why do the cappies ban smoking?

[Black Sheep]

Here's a light question.
Why do the cappies ban smoking from public places?
(i.e. in greece from july it will be prohibited)
Well it can't be from their good loving heart. Why?

[Communist Theory]

Would have to be from their good loving heart because cigarettes mean $$$

[Bitter Ashes]

*cracks her knuckles*
Okay. I've been waiting for this question for ages. :p

Some things to consider:

- Welfare reforms get pushed through parliment all the time. They undoubtibly do not directly benefit the bourgeois, however, what they do "achieve" is promoting the illusion of democracy. If workers are feeling that some of thier concerns are bieng acted upon, they're less likely to revolt. Some workers, when faced with anti-smoking propaganda, have reacted by demanding, very loudly, that smoking is banned in public places. So, it's a reform like any other.

- There are bourgouis winners from smoking bans. They're the pharamacetical companies. You may be shocked to discover just how expensive NRT (Nicotine Replacment Therepy) is priced. There's usuauly goverment subsidies on them, so you'll never actualy pay the following price, but they leave the pharmetutical companies at a price of roughly £20-£30 for a week's supply. That's even more expensive than the heavily taxed tobacco industry sells a weeks worth of its products for. It's also far cheaper to produce NRT than tobacco, so the markup and subsequent profit is massive.

- Most anti-smoking propaganda you'll see around in the UK will usualy list its sources as ASH. ASH is a pharmecutical company funded anti-smoking group. It publishes research from, suprise-suprise, pharmecutical companies. Now, you wouldnt trust the tobacco companies if they told you that smoking is harmless, so why do we trust pharmecutical companies when they tell us that passive smoking is harmful? For those intrested, independantly funded research usualy points towards smoking bieng harmful, but passive smoking bieng harmles.

[#FF0000]

The Bourgeoisie isn't monolithic. There are different competing factions, silly.

[STJ]

Cuz they hate us smokers.

[Pogue]

The British Medical Association pushed it through over here and they basically have the ear of the government 24/7.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

In my opinion, because it's an issue politicians can rally behind without accomplishing anything meaningful at all.

Furthermore, no pol wants to even debate the rights of smokers because if they did so they'd be painted as trying to encourage birth defects in the next election.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Even in the most simple of terms the ruling class have a vested interest in this; insofar as tax revenue from the tobacco industry cannot compete to the £1.4 - £1.7bn that smoking costs the National Health Service each year
(source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/smoking/86599.stm)

[Bitter Ashes]

Even in the most simple of terms the ruling class have a vested interest in this; insofar as tax revenue from the tobacco industry cannot compete to the £1.4 - £1.7bn that smoking costs the National Health Service each year
(source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/background_briefings/smoking/86599.stm)
http://www.the-tma.org.uk/tobacco-tax-revenue.aspx

Roughly £10bn tax revenue from tobacco each year :o

The "fact" that ASH like to quote that smokers cost the NHS money more than they put in is totaly false. We put in 5 times more than we take out. So, where's the other £8.3-£8.6bn going I wonder? :p

[KurtFF8]

Well one simple and perhaps disappointing short answer I'll give for right now at least:

Not everything the governments of Liberal Democracies do is directly in the interest of Capital. Even in bourgeois states, people can push for reforms and limits on Capital, which sometimes include regulations on health, environment, etc. (You see a lot of this in US politics for example).

[LOLseph Stalin]

Here's a light question.
Why do the cappies ban smoking from public places?
(i.e. in greece from july it will be prohibited)
Well it can't be from their good loving heart. Why?


Because it's a disgusting and unhealthy habit. I feel like i'm one of the only Commie Non-smokers. I hate smoking so much. It's kinda ironic they would ban it though since they make billions off cigarette sales.

[Black Sheep]

Because it's a disgusting and unhealthy habit.
Oh right,and the cappies have sure been struggling to better this world by smiting down those naughty habits.

[Sean]

Because tobacco companies can survive perfectly well shamelessly flogging them to kids in Africa and Asia now without pesky things like proper regulation. They arent closing down, theyre simply focusing on to easier markets.

[Coggeh]

I think mainly because of lobby groups , conservatives and even some leftist groups of course . With second smoking thought to be (still debated) a killer it would be unfair on workers to have to sit in an environment which could potentially kill them. So if its 100% proven that second smoking really is a killer then I would be 100% in favour of it and im a smoker at the end of the day .

You can be a libertarian and say its unfair and what not and maybe it is, but who really cares like .

To address the point again of why would governments ban smoking in doors even though its not profitable.Well the same reason they would bring in social welfare , allow trade unions bring in a minimum wage ? Because governments don't always go 100% with the capitalist class , it would be naive and ignorant to say so.

Governments do it because it looks good come election time , creating a healthier nation etc , and because increasing smokers rights or the rights of tobacco companies is a nail in the coffin of politics with all the anti smoker groups around .

[Coggeh]

Because it's a disgusting and unhealthy habit. I feel like i'm one of the only Commie Non-smokers. I hate smoking so much. It's kinda ironic they would ban it though since they make billions off cigarette sales.
Are you one of them people who coughs around smokers ?

You go up to cripples and dance too ,yeah? :p

[STJ]

Because it's a disgusting and unhealthy habit. I feel like i'm one of the only Commie Non-smokers. I hate smoking so much. It's kinda ironic they would ban it though since they make billions off cigarette sales.
You are the only commie non-smoker.

[redshirt]

I don't smoke anymore.

[Bitter Ashes]

Because it's a disgusting and unhealthy habit. I feel like i'm one of the only Commie Non-smokers. I hate smoking so much. It's kinda ironic they would ban it though since they make billions off cigarette sales.
Well, it's certainly unhealty for the smoker to be smoking, but it's unlikely to be dangerous for anyone else in the area. Why it's disgusting I dont know. It's a pity really that there's so much goverment legistlation against "promoting smoking" that have accidently made non-smokers' lives more unpleasant. Take for example that you can get armoatic pipe tobacco, even before I smoked I thought it smelt wonderful and there was this guy on the bus who used to smoke it and I used to look forward to him lighting up. It's illegal, in the UK at least, to make armomatatic cigarettes. So, legislation has actualy made smoking stink!

[Sean]

Are you one of them people who coughs around smokers ?

You go up to cripples and dance too ,yeah? :p
http://www.joelspitzer.com/whyquit/whyquit/notables/BillHicks.jpg
I heard someone was stealing my material.:p

I really don't mind antismoking legislation. Its the antismokers that piss me off. They rank up there with the weirdo religious people who want to tell you what to do in the bedroom in my book. Freaks!

[Bitter Ashes]

http://www.joelspitzer.com/whyquit/whyquit/notables/BillHicks.jpg
I heard someone was stealing my material.:p

I really don't mind antismoking legislation. Its the antismokers that piss me off. They rank up there with the weirdo religious people who want to tell you what to do in the bedroom in my book. Freaks!
Double-plus good comrade! :lol:
*gets sent to room 101*

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What, you smoke a pack a day? What a little puss.

Man, I go through two lighters a day.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Just because people are capitalists doesn't mean they have "no" regard for other people. They are just hypocritical about when and how they treat people (arguably).

I'm not that opposed to the legislation against cigarettes. Cigarettes are ridiculously unhealthy, addictive, etc. "Maybe" we could justify going easier on people who already smoke, but we should prevent access to cigarettes by those who have never smoked. I don't think someone knowledgeable about cigarettes can say, hey, smoking sounds like something worth doing.

I don't think most people using drugs are legitimately using them. I don't mean legally. I mean that they're living a better life because of the drugs they use. There is a balance between addictiveness, benefit, physical harm, etc, when it comes to drug use.

I don't know what the line is. I've never used drugs illegally, but I have had them for medical purposes. Some unhealthy drugs provide an incredible feeling. If we could be drugged up constantly, maybe we should do it. However, we can't sustain that. If we can manage drug use without becoming addicted, then perhaps it's worth it. Some drugs, though, are simply harmful. It's only the addictiveness of the substance that makes it seem beneficial. Essentially, it's like making the normal part of your brain require the drug use to sustain itself. The brain comes to think "it needs a drug" and turns off to a degree without it. Once the drug is no longer used, this problem slowly goes away. The people still remember the "stress relief" etc that came from the use, so they might try it again. Really, though, it's convenience rather than going and addressing the source of the stress, exercising (natural stress relief), or doing something that isn't inherently useless.

I really don't know enough about the psychology of drugs. I do know some drugs seem to be simply harmful, and other drugs vary from person to person.

[STJ]

:wub:
What, you smoke a pack a day? What a little puss.

Man, I go through two lighters a day.

I am a pack and a half a day.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Are you one of them people who coughs around smokers ?


Yes I am. I'm highly allergic to cigarette smoke actually. It gives me brutal ear infections or at least it used to. I had bad ears as a child. Also, smoking stinks so bad. It makes the actual smokers smell pretty bad too.

[Bitter Ashes]

Shouldnt be banned though, right? I mean, wouldnt it just be a case of you choosing to visit places with a no-smoking area? Just like somebody with epilepsy choosing to visit places without flashing lights would?

[STJ]

Yes I am. I'm highly allergic to cigarette smoke actually. It gives me brutal ear infections or at least it used to. I had bad ears as a child. Also, smoking stinks so bad. It makes the actual smokers smell pretty bad too.
I am breathing cigarette smoke though my computer and in to your house.

[LOLseph Stalin]

Shouldnt be banned though, right? I mean, wouldnt it just be a case of you choosing to visit places with a no-smoking area? Just like somebody with epilepsy choosing to visit places without flashing lights would?

It shouldn't be banned as it's a personal choice, but instead of being sold through private companies it should be a government industry. They could be making millions that could go towards helping to improve other government services. My dad has funny views on it. I told him about the people at my school who want to ban smoking. He called them Communist for wanting to have so much control over people's lives.:rolleyes:

[вор в законе]

I support the ban in public areas. For example if you are a worker in a bar, you are being forced to breath the smoke of the customers and it is unbearable. If you concerned for the those who surround you, (and this is what the left is all about), you wouldn't smoke either.

[Bitter Ashes]

It's not a health hazard though. It's an issue of comfort. There are plenty of jobs around that are always going to be uncomfortable, yet people choose to do them. I think the biggest issue for me with that statement is that it ignores that it's even illegal to have a pub staffed by smokers, or non-smokers who dont mind the smoke, for smokers to attend, or even a smoking area with ventalation. Smoking "shelters" are laughable, the EU's rules on shelters for pigs say that they must have a minimum of 75% coverage and must include a roof, while the shelters for smokers must have a maximum of 50% coverage if they have roof.

The myth of second hand smoke extends even further. A number of local councils in the UK have forbidden smokers to adopt children, questions have appeared on application forms for jobs about whether the applicant smokes, so that an employer may discriminate as they see fit and smokers are even accused of creating outlandishly trumped up charges of putting extra patients in the NHS and have been threatened, sometimes carried through, that they will have NHS treatment forbidden. Some employers have already begun active campagains of advertising thier jobs with the words "smokers need not apply".

[al8]

I think smoking should be banned as much as religion. And I looooooove being a **** about it.

[MikeSC]

There are plenty of jobs around that are always going to be uncomfortable, yet people choose to do them.

Yeah true- on a related note, let's call this whole Communist thing off.

I'm an ex-smoker, and I fully support the ban in enclosed public places. It used to be awful, in bus stations and bars. And it's not like you had the choice of "no-smoking" bars or bus stations.

Maybe smoking licenses could be attained that over-rule the smoking ban for some places? Although that's still imposing on employees, and I can't think of any system of seeking employee consent before becoming a smokers place that could work.

[вор в законе]

It's an issue of comfort. There are plenty of jobs around that are always going to be uncomfortable, yet people choose to do them.

The health of the worker is more important than the habits of the consumers. If you disagree then you are in the wrong place.

[FreeFocus]

I surely wouldn't complain, I hate smelling the shit and no one should be forced to be exposed to it. You want to smoke, smoke in your house with the windows and doors closed. Keep your cancer to yourself, thanks.

[The Idler]

How much freedom is infringed if you just step outside? Any other noxious gas wouldn't be allowed to be released in an enclosed public place, so why make an exception for tobacco?

[griffjam]

1 smoker can deter a large number of people from going to a place therefore cutting down on sales

[khad]

The myth of second hand smoke extends even further. A number of local councils in the UK have forbidden smokers to adopt children, questions have appeared on application forms for jobs about whether the applicant smokes, so that an employer may discriminate as they see fit and smokers are even accused of creating outlandishly trumped up charges of putting extra patients in the NHS and have been threatened, sometimes carried through, that they will have NHS treatment forbidden. Some employers have already begun active campagains of advertising thier jobs with the words "smokers need not apply".
While one may debate the health effects of secondhand smoke, one thing is certain--it'll make those kids smell like shit.

[LOLseph Stalin]

I support the ban in public areas.

I agree with this as there's many people who may not want to be around smoke. If it's in public areas these people don't have a choice.


It's not a health hazard though. It's an issue of comfort.

Smoking is a huge health hazard actually. It has been proven that the second hand smoke can be just as harmful as the cigarette itself. I don't know about you guys, but I wouldn't want to get some kind of smoking related disease simply because I was around smokers.

[Bitter Ashes]

*sighs*
Second hand smoke/passive smoking is not harmful. The "research" reffered to that apparantly confirms that it does cause harm was done by, funded by and scrutinised by, pharemetutical companies who have just as much money to make from saying that second hand smoke kills as tobacco companies have to say that it doesnt. Dont trust either of them and look at the independant research and you'll find it's not a health hazard.

[pastradamus]

In Ireland we have the smoking ban in public restaraunts and Pubs etc..
Initially I hated the idea as a smoker but now I accept it and smoke less. Also in the pubs and clubs the smoking room offers a good break from loud music and you can actually hear one anothers voice there. I met my girlfriend in a smoking room FFS! :D

[Drace]

God dammit.

The capitalists arn't a single entity born from hell to bring pain in the world...even if it may seem like it :laugh:

[вор в законе]

*sighs*
Second hand smoke/passive smoking is not harmful. The "research" reffered to that apparantly confirms that it does cause harm was done by, funded by and scrutinised by, pharemetutical companies who have just as much money to make from saying that second hand smoke kills as tobacco companies have to say that it doesnt. Dont trust either of them and look at the independant research and you'll find it's not a health hazard.

Conspiracy theories.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Here's a light question.
Why do the cappies ban smoking from public places?
(i.e. in greece from july it will be prohibited)
Well it can't be from their good loving heart. Why?

I didn't read all the responses, so sorry if someone already said this.

I feel in the US they do it to place blame for bad health on induvidual choices rather than a shitty-ass non-health healthcare system.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I don't think it would harm sales of tobacco products to ban smoking in public places anyway. I don't know any people who gave up smoking because of the ban in the UK.

[Nakidana]

*sighs*
Second hand smoke/passive smoking is not harmful. The "research" reffered to that apparantly confirms that it does cause harm was done by, funded by and scrutinised by, pharemetutical companies who have just as much money to make from saying that second hand smoke kills as tobacco companies have to say that it doesnt. Dont trust either of them and look at the independant research and you'll find it's not a health hazard.

According to Wikipedia:



Research has generated scientific evidence that secondhand smoke (that is, in the case of cigarettes, a mixture of smoke released from the smoldering end of the cigarette and smoke exhaled by the smoker) causes the same problems as direct smoking, including cardiovascular disease (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Cardiovascular_disease), lung cancer (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Lung_cancer), and lung ailments (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Respiratory_disease) such bronchitis (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bronchitis) and asthma attacks (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Asthma).[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-sg-report-1)[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-calepa2005-2)[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-iarc-monograph-3)

According to the Lancet, a VERY respected medical journal (As I'm sure you'll agree):


Exposure to passive smoking is associated with an increased prevalence of COPD [Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease] and respiratory symptoms. If this association is causal, we estimate that 1·9 million excess deaths from COPD among never smokers could be attributable to passive smoking in the current population in China. Our findings provide strong evidence for urgent measures against passive smoking in China.

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)61378-6/abstract


Another article from the Lancet I found:


Passive smoking is common but the prevalence varies widely between different countries. Passive smoking increased the likelihood of experiencing respiratory symptoms and was associated with increased bronchial responsiveness. Decreasing involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke in the community, especially in workplaces, is likely to improve respiratory health´

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)07214-2/abstract


Please dump the conspiracy theories and acknowledge scientific fact before you hurt somebody.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In the US, companies often place conditions of health care benefits if you smoke. Also, smoking bans often come as an attack on worker's ability to take small breaks.

One of the commin things you hear from right-wingers in the US against universal healthcare is why should I pay for complications caused by my neighbor's smoking habit?

So just as Victorian crusades against drinking (and in favor of tea - more productive if workers are on caffeine than hung-over) this contemporary moral crusade against smoking places the blame for social problems and health problems on personal choices rather than seeing proper health a something everyone deserves not just the wealthy.

I don't smoke cigs by the way.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Any chance the government has to control you in the name of "safety", it'll jump at. That's...basically it. I don't think anyone's going to make the argument that they're doing it sincerely out of concern for the people.

Yes. In California they claimed to be banning smoking in bars for the health of bartenders and waitresses ? ? ?

Great, if you care about our health so much, where's the universal healthcare? Where's the decent wages so you can live a life in which yoyu don't have the stress that causes people to reach for cigs or booze or amphetamines to get you through the 2nd shift? Where's the affordable housing so kids and old people don't freeze to death?

Now in California, they've banned smoking in appartment buildings... hmm, appartments, bars, workplaces... I guess you can smoke all you want if you are rich.

Again, there is also an ideological argument in the US: bad health comes from bad habbits, not lack of affordable and decent healtcare. Radicals should oppose these bans and these arguments and say that even smokers should have full universal healthcare as should the rest of us.

[Bitter Ashes]

According to Wikipedia:



According to the Lancet, a VERY respected medical journal (As I'm sure you'll agree):



Another article from the Lancet I found:



Please dump the conspiracy theories and acknowledge scientific fact before you hurt somebody.
Lets try deconstruct the maths on that study then.

You're reffering to a single 3 year study conducted with 20,000 participants. The mortality rate in China is about 6.7% per annum, so even at the best stretch here 1340 a year, which is 4020 of the survey'd group passed away during the experiment. It's highly unlikely that anywhere near that rate though as they were looking at the over 50 group, rather than something closer to China's life expectancy. Anyway, lets be bold and assume the best case scenario to make your point look strongest and go with 4020 deaths. 3/4 of the survey'd group were non-smokers, so again, I'll bend the evidence in your favour and say that about 2,000 of those deaths, that probably didnt happen in the first place, were non smokers, which normaly I'd argue because non-smokers ARE healthier than smokers, so if anyone's going to die young it'll be the smokers. Anyway, stickign with 2,000 to make your point look as strong as possible.

So, 2,000 deaths in a country with SEVERE air pollution issues in its cities, were non-smokers who had been surveyed on thier smoke exposure during the entire study. Okay. Keep that in your mind for a second because I need to come back to that in a second.

They've also said that 1.9million deaths in China's current population could be caused by passive smoking. Well, the current population of China is 1.33 billion and guess what, at some point they're all going to die. So what's 1,330,000,000 divided by 1,900,000? It's 782 people that are going to die from apparant passive smoking within thier 71 year life expectancy (I'll use the male one as it's lower and helps your point even more).

So, they're saying that from thier research they've determined that 782 people out of 1.3 billion are going to die in the next 71 years as a result of passive smoking. So how many died of passive smoking out of thier possible (and unlikely) 2,000 deaths in this 3 year study? 6 people out of the entire population of one of the most poluted countries in the world, that makes up 20% of the world's population, in this study may have died from Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did not smoke and they say that they could have been brought on by passive smoking. And that is with me twisting all the facts in your favour and creating lots of outlanding scenarios of 50 year olds decieding to die 20 years earlier just to try force the hand in your favour. Most likely, they found one death in the whole duration of the study that matched all thier criteria, (COPD + non smoker + exposed to passive smoking) which was, frankly, pretty easy to please in a place like China as it is and then come up with facts and figures to make it look scary. The Lancet then takes a large backhander from GlaxoSmithKline, or whoever it is to publish this rubbish.

[Nakidana]

In the US, companies often place conditions of health care benefits if you smoke.

The US healthcare system is shocking, no doubt about it, but I don’t see how that relates to the issue of banning smoking in public. It has more to do with the privatisation of healthcare and thus should be met with demands for a universal (or “socialist”) healthcare system.


Also, smoking bans often come as an attack on worker's ability to take small breaks.

Source?

This is of course appalling if indeed the case. Again this shouldn’t be met with attacks on the ban on smoking in public, but rather an attack on the lack of breaks in the working place.

In my country the smoking ban has been met with some resistance but also a lot of support. Many working class smokers have come out in support of the ban and see it as a possibility to stop smoking. I have heard stories of workers stopping smoking as a result of the ban.

All in all, the smoking ban is met with overwhelming support in work places, at least in this country. Most resistance came from certain pubs where long term guests had been smoking for decades.


One of the commin things you hear from right-wingers in the US against universal healthcare is why should I pay for complications caused by my neighbor's smoking habit?

This argument seems to be directed more at universal healthcare than smoking in public. Indeed, why should anyone pay for the actions of anyone else? If you get hit by a car tomorrow why should I pay for your stupidity? If I smoke why should you pay for my lung cancer treatment?

Because we’re civilized and don’t want to live in the Stone Age. We know that we benefit a lot more from helping each other than simply living by the law of the jungle where the strong survive and the weak perish. We want a system where everyone has the right to the same treatment, and not treatment based on the size of your wallet.

In relation to the ban on smoking, I don’t see why we should oppose the ban simply because some right wingers might support the ban. We should rather see the ban for what it is.

I think people should have the right and freedom to use drugs, but people shouldn’t have the freedom to exercise actions that limit other people’s freedom. And smoking in public does exactly that. You can smoke all you want, the problem comes when you smoke around non smokers and thus hurt them in the process. If you’re standing in the airport smoking you’re effectively intoxicating people around you. You have the right to do with your own body as you wish, but not the right to hurt other people in the process and that’s why smoking in public should be banned.


So just as Victorian crusades against drinking (and in favor of tea - more productive if workers are on caffeine than hung-over) this contemporary moral crusade against smoking places the blame for social problems and health problems on personal choices rather than seeing proper health a something everyone deserves not just the wealthy.

You can’t compare drinking and smoking in regards to this ban. While smoking in public intoxicates not only your body, but also those around you, drinking in public is simply an intoxication of your own body.


this contemporary moral crusade against smoking places the blame for social problems and health problems on personal choices rather than seeing proper health a something everyone deserves not just the wealthy.

I agree that the battle against smoking shouldn’t be based on aesthetics and smell, but rather on the actual consequences on health that smoking causes. I don’t see the problem with such a crusade in any way. We should be VERY public and open about the consequences. Smoking is BAD for your health. It causes all kinds of respiratory problems and is addictive. I’m very happy that most people have a negative view of smoking and many smokers wish and try to stop. We need informational campaigns, not complete bans on drugs.

Smoking is a personal choice but that choice is in turn influenced by society as a whole and that’s why we need informational campaigns. Of course universal healthcare is even more important, but I don’t see why such a crusade can’t focus on both issues. Smoking is bad AND we need universal healthcare.


I don't smoke cigs by the way.

Good.


Any chance the government has to control you in the name of "safety", it'll jump at. That's...basically it. I don't think anyone's going to make the argument that they're doing it sincerely out of concern for the people.
What’s your point? We shouldn’t support the ban because it might be a way for the government to control us? What about speed limits, do you want to oppose those too? They’re a restriction on our freedom supposedly in order to reduce accidents. Sounds kind of fishy to me. Yet another way for the man to hold us down? Only time will tell.

After the revolution we will have the right as drunken comrades to drive 200km/h down roads next to playgrounds with small children and pregnant women! :che:


Yes. In California they claimed to be banning smoking in bars for the health of bartenders and waitresses ? ? ?

Why not? If the employees are not smokers then what gives you the right to hurt them?


Great, if you care about our health so much, where's the universal healthcare? Where's the decent wages so you can live a life in which yoyu don't have the stress that causes people to reach for cigs or booze or amphetamines to get you through the 2nd shift? Where's the affordable housing so kids and old people don't freeze to death?

Yeah, right on, but why oppose one measure if you don’t get the others? Support of the smoking ban does not equal opposition to universal healthcare. You’re a revolutionary, demand both.


Now in California, they've banned smoking in appartment buildings... hmm, appartments, bars, workplaces... I guess you can smoke all you want if you are rich.

Please elaborate on the smoking ban in apartment buildings. I’d like to see the justification for banning people from smoking in their own homes, because I oppose it.


Again, there is also an ideological argument in the US: bad health comes from bad habbits, not lack of affordable and decent healtcare.

Bad health comes from both. Universal healthcare would certainly help eradicate many of the bad habits, but not all. As a doctor you can tell the patient to stop smoking until your head turns blue in the end it’s still up to the patient to comply. And that doesn’t just relate to smoking. In fact compliance is a large problem in the health care system. Doctors tell their patients to do this and that, take this medicine, stop smoking, lose weight, but in many cases the patients don’t do as they’re told.

I’m not blaming the patients; they have the right not to comply. The question is why they don’t comply, and a part of the answer is influence from other parts of society: family, friends, television and whatnot. That’s why we need informational campaigns, to inform people of the consequences of, say, continuing to smoke.


Radicals should oppose these bans and these arguments and say that even smokers should have full universal healthcare as should the rest of us.
If you care at all about other people’s health, then you support the ban on smoking in public because it hurts other people.


Lets try deconstruct the maths on that study then.

Yeah, GJ Ranma42, I appreciate how you don’t back down but proceed to jump into this scientific article all weapons blazing. Seriously. :lol:

Let’s get to it then, epidemiology ahoy!


You're reffering to a single 3 year study conducted with 20,000 participants.

Yes, this is the “Passive smoking exposure and risk of COPD among adults in China: the Guangzhou Biobank Cohort Study” study.


The mortality rate in China is about 6.7% per annum, so even at the best stretch here 1340 a year, which is 4020 of the survey'd group passed away during the experiment.
Well first of all I don’t understand why you’re suddenly on about mortality rates in China and making your own flawed calculations regarding them.

This is a cohort study of the relation between passive smoking and COPD. A cohort study is a collection of data about a large group of (mostly) healthy people followed through a long period. The occurrence of an illness among exposed people is compared to the occurrence of the illness among people without (or with low) exposure. Only in the final paragraph of the actual article do they talk about the correlation between COPD and death. The rest of the article is about how longer periods of exposure to passive smoking at home and at work are associated with a higher prevalence of COPD.

Anyway, I’ll try and see things from your point of view.

All of the people who “passed away” or were receiving treatment for life threatening diseases weren’t included in the survey. Out of the 20430 participants 15379 were never smokers and out of those 6497 had valid spirometry data and could thus be used for assessing the relation between passive smoking and COPD.

But let’s go on…


It's highly unlikely that anywhere near that rate though as they were looking at the over 50 group, rather than something closer to China's life expectancy.
Well, that’s true. Also the participants are all from Guangzhou in sourthern China, and the annual death rate there is bound to be different from the country's total annual death rate. But anyway…


Anyway, lets be bold and assume the best case scenario to make your point look strongest and go with 4020 deaths. 3/4 of the survey'd group were non-smokers, so again, I'll bend the evidence in your favour and say that about 2,000 of those deaths, that probably didnt happen in the first place, were non smokers, which normaly I'd argue because non-smokers ARE healthier than smokers, so if anyone's going to die young it'll be the smokers. Anyway, stickign with 2,000 to make your point look as strong as possible.
Okay so just to make this clear: You’ve calculated that out of 20000 people in Guangzhou, 4020 people will die in three years using an annual death rate of 6,7%. (This is in fact a wrong calculation, you need to subtract the dead from the total amount after each year. This amounts to approximately 3757 people)

Then you go on to cut those in half because not all of them are smokers. 2000 people dead.


So, 2,000 deaths in a country with SEVERE air pollution issues in its cities, were non-smokers who had been surveyed on thier smoke exposure during the entire study. Okay. Keep that in your mind for a second because I need to come back to that in a second.
Well actually, in the article I posted they adjusted for dust and indoor pollutants and also other potential confounding factors. But let’s continue on with your hypothetical calculation.


They've also said that 1.9million deaths in China's current population could be caused by passive smoking.
Clarification, they’re saying that “of the 240 million people aged over 50 years alive today in China, high exposure to passive smoking would result in about 1,9 million (95% CI 0,9–2,8 million) excess deaths from COPD among never smokers.”


Well, the current population of China is 1.33 billion and guess what, at some point they're all going to die. So what's 1,330,000,000 divided by 1,900,000? It's 782 people that are going to die from apparant passive smoking within thier 71 year life expectancy (I'll use the male one as it's lower and helps your point even more).
This doesn’t make any sense to me. They’ve stated that 1,9 million people in China will die in excess from COPD caused by passive smoking. Why do you go on to divide 1,3 billion with 1,9 million? How does that calculation magically turn 1,9 million deaths into 782?


So, they're saying that from thier research they've determined that 782 people out of 1.3 billion are going to die in the next 71 years as a result of passive smoking.
No, they’re saying that 1,9 million people will die. (If their risk estimates are correct and current passive smoking exposure patterns and mortality rates continue)


So how many died of passive smoking out of thier possible (and unlikely) 2,000 deaths in this 3 year study? 6 people out of the entire population of one of the most poluted countries in the world, that makes up 20% of the world's population, in this study may have died from Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease who did not smoke and they say that they could have been brought on by passive smoking.
I can’t figure out how you reach 6 people out of 1,33 billion. Please post your calculations.
They specifically state 1,9 million people in the article.


And that is with me twisting all the facts in your favour and creating lots of outlanding scenarios of 50 year olds decieding to die 20 years earlier just to try force the hand in your favour.
I think I’ve seen just about enough “fact twisting” in your reply to last me a lifetime. Please abstain from them in your next reply, I’m just going to have to deal with the raw facts of your “calculations”.


Most likely, they found one death in the whole duration of the study that matched all thier criteria, (COPD + non smoker + exposed to passive smoking) which was, frankly, pretty easy to please in a place like China as it is and then come up with facts and figures to make it look scary.
But Ranma42, they weren’t looking for any deaths. The point of the study was the relation between passive smoking and COPD.


The Lancet then takes a large backhander from GlaxoSmithKline, or whoever it is to publish this rubbish.
Evidence please…

It seems you’ve completely misunderstood the purpose of this study. Let me point you in the right direction:

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/4185/tabler.png (http://img51.imageshack.us/my.php?image=tabler.png)

This table 3 from the article shows the relation between passive smoking and COPD. Check out the second column (N (%) with COPD) under “Adulthood hours of exposure at home” and “Hours of exposure at work”. You should see the following numbers:

273 (6,2)
73 (6,3)
83 (8,8)

and

286 (6,0)
65 (7,9)
78 (8,8)

Do you see the numbers in parentheses? They’re rising. If you look in the table above you see they rise as the time exposed to passive smoking increases. They show the percentage of participants with COPD. In other words, as the level of exposure rises, so does the prevalence of COPD. You can also take a look at the last column (Adjusted odds ratio). The parenthesis contains an interval. The important thing here is that if 1 is contained in that interval then the correlation is significant. In other words, there is a relation between exposure (passive smoking) and illness (COPD)

What do you think of those numbers?