The articles I've looked at are peer-reviewed. That's the same sort of quality control used in all sciences. It's a very good one.

As for the rest, FZ, would you honestly not believe in global warming if you couldn't see the effects yourself? Not believe that alcohol is a drug if you never saw a man get drunk after drinking? Not believe that countless thousands are dying in Iraq if you never saw a wounded man return from it? If you would, why do you need to see people dying of a special kind of lung cancer? If you wouldn't, then why do you believe that Pluto exists? Have you seen it yourself? In fact, we knew Pluto existed before any human had ever seen it, thanks to measuring things indirectly. Like you have to do with determining how carcinogenic something is.

I'm sorry to say, but there's no such thing as Secondhand-smoke-cancer. Lung cancer is lung cancer. When someone's diagnosed, you don't see tiny cigarette signs on the tumor or anything. You simply have to look at statistics (which is a science in itself, by the way. If you think it's all just nonsense, go take an upper-level stats class and breeze through it. It shouldn't be that hard, right?). If more people get lung cancer who are around smoke than people who aren't around smoke, how do you not conclude that smoke causes cancer?

Are these the statistics that you said showed that secondhand smoke didn't appreciably cause cancer? Because there's no evidence here at all related to secondhand smoke. The closest thing is that you would be surprised by something, and that's not, you know, evidence.

I've linked to evidence with cited sources that indicates casual contact with secondhand smoke causes cancer. What's the evidence against?

I would just like to note three things, and pray to god I don't sound like I'm pointlessly sniping at one side or another.

1) Just because you haven't had a personal experience with something doesn't mean it didn't happen. Have you ever met someone who was involved in the columbine shooting? No? Then it didn't happen, right? Have you ever met a holocaust survivor? I guess that didn't happen either, then!

2) Statistics is a science, despite what you might say about magic numbers pulled out of nowhere. I've taken a very basic statistics class and it was STILL freaking complicated. I realize that people don't really understand how or why it works, but trust me, you'd be amazed.

3) Despite the magic of statistics, numbers still need a source with some defined credibility.

It's not like cancer from SHS is the only metric to go by when you propose a smoking ban in private and public places however. For example, though I admit that second hand smoke raises the rate of cancer in individuals, I do not believe it is the government's place to ban a legal item from use in private property such as a restruant or bar, and I'd like to see statistics that show it'd be a worthwhile pursuit to ban them outside, as I'd imagine city pollutants would be worse then the heavily dispersed cig smoke. If the Gov't feels like banning it in it's own buildings that's fine, but it should be up to business owners and the market to decide if it should be banned on public property.

EDIT: Cleared up

edit because I misunderstood what you were trying to say.

Back to my old idea about "I don't think anyone else was arguing that specific debate. At all."

Not in this thread, but it was certainly mentioned in INA, and it's the inevitable result of this thread. It hadn't been mentioned yet, but if this thread SERIOUSLY only exists to prove/disprove SHS then it's pretty much a non issue.

Um, sorry if I'm being stupid, but what the hell are SSC and SSS? And INA, actually?

The first two are me fucking up acronyms, should be SHS for Second hand smoke, and INA is Interesting News Articles.

Sorry, I rather like being able to go to resturaunts without choking on smoke, thanks.

I was in florida before the indoor clean air act was passed, and some places were so bad that I would have to go outside just to not be hacking my lungs out. It's much better now, now that the people who are actually CHOOSING TO DO THE HARMFUL ACTIVITY are the ones being penalized, as opposed to the people who just want some danged dinner.

The resturants demonstrated that if it was up to them, they'd choose to have me suffer for other people smoking, rather than make the people who CHOOSE to smoke be inconvenienced, so you'll have to forgive me if I disagree that their way was better.

Go to a restruant which does not allow smoking. If there is truely a market in that, then there will be ones that cater to you, if not, then it just sucks to be you.

EDIT: Hell, now that I think about it, if there's enough people who are concerned enough with thier health to make a market (and if there isn't, then a smoking ban should not be popular, and therefore shouldn't be a law anyway) and there isn't a restruant, then you could even take a loan out and make your own. Theoretically it'd be a wild success.

I might not disbelieve but I would question if things are as bad as they're played up to be. If scientists said "Global warming is going to kill us all!" and species weren't dying, and weather was the same, and water levels weren't rising, I might say "Buh?" I would want more evidence, and more data. Something like that ridiculously comprehensive study they did a while back, with all sorts of data you can look into, see the trends, and observe why they came to the results they did from evidence they can prove. The best I'll offer is that second hand smoke may be as bad as they say, but there isn't nearly enough evidence offered that supports it in my book. Maybe in five years or so, there will be more data, or more cases, or just something measurable, and I'll say "Oh, yeah, that's pretty bad." As of right now, I'm not feeling it.

Mordy: To example #1: I've never personally met someone that survived Columbine, but I've seen the news reports, the studies, and other confirming data personally. I'm willing to accept evidence second hand... As long as you're giving me evidence. I can't find the data on individuals that have died from second-hand smoke, or the interviews of rooms full of people effected. Even finding individual cases are rare.

As to statistics classes, yeah, I took them in school too. Boring as shit, I got an A (I think it was close to a B). It wasn't that hard (I suck at math normally, but I was good at Statistics and Geometry for some reason), and all it taught me was how to process numbers and data, it didn't prove to me anything. Taking statistics classes didn't make me realize "Sweet Jumpin' Crackerjacks, they're right!" it made me realize "Sweet Jumpin' Crackerjacks, they can do math!" Give me a set of numbers and I can whip up any "Statistical Data" you want, but that doesn't make it true outside of whatever group I specifically gathered the data from, and if I've come to bad conclusions from my original data, then it's not even true then.

Some of us don't trust the Invisible Hand as much as you do. I prefer the government to say "don't let your business be dangerous" than hope that the free market ensures that places around me avoid dangerous practices.

Re: FZ

You need to start trusting studies, then. These are people whose jobs are to study these things, and they use methods much better than you could possibly do from amateur investigation.

Also, I said to take an upper-level stats course. Like the ones people getting majors in Statistics take in their Junior and Senior years. Lower-division courses in most things, even stuff like math and physics, tend to be hideously easy compared to the actual courses.

Their "Job" fits on the same rung as Upper Middle Management and Consultants: In a more efficient system they should be excised, and the data should be passed on directly for assessment from Researchers to People, instead of being processed and dumbed down. Some people might interpret it incorrectly, some might try to twist the facts, but the facts would be undeniably there.

Doublepost maybe, but I don't care. It's the Serious Discussion forum!

What's with the obsession with only accepting impossible evidence? Lung cancer is lung cancer. You will NEVER find a cancer that you can definitively say "Yep. It were the cigarettes."

And what's with not accepting "people who hang around secondhand smoke get more lung cancer" as evidence that secondhand smoke causes lung cancer? This is exactly the same as saying "well, yes, glaciers in areas hit by global warming are melting at a higher rate than those areas not affected as much, but no one's shown me an individual glacier that's definitively shrinking from global warming, therefore global warming doesn't cause glaciers to shrink." You're not going to be able to pin glacial melt on global warming unless you look at it through statistics, but you're not going to say that global warming has no effect on glaciers, are you?

Some of us don't trust the government's ability to decide what is and isn't dangerous as much as you do. I'd prefer the government to stay the hell out of my way rather then give the government power to regulate things based on how healthy they think I should be and upsurp the market.

Because it's too hard to prove. There are too many other things that can cause lung cancer that secondhand smoke seems the least likely except in extreme cases. If someone is forced into direct, focused contact with smoke for an extended period, that is believable since it's almost the same as smoking them yourself.

But banning them in public places seems excessive. There is no valid evidence that when it's that diluted, there is any effect. The original intent was that any place except for personal homes where smoking could be encountered should be banned. I argued that while in some places like the work place (Where Florida already did it) or in Restaurants (Where there are arguments to be made that it can negatively effect staff) it makes a certain sense, but there isn't enough evidence that it should get the Big Ban, either overall or in certain public places. The subway, sure. The park, no. The mall, nay.

My overall argument has had the intent that for what was originally planned, there isn't enough evidence that makes it seem necessary to step on rights like that.

EDIT: I think this post was my original intent, but I think my argument did drift at times. I'm kinda tired right now...

What's with the idea that banning smoking steps on anyone's rights? Some people seem to think there's a right to smoke, but where are they getting this idea? Just as there's no right to wear your X-ray tie in public, there's also no right to smoke your tobacco sticks in public. It's simply not illegal.

As for keeping it legal in open areas, just remember that even short exposure to smoking can cause asthma attacks to asthmatics (source = http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.f...t_uids=15082893).

I would argue that you have a right to do anything that is not illegal, and that in order to stomp on that right, you have to demonstrate that

1. There is a clear and present danger
2. There is no other way to reach the desired effect/affect

I'll give it one, but I think that anti-smoking advertising, the market creating non-smoking restruants, and increased awareness of smoking drawbacks can create the same effect. Hell, the government can even facilitate this by giving tax breaks and bonuses to restruants, bars, and offices that ban it on their own.

Then "right" is a pretty useless term. Why not complain about people stomping on your "list of legal activities", except that the latter doesn't bring to mind the connotation of "an activity that should have much-greater-than-normal reason to infringe upon" that "right" does?

Well, that's great, but people who have no choice but to go to those places (i.e. people who have jobs there) are going to get cancer and die while you hope Capitalism works for you.

Private property laws. Any building, buisness, etc etc owned by and individuals or group of individuals (and exactly how they define this I'm not 100% sure) is considered private property in the same way a person's house would be.

Now LEGALLY, you shouldn't be able to say "You can't smoke in Mr. Johnson's Bar and Grill," andymore than you should be able to say "Mr. Johnson can't smoke in his own home." (Assuming Mr. Johnson is an idividual and nor a corporation or something like that.)

and that only works if they have NO CHOICE but to work in that location and even then, there's still less than a 10% chance of getting any kind of lung cancer at the very worst.

You never have NO CHOICE. At the very worst you'd have to move to another city, maybe another state. You'd be able to start a business with a ban on smoking first.

And you're right GJ, some rights are more important then others, but the US has a history of considering anything a right until it is criminalized, and I prefer it that way.

I have asthma (Admittedly a mild, not severe, form), and I've never had a problem with cigarette smoke.

Besides, what that study proves is children with their parents. This isn't a passing whiff scenario, this is a "Parent who smokes at home causes increased levels of smoke in the home, leading to asthma symptoms and attacks". This is a Enclosed scenario, not an Open Space scenario.

How does that matter at all? You're not allowed to steal from people if they're in your house. You're not allowed to smoke marijuana in your house. Laws don't stop working at your doorstep; the goverment can pass all the laws it wants that take effect in your house, and so this argument has no meaning.

Not only that, but you're not allowed to use asbestos in your business. They instituted that ban because asbestos causes cancer, and they made it so, yes, even private businesses can't ignore the law simply by being privately owned. This is no different.

I'm pretty sure people who need jobs don't want to have to worry about "will increase my chances of getting cancer" when looking for a place to work. And your choice of statistic isn't that effective here; they have a 16-19% HIGHER chance of getting lung cancer if they take a job that allows smoking than if they didn't.

Where are you getting this? I've never seen this idea before. And give a real source if you can.

Really? Hrm... well, that's just saying that people who live with parents who smoke have a higher chance of getting asthma at all. I'll try to look for another source for short encounters causing asthma attacks, but I've heard that elsewhere, so, yeah.

And contrary to popular opinion this was a really stupid idea because there were VERY few cases of people getting cancer from asbestos in buildings, but when they tore it out the dust got in the air and many people working to remove it and many people who worked there after the removal ended up getting lung cancer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_amendment

EDIT: I love double posting!

EDIT2: Damnit, only linked one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendme...es_Constitution

Sooooo you want the government to be able to control anything and everything that happens in your home?

I knew there was a reason I didn't listen to you.

I don't see how the tenth has anything to do with this (no mention of rights, only powers) and the ninth, well, let's just look at it with simple logic.

The ninth, boiled down: Not all X are Y, or, restated, there exist X which are not Y, where X is Rights of Americans, and Y is The First Eight Amendments.
This does not say or imply that everything is X. It merely says "this list is not exhaustive".

Edit: Messed up quotes, hold on

Did you even read what I wrote? I simply said that the government already can and does do that. Why do you think it's not legal to kill people who are in your house? It's your private property, but the government can still apply its laws there.

^^^^^^^^^^^^
There are many situations where this is, in fact, legal.

You can't possibly not see how you just proved my point.

"This list is not exhaustive" does not mean "everything is included on this list", which is what you were implying. The ninth never says or implies that everything is a right. It just says "there are more than eight rights".

For other reasons, though.

Self defense, tresspassing, and so on count (in certain areas for the latter, I think). If you simply invite someone into your house and kill them when they get there, you're still liable, even though they're in your house, and according to Alan, should therefore be out of the government's reach.

Government does a lot of thing.

Doesn't mean they can or should.

And AGAIN you compare smokers to murderers. Are you trying to sound as uncreditable as possible or what?

Ok, then what about the marijuana, or the stealing examples? It's apparently hard for you to understand analogies, because otherwise you'd understand that using an analogy involving X as a side factor does not mean the topic at hand involves X in any way.

It means that anything not a power of the federal government under the United States constitution is a right of the citizens or the states. I will give you that the states have the power to ban smoking in public places, but in those cases it's simply a bad idea. The 9th and 10th along with the surpreme court cases involving them do however, state that the federal government must treat anything not illegal as a right and apply much caution to illegalizing it.

Hell, Roe v. Wade might mean that this applies to the states as well, but without a ruling on that matter, I won't use it as part of a debate.

EDIT: Golly Gee robotech! Let's clear this up with a quote!


"This list is not exhaustive" does not mean "everything is included on this list", which is what you were implying. The ninth never says or implies that everything is a right. It just says "there are more than eight rights".

that's what I was responding to.

What is this? The double and tripple post thread?

I don't give a rats ass about smoking being banned from he workplace, resteraunts, or even bars.

I understand that smoking is considered a cause if lung cancer.

What I do care about is the fact that since our government does not, apparantly, have the balls to just illegalise ciggaretts, the bullshit that people get for using ciggatetes forr their intended use...

I am also angry at the bulshit that tobbacco companies have to go through that other activities with damn near equil health risks do not.

I believe my last thread started just after there were reports on the news about people being fired for smoking in their own homes. Like it's fucking contagous.

From the looks of this so far, it seems that Jogurt is militantly anti-smoking. I do not smoke myself. I am not going to question her viewpoint on that paricular matter.

So now it looks like we have a fresh new thread, lets keep this debate fair, and let everyone talk.

--------------------

edit with comas for sentence structure.

Again, I'm not following. The 10th has nothing to do with this from what I know, because from what little I've seen of constitutional stuff, Powers and Rights are in fact opposites, where Powers limit Rights and Rights limit Powers. And the 9th says nothing about everything unless otherwise stated being a right, it simply says that there are possibly more rights than the first 8 ammendments. Could be 8. Could be 9. Could be everything. But it doesn't say.

I figure, your house, your rules.

If you go over a smiokers house and don't want to inhale it, leave.

I think bars and resteraunts should be allowed to allow smoking, but only if there is a clear seperator between the smoking and nonsmoking area (I don't like inhaling it myself).

Buisnesses should have a right to allow smoking on premisis if they choose, as long as it's contained within a designated smoking area.

Did I miss anything?

I personally do not approve of smoking, I find it a dirty, retarded habit. I also think that without a doubt that the Federal Government has the right and should ban smoking in government buildings.
But making all businesses ban it? That's a different story because it can be taken in so many ways. On one hand, it increases the risk of lung cancer (not directly killing or even increasing enough to be overly alarming but an increase none of the less which is still bad), yet at the same time these people choose to work there so they can leave if they don't want to. Yet also, why should the smokers set the standards for non-smokers.

Also people could argue there are things that increasr risk of cancer yet, are still allowed. This is less of an issue about if the Governement should ban smoking in these places and more about if people should take care and decide for themselves what's allowed or if the Government should play big brother (as in the biological role not the 1984 version) and help out the citizens even when the citizens rights and well being aren't in direct danger.

Also you can't compare theft to smoking and marijuana, one is clearly and universally considered immoral and the other two are more possiblely unintelligent decisions.

Ok, since apparently analogies aren't very well understood here, here's a breakdown of the misunderstanding.

Smoking under a ban would be illegal in private property. Marijuana consumption is illegal in private property. Killing people is illegal in private property. Stealing is illegal in private property.

That's all the similarity the analogy suggests.

I used an analogy with global warming when discussing with FZ. Why aren't people up in arms that I apparently think that smoking is a force changing the global ecosystem? It's the same sort of misunderstanding that Alan and Alpha are falling into.

16-19% greater chance of getting lung cancer from being in a workplace that allows smoking. That isn't alarming at all, or a direct danger to wellbeing?

Two problems with that. First, many of those things don't affect others. Second, just because something isn't already near-perfection doesn't mean you shouldn't improve it. If there are a lot of needless carcinogens the goverment doesn't already ban, how is that an argument not to start on the process?