frankie's Journal: Blowing Away The Smoke Screen

This quickie goes out to all denyers of science in the audience...

In June 2002 the city of Helena Montana banned all smoking indoors. Shortly thereafter, the local hospital noticed a 40% drop in heart attack rates. At the end of the year the law was overturned in court. Shortly thereafter, heart attack rates went right back up.

HOW MUCH MORE CLEAR CAN THE EVIDENCE BE? Not sure if I'd go this far, but the phrase "your right to smoke ends where my nose begins" is just too obvious to pass up.

Re:Evidence?

[frankie]

The Helena dataset may not be large enough to merit scientific certainty, but it's an easily understandable illustration of much Much MUCH previous verified research [bmjjournals.com]. Secondhand smoke entering the bloodstream is proven, tobacco chemicals' effect on platelets is proven, damaged platelets' effect on coronary disease is proven, etc. The chain is linked, and the timing makes the possibility of an unrelated 3rd factor highly unlikely.

As for other cities, very few had total indoor smoking bans until the past 1

Re:Evidence?

[Mike Hawk]

Hey I get to post again today so I'm going to reply...

The Helena dataset may not be large enough to merit scientific certainty,

So you claim I am denying science then immediately admit it doesn't merit scientific certainty... I'm surrounded by idiots.

I'd agree with the whole nose whine, but you do have a right to stand up and move your nose. But hey, if we were locked in a little box with poor circulation, I wouldn't smoke since you couldn't actually leave then. I'm just that nice a guy.

You r

Re:Evidence?

[frankie]

... I'm surrounded by idiots.

Yep, that's what I get for playing fair against a troll. In actual point of fact, the Helena study has a p-value of 0.05, which is the formal standard for accepted results in the past 100+ years of scientific research. And the effect is already known [bmjjournals.com]; this study was for emphasis. Therefore, yes, should should accept it as true, and so should I.

However, my damn fairness reared its foolish head. Unlike some people, I'm willing to consider viewpoints other than my own, and wil

Re:Evidence?

[Mike Hawk]

Sorry, I just don't find myself so important as to want to make something illegal on what amounts to a statistical hunch. Hey, did you mention in this thread that your wife makes money from creating studies that denounce smoking? To truly be fair you should really include that in each and every post you make.

The funny thing is, I don't even smoke. You should do what I do when someone is smoking near me, take two steps backward and go about your business.

Re:Evidence?

[frankie]

that your wife makes money from creating studies that denounce smoking?

No, it's the opposite. First, her research isn't on smoking. Second, if she claimed that secondhand smoke is perfectly safe, she would make MORE money because more people would end up in the hospital. Instead she tells the truth to her patients, literally attempts to put herself OUT OF BUSINESS, because profit is way Way WAY below altruism on her list of motivations, unlike some people. Don't try to impugn her again.

You still refuse

Re:Evidence?

[Mike Hawk]

What new evidence did you provide? What new questions did you ask? Its the same drivel that democrats always spew. They want to protect us from ourselves because they think they are superior. And you are nothing put a prototype democrat.

Don't impugn her again? LOL. Or what? LOL. That notion is going to keep me laughing for a long time, good one. So earlier

The bottom line, you got two legs, use them. Walk away from the smoker. Anything else is an infringement of the liberties of others.

Re:Evidence?

[frankie]

What new evidence did you provide?

Evidence that smoking is dangerous not only to the smoker but others nearby them. You denied it.

Its the same drivel that democrats always spew. They want to protect us from ourselves because they think they are superior.

It's the same drivel that con-trolls always spew. They want to claim their opponents are elitist liberal bastards. In point of fact, I'm paleoconservative on this: smoking is a local problem, so LEAVE IT UP TO LOCAL & STATE JURISDICTION. And make

Re:Evidence?

[Gunzour]

You right to not experience smoke ends at your front door. Beyond that, its everyone's air.

To me, the statement "it's everyone's air" implies that noone should be allowed to smoke, since their smoking by nature negatively affects "everyone's" air.

Re:Evidence?

[Mike Hawk]

Your very life drives wages down and housing prices up, hence negatively effecting me, but I'm not complaining about the fact that you exist.

Re:Evidence?

[Gunzour]

That's pretty cool, you packed a whole lot of nonsense into a single sentence. I'm impressed.

Re:Evidence?

[Mike Hawk]

So you refuse to refute the fact since you exist, housing prices are slightly higher than if you did not, and that this fact negatively affects me? If you refuse to refute this I recommend you commit suicide immediately since you previously said things than negatively affect other people should not be allowed. Good game.

Re:Evidence?

[Gunzour]

Nope, that's not what I said. I stated that your post seemed to logically imply that noone should be allowed to smoke. I wasn't arguing for or against public smoking, I was simply pointing out a fallacy in your logic.

Such as, for example, your apparent belief that unless I disprove your statements, they should be assumed true.

Next? :)

Re:Evidence?

[Mike Hawk]

You have still failed to actually address the content of ANY of my posts. If you fail once more I will be forced to laugh and discountinue the discussion. At least frankie has the balls to address what I said.