- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence
New Zealand is repealing the world’s first smoking ban passed under former prime minister Jacinda Arden’s government to pave the way for a smoke-free generation amid backlash from researchers and campaigners over its risk to Indigenous people.
The new coalition government led by prime minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the repeal will happen on Tuesday, delivering on one of the actions of his coalition’s ambitious 100-day plan.
The government repeal will be put before parliament as a matter of urgency, enabling it to scrap the law without seeking public comment, in line with previously announced plans.
It’s kind of funny how you obviously take the time to come up with the worst insults you can think of and then throw them at me even when they don’t make sense. Try “MAGA” next.
Study shows outdoor particulate matter in smoking areas is almost the same level as indoor areas where smoking is banned (43.64 µg/m3 vs 36.90 µg/m3, respectively).
Even the conclusion here supports what I’m saying. Almost half of the surveyed smokers report smoking outside, yet only 24% of nonsmokers report being exposed to smoke at all outdoors. Also, this study doesn’t deal with the concentration.
You have to understand that there is a huge anti-smoking bias in top-level discussions. Younger generations just consider smoking gross. But the data itself doesn’t lie. Look beyond the conclusions and look at the actual data.
I can’t get over how hilarious you saying this is.
Like, quite literally, you’re a textbook case of trying to copy 1950’s tobacco company rhetoric.
So probably you’re doing it on accident, because you’ve actually bought into it, which is hilarious.
So here’s something to enlighten you on the subject
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
Well, “rwad it yourself”, no point in me pastingthe whole thing.
“Worst insults”? :D
Thanks for letting me know you’re offended, those are apt descriptors, not attempts at insults. I could show you some actual insults, but that’d be rude and against the rules.
There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. That’s it.
You can equivocate all you want that “there isn’t enough evidence”, but don’t be surprised when people laugh at you, since that’s exactly the thing the tobacco companies have been trying to repeat for almost a century. “Noo, the evidence isn’t in yet!” Yes, it is.
Ah yes, asking people “were you bothered by smoke” definitely proves that they weren’t exposed to any smoke at all. It’s not like people’s subjective experiences are worse than objective science.
All smoke-exposure is harmful. When you prove there is a level of smoke exposure that’s safe, then you have an argument. Before that, you don’t. You simply do not. You’re exactly like a Flat Earther, who refuses to believe the evidence in favour of some contrived bullshit that doesn’t even support the facts they think it does.
“Look at the actual data.”
It’s honestly hilarious how you keep stomping your foot, crying “no no no no no muh data”, but you don’t even have any, and then you pretend like some data on reported experiences about the levels of smoke they were exposed to proves that smoke exposure isn’t harmful?
My stomach is hurting I’m laughing so much :DDD
The laughter of idiots is equivalent to the approval of thinking people. So, thank you.
Now that you’re arguing against the concept of data, where do we go from here? I mean if you fundamentally disagree with reality, well…dunno what to tell you dude. The data ain’t saying what you want it to. That sucks. But it is what it is.
Again, there is no safe level of exposure to smoke.
There is no level of smoke exposure that is safe.
No level of exposure to smoke is safe. Outdoors or indoors.
That has been proved, objectively, for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times.
What you don’t see is that I’ve been asking “what is your argument” for several comments, but you simply do not have one. You’re trying to equivocate that “b-bb-but there are no studies which studied only outdoors exposure and that is actually safe because there’s no evidence to prove that it isn’t”, when we do have evidence proving that, since we have evidence that all smoke exposure is harmful. “Just look at the data.”
I could start pasting dozens of studies which have been done on this over almost a century, but you’re the one making the argument (or rather, not-making an argument, since you don’t actually have one, you’re just saying “lol look there’s no specific outdoors studies thus I’m right in my non-argument”), so the burden of proof is on you.
The irony in you saying “the conclusions aren’t supported by the data”, when they clearly show why it is, and then you being unable to actually explain why you think it isn’t… is again, h-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s.
Try to make an argument instead of this teenagey pseudointellectual equivocating and wannabe deep quotes. :D
Why does subjective reports about people’s perceived level of smoke exposure matter in this conversation? Why does it invalidate the data that shows all smoke exposure is harmful?
Yet you can’t find a study showing it?
It’s reasonable to assume that a level of smoke particulate matter equal to that of areas in which there is no smoking is nonharmful. Right? Maybe a higher level is still not harmful but there’s no data so we don’t know.
My theory is that occasional outdoor smoke exposes you to particulate matter at such low concentrations, it’s indistinguishable from regular daily fluctuations when not exposed to smoke. Just a theory, because no real data, but I think it’s a reasonable one. The one study you linked about particulate matter in outdoor areas seems to support it.
Also
You’re the one who linked the study, dude, I just read it.
The burden of proof is on you.
You’re the one screeching against established science. You’re the one saying that “the data doesn’t support the conclusions” while refusing to actually even make an argument.
“My theory”
You don’t seem to understand what the word means. That’s a hypothesis, and one not supported by any science, despite you saying that the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study isn’t supported by the data they have, that the data in fact supports your notion, but you still can’t seem to show how or why?
So your argument is “if you’re not exposed to smoke, then you’re not harmed by it”? Wow. What a great argument. Unfortunately, when you’re exposed to smoke, no matter the amount, it is harmful. This has been proven time and time and time again, but despite you childishly arguing against it, you haven’t even tried looking if there’s data available on it, because you know of course there is and it all proves you wrong.
The burden of proof is on you. You’re simply unable to produce any supporting evidence for any of your anti-vaxxer, flat-earth level garbage, instead preferring to write vague pseudointellectual garbage. :D
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
“Widely recognised.”
Almost as if that’s what the evidence points towards and your pathetic little “b-b-b-b-but what about if you’re only outdoors and you’re 100 meters upwind from the closest smoker so then you’re not exposed to smoke at all so then it’s safe so there is actually a safe level of second hand smoke exposure which is literally to not be exposed at all and that’s my mighty smart argument that I’m now making and the fact that there’s a literal library full of studies which prove that there is no safe level of second hand smoke is completely irrelevant as I’m not even gonna look at it I’m just gonna pretend like I won the argument I didn’t even actually manage to make”
SEe why I’m entertained? D:DD
That’s a problem with your comprehension, not with my explanation.
Run spell check please.
… deep sigh
So in your previous comment you ask “but you can’t find evidence for it?” after I’ve explained that you need to find the evidence, because the burden of proof is on you because you’re the one trying to argue against scientific consensus.
Despite the burden of proof being on you, not me, I show you studies that show how widely recognised it is that there is no safe level of SHS exposure.
You refuse to acknowledge it.
So tell me, how exactly are you different from a Flat Earther or an Anti-vaxxer? Because you can’t seem to make an argument of any sort, you’re just grasping at something like “no but see the measurements of exposure from an outdoor smoking area were almost as low as…” which isn’t an argument. It’s an observation, that in no way disproves that all SHS is harmful.
What aren’t you getting? Why are you ignoring when I show you proof? What is your argument? Oh you don’t have any so you end up with these childish games like pretending you didn’t see anything I just wrote and linked and are unable to Google “is second hand smoke dangerous” yourself?
Make. An. Argument. Please?
But you won’t.
My entire point is that there is no evidence since there’s no studies. You can’t prove a negative, but a massive analysis of previous studies comes close.
The studies don’t show that. They merely assert that, without the data to back it up. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you this whole time.
That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything. What tiny amount of data we have on the subject does in fact support what I’m saying. And I’m not even saying it’s conclusive evidence, just some level of support that I’m only bringing up for lack of real good data.
And you still haven’t sent any proof. You find a study, you read the conclusion, you throw it at me, I read the data, I throw that at you, you ignore it and find a new study, rinse and repeat.
I agree it’s very unfortunate that there’s such a ridiculous bias in studies’ conclusions. I suspect it’s related to funding and PR. We shouldn’t have to dig into the data of a study to see if it supports the conclusion that the authors wrote. But that’s where we’re at.
I don’t think this is the norm. I hope not. I suspect smoking is just a very charged topic and no scientist wants to lose funding by being known as the guy who put out a pro-smoking study.