Gekko

Funny you mention children & smoking ... it's in the news right now:

Anti-tobacco forces are opening a new front in the war against smoking by banning it in private places such as homes and cars when children are present.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...ing-bans_x.htm

Makes sense .. smoking around children is child abuse.

http://www.ash.org.uk/html/passive/html/kidsbrief.html

Emucom

My parents smoked in the car when I was a child and both my brother and I have all kinds of allergies now and we're in our 40's. I remember how tortuous it was to be in the back seat in a car full of smoke.

Our local newspaper has a countdown clock counting down the days till the Ohio anti smoking law goes into effect.

fdecarlo

I reference the following as a non-smoker:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,26109,00.html

There is not a single credible study, in the U.S. or elsewhere that shows definitive proof of a link between second-hand tobacco smoke and cancer. Or childhood asthma.

Gekko

BS. Hundreds of studies confirm what should be obvious -- second-hand smoke kills non-smokers.

If you doubt it, get first-hand info ... ask any CT surgeon. You can start with my father, a Mayo Clinic trained CT surgeon who frequently treats victims of 2nd hand smoke.

fdecarlo

What studies would those be? And which victims? Has your father done any clinical studies on second-hand smoke, or is he relying on the exact same personal hysteria and bias as everyone else who comes up with these half-baked conclusions?

NeoPatrick

fdecarlo, what are you saying? That second hand smoke DOESN'T kill? How long have you been away from the real world? Please tell my friend who worked in a bar but never smoked that it was hysteria and bias that caused her emphysema and then slowly killed her, not the second hand smoke. And tell her that all those specialists who told her it was caused by second hand smoke are really just idiots, not real doctors and scientists.

fdecarlo

I don't know how to clarify my statement further. There's not a single credible study (and by credible I mean a study which has been done by people without an obvious anti-smoking bias, and which has withstood independent peer review) which shows a link between second-hand smoke and cancer, or asthma.

If you or anyone else has evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.

Gekko

Perhaps you should share your "opinion" with the US Surgeon General, who says there's "No Debate" that 2nd hand smoke kills.

Do you think you know more than the Surgeon General?

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsmoke/

Emucom

As long as we're talking about 'studies' is there any study that says if business increased or decreased in bars and restaurants as a result of public smoking bans?

NeoPatrick

You are right, fdecarlo, my dead friend who died from second hand smoke (along with thousands of others) all DID have an obvious anti-smoking bias. I wonder why?

Of course, those with OBVIOUS PRO-SMOKING BIAS will argue that this is meaningless, but:
http://tinyurl.com/5rbxk

And be sure to read the quoted studies that those figures came from -- of course you, the expert, will say those studies are all meaningless.

fdecarlo

And you're claiming the Surgeon General is not subject to personal bias?

Take a look here, if you want to know the "facts" on which Carmona's report was based:

"A Searchable Database of Article Abstracts with Charted Study Results was a collaborative effort between the Institute for Global Tobacco Control at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns Hopkins University, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Office on Smoking and Health."

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sgri/

Clearly it's the same rabid anti-smoking activists at work again.

NeoPatrick

OK, smoking expert. We've listed a lot of studies by a lot of different groups that say second hand smoke does cause cancer. (That article I linked has some 17 different studies from a variety of doctors, universities, and hospitals). Now you list one from a "non biased source" which shows it doesn't.

fdecarlo

It's impossible to prove a negative. But I do know, in 1998 the World Health Organization refused to release results of the largest study ever done on the subject (paid for by anti-smoking groups), because the results showed no link whatsoever between second-hand smoke and cancer.

Emucom

Again,

Can anyone tell me if a smoking 'ban' was passed in thier town if business at bars/restaurants/bowling alleys etc. has increased or decreased? Ours has passed and is coming online Thursday. I am especially looking forward to bowling leagues being smoke free.

j_999_9

There have been several studies, notably six-year research in Mass., on the effect of smoking bans on business. Most show no drop in business. BUT I see a big hole in most of those studies.

The smoking bans were enacted in municipalities, so the studies looked at whether business dropped in those municipalities. It didn't.

However, if you think about it, if you ban smoking in a whole city, what are people going to do? Leave that city to go to restaurants in another city? C'mon.

The only way to truly test is to put two like restaurants side-by-side, one that bans smoking and one that allows it, and then see what happens.

I doubt that such a test will ever take place.

NeoPatrick

"It's impossible to prove a negative."

Huh? We're asking you to prove that second hand smoke does not lead to cancer, a "fact" which you seem so sure of, yet can't find a single bit of proof to show that. Meanwhile there are hundreds, no, make that thousands, of studies that prove that second hand smoke DOES lead to cancer as well as other problems.

In other words, once it is proven that A causes B, then you are right -- it is impossible to prove the "negative" -- that A does not cause B. Our point exactly.

There is a reason you can't prove your side -- it is wrong, pure and simple.

gmoney

OK, j_999, How about this scenario, which happened time and time again before smoking ban took effect.

Enter restaurant, hostess asks may I help you.

me: Yes, I would like a table for 4 non-smoking please.

hostess: Ummmm, It will be about a 2 hour wait for non-smoking. But, I can seat you in smoking right away!.

me: No thanks, I prefer not to breathe poison while I eat. I will just wait over there with the others.

This is about as close as you will get to your scenario but the results are pretty obvious. And you can't deny that this has not happened to most people.

GoTravel

Emucon, try this:

www.Google.com

I did and came up with about 100 articles.

Here's one from the New York Times

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...B63&sec=health

j_999_9

sorry, gmoney: I don't get your comparison with having two restaurants side-by-side.

But I can play that game, too:
I, a smoker (though I'm not in real life), walk into a restaurant. Hostess tells me the "smoking section is filled." So I wait till there's a vacancy in smoking. What's your point?

budget4me

I can assure you that if a smoker is told there is a 2 hour wait for a seat in a smoking section, they will not wait. They will enter the nonsmoking section and then light up anyway. In the years before we went completely smoke-free in restaurants, there was not one time--one time--when I did not have to complain about a smoker lighting up in the nonsmoking section.

There was one time we were waiting to be seated and the hostess asked the couple ahead of us "Smoking, Nonsmoking, or First Available"? "Oh, it doesn't matter," they replied. They ended up in nonsmoking, and we were seated at the table next to them five minutes later. The guy had already lit a cigarette, as had his wife. So of course it didn't matter to them which section they were seated in, because they were going to smoke anyway.

Just three days ago a clown pulled up at the gas station, got out, started pumping gas, and then lit up, right underneath the huge NO SMOKING sign. Smokers are in their own little world.

Emucom, most studies in our state and my prior state indicate that business has not dropped due to the nonsmoking laws.