Originally Posted by
tenexe
I think your points are interesting and selective as you only responded to the issues that you thought you could validate. I'll respond to each of these in turn.
As far as the WHO, I seriously doubt that they are funded by the tobacco companies, that is just silly. In addition they at least provided a methodology, whether you agree with it or not. The other study provided absolutely NO methodology. In addition this issue is about second hand smoke, not smoking. Regardless the methodology included people with cancer and without, with the same amount of cigarette usage so it really doesn't matter how many cigarettes they smoked, they are comparing apples to apples. You can say it is a comparative cross section and doesn't represent a strong longitudinal study but you can't say it's any more invalid than any other study out there for the reasons I will explain in the next paragraph.
Another issue not addressed is the manipulation and use of statistics and information gathering that can validate any predrawn conclusion. If I want to prove that smoking is harmful (just a carved out example) I will interview 25 smokers and 25 nonsmokers as well as the people who live in their households. I will make sure that the twenty five smokers have a longstanding history of heart disease, cancer and other clearly proven Genetic factors predisposing them to these conditions. I will also make sure that they work in high stress jobs, are obese and eat a very poor diet. I will make sure that the 25 non-smokers are healthy, in good relationships, have little stress in their life, have absolutey no history of heart disease, cancer etc, in their family tree and that most people in their families have lived an extremely long time. Then I will wait and compile my data. When I report outcomes I won't mention all the inclusionary criteria that ended up pushing people out of my "random" and control group. This is just a small example of how statistics are gathered and twisted to support any conclusion. The other problem is that with people there is no absolute control. For something to be a control you have to be able to control every aspect that would have an effect which is impossible to do with people. The way you described the process is very simplistic and misleading.
As far as them not taking their habit to "my" restaurant or bar. When you own a restaurant or bar then you can make that decision, until you do it is just as much the smokers bar as it is yours. It should continue to be up to the business owner as to whether to allow smoking or not. If you don't want to be around smoke than don't patronize organizations that allow smoking, which brings me to another point that I previously made that you disregarded. Perfume should be illegal in public places since people are allergic. I'm allergic to peanuts and when I go to a public place where peanuts are served and the smell bothers me I don't insist that everyone else there stop eating peanuts and that they be banned for my convenience. No, I just don't go to those places. Why are these issues not addressed? Because it's not politically correct and part of the widespread hysteria related to the smoking issue.
The last main point I want to address is the concept that "businesses will have to suffer unless they want to start taking responsibility (in terms of large lawsuits, settlements) for the diseases they are facilitating". Facilitating how? are they forcing people to smoke? are they forcing people to patronize their establishments? This is the primary take no responsibility for your own actions mindset that has bogged down our legal system and pervaded every aspect of our society.
To sum this up I will use your quote regarding smoking to one that effects me and see if you agree with my stance. No peanut eater has the right to put my heath in jeopardy. The next time I go to the restaurant up the street that lets people eat peanuts and throw the husks on the floor I am going to tell the people that are eating the peanuts that they can't do it anymore an that I'm going to sue the owner of the restaurant if I have an allergic reaction. I am going to force everyone else to accomodate me regardless of the other peoples rights. After all, It's all about me? Isn't it.
Just remember, Margarine is better than butter, hydrogenated oils are fine. Isn't that what the government and the Surgeon General told us once with absolute authority. It's not that I think that smoking is good for you or that the Surgeon General is wrong, but when the basis of an argument is "a study" and the core of the argument uses the words, "disgusting" "to **** with smokers rights" "kill themselves" the issue is clearly being responded to in an emotionally charged manner. Unfortunately when emotions get involved objectively and clarity go out the window.
Reply With Quote
