|
|
#21
03-18-2006, 09:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
I don't know which I despise more: smoking, or the fact that people think they have the right to make me breathe their secondhand smoke.
|
|
#22
03-18-2006, 10:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know which I despise more: smoking, or the fact that people think they have the right to make me breathe their secondhand smoke. [/ QUOTE ] Luckily, you choose to go to places like restaurants, and thus have to abide by the harmful consequences. No one 'makes' you go to restaurants or bars.
|
|
#23
03-18-2006, 10:25 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
[ QUOTE ]
During the six months the law was enforced the number of admissions fell significantly (-16 admissions, 95% confidence interval -31.7 to -0.3), from an average of 40 admissions during the same months in the years before and after the law to a total of 24 admissions during the six months the law was in effect. [/ QUOTE ] The problem is that the -16 swing falls within the 95% confidence interval. If the 95% confidence interval is -31.7 to -0.3, that means it is 95% likely that a variance of that magnitude will occur, and -16 falls right in the middle. I don't see what's so significant. If the study did reflect something meaningful, they would have established the boundaries of standard deviation (for example, they could state that swings of +/- X, around the mean (in this case, 40 MCIs/month), fall within two standard deviations, or ~95%). Something occurring outside that boundary would be worthy of attention. If the 95% confidence interval was 50 to 30, then drop occurring outside that range (like 24 MCI/month) would have a frequency of <2.5% Even if this were the case, it's still far from establishing correlation, let alone causation. If you're going to correlate smoking bans with decreases in MCI incidents, you need a sample size greater than one. You need to compare the prevalence of changes in MCI incidents in towns that did employ smoking bans with similar changes in towns that did not employ smoking bans. This study does not reflect that. The variation could be attributed to anything. For example, the increase of late nineties ecstacy use among kids happened concurrently with the popularity of the teletubbies, and declined similarly. However, it's clearly erroneous to say that Tinky-Winky was causing kids to take molly and dance all night. Lastly, COME ON. Use a little common sense. If we are to believe that this evidence is indeed statistically valid, the conclusion of this study is that legally facilitated decreased exposure to second hand smoke in public places lowers the incidence of heart attacks by more than one third? AND that this is observable immediately?!?! Christ, it takes hardcore smokers years, even decades, before they start developing serious health problems, but somehow the absence of smoke in a bar results in an IMMEDIATE decrease of heart attacks?
|
|
#24
03-19-2006, 01:13 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
[ QUOTE ]
When your neighbor has to pay more in taxes because you lost thousands "overseas" then it affects everyone, even non-participants. [/ QUOTE ] That's an arguement for legalizing online gambling in the USA. [ QUOTE ] Before you call an argument dumb, think about your own premise. SHS has NEVER been a direct cause of death [/ QUOTE ] I gave you links that support my claim that it does, where are the links that support this B.S. [ QUOTE ] ...In fact I would argue that gambling has destroyed more lives than "stinky" cigarette smoke ever has. [/ QUOTE ] I will almost guarentee more homes have been lost to careless smokers than bad gamblers, not to mention lives.
|
|
#25
03-19-2006, 01:28 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
[ 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 ] The "dumbest argument award" goes to you. Bars and restaurants are private property, and the owner should have the right to establish whatever smoking policy he (or she) wants. If you are worried about being harmed by second-hand smoke, then don't enter private buildings in which smoking is allowed. Would you be in favor of banning shows by heavy metal bands because patrons may suffer hearing loss?
|
|
#26
03-19-2006, 02:33 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
[ QUOTE ]
The "dumbest argument award" goes to you. Bars and restaurants are private property, and the owner should have the right to establish whatever smoking policy he (or she) wants. If you are worried about being harmed by second-hand smoke, then don't enter private buildings in which smoking is allowed. [/ QUOTE ] So your saying if they don't want to wash the dishes they don't have to do that either, because it's private property? [ QUOTE ] Would you be in favor of banning shows by heavy metal bands because patrons may suffer hearing loss? [/ QUOTE ]They are going specifically for the sound. no one is banning smoke shops. Don't you guy's get it, at the very least your making people sick or worse killing them. Smoke your cigarettes outside or at home. Bill PS. This women thinks smokings great and wants to be your poster model.
|
|
#27
03-19-2006, 02:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
[ QUOTE ]
The problem is that the -16 swing falls within the 95% confidence interval. If the 95% confidence interval is -31.7 to -0.3, that means it is 95% likely that a variance of that magnitude will occur, and -16 falls right in the middle. I don't see what's so significant. [/ QUOTE ] What the study authors did was try to establish the size of the effect of the smoking ban on heart attack rates. Based on the variation in observed heart attacks before and after the ban, they were able to say with 95% certainty that the true effect size was between -0.3 and -31.7. [ QUOTE ] If the study did reflect something meaningful, they would have established the boundaries of standard deviation (for example, they could state that swings of +/- X, around the mean (in this case, 40 MCIs/month), fall within two standard deviations, or ~95%). Something occurring outside that boundary would be worthy of attention. If the 95% confidence interval was 50 to 30, then drop occurring outside that range (like 24 MCI/month) would have a frequency of <2.5% [/ QUOTE ]What they did was an alternative to that. Both are statistically valid ways of analyzing what happened. [ QUOTE ] Even if this were the case, it's still far from establishing correlation, let alone causation. If you're going to correlate smoking bans with decreases in MCI incidents, you need a sample size greater than one. [/ QUOTE ]That's true, and even the scientists who wrote the study agree. As it turns out, it was validated by a similar study in Pueblo. There are also extensive epidemiology studies showing greater risk to nonsmokers who breathe lots of second hand smoke. [ QUOTE ] You need to compare the prevalence of changes in MCI incidents in towns that did employ smoking bans with similar changes in towns that did not employ smoking bans. [/ QUOTE ] This is implied. There was no state-wide or nation-wide decrease in heart attacks during the same period. [ QUOTE ] For example, the increase of late nineties ecstacy use among kids happened concurrently with the popularity of the teletubbies, and declined similarly. However, it's clearly erroneous to say that Tinky-Winky was causing kids to take molly and dance all night. [/ QUOTE ] The correlation seen in this data is much more specific than a simple temporal co-occurence. Heart attacks decreased only in towns with smoking bans, and that decrease went away when the ban was lifted. I suppose it's theoretically possible that some unknown factor prevented all those heart attacks, but by far the most parsimonious explanation is that the second-hand smoke ban did it. [ QUOTE ] Lastly, COME ON. Use a little common sense. If we are to believe that this evidence is indeed statistically valid, the conclusion of this study is that legally facilitated decreased exposure to second hand smoke in public places lowers the incidence of heart attacks by more than one third? AND that this is observable immediately?!?! Christ, it takes hardcore smokers years, even decades, before they start developing serious health problems, but somehow the absence of smoke in a bar results in an IMMEDIATE decrease of heart attacks? [/ QUOTE ] I don't see why the idea that nicotine could be a proximate cause of heart attacks is so outlandish. Many fat people's hearts may be near the brink of heart attacks a lot of the time. If you expose them to a drug that increases heart rate, blood pressure and constricts the arteries, it just makes sense that that could push them over the edge.
|
|
#28
03-19-2006, 02:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] The "dumbest argument award" goes to you. Bars and restaurants are private property, and the owner should have the right to establish whatever smoking policy he (or she) wants. If you are worried about being harmed by second-hand smoke, then don't enter private buildings in which smoking is allowed. [/ QUOTE ] So your saying if they don't want to wash the dishes they don't have to do that either, because it's private property? [/ QUOTE ] Yes, of course, provided they let patrons know that they serve food on dirty dishes. Otherwise, they may be convicted of fraud. [ QUOTE ] Would you be in favor of banning shows by heavy metal bands because patrons may suffer hearing loss? [ QUOTE ] They are going specifically for the sound. no one is banning smoke shops. Don't you guy's get it, at the very least your making people sick or worse killing them. Smoke your cigarettes outside or at home. [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Totally irrelevant. I play in a band (and I don't smoke, btw). Some patrons are there for the sound, some to smoke and socialize, others to watch a game on the TV, etc. What about the patrons who are only there to drink beer and play pool? Why should they be "forced" to endure hearing loss? The only relevant point is that the owner has decided to create a certain environment in his private building, which may include such harmful things as smoke and loud music. Provided the owner is being honest about it, he has that right. If you don't like what he is offering, then don't enter the establishment.
|
|
#30
03-19-2006, 04:53 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Colorado goes nonsmoking
[ QUOTE ]
If you don't like SHS, don't go to places where smoking is allowed. It's that simple. [/ QUOTE ] I'm agreeing with the Libertarian/AC crowd again, this is a worrying trend ... um government's great, yeah.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
