"Fishsticks" on "The Lung"
Nooo, it's not another nasty bit of nouveau cuisine, it's Craig Westover's take on the tactics and rhetoric of "Bob aka: Lung" from the American Lung Association.
This is a comment that deserved it's own space, so I've just added water and served:
[Once again] Bob, you may have "offered ample evidence and facts on the health risks of secondhand smoke and studies on the economic impact of smoking bans," but you have not and continue to refuse to support them. Specifically --
1) You discount recognized statistical methodology such as relative risk factors and threshold factors that mitigate the claims of the secondhand smoke hazard. Yet it is these same methodologies that provide the only conclusive evidence of the real dangers of smoking.
It’s these same methodologies that are the basis of all cancer and contagious disease research. It is these same methodologies on which all environmental safety levels are based. But in the case of secondhand smoke, you choose to suspend the rules.
You can't have it both ways, Bob -- if the statistical methodology is valid in one case it must also be in the other.
2) Despite the fact that you are lobbying the government to do by force what your organization (specifically its communication function) has failed to do through education -- reduce exposure to secondhand smoke -- you refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for defining what constitutes a public health issue (as opposed to a widespread personal health issue) and you refuse to define criteria for when such an issues rises to the level of requiring government intervention.
There are times, Bob, where public health does trump property rights and even individual rights, but you have no way of defining or justifying them -- other than the constitutionally dangerous “most people are in favor of” argument.
3) Again despite supporting legislation that is clearly having a negative impact on specific businesses you continue to take refuge in aggregate statistics that claim as long as government gets it tax money, there is no economic harm from the smoking ban.
So while you may not be “glib” about people’s livelihoods, those livelihoods do not (as evidenced by your actions) rise for you to a level of concern where your support for smoking ban legislation considers their welfare.
4) On the personal level of protecting employees, you make the case that bar and restaurant jobs are so essential to a class of people that claiming those people have a choice to work elsewhere is an unfair argument, therefore we must suspend the property rights of businesses owners and the personal choice of their patrons to protect those workers.
Yet you then turn around and write on my site that a supplier hurt by the smoking ban, deprived of any choice whatsoever, “should look for another way to provide for his family?”
Why is his career choice less valid than that of a bartender? Why is it “more right” to unequivocally deprive him of a job to “save” the job of someone with a choice to work somewhere else.
You also never address the bar and restaurant jobs that simply go away because of the smoking ban -- forcing people to choose between continued employment in the restaurant industry and long commutes to smoke-free municipalities.
Bob, not everyone IS entitled to an opinion. You're entitled to an opinion only if you're willing to defend it. Your positions are neither reasoned nor consistent. You refuse to address specific questions resulting from your positions.
Perhaps if you spent more of ALA funds on the education function that is properly yours and less time wandering the capitol or trolling web sites, you might make more of an impact.
This is a comment that deserved it's own space, so I've just added water and served:
[Once again] Bob, you may have "offered ample evidence and facts on the health risks of secondhand smoke and studies on the economic impact of smoking bans," but you have not and continue to refuse to support them. Specifically --
1) You discount recognized statistical methodology such as relative risk factors and threshold factors that mitigate the claims of the secondhand smoke hazard. Yet it is these same methodologies that provide the only conclusive evidence of the real dangers of smoking.
It’s these same methodologies that are the basis of all cancer and contagious disease research. It is these same methodologies on which all environmental safety levels are based. But in the case of secondhand smoke, you choose to suspend the rules.
You can't have it both ways, Bob -- if the statistical methodology is valid in one case it must also be in the other.
2) Despite the fact that you are lobbying the government to do by force what your organization (specifically its communication function) has failed to do through education -- reduce exposure to secondhand smoke -- you refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for defining what constitutes a public health issue (as opposed to a widespread personal health issue) and you refuse to define criteria for when such an issues rises to the level of requiring government intervention.
There are times, Bob, where public health does trump property rights and even individual rights, but you have no way of defining or justifying them -- other than the constitutionally dangerous “most people are in favor of” argument.
3) Again despite supporting legislation that is clearly having a negative impact on specific businesses you continue to take refuge in aggregate statistics that claim as long as government gets it tax money, there is no economic harm from the smoking ban.
So while you may not be “glib” about people’s livelihoods, those livelihoods do not (as evidenced by your actions) rise for you to a level of concern where your support for smoking ban legislation considers their welfare.
4) On the personal level of protecting employees, you make the case that bar and restaurant jobs are so essential to a class of people that claiming those people have a choice to work elsewhere is an unfair argument, therefore we must suspend the property rights of businesses owners and the personal choice of their patrons to protect those workers.
Yet you then turn around and write on my site that a supplier hurt by the smoking ban, deprived of any choice whatsoever, “should look for another way to provide for his family?”
Why is his career choice less valid than that of a bartender? Why is it “more right” to unequivocally deprive him of a job to “save” the job of someone with a choice to work somewhere else.
You also never address the bar and restaurant jobs that simply go away because of the smoking ban -- forcing people to choose between continued employment in the restaurant industry and long commutes to smoke-free municipalities.
Bob, not everyone IS entitled to an opinion. You're entitled to an opinion only if you're willing to defend it. Your positions are neither reasoned nor consistent. You refuse to address specific questions resulting from your positions.
Perhaps if you spent more of ALA funds on the education function that is properly yours and less time wandering the capitol or trolling web sites, you might make more of an impact.
posted by Swiftee at 2:49 PM
24 Comments:
Gee, fellows, so much attention for little 'ol me? I'll have to send a copy to my Mom (a smoker, by the way).
1) The evidence that smoking and secondhand smoke is harmful is overwelming and is widely accepted worldwide. Only a tiny but vocal fringe (sound like someone we know?) suggests otherwise, using old materials and bogus studies developed by tobacco company flacks to discredit real science.
2) Are you really suggesting that a municipal or county smoking ban puts our "Constitution in danger?" The Constitution I swore an oath to defend and protect many Memorial Days ago was made of tougher stuff that that, Craig.
3) I have no interest in government or taxes, just that every Minnesotans have cleaner air to breathe while on the job.
To paraphrase a Supreme Court justice, I may not be able to define a public health crisis, but I know one when I see it. I see it in secondhand smoke in our indoor workplaces -- most of the leaders of our most populated cities and counties see it, too. If you can't, that's not our problem, but yours. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I comment, troll (and blog, as you well know) because it's my job, not my hobby. As a final note, didn't I see YOU in the Capitol during the 2005 Freedom to Breathe Act hearings? Or was that that guy on the fish stick box, lobbying for the frozen minced breaded seafood industry?
I've stayed largely out of this one. But I have to observe in Bob's reactions:
1) Dodged the question
2) Dodged the question
3) Dodged the question - by a WIDE margin
4) Ignored the question.
As I said, I've been unengaged on this matter. But Bob is making a transpararently dishonest argument. Appeals to popularity, prejudicial language, changing the subject - anything but addressing the questions put to him. In doing so he unwittingly confirms the very dishonesty he attempts to rebut. I have a hard time believing this helps his cause.
Hey Swiftee... Dan here...
Interestingly, there seems to be "no" supporting evidence that depleted uranium causes negative health effects either.
I'm sure that the children of US service personnel being born with congenital birth problems has absolutely nothing to do with the stuff their parents were exposed to in Iraq.
You gonna believe the Pentagon/Corporate sponsored data or the facts?
If you're stupid enough to choose to do something that has been proven to cause harm, you deserve what you get.
Hey and Swiftee... Guess what the number one lie is when people apply for health insurance?
Go on Guess...
It's that people claim they aren't tobacco users when they really are!
That means people like me are paying higher premiums because people like you are too selfish to accept the consequences of your choices.
An interesting sidebar, Anonymous. The subject of depleted uranium should get the attention of any one who has been around that that stuff -- we used tons of that stuff a lot in the 1st Armored Division -- nothing punches a hole through armor like depleted uranium -- it's what makes the A-10 Warthog gun so deadly to tanks. I've used a similar gun (designed as an anti-aircraft weapon) on ground targets.
Bob
Dan and Bob are obviously biased and scientifically challanged. As I stated in an earlier post:
A nationally known science author is famous for saying "..the poison is in the dose....", which means the human body is exposed to trace amounts of hundreds of potentially lethal substances everyday; but in low doses the human body has an immune and tolerance level which makes that substance harmless.
Example: 1) carbon dioxide is lethal to humans at a concentration of 20%, but with every breath you and I inhale a concentration of 4%; OSHA safeguards employee health regarding CO2 with a permissible exposure limit of 9,000 mg / cu. M. Below 9,000 mg / cu. M but above 4% the human body suffers no ill effects from CO2, even though CO2 will be found in our urine & blood samples.
2) Stainless Steel welding workers are exposed to airborne chromium & nickel among other substances, both heavy metals are considered carcinogens. Therefore during work exposure, these workers' urine & blood samples will contain multiples higher levels of chromium & nickel than a non-welder. But since the workplace (even bars & restaurants) is regulated by OSHA permissible exposure limits (pel) for airborne chromium metal for instance at 1 mg / cu. M., as long as the airborne level is below the (pel), even though blood & urine samples indicate there is chromium present, it is at a harmless level.
Secondhand smoke levels as measured by the city of St. Louis Park, MN. in 2004 are 150 times safer than OSHA permissible exposure limits without government mandated smoking bans.
Bob --
Let's take it one point at a time and make it real simple.
From the overwwhelming scientific evidence, you pick a study from any source you want. I'll even accept at face value the EPA study that has since been discredited by other government agencies for faulty research methodology and "assume" it is good data. I'll ignore the 100 or so study results from government, tobacco industry and independent research that I've seen summarized.
All you have to do is give me two numbers from the study you select and an explanaition of what that means to you (and a source for the study, but I doubt that I'll need it).
The two numbers are the risk ratio and the range of the 95 percent confidence level. That's it.
Then briefly, it should take no more than 3 or 4 sentences, explain what that data means. How does it verify a causal connection between secondhand smoke and whatever the study contends secondhand smoke causes.
Just one study, Bob. One study and a demonstration that you understand the scientific research you support as conclusive.
BTW -- I was at the capitol to hear both sides of the issue -- that is my job -- to listen and make judgments. Frankly, both sides were weak.
And if you read my post on the hearing, which you have but just failed to mention, you know I was very unhappy with the way that the House Committee killed the smoking ban bill.
Because I have objective criteria, I can critize a decision I agree with when it is made for the wrong reasons. Principle is more important than preference -- which speakes to point 2, but I'm keeping it simple.
BTW -- It's not the size of your gun that counts, Bob, but how you use it. I've found that veterans that are reluctant to talk about their experiences -- those that don't drop war stories at every trivial opportunity -- have the most to say and are most worth listening too.
It's a sad fact, Bob. When you lack the courage to defend your opinions, you lose a lot of credibility in other areas as well.
Bogus Doug.
Is it dodging the question when pointing out that the evidence of the harmfulness of secondhand smoke is widely accepted internationally?
Technically, yes, because Craig's challange was specifically pointed in regard the the methodologies.
But Bob still reminds us of the biggest elephant in the room. That's the brown-stained, rank and wheezing elephant the anti-ban folks can't make disappear. The ban is necessary because the health issues of smoking override the individual rights of poisoning other people's lungs in our public places.
Btw, I really wish Craig would cease his petty attempts to goad Bob with the overstating of his name. Such an attempt only displays an insecurity Craig is burdened with in the knowledge that the empirical evidence refutes his case.
But outside of that little observation, kudos to all for an interesting discussion.
Pink,
I'm not approaching this conversation with the background many others have on the issues at hand. So I can only observe the rhetoric as it is presented in this case.
The argument "it's widely accepted," other than not addressing Craig's question (which it clearly did not), is also called "argumentum ad popularum" - the logical fallacy that something must be true if it is commonly accepted to be true. It's useful for context, but cannot be considered a proof.
Pink --
I have not seen any empirical evidence of secondhand smoke supporting the "widely accepted" claims.
I am not even questioning the methodology of the studies. Every empirical statistical study -- whether its methodology is good or bad -- has a risk ratio, from which claims like "3000 people die from exposure to secondhand smoke" are derived.
Every statistical empirical study has a 95 percent confidence level. The wider the confidence level, the less reliable the results. If the 95 percent confidence level drops below 1.0, no causal connection can be assumed.
I have looked at summaries of over 100 studies from government sources, tobacco industry sources and independent sources; about 75 percent fail the risk ratio test outright. Of the other 25 percent, none -- even the EPA meta-study, which truly is bad methodology -- pass the 95 percent confidence level test. One study dropped the confidence level to 90 percent and still didn’t pass.
That being said, I agree with Bob, strictly on majority rule, smoking should be banned in public buildings where people are more or less required to go and private establishments that are randomly frequented where a ban has no relevance to the business -- a grocery store for example or an office building. There is no fundamental right to smoke. The Clean Air Act -- with its provisions for waivers and exemptions, including bars and restaurants -- is not a bad piece of legislation. Removing the exemptions would make it so.
Bars and restaurants deserve exemption. Smoking bans do have an adverse effect on specific establishments. People do enter only on a voluntary basis. A person can avoid the hazard by simply not entering. As there is no fundamental right to smoke, there is no fundamental right to a smoke-free environment on someone else's property. There is a fundamental right to private property and without criteria, which Bob refuses to identify, there is no fundamental rule of law in play.
Call it "goading," but realize Bob has never answered an argument with anything other than generalities. I am beginning to doubt he can work back from the 3,000 death number through the math that “supports” it -- and we’re talking balancing a checkbook math here, not advanced calculus. That might be okay for a layman, but not for a person of responsibility advocating for legislation that negatively impacts an awful lot of people.
Is it so wrong to ask for a reasoned argument from a professional communicator beyond just “because it’s obvious”? Can you point to one direct response Bob made to any of my points?
Craig, Pink, et al:
I'll be happy to repond to your comments, but not today -- it's Memorial Day, and my thoughts are elsewhere today. Until then, have a great holiday and I'll talk with you later.
Thanks for the assist, Pink.
I'll respond to Craig's challenge with this link to a whole page of studies -- not of secondhand smoke studies, but rather on how the tobacco industry, its minions (both paid and unpaid) and apologists have played the "junk science" game in an attempt to discredit the evidence on secondhand and direct smoking.
Here's the link:
http://www.tobaccoscam.ucsf.edu/resource/resource_ti.cfm
Hmmm...Craig Westover, objective "journalist." I have heard your opinion columns called "objectionable," but never objective. I am an advocate and spokesperson for my organization and its views, and I make no bones about it. I have "an agenda" to help Minnesotans get healthier air on the job, and I'm proud of that position.
It is true, Craig, that hearing people use veteran's clubs as pawns in the Tobacco Wars does sometimes make me personally upset. I sometimes mention my personal history just to remind my fellow bloggers that there are plenty of veterans like myself who support comprehensive smoking bans that includes private clubs. Point taken, though...
Scott (Pinkmonkeybird) and I just had a good phone conversation on the subject of the ALAMN blog -- is it really a blog, or just a website? This is new territory, as there are very few nonprofit organizations such as ALAMN with an official blog.
Call it what you will, it has been an interesting and informative experience since I started in February of this year. I have learned a lot from all of you -- thanks for your feedback.
Robert Moffitt
Bob said:
" I sometimes mention my personal history just to remind my fellow bloggers that there are plenty of veterans like myself who support comprehensive smoking bans that includes private clubs."
I wonder if Bob, who is comfortable speaking for vets, would be comfortable letting vets know what he is doing on their behalf?
I suspect the answer to that is the reason he didn't want to acknowledge what VFW he planned to make his pilgramage to yesterday.
I'm a vet too Bob, and thanks for your concern, but I'm perfectly capable of making decisions for myself...
..that's kind of why most of us served in the first place remember?
Craig asked, politely and succinctly, for a link to the primary source for your assertions.
Instead of providing a shred of scientific evidence, you provide a link to more bowdlerized opinions.
It is clear that there is no scientific evidence to back your opinions Bob. If there was even one, you'd surely have provided it by now.
You want to cut down on smoking? Great.
Provide patches and assistance, buy ad space to tell people about ALA's stop smoking programs.
Bob --
Here’s where the debate once again ends and you win the war of attrition by fleeing the field. Having held a communications director position, I feel justified in saying I am disappointed in your performance.
I asked for one study of your choosing. You sent me to a link with 28 PDF documents to demonstrate -- duh! -- that tobacco companies try to discredit studies that show secondhand smoke is harmful. A professional communicator would have summarized those documents into a response and pointed to specific important points in each that I should note -- not tried to exhaust the questioner (how many of those reports have you read and internalized?).
Fortunately, I had read the Ong/Glantz article on Tobacco Industry “Junk Science” before, so I reread that article and the article critiquing it. After filtering the anti-Big Tobacco rhetoric out, the key point of Ong/Glantz -- and the point even an adequate communicator for your point of view should have made to me along time ago -- is the validity of a risk ratio of 2.0. as a base line level of causality. Because you are unable or unwilling to make the case (perhaps you should reread or read for the first time the documents you referred me to), let me make the point for you.
Basically, Ong/Glantz makes the case that a relative risk factor of less than 2.0 is valid if other science supports the plausibility of connection. (They provide no lower limit in their analysis, which presents statistical problems as the RR approaches or drops below 1.0, but that‘s another issue.) Courts of law, however, hold 2.0 as a base threshold for causality.
Now, surprisingly to you (no doubt), I intuitively bought the Ong/Glantz hypothesis long before I read it, but that didn’t then and doesn’t now change my position on the smoking ban.
(From the work I’ve done on the relationship between mercury found in childhood vaccines and autism, I’ve come to understand the relationship between epidemiology and scientific plausibility. What is interesting is that the same government and health agencies that accept a secondhand smoke relative risk of less than the 2.0 as conclusive evidence, reject independent studies with relative risks for vaccines and mercury to autism of well over 2.0 and as high as 6.0 and 7.0 also supported by growing evidence of plausibility.)
Here’s why I think you might want to spend a little more time focusing on your real job --Ong/Glantz has given you an argument, but you chose not to make it, rather relying on bald assertions as to the number of deaths caused by secondhand smoke. Again, poor communication management and invalid use of the Ong/Glantz contention..
The Ong/Glantz argument may be valid, as far as it goes, but unless they want to invalidate epidemiology all together, they need to address that sticky lower limit question. But let’s assume they are correct. A risk ratio of less than 2.0 demonstrates some causation but the low risk ratio -- and this is not disputed -- necessarily implies in conjunction with other factors. Therefore, it is an invalid leap to attribute all deaths involving secondhand smoke only to secondhand smoke (and not to report that as a range given the 95 percent confidence level). Your conclusions -- even accepting the science that you pointed me too -- are not supported by the evidence, at least not as you state them.
Further, what Ong/Glantz fails to discuss is the impact of the assertion on public policy. They don’t have to; they are arguing science. You, as a representative of the ALA and promoting a smoking ban, are arguing policy. Therefore, you must justify your policy in light of the scientific facts as determined by your own sources.
Given a relative risk of less than 2.0 and scientific plausibility, the Clear Air Act, as I’ve stated, is pretty good legislation. Because no one can reasonably be expected to know their own susceptibility to secondhand smoke, the state has a legitimate interest in prohibiting smoking in public places that people are compelled to enter or that they enter in the normal course of their lives. Even if there is no scientific causality, a simple majority rule validates that state action. There is no fundamental right to smoke.
However, and here is where your refusal to define criteria for government intervention is relevant, the “public place” characteristics of the original Clean Air Act do not apply to bars and restaurants. These are businesses of voluntary entry that is by no means mandatory. It is an over extension of government to suspend the rights of individual autonomy and private property to dubiously pursue and ill-defined objective.
And it is not an issue of employee safety. Employees have multiple means and multiple agencies to which they can appeal a dangerous work environment. Another law, broadly curtailing personal autonomy and property rights to only marginally contribute to the objective of preventing lung diseases when other remedies are already present is not necessary or prudent -- especially given the impact on fundamental rights of personal autonomy and property.
But you know all that. It’s just that you seem to have this notion that a communications director exchanges barbs on the Internet and doesn’t need to develop a real communications strategy beyond scare tactics. Nor does he need to be responsive.
I asked you to address four points. You addressed none. I asked you to explain for me one study of your choosing. You explained none. Without guidance, I was sent to research by others, which supported your position but which you either have not read or have not understood, because you failed to see the points in those articles that support your position and addressed my question (I consequently do not expect that you are able to address the weaknesses in those arguments.)
You continue to refuse to defend your policy advocacy with definable criteria, refuse to acknowledge that damage is being done to some businesses without compensation, and you generally refuse to engage in discussion with other than generalities.
On the other hand, I went to the link you suggested, read the material, did your homework for you and made your point, demonstrated your lack of understanding of your point by showing how you distort the risk. I conceded your valid points and took them into public policy as far as their validity allowed using defined criteria. So, now that I’ve handled both the question and answer side of point #1, if you’d care to try addressing the public policy criteria issue on your own, that might prove constructive.
Is this the where the Pinky & Bob show airs?
Hey you two how about picking a recent and relevant study about the ACTUAL concentrations of secondhand smoke in bars & restaurants.
St. Louis Park, MN. Environmental Health Dept. 2004 test results, conducted in all 19 bars & restaurants. Which show carcinogen levels in secondhand smoke are 150 times lower (safer than) OSHA permissible exposure limits.
OSHA is good enough to regulate thousands of hazards in the workplace, and they already have a PEL for secondhand smoke.....and our bars meet or exceed that level by a factor of 150+ times. End of story.
Bob argues his point so adamantly because he knows one thing the average person does not....the St. Louis Park study is the first published result which may very well end government smoking bans once & for all. Until St. Louis Park no organization ever tested or published those results which so irrepairably damage the pharmaceutical nicotine (RWJF)legislation.
Mr. Westover exhanges his trademark yellow nor'easter for a white lab coat to give old Bob a right proper scolding. I seem to disappoint Craig frequently. I am judged by the stern Bard of Afton (a former communications director, by the way) for not debating acording to his rules, for not passing his muster as a blogger, as a veteran, and as a mathmatician.
Now, he has judged my job performance as Communications Director of the American Lung Association of Minnesota and found me wanting.
While I have great respect for Craig's talents as a communicator (even though he seems to little appeciation for my skills), I have little respect for the "cause" he has willingly taken up regarding the local smoking bans. Argue as a honest Libertarian/Conservative/Free Marketeer, but don't monkey with the science on secondhand smoke.
Craig has appointed himself as the Sultan of Smoke, chief apologist for Phillip Morris, the Voice of the Smokey Status Quo in Minnesota. I could ignore his pro-smoke writings in his well-designed blog (visit it, please), but unlike the rest of us bloggers (visit our site, too), Mr. Westover also has a newspaper column, and his rhetorical smokescreen can cover much more ground in the MSM -- if left unchallenged.
So it is up to those of us who passionately believe that secondhand smoke IS a public health risk in Minnesota to fight the "war of attrition," as Craig put it. I recall that "leaving the field" with your resources and honor intact worked well for General Washington and the Continental Army in the end.
We are in this fight for the many thousands of everyday Minnesotans who have waited for the day when every indoor workplace is smokefree.
That day is coming soon. Thanks to the many who have voiced their support durring this long struggle.
Ya know Bob, Craig has taken a lot more time investigating YOUR side of the story than 99% of the people who hear it.
Certainly way more time than I was willing to gove it.
He has provided rational, non-confrontational rebuttals based upon the non-answers that make up your cavellier evasions.
In short, he's shredded thoroughly your credability.
If this is representative of your lobbying, it is clear that the legislators who buy it are either:
a.) Predisposed to making a decision, absent any rational thought being put to the question.
b.) Idiots.
c.) Both.
Your welcome to continue, but be advised that until and unless you are better prepared, you are clearly out-classed.
Goodness, this is the most boring debate I've ever read. It's like watching a 2-year old debate a Nobel Prize Winner.
Hint: Craig, Swiftee and Marcus are NOT the ones clutching their "blankey".
Lung: I implore you to climb out of the intellectual void you've dug and address at least one point of anyone's comment. Any number of the people debating you here have conveniently broken their arguments down into easily digestable points. Pick one...any one, and directly refute it. Use specifics. Quote your sources. Give context. Don't use strawmen. Avoid leaps of faith and logical fallacies.
I shouldn't have to teach Debate 101. One more vague wandering evasive post and I will scream.
Just a final comment on these two paragraphs from Bob --
"Craig has appointed himself as the Sultan of Smoke, chief apologist for Phillip Morris, the Voice of the Smokey Status Quo in Minnesota. I could ignore his pro-smoke writings in his well-designed blog (visit it, please), but unlike the rest of us bloggers (visit our site, too), Mr. Westover also has a newspaper column, and his rhetorical smokescreen can cover much more ground in the MSM -- if left unchallenged.
"So it is up to those of us who passionately believe that secondhand smoke IS a public health risk in Minnesota to fight the "war of attrition," as Craig put it. I recall that "leaving the field" with your resources and honor intact worked well for General Washington and the Continental Army in the end."
First, I am not and have never been a smoker. I do not endorse smoking and frankly, I could not work for a tobacco company. Truth be told, for most events, I personally pefer a smoke-free environment, although I admit a vice-like attraction to smokey jazz and blues clubs.
Nonetheless, I believe the tobacco suits by the states were bad policy. The tobacco suits left us all morally and legally poorer and misuse of the funds coupled with administrative costs have just about eaten any proimised “good” that might have come from the settlement.
Second, I support the Minnesota Clean Air Act as written. As I noted, and the MCAA states, the bar and restaurant question is distinguishable from other that of other businesses, which was recognized in the original law. The original law also anticipated unintended consequences and makes allowance for exceptions. The proposed statewide legislation would have negated those recognitions.
Third, the Pioneer Press, for which I write, editorially favors a statewide smoking ban and has published far more editorials on the subject than I have written columns. I welcome a challenge -- there are some real debatable issues around the 2.0 relative risk criteria and how science ought to impact public policy -- but as the comments here indicate, there has been no challenge. Even the Pioneer Press editorials have completely ignored the fundamental questions raised by smoking bans.
Bob’s use of the word “believe” in the praise “believe that secondhand smoke IS a public health risk” is interesting. He has not demonstrated that he might have or appreciate this conversation, it’s more a Bogus Gold level discussion, but his statement is what theologian Paul Tillich describes as idolatrous faith -- “faith” defined as “belief in the absence of evidence.” Faith, argues Tillich is a dynamic function that must be constantly challenged and focus on ultimate, not secondary visions.
Back towards Bob’s level -- that’s why the smoking ban debate is about personal autonomy, private property rights and the question “when are individual rights trumped by public health?” Kevin, that debate would not be boring.
Fleeing the field from a fear to fight should not be confused with leaving the field with resources and honor intact. With that in mind, I leave the field to the echoes emanating from Bob’s hollow arguments.
Thanks for the forum, Swiftee.
Thanks for raising the level of discourse Craig!
Swiftee.
Pair o' Dice is your blog and you are the respected proprietor and you, Sir, are the classiest person in here.
[inflate head]Wow! Thanks PMB[/inflate]
lockjaw --
Thanks for the citation. I am anxious to read it, not so much in connection with the smoking issue, but in connection with how it might reflect on the attitude toward the plausible connection between mercury in childhood vaccines and autism -- a theory which even Steven Milroy debunks as junk science. Nonetheless I see similarities in attitude.
Just as the intuitive belief in the “goodness” of smoking bans and the “evil” of secondhand smoke prejudices an objective look at the science and economics of smoking bans, unshakable belief -- in this case supported by hard data -- in the benefits of universal vaccination and the nobility of its intention is blinding many to the growing body of evidence -- epidemiology, theoretical and hard scientific data that warrants further investigation.
In the vaccine issue, however, the shoe is on the other foot. It is government stifling independent researchers that want to investigate the relationship further. Like the secondhand smoke issue, government funded research is being conducted with a specific bias -- the aim of disproving a connection. As a noted in a post above, in this case the aim is to lower relative risk factors, not raise them, through study methodology.
Thanks again for the source.
Craig, I was not aware of any controversy concerning suspected relationships between mercury, childhood vaccines, and any association with autism.
It's a given that the government grant system generally does stifle independent research, as it does for any research beholden to those who hold the purse strings. However, I cannot make the assumption that all research is automatically subject to such bias simply based on the funding source. Nor can I make any assumption that exposure to such small levels of mercury is definitely or even most likely the culprit.
There are a few things I would recommend you look into on your quest for answers. One link you might find interesting is the hypothesis of Edward Calabrese on hormesis. Calabrese also believed in the existance of single exposure carcinogens. I'm not sure what his position is on that now. Here's another article from which to start.
Oh, and Swiftee, sorry for the screwed up links in that post last night. Everything looked good on the preview, but I made one small change, then everything ran together.
No sweat LJ, keep 'em comin'.
Post a Comment
Squirt us some tears!
<< Home