Second Hand Smoke Scam

Fox News ^ | October 17, 2003 | Steven Milloy

[CSM]

I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city

[Madame Dufarge]

Well, I can certainly agree that you're free to smoke on private property -- as long as you're not harming somebody else in the process, at any rate.

But the point is that that private property that welcomes the public is still private property. And the public is free to avoid that particular private property as they wish. Please don't bring up the tired old argument about Health Department regulations covering the kitchen. The patrons don't have access to the kitchen. They do know before entering whether smoking is allowed or not.

It's a bit much to claim that lack of smokers will lead to mediocrity....

No it's not.

An aversion to risk-taking leads to mediocrity.

[Modernman]

But the point is that that private property that welcomes the public is still private property. And the public is free to avoid that particular private property as they wish.

Sure, but by operating a business that is open to the public, you consent to follow certain rules. In a way, a business open to the public is quasi-public: you couldn't exclude people based on race, for example. You actually don't have a constitutional right to operate a business- a local or state government can pretty much ban any type of business they want and impose whatever (constitutional) rules they desire.

[r9etb]

An aversion to risk-taking leads to mediocrity.

Sometimes it leads to survival (i.e., don't play on the freeway). Other times, as in the case of smoking, risk-aversion very often leads to increased life span, and/or better health.

But the point is that that private property that welcomes the public is still private property.

And the point is also that harm on private property is still harm. One can probably make a fair argument for allowing smoking in a restaurant or bar.

OTOH, suppose it's a home, and that a child can be shown to be suffering harm from her parents' smoking -- are you going to claim that the parents' property rights are more important than the child's health?

The "private property" claim is not the only one in play here.

[Aegedius]

The difference between smokers and non-smokers is several years.

Nobody disagrees with the statement that smoking shortens one's life. Smoking a pack a day for 40 years cuts off several years.
For this analysis, let's say 5 years, or 1825 days. Now, SHS is breathed at a concentration about 1/1000, or less, of what the original smoker gets. That means someone exposed to SHS continuously for 40 years will have his/her life shortened by 1.8 days. Get it?

Further, over 50% of people over 85 suffer from Altzeimers. So, if your family history estimates your lifespan to be 90 without smoking, and 85 with, then you would do well to visit the Altzeimers wing of a local nursing home, to see if you think those 5 years are worth anything.

And, no, I am not a smoker. But I also know that it is not "addictive", because I quit approximately 35 years ago.

[r9etb]

And, no, I am not a smoker. But I also know that it is not "addictive", because I quit approximately 35 years ago.

Hmmmm. That explains why so many people have a hard time quitting.

[Madame Dufarge]

The example would be one of public drunkenness. Do we have a right to stagger around drunk in public? Well, it could be so-argued (and you could probably find a FR libertarian to argue it). But in reality it doesn't seem to violate anybody's legal rights if drunks are instead taken to the tank for the night.

If you enter a privately owned establishment that allows smoking, and then complain because of the "threat" of second-hand smoke, you're responsible for the decision you made to enter in the first place.

Back in the good old days, before the Nanny's were actually taken seriously and freedom still prevailed, nobody wanted an annoying drunk around, especially the other drinkers. This is why barrooms have always had privately-hired bouncers (and/or) the bartender with supreme authority.

And guess what, everyone who drank entered the barroom knowing they might be annoyed by obnoxious drunks, and the free market took care of it by hiring the bouncers. The bartender has in recent years been required by law to perform this duty.

I don't recall any drinkers calling for laws to demand that bars be shut down because some drunks become obnoxious. They know going in that they might encounter the obnoxious types. This is a tacit acknowledgement that they're entering private property, and they accept the conditions.

[qam1]

"I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city’s heart attack rate by 58 percent in six months..........

So did I. They expected to have 7 Heart attack cases but instead only 3 happened and they call that science.  

Yeah I am going to believe a study of 7 people over six months verses a study of 108,000 people over 40 years that showed nothing.

"I asked Dr. Glantz’s colleague if he would be studying whether the NYC smoking ban experience confirmed or contradicted his Helena study claims...........

Why wait?, Just apply Stan the Sham Glantz's methods to California

In 1998 The year of the Bar smoking ban in California 68,946 Californians died of heart disease A year later in 1999, 69,900 died of heart disease.

So can using the logic of the Helena study can we conclude that 954 people died of heart disease because of the smoking ban.

To be fair, The heart disease death rate in California in 1998 was 205.9 per 100,000 while in 1999 it decreased 0.7 to 205.2. However from 1980 - 1997 the average decrease in Heart disease deaths from the year prior was 4.2 people per 100,000 while from 1998-1999 it was only 0.7. So if  we use liberal logic that a decrease in the amount of increase is a cut then we can conclude that the Heart disease death rate actually increased in 1999 by 3.5 (4.2-0.7)which according to this and the methods of the Helena study you can conclude that the smoking ban in California caused heart disease death rate to rise by 83.4%

Year	Rate per 100,000	Change from prior year
1999	205.2	-0.7
1998	205.9	-1.3
1997	207.2	-2.3
1996	209.5	-2.6
1995	212.1	-2.8
1994	214.9	-2.8
1993	217.7	3.9
1992	213.8	-5.9
1991	219.7	-5.5
1990	225.2	-13.1
1989	238.3	-10.9
1988	249.2	-0.9
1987	250.1	-1.4
1986	251.5	-10
1985	261.5	-0.7
1984	262.2	-0.5
1983	262.7	-8.4
1982	271.1	+2
1981	269.1	-9.6
1980	278.7

Source:

http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/Publication/LeadingCauses.htm

[Age of Reason]

I think when you stick more people together, you need more rules, and some of these rules are going to be pretty burdensome.

The average population density of the counties won by Gore was four-times greater than the average population density of the counties won by Bush.

[Madame Dufarge]

I can't think of any argument that can support the proposition that you have a right to smoke

I can't think of any argument that private property owners can't allow a perfectly legal activity on their premises.

Unless of course you take the stalking horse, currently popular crybaby position, that if you don't like a poo-poo smell even though you entered knowing the possibilities were 100% you would encounter one, your neurosis takes precedence over what's left of the U. S. Constitution.

What cowards and simpering nancies this once great country has evolved into.

[r9etb]

What cowards and simpering nancies this once great country has evolved into.

So not only do you stink, you have a foul mouth, too? Myyyyy, how loveable you are. And you wonder why people don't cry too many tears when people like you aren't allowed to smoke in our presence....

[Age of Reason]

Southern New Jersey is basically woddland with a few towns here and there.

By the year 2000, the population density of New Jersey exceeded that of Japan and India.

I do recall that in New Jersey, they have been having the darndest time trying to allow the hunting of black bears.

Go to those empty areas of New Jersey, and then tell me what the laws are in those empty ares concerning the right to bear arms. Tell me what any of the laws are like in those empty areas of NJ.

If people do not awake to the erosion of American freedom from population growth, you will lose your freedom.

I won't even talk about how empty the West is.

Keep the west.

The best place to live is the seacoast town, with the limitless ocean to one side and limitless forests and mountains to your back; best of everythin--but no longer: it's now a teeming shore crawling with hordes of people, many of them turned liberals thanks the crowding turning their minds to mush.

[Age of Reason]

That would be a great argument if the population was actually growing; in America (the U.S.A.), the native population is reproducing at a negative rate; it is only immigration that swells our ranks.

Precisely.

It's a good thing that it's only because of immigration that our population continues to bloat.

That makes it a simple problem to cure:

End immigration and we will keep our freedoms.

Problem solved.

[Madame Dufarge]

OTOH, suppose it's a home, and that a child can be shown to be suffering harm from her parents' smoking -- are you going to claim that the parents' property rights are more important than the child's health?

You're assuming that I'm accepting the second-hand smoke myth.

The "for the children" argument is such screamingly, laughably politically-correct received wisdom, I'm embarrassed for you for even presenting it.

[Modernman]

I can't think of any argument that private property owners can't allow a perfectly legal activity on their premises.

Again, I'm pointing out there is no constitutional right to smoke, whether on public or private property. This falls into the incredibly wide realm of things thst are properly decided through the democratic process. In jurisdictions with smoking bans, the people have spoken. In a lot of other places, the people have decided not to ban smoking.

your neurosis takes precedence over what's left of the U. S. Constitution.

Please point out where in the US Constitution there is any mention of smoking. This is an issue properly left to the states.

[Publius6961]

I talked to one of researchers about that simple observation. After stumbling and stammering for an explanation, he finally referred me to the “study’s statistician,” Dr. Stan Glantz (search)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Jabba the Hutt in a white smock?
The "doctor" who has existed his entire life working on "antismoking" "studies"?
The loser who would starve without another grant this year?
The world's largest quack (in every sense of the word)?

That Dr. Glantz?

[William Tell]

r9etb said: "The meaning of the very last line, that SHS research is just "blowing smoke in your eyes," is ambiguous, but easily interpreted as a claim that SHS research is junk science: that there are no ill effects from it. Hence my comment. "

I grant what you are saying.

I think that the reason for what you observe is that the proponents of junk science are also the proponents of junk regulations.

I see a similarity to "global warming". The proponents of global warming are typically motivated by their desire to solve the problem in various ways. This is sometimes referred to as "jumping to a solution".

Those of us who believe it is premature to redesign the world based on global warming that may or may not be happening by modifying behavior which may or may not solve the problem (if there is one) find ourselves in the ridiculous position of having to prove that there is NOT global warming and that redesigning the world's economy will NOT reverse global warming.

When one points out that the "solution" is immensely expensive, the proponents will accuse us of being uncaring about the environment.

This, really, is the root of all "political correctness". To believe that it is tyranny to expel a six-year-old from school for using a bit of chicken as a mock gun, makes us subject to charges that we are soft on discipline, don't care about children, and are the main contributors to future Columbines.

[Publius6961]

(As for me personally, once the building was smoke-free I no longer had to use my inhalers at work).

That happens a lot to psychosomatics.

[Mears]

"What cowards and simpering nancies thie once great country has evolved into"

Boy,you said it.I remember when we knew how to enjoy life.Everyone took care of themselves and no one blamed anyone else for their problems. It was live and let live.

BRING BACK THE FIFTIES !!!

[Madame Dufarge]

So not only do you stink, you have a foul mouth, too? Myyyyy, how loveable you are. And you wonder why people don't cry too many tears when people like you aren't allowed to smoke in our presence....

If a person is to be judged by her enemies, I can die a happy woman.

in our presence

I rest my case, Your Highness.

[r9etb]

You didn't answer the question. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that a child can be shown to be suffering harm from her parents' smoking. Are you going to claim that the parents' property rights are more important than the child's health?

That would be a case where property rights are in tension with the rights of other people to not be harmed. Children are good subjects for the example due to their inability to voluntarily leave the premises.