Colorado goes nonsmoking

[hmkpoker]

Still waiting for a link to the study to explain to me why I should take this corellation as causation.

Or, more importantly, why I should care about saving the lives of people who would otherwise be too dumb to survive their recreational habits.

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]

States like Colorado that have a big influx of east and west coaster "know it alls" (read New Yorkers and Californians) are much more susceptible to this kind of legislation.


[/ QUOTE ]

You're aware that the majority of Coloradoans support the ban?

Amazing that a republican majority could actually be right about something, but there you have it [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[ QUOTE ]
For any of those on this site who are in favor of these bans and yet, complain about the anti-online gambling bill going through congress ATM, shame on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

When my gambling online forces my neighbor to risk his money online as well, then I'll support an online gambling ban. Until then, there's no comparison.

[AvivaSimplex]

Well, here's a study in the British Medical Journal about Helena. This is obviously causative. They banned smoking, heart attacks went down, and then when the ban was lifted, heart attacks rose again. What other factor could have simultaneously caused it?

[ QUOTE ]
Or, more importantly, why I should care about saving the lives of people who would otherwise be too dumb to survive their recreational habits.

[/ QUOTE ]That doesn't even make sense.

[Bill in FL]

[ QUOTE ]
Still waiting for a link to the study to explain to me why I should take this corellation as causation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a Couple...

Secondhand Smoke Fact Sheet
Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers

Bill

[hmkpoker]

Yoink.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, the researchers had no information on whether exposure to second hand smoke changed as a result of the ban. They also did not present any information on whether smoking habits were affected by the ban. If the study was concerned to isolate an effect of second hand tobacco smoke, it should have been restricted to the 33% of the study population who were never smokers.

Secondly, the drop in heart attacks is based on very few cases: four per month on average during the ban, compared with seven per month before. Because of these small numbers the reported difference could easily be due to chance or to some uncontrolled factor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Average of 40 a month to 26 a month, reflecting a low probability, high variance phenomenon in a little bumfuck town like Helena. Seems like an insufficient sample size to me.

[AvivaSimplex]

Even if it is a small sample, it was statistically significant. The low end of the 95% confidence interval of the size of the effect was still greater than 0, indicating that you'd see an effect this size by random chance less than 2.5% of the time.

How do you interpret the increase after the ban was lifted, or the similar findings in Pueblo?

Or the other epidemiological studies linked to in Bill's post showing that nonsmokers who have greater exposure to smoke are more likely to develop coronary heart disease?

Or the direct biological evidence that nicotine and other chemicals in smoke exacerbate heart problems?

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ] Its really growing tiresome. For any of those on this site who are in favor of these bans and yet, complain about the anti-online gambling bill going through congress ATM, shame on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be the dumbest arguement I have ever heard in my life. Online gambling never killed anyone......second hand smoke, that's another story.

Bill

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not dumb. You can make the same argument. Online gambling is detrimental to the gambler and society as a whole. When your neighbor has to pay more in taxes because you lost thousands "overseas" then it affects everyone, even non-participants. Obviously I think people should be able to spend their own money as they please, but if you do not think that more gambling in our society does not affect the "whole" then you are silly. Of course online-gambling does not "directly" kill anyone....neither does SHS.

Before you call an argument dumb, think about your own premise. SHS has NEVER been a direct cause of death...In fact I would argue that gambling has destroyed more lives than "stinky" cigarette smoke ever has.

[pooh74]

[ QUOTE ]

You're aware that the majority of Coloradoans support the ban?



[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me what the hell that has to do with anything? If you succeed in doing so I will concede.

[wmspringer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You're aware that the majority of Coloradoans support the ban?



[/ QUOTE ]

Explain to me what the hell that has to do with anything? If you succeed in doing so I will concede.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said:

[ QUOTE ]
States like Colorado that have a big influx of east and west coaster "know it alls" (read New Yorkers and Californians) are much more susceptible to this kind of legislation.

[/ QUOTE ]

But it isn't just the people who've moved here from California, etc, who support the ban - most of the state does. That's why it's being passed; it's becoming politically infeasible to vote against it. People here are tired of a minority infringing on their right to breathe freely.

[nietzreznor]

I don't know which I despise more: smoking, or the fact that people think they have the authority to ban smoking on others' property.