a crab fishing boat, and mixing cement for a living. It's really all about picking your poison.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

You're failing to realize who the American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General are, though. It'd sorta be bad for business if when the study came out they suddenly said, "Well, ****--Guess what we've been jamming down your throats for 30 years has been a load of bull. Sorry about that."

OF COURSE THEY BLASTED IT! They're the frickin' American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General. They exist almost solely these days because of smoking and anti-smoking special interest money, so they're not likely to come out and endorse it any time soon.

Ad hominem circumstantial.

 

[derek.haines]

Ad hominem circumstantial.

Prove me wrong. Give me one good reason for the American Cancer Society or the Surgeon General to ever come out in direct support of tobacco, even if the evidence suddenly becomes heavily stacked in tobacco's favor.

Both have built a legacy (concerning tobacco) of just outrightly condemning it. The most legitimate study in the world could come out showing an extremely strong correlation that cigarette smoking protects a person against STDs, and both would no doubt issue statements continually condemning smoking.

It's a hypothetical situation, I know. But prove me wrong. Neither would ever step out in support of tobacco because it's a vastly easier position to be in condemning something than endorsing it.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Prove me wrong. Give me one good reason for the American Cancer Society or the Surgeon General to ever come out in direct support of tobacco, even if the evidence suddenly becomes heavily stacked in tobacco's favor.

Both have built a legacy (concerning tobacco) of just outrightly condemning it. The most legitimate study in the world could come out showing an extremely strong correlation that cigarette smoking protects a person against STDs, and both would no doubt issue statements continually condemning smoking.

It's a hypothetical situation, I know. But prove me wrong. Neither would ever step out in support of tobacco because it's a vastly easier position to be in condemning something than endorsing it.

1: I don't have to "prove you wrong." The burden of proof is on YOU for making the claim.' That's how debate works.

2: You didn't actually address the validity of anything, you instead pointed out a relationship between American Cancer Society / Surgeon General and their circumstances. This is a fallacy.

 

[Shiny Noctowl]

I think smoking should be illegal. If it just hurt the smoker, I might hesitate before saying it should be illegal, but, as it is just as harmful to people around the smoker, it should without a doubt be illegal.

The burden of proof is on YOU for making the claim.' That's how debate works.

Funny how you ignore this when you're trying to prove that evolution occurs completely by chance.

 

[The Executive]

I think smoking should be illegal. If it just hurt the smoker, I might hesitate before saying it should be illegal, but, as it is just as harmful to people around the smoker, it should without a doubt be illegal.

Read a few pages back. A link was posted to a very conclusive study indicating that secondhand smoke is not the giant health risk we thought it was.

Funny how you ignore this when you're trying to prove that evolution occurs completely by chance.

That and all related subject matter goes here
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=165310 (Are science and religion related?)

or here
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=162211 (Problems with evolution)

or, to a lesser extent, here
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=134829 (How can anyone believe in God?)

or here
http://www.smashboards.com/showthread.php?t=160682 ("" "" NOT "" ""?)

We have four religious threads to discuss this in. It shouldn't be that hard to stick to topic in this thread.

Not trying to rain on your parade, but a lot of the more recent posters fail to a) read through a thread before posting and b) stay on-topic. The PM function helps with the latter.

 

[AltF4]

Read a few pages back. A link was posted to a very conclusive study indicating that secondhand smoke is not the giant health risk we thought it was.

...really? How about YOU read a few pages back.

 

[blazedaces]

Read a few pages back. A link was posted to a very conclusive study indicating that secondhand smoke is not the giant health risk we thought it was.

Executive, did you read the retort given against the study?

Did you also note that the study has over 50 responses on the original website (the one I originally posted). There's a whole lot more people making the same points then just the American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General.

-blazed

 

[The Executive]

...really? How about YOU read a few pages back.

Executive, did you read the retort given against the study?

Did you also note that the study has over 50 responses on the original website (the one I originally posted). There's a whole lot more people making the same points then just the American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General.

-blazed

Yes, I reread the entire thread, and the responses to the study. At this point I'd usually say something like "I never endorsed the study; I just pointed out that it's there and it provides a scientific method and supporting evidence for its claim regardless of validity" (all of which is true), but there's no point in arguing for a statement that I myself don't agree with.

My posts have been largely hit or miss as of late...stupid AP exams.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Funny how you ignore this when you're trying to prove that evolution occurs completely by chance.

Firstly, show me where I or ANYONE attempted to prove that "evolution occurs completely by chance."

Secondly, even if I did, that would have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of EITHER thing we're talking about (tu quoque)

Thirdly, it doesn't "occur completely by chance" and nobody ever said it did. Mutations are what occur randomly, (or, in such a convoluted manner that is essentially 'random' to us). The mechanisms of evolution, including Natural Selection, genetic drift, and gene flow, are not things that rely completely on chance. If you want to respond to this do it in the other thread.

Fourthly, you just don't understand scientific method if you think scientists are trying to "prove" things in the sense of absolute metaphysical certitude. Scientists create theories to explain phenomena, test their predictions with experiments and observations, and then augment, invent, or discard theories as the data suggest.

 

[swim2007]

The main purpose (originally) of government is to protect the people. By restricing smoking from certain places and raising prices this deflects many would be smokers away. Also the advertisements against smoking stop many people from even considering it. That said I do not believe in an outright ban of smoking. It is not an intoxicating drug or hulucinagenic. It does not impare judgement, and does not have any SHORT-TERM negative effect on the body. If someone wants to screw themselves up for life that is their choice, just as if someone wants to committ suicide we really can do nothing to stop them.

 

[Grandeza]

The main purpose (originally) of government is to protect the people. By restricing smoking from certain places and raising prices this deflects many would be smokers away. Also the advertisements against smoking stop many people from even considering it. That said I do not believe in an outright ban of smoking. It is not an intoxicating drug or hulucinagenic. It does not impare judgement, and does not have any SHORT-TERM negative effect on the body. If someone wants to screw themselves up for life that is their choice, just as if someone wants to committ suicide we really can do nothing to stop them.

I think I agree with this point of view. It's the person's body and ultimately I think it's their decision. Of course I still agree that it shouldn't be allowed in restaurants and the such.

 

[derek.haines]

1: I don't have to "prove you wrong." The burden of proof is on YOU for making the claim.' That's how debate works.

2: You didn't actually address the validity of anything, you instead pointed out a relationship between American Cancer Society / Surgeon General and their circumstances. This is a fallacy.

Here are two of my own:

1. You refuse to prove me wrong because you cannot. But you know? I'll provide that evidence you seem to need before you'll say anything at all of consequence. In 1998 the American Cancer Society placed a full-page ad in the Miami Herald claiming the annual number of deaths from second-hand smoke to be 53000, when in fact the number established by the EPA was only 3000. Upon being confronted about these figures, the ACS cited two 13-year old studies, neither of which gave the number 53000 in any way. Even after admitting their fault in providing an unsourced figure, the ACS continued using the 53000 death total, this time citing it to a report by the founder of an Anti-Tobacco interest group, who's own inflated mortality figures were rejected by the EPA.

The full report I summarize here can be found at this address: http://www.forces.org/research/files/acs.htm

2. I did indeed address the validity of something. I addressed the validity of the opinions given in opposition to the study that was brought into question. I simply wished to point out that perhaps we should not blindly accept that just because a notoriously anti-tobacco group speaks out against a study, it does not necessarily mean that study is rendered void. In fact, that's a well-known psychological phenomenon known as confirmation bias. You believe that the American Cancer Society is the correct party in the argument because for them to be so supports your view. It is not necessarily the truth, but it is the truth as you want to hear it.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I think I agree with this point of view. It's the person's body and ultimately I think it's their decision. Of course I still agree that it shouldn't be allowed in restaurants and the such.

It should be up to the restaurant to decide if they want to allow it or not, since it's a private establishment.

Here are two of my own:

1. You refuse to prove me wrong because you cannot. But you know? I'll provide that evidence you seem to need before you'll say anything at all of consequence. In 1998 the American Cancer Society placed a full-page ad in the Miami Herald claiming the annual number of deaths from second-hand smoke to be 53000, when in fact the number established by the EPA was only 3000. Upon being confronted about these figures, the ACS cited two 13-year old studies, neither of which gave the number 53000 in any way. Even after admitting their fault in providing an unsourced figure, the ACS continued using the 53000 death total, this time citing it to a report by the founder of an Anti-Tobacco interest group, who's own inflated mortality figures were rejected by the EPA.

The full report I summarize here can be found at this address: http://www.forces.org/research/files/acs.htm

As for "You refuse to prove me wrong because you cannot." I've told you already. I haven't asserted to know anything, I don't have to prove anything to you. When YOU make an assertion, it doesn't just stand until I or anyone else proves you wrong. You have to supply your own proof. Your demand that I prove you wrong is out of line.

The truth or falsity of their previous claims have nothing to do with that of the thing you just posted. I understand you're just showing an example, which is fine, but your evidence is still nothing more than circumstantial. You cannot infer that they are wrong NOW because of some incident in the past.

Nevertheless, I believe that peer-reviewed journals are necessary to resolve the issue and the buck does not stop at the word of a government agency.

Incidentally, if you're going to be consistent in logic, then you should apply the exact same argument to the study itself as you do to the ACS, since the study was supposedly funded by Philip Morris (if indeed that is the case).

2. I did indeed address the validity of something. I addressed the validity of the opinions given in opposition to the study that was brought into question. I simply wished to point out that perhaps we should not blindly accept that just because a notoriously anti-tobacco group speaks out against a study, it does not necessarily mean that study is rendered void. In fact, that's a well-known psychological phenomenon known as confirmation bias. You believe that the American Cancer Society is the correct party in the argument because for them to be so supports your view. It is not necessarily the truth, but it is the truth as you want to hear it.

I understand, but it's simply attacking their credibility, and is irrelevant to the substance of the claim itself. The article that was linked by AltF4 contained many reasons that the ACS gave for why they considered the study bogus. Instead of addressing THESE (i.e. the substance of their claim), you just attack their motives. The truth or falsity of their claims are of an independent nature than their credibility.

And where did I say I believed the ACS was correct?

 

[derek.haines]

Alright, I'll actually apologize here. You never have supported the claims of the ACS.

But I do believe that the motives of the American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General in giving their opinions about the article are just as important as the facts they give for it. The fact of the matter is, both parties--with the author of the original survey representing tobacco and the ACS/SG representing anti-tobacco--have an interest in the validity of the study. Tobacco wants it to be true, and anti-tobacco wants it to be false, it's as simple as that. The article AltF4 provided that proves the study "bogus" only does so if a person accepts the credibility of the ACS/SG. However, if a person leans towards the tobacco side of things, they will accept the credibility of the tobacco funded study. The only thing I've been trying to get across is that neither side can be believed on faith, because both have far too vested of an interest in the outcome of the study going one way or another and cannot be completely objective in their view of it.

We're doomed to see what we want to see. Real, hard, truly unbiased facts are the only way we're going to ever be able to make an informed decision about tobacco, and those are dreadfully hard to come across.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

The article AltF4 provided that proves the study "bogus" only does so if a person accepts the credibility of the ACS/SG

No, because they provided reasons beyond "because we're the ACS." They are right there in the article. The validity of these arguments has nothing to do with the ACS's circumstances. To say otherwise is an ad hominem fallacy. That is to say, these arguments have the same validity regardless of whose mouth they came out of.

 

[blazedaces]

Alright, I'll actually apologize here. You never have supported the claims of the ACS.

But I do believe that the motives of the American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General in giving their opinions about the article are just as important as the facts they give for it. The fact of the matter is, both parties--with the author of the original survey representing tobacco and the ACS/SG representing anti-tobacco--have an interest in the validity of the study. Tobacco wants it to be true, and anti-tobacco wants it to be false, it's as simple as that. The article AltF4 provided that proves the study "bogus" only does so if a person accepts the credibility of the ACS/SG. However, if a person leans towards the tobacco side of things, they will accept the credibility of the tobacco funded study. The only thing I've been trying to get across is that neither side can be believed on faith, because both have far too vested of an interest in the outcome of the study going one way or another and cannot be completely objective in their view of it.

We're doomed to see what we want to see. Real, hard, truly unbiased facts are the only way we're going to ever be able to make an informed decision about tobacco, and those are dreadfully hard to come across.

I mentioned this already, but I'll say it again. In the original article I posted there is over 50 responses by professors and other experts in the field. These people are not affiliated with any such "side". They bring up similar points.

Therefore, while I even agree with Hyuga, that you have not attacked the argument, simply called the source faulty, you can't really apply that to the other 50+ responses against this article by other sources.

-blazed

 

[derek.haines]

No, because they provided reasons beyond "because we're the ACS." They are right there in the article. The validity of these arguments has nothing to do with the ACS's circumstances. To say otherwise is an ad hominem fallacy. That is to say, these arguments have the same validity regardless of whose mouth they came out of.

Not true. There are indeed reasons given in the article, but they are as biased as the study they're trying to disprove.

...researchers reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998 that 75% of studies done between 1980 and 1995 that found no link between secondhand smoke and health problems were funded by tobacco companies.

This very genuinely suggests that the validity of the studies were brought into question because they were funded by tobacco companies. There is no reason given as to why they were less valid other than "because they were funded by tobacco companies". Just after that in the article another study is mentioned.

Two findings from the newer Cancer Prevention Study II that began in the 1980s -- the follow-up to the study used for Enstrom's research -- that suggest nonsmokers face a 20% increased risk for both heart disease and lung cancer when exposed to secondhand smoke. "

Here it is very plainly suggested that the Cancer Prevention Study II--performed by the ACS, a highly anti-tobacco organization--is more legitimate in nature than a study funded by tobacco companies.

The honest and plain truth is that the only real reason that can be squeezed from the article for why the study is "bogus", is that...they are the ACS.

EDIT:

Blazed, I'm not attacking the source, I'm calling into question the reasoning and trying to figure out the real reasoning behind them calling the study bogus. Everyone else seemed totally convinced just as soon as that webmd article was posted, but it threw up it's own red flags for me, in leaning entirely one way. Maybe there are 50 other professors that have done the same, I'd need to be shown them before I'll accept that their reasoning is any more valid than that of the ACS or even the tobacco-funded research.

EDIT EDIT: I just noticed the actual percentage they give in the second quote there. "Nonsmokers face a 20% increased risk for both heart disease and lung cancer..." 20% is an impressive sounding number, but that actually only equates to roughly a 2% chance of developing lung cancer. Now that's spin for you!

 

[Grandeza]

It should be up to the restaurant to decide if they want to allow it or not, since it's a private establishment.

Well a restaurant caters to the public so I think people shouldn't have toavoid a restaurant they like because they get smoke blown in they're face. By that logic a restaurant could say no whites. Because it is a private establishment, they should be able to decide after all right???

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Well a restaurant caters to the public so I think people shouldn't have toavoid a restaurant they like because they get smoke blown in they're face.

If they don't like the smoking they don't have to go there, simple as that. Restaurants with non nonsmoking sections will be unpopular. It's in their own best interest to have customers not get smoke blown at them. But we don't need the government to step in and make a law about it. If a restaurant really wants to let anyone smoke wherever, let them.

By that logic a restaurant could say no whites. Because it is a private establishment, they should be able to decide after all right???

Private colleges can be 'black only' as long as they don't get funding from the government. Why can't a restaurant or club or whatever have that same right? So yes, and they should have the right to make it 'white only.' And if they do nobody will go to it except people you wouldn't associate with anyway.

 

[Grandeza]

Private colleges can be 'black only' as long as they don't get funding from the government. Why can't a restaurant or club or whatever have that same right? So yes, and they should have the right to make it 'white only.' And if they do nobody will go to it except people you wouldn't associate with anyway.

Not trying to imply your lying or anything but can you give me an example of one such college because I've never heard of that.

 

[derek.haines]

Private colleges can be 'black only' as long as they don't get funding from the government. Why can't a restaurant or club or whatever have that same right? So yes, and they should have the right to make it 'white only.' And if they do nobody will go to it except people you wouldn't associate with anyway.

But they don't, as per Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Commerce clause. I'm really amazed that nobody has tried that with smoking, really. Especially with the freedom of association granted in the Bill of Rights.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

Not trying to imply your lying or anything but can you give me an example of one such college because I've never heard of that.

I don't know of one, but I thought private colleges had no laws regarding their admissions process, however what derek.haines says here may disagree:

But they don't, as per Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States. Commerce clause. I'm really amazed that nobody has tried that with smoking, really. Especially with the freedom of association granted in the Bill of Rights.

Ostensibly that only applies to interstate commerce, which the gov't showed was the great majority of the hotel's revenue. However apparently it was also used against Lester Maddox in his Atlanta restaurant. I think that violates his rights, personally, and I disagree with the ruling. I'm willing to bet that this ruling applies to private colleges as well, which would mean I'm wrong about there being allowed to be 'black (or whatever) only' colleges. I just think if you don't get any direct funding from the government, they shouldn't be able to tell you how to run your establishment (outside of making sure it somehow is not a danger to others, like fire safety for example).

And they haven't tried that with smoking because they don't discriminate based on a person being a smoker or not (which would be the appropriate analog), but whether they actually engage in the act while in their restaurant.