The response is better than the article.....
Jul 15, 2017 15:04:36 GMT -5
antb and mikedennison like this
Post by trailboss on Jul 15, 2017 15:04:36 GMT -5
Not because it conforms to a bias, but truly as I see it.
www.thelondoneconomic.com/lifestyle/put-that-in-your-pipe-reflecting-on-ten-years-of-the-smoking-ban/06/07/
My comment is awaiting approval....
www.thelondoneconomic.com/lifestyle/put-that-in-your-pipe-reflecting-on-ten-years-of-the-smoking-ban/06/07/
Dick Puddlecote
July 6, 2017 at 8:59 pm
Reply
“Studies of non-smokers who are married to non-smokers show considerably higher rates of heart disease, respiratory problems and a whole smorgasbord of cancers. I’m sorry, but they just do.”
Nope, they just don’t. Firstly, they were conducted by people who were hopelessly biased seeing as they are career tobacco controllers who did crap epidemiology in order to lend support for the policies they craved. It was a drive that started with an idea in 1977 to “foster the perception that smoke harms others” which began the junk science procession. All genuine science has always found absolutely no effect. Even those who designed studies to try to find damning results couldn’t do so until they kicked out those which were null or protective, then lumped the ones that had insignificant results to amplify the effect. And even then they could only come up with a RR which would be dismissed in any other field. It was a triumph of propganda over science. Since then we have seen huge trials which have shown there is no danger of secondhand smoke in non-smoking spouses living with smokers for 40 years (the subject of the original studies) let alone in public places with brief exposure.
Everyone has been conned but most of them because they wanted to be.
The same lies and methodology was used for plain packaging and is now being transferred to sugar and alcohol. In fact, tobacco controllers who lied for decades are now holding conferences passing on to other areas how to lie their way to a ban.
What’s more, none of it was necessary because the risk – even at the levels of harm tobacco controllers claimed – should never have been able to take primacy over the democratic process. Labour’s manifesto promised exemptions. No-one in the country voted for a comprehensive blanket ban, nor did ONS surveys show support for one, only a third of the population thought it was desirable. Surveys since have consistently supported the option of separate ventilated smoking areas.
Lastly, you mention other countries. Every single one allows smoking rooms, only UK and Ireland have no exemptions. It was a crusade by science-corrupting campaigners, not backed by the public, and led by lies. Politicians were conned. Oh yeah, and 11,000 pubs were killed, not 8,000.
July 6, 2017 at 8:59 pm
Reply
“Studies of non-smokers who are married to non-smokers show considerably higher rates of heart disease, respiratory problems and a whole smorgasbord of cancers. I’m sorry, but they just do.”
Nope, they just don’t. Firstly, they were conducted by people who were hopelessly biased seeing as they are career tobacco controllers who did crap epidemiology in order to lend support for the policies they craved. It was a drive that started with an idea in 1977 to “foster the perception that smoke harms others” which began the junk science procession. All genuine science has always found absolutely no effect. Even those who designed studies to try to find damning results couldn’t do so until they kicked out those which were null or protective, then lumped the ones that had insignificant results to amplify the effect. And even then they could only come up with a RR which would be dismissed in any other field. It was a triumph of propganda over science. Since then we have seen huge trials which have shown there is no danger of secondhand smoke in non-smoking spouses living with smokers for 40 years (the subject of the original studies) let alone in public places with brief exposure.
Everyone has been conned but most of them because they wanted to be.
The same lies and methodology was used for plain packaging and is now being transferred to sugar and alcohol. In fact, tobacco controllers who lied for decades are now holding conferences passing on to other areas how to lie their way to a ban.
What’s more, none of it was necessary because the risk – even at the levels of harm tobacco controllers claimed – should never have been able to take primacy over the democratic process. Labour’s manifesto promised exemptions. No-one in the country voted for a comprehensive blanket ban, nor did ONS surveys show support for one, only a third of the population thought it was desirable. Surveys since have consistently supported the option of separate ventilated smoking areas.
Lastly, you mention other countries. Every single one allows smoking rooms, only UK and Ireland have no exemptions. It was a crusade by science-corrupting campaigners, not backed by the public, and led by lies. Politicians were conned. Oh yeah, and 11,000 pubs were killed, not 8,000.
My comment is awaiting approval....
John Puddlecote said it more succinctly than I could, but it appears that as of this post, 85 people are willing to believe the nonsense of the article to "share'.
Exhibit one of the nonsense:
"I am by instinct a libertarian, and I bridled at the idea of the state telling people what to do, albeit for their own good.....What do I feel, ten years on from the ban? Reluctantly but conclusively, my mind was changed."
The "but" is always telling ....
Exhibit one of the nonsense:
"I am by instinct a libertarian, and I bridled at the idea of the state telling people what to do, albeit for their own good.....What do I feel, ten years on from the ban? Reluctantly but conclusively, my mind was changed."
The "but" is always telling ....
