We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans

[jmyrlefuller]

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html

by Jacob Grier

This article's pretty long and dense, and it's pretty difficult to get an excerpt that encompasses it all, but here's the TL;DR version.

The whole movement of those public smoking bans began over a decade ago when, in Helena, Montana, a story came out that heart attacks dropped 60 percent when such a ban was imposed, then rose right back up to previous levels when the ban was overturned in court. The major news outlets ran with the story far and wide. There were a number of studies to try and replicate the results in Helena, but almost all of them showed no correlation between heart health and secondhand smoke. Likewise, the correlation between lung problems and secondhand smoke is nowhere near that with direct smoke and only marginally higher than not being exposed. Other causes, namely regression toward the mean (random statistical noise) and other factors such as increased cigarette taxes were the more likely factors in any improved health that coincided with the bans.

Yet the false science was used as a legislative cudgel and now it is illegal to smoke in most public places.

[Cripplecreek]

I quit smoking on my own but I am pretty irritated at the new ad accusing tobacco companies of racial profiling to lure black kids to smoke.

They claim that there is more tobacco advertising near schools with dominant minority populations. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that they're talking about inner city schools with retail (party stores and liquor stores) nearby.

My school wasn't even in town. Hanover Horton high school is about 2 miles as the crow flies from Hanover and 2 and a half miles to Horton in the other direction. The only advertising we saw was for Hillside Methodist right across the road. There were 3 black kids in our school and the tobacco companies developed VR in the early 80s so they could be specifically targeted with tobacco ads without inadvertently infecting us white kids.

[TomSea]

Does 2nd hand smoke present dangers?

[Oceander]

Does 2nd hand smoke present dangers?

I think it does - and I say this as someone who hasn't smoked since 2009 - but it would be good to get some science that isn't politically motivated.

[Cripplecreek]

I think it does - and I say this as someone who hasn't smoked since 2009 - but it would be good to get some science that isn't politically motivated.

I think there are multiple factors that need to be taken into account starting with, is there a political motivation for the study to determine one thing or another.

[Smokin Joe]

I think it does - and I say this as someone who hasn't smoked since 2009 - but it would be good to get some science that isn't politically motivated.

When they begin with the base assumption that there is no benefit in consuming tobacco products, it's going to be hard.
If no one benefited, why have people been using tobacco for thousands of years?

[uglybiker]

When they begin with the base assumption that there is no benefit in consuming tobacco products, it's going to be hard.
If no one benefited, why have people been using tobacco for thousands of years?

From the article:

They note that most tobacco research ignores the perspective of actual smokers and that the lack of interest in their experiences “speaks to the ways in which tobacco research is increasingly expected to further the goals of tobacco control.”

[Frank Cannon]

The only reason there is a new push to reverse the old smoking bans is because the pot lobby wants people to be allowed to light a joint in public. This whole thing is a fraud.