Second hand smoke not as bad as we thought

[Deleted]

A good tobacco is a lovely smell and people who wander into it should show more appreciation instead of acting like a little snowflake.

What people should be complaining is everything else like smog and diesel pollution,stinky coughing people on public transport to sweaty odours and chemical deodorants.

[Shalcker]

No. That's how it's being framed by the author. Scientists don't look at one study and say 'well, I guess it's settled!'.

He never claims scientists did, and mentions scientific opposition existing from the moment study was published. And in fact mostly talks about science going to try repeating that study results.

Policy-maker and those with agenda do cherry-pick studies to support their point and then run with it as "settled science" (and then sometimes science actually gets "settled" some 30 years later with opposite conclusion - like happened with fats in diet).

If you want more data, look through the links I gave you that you, for some reason, neglected to address. You will find that the case against second hand smoke is much stronger than what is presented in this opinion piece.

Stronger by how much exactly?

[Damajin]

Yeah bullshit on that, smoke of any kind is bad. Let me guess this study/studies were funded by the tobacco industry?

[Narwal]

Who funded this research? This like this make me think the cigarette businesses are hurting as the number of smokers are declining each year. So putting out a study saying smoking isn't as bad for you as previously thought. Though this is not about direct smoking, an easy place to start is to get non smokers to not care about smokers as much as they do.

That is my skepticism.

I think it's ok for this study to point out that basically what was happening here was a scare tactic by some to get their way. I'm all for clean environments in public, smoke certainly does make the environment worse for many people. However, pointing out that inaccurate scientific data was used and cherry picked, and counter studies ignored in order to push through some legislation is important.

I don't know who is behind this study, but wouldn't you rather have more information than less? Do you condone fake science to push through political agendas? We have to be fair here, and understand that we have to push back against the misuse of science and data analysis for an agenda, even if we like the agenda. Personally, I think it's ridiculous to think that anyone believed a study that says heart attacks will go down by 60% within weeks of a ciragrette ban in bars, and that they will go back up the day after a person starts smoking in bars again. I mean, come on.

We should follow the facts, and not make up fake ones. If a community wants to ban smoking in buildings, they could easily point out many other negative effects and get the support they need. If you need fake ones, then it's probably not a good idea.

[Annoying]

Problem? Yeh, I think so. Not one I care about though. A person should be able to open a bar and decide if he/she wants to allow smoking. Not be forced into a position by the government.

I agree to an extent. The issue comes in where jobs are a finite resource, and the people working at the bar really shouldn't have to deal with it. Should be like a place in my old hometown. They had a membership -- making it a private club (and not subject to the public smoking ban). "Members" (lol, you paid by the day -- AKA a cover) could go into the "cigar room". It was a glass room so that employees could see inside of it to make sure nothing bad was happening in there, but it had its own ventilation system. No booze served in there, but you could bring drinks in and all. Nice compromise IMO.

[Tinykong]

We don't need to use science to ban smoking in public places, it's disgusting and people don't want to inhale it.

[Docturphil]

It's not pretty harmless though.

I mean if you're around smokers as often as a heavy smoker smokes, maybe. But extremely few people are around second hand smoke that often. When you hear about people getting lung cancer who don't smoke it's probably from radon not second hand smoke. Is second hand smoke unhealthy? Sure. Is it unhealthy enough for someone to be seriously concerned every time they take a breath? Almost certainly not.

Bottom line is there are way bigger health concerns than second hand smoke. If you're eating at a restaurant where someone is smoking, for example, the food you're eating is probably more unhealthy than the trace amount of smoke you're inhaling.

[Auxora]

I'm not sure anyone that worked on these studies lived back in the 70's. Back then in many public places it was a seriously very thick fog of cigarette smoke. Way, way, more people smoked and smoked all the time, including in the workplace. And people in their homes with children around smoked constantly as well. As thick as it always was everywhere you went, I am extremely skeptical that the level of 2nd hand smoke back then was not bad.

Walking by someone smoking outside a building once like you find sometimes today, I am sure that probably isn't going to cause many problems (although even then it might). But it's not really anything like 2nd hand smoke used to be, and I would be against anything suggesting it wasn't bad.

[Deleted]

Smoking is healthy.
There is no global warming.
The earth was created 6.000 years ago by god.
The bible is real.
Trump is a great president.

[ControlWarrior]

We know it's certainly not healthy, and I personally cannot stand the smell of smoke, so I'm happy with a ban on smoking indoors.

[Kelathos]

Smoke is not healthy. Full stop.

[ControlWarrior]

Smoking is not healthy.
There is no climate change.
The earth was created 6.000 years ago by god.
The bible is real.
Obama was a failed president.

Fix'd that for you

[Deleted]

Fix'd that for you

Ah no you destroyed it.

[namecraft]

someone farted nearby me, I choked him to death
fucking disgusting pig

[Pipebomb]

I think smoking in public places should be mandatory.

[Nasukkin]

Second Hand Smoke triggers my asthma quicker than just about anything else.

[Deleted]

I think smoking in public places should be mandatory.

I think smoking should be prohibited. Tobacco is a deadly drug.

[Aggrophobic]

So this one study found that it's not as bad as they thought but still quite bad? Ok.

If people want to inhale that crap, let them. Keep it away from me though and let them pay for their own medical bills.

[IIamaKing]

Yes we do, we can go form our own little clique outside the bar, and then return when done smoking. Repeat as necessary.

Yeh thats not smoking in/at the bar, is it?

Your option is to LEAVE the bar.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you ok with the government adding a sugar tax on junk food to fight obesity?

No, I am against sin taxes in general.

- - - Updated - - -

We don't need to use science to ban smoking in public places, it's disgusting and people don't want to inhale it.

Except those that do.......

[Garnier Fructis]

Give it a rest. Nothing's been overturned; you're acting like a crank.

Maybe you were inspired by the temporary success of climate cranks, but this shit is just politically dead in the water.