- cross-posted to:
- publichealth@mander.xyz
- cross-posted to:
- publichealth@mander.xyz
Reversal of smoking ban criticised as āshamefulā for lacking evidence
New Zealand is repealing the worldās first smoking ban passed under former prime minister Jacinda Ardenās government to pave the way for a smoke-free generation amid backlash from researchers and campaigners over its risk to Indigenous people.
The new coalition government led by prime minister Christopher Luxon confirmed the repeal will happen on Tuesday, delivering on one of the actions of his coalitionās ambitious 100-day plan.
The government repeal will be put before parliament as a matter of urgency, enabling it to scrap the law without seeking public comment, in line with previously announced plans.
The laughter of idiots is equivalent to the approval of thinking people. So, thank you.
Now that youāre arguing against the concept of data, where do we go from here? I mean if you fundamentally disagree with reality, wellā¦dunno what to tell you dude. The data aināt saying what you want it to. That sucks. But it is what it is.
Again, there is no safe level of exposure to smoke.
There is no level of smoke exposure that is safe.
No level of exposure to smoke is safe. Outdoors or indoors.
That has been proved, objectively, for hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of times.
What you donāt see is that Iāve been asking āwhat is your argumentā for several comments, but you simply do not have one. Youāre trying to equivocate that āb-bb-but there are no studies which studied only outdoors exposure and that is actually safe because thereās no evidence to prove that it isnātā, when we do have evidence proving that, since we have evidence that all smoke exposure is harmful. āJust look at the data.ā
I could start pasting dozens of studies which have been done on this over almost a century, but youāre the one making the argument (or rather, not-making an argument, since you donāt actually have one, youāre just saying ālol look thereās no specific outdoors studies thus Iām right in my non-argumentā), so the burden of proof is on you.
The irony in you saying āthe conclusions arenāt supported by the dataā, when they clearly show why it is, and then you being unable to actually explain why you think it isnātā¦ is again, h-i-l-a-r-i-o-u-s.
Try to make an argument instead of this teenagey pseudointellectual equivocating and wannabe deep quotes. :D
Why does subjective reports about peopleās perceived level of smoke exposure matter in this conversation? Why does it invalidate the data that shows all smoke exposure is harmful?
Yet you canāt find a study showing it?
Itās reasonable to assume that a level of smoke particulate matter equal to that of areas in which there is no smoking is nonharmful. Right? Maybe a higher level is still not harmful but thereās no data so we donāt know.
My theory is that occasional outdoor smoke exposes you to particulate matter at such low concentrations, itās indistinguishable from regular daily fluctuations when not exposed to smoke. Just a theory, because no real data, but I think itās a reasonable one. The one study you linked about particulate matter in outdoor areas seems to support it.
Also
Youāre the one who linked the study, dude, I just read it.
The burden of proof is on you.
Youāre the one screeching against established science. Youāre the one saying that āthe data doesnāt support the conclusionsā while refusing to actually even make an argument.
āMy theoryā
You donāt seem to understand what the word means. Thatās a hypothesis, and one not supported by any science, despite you saying that the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study isnāt supported by the data they have, that the data in fact supports your notion, but you still canāt seem to show how or why?
So your argument is āif youāre not exposed to smoke, then youāre not harmed by itā? Wow. What a great argument. Unfortunately, when youāre exposed to smoke, no matter the amount, it is harmful. This has been proven time and time and time again, but despite you childishly arguing against it, you havenāt even tried looking if thereās data available on it, because you know of course there is and it all proves you wrong.
The burden of proof is on you. Youāre simply unable to produce any supporting evidence for any of your anti-vaxxer, flat-earth level garbage, instead preferring to write vague pseudointellectual garbage. :D
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
āWidely recognised.ā
Almost as if thatās what the evidence points towards and your pathetic little āb-b-b-b-but what about if youāre only outdoors and youāre 100 meters upwind from the closest smoker so then youāre not exposed to smoke at all so then itās safe so there is actually a safe level of second hand smoke exposure which is literally to not be exposed at all and thatās my mighty smart argument that Iām now making and the fact that thereās a literal library full of studies which prove that there is no safe level of second hand smoke is completely irrelevant as Iām not even gonna look at it Iām just gonna pretend like I won the argument I didnāt even actually manage to makeā
SEe why Iām entertained? D:DD
Thatās a problem with your comprehension, not with my explanation.
Run spell check please.
ā¦ deep sigh
So in your previous comment you ask ābut you canāt find evidence for it?ā after Iāve explained that you need to find the evidence, because the burden of proof is on you because youāre the one trying to argue against scientific consensus.
Despite the burden of proof being on you, not me, I show you studies that show how widely recognised it is that there is no safe level of SHS exposure.
You refuse to acknowledge it.
So tell me, how exactly are you different from a Flat Earther or an Anti-vaxxer? Because you canāt seem to make an argument of any sort, youāre just grasping at something like āno but see the measurements of exposure from an outdoor smoking area were almost as low asā¦ā which isnāt an argument. Itās an observation, that in no way disproves that all SHS is harmful.
What arenāt you getting? Why are you ignoring when I show you proof? What is your argument? Oh you donāt have any so you end up with these childish games like pretending you didnāt see anything I just wrote and linked and are unable to Google āis second hand smoke dangerousā yourself?
Make. An. Argument. Please?
But you wonāt.
My entire point is that there is no evidence since thereās no studies. You canāt prove a negative, but a massive analysis of previous studies comes close.
The studies donāt show that. They merely assert that, without the data to back it up. Thatās what Iāve been trying to tell you this whole time.
Thatās absolutely an argument, and itās not grasping at anything. What tiny amount of data we have on the subject does in fact support what Iām saying. And Iām not even saying itās conclusive evidence, just some level of support that Iām only bringing up for lack of real good data.
And you still havenāt sent any proof. You find a study, you read the conclusion, you throw it at me, I read the data, I throw that at you, you ignore it and find a new study, rinse and repeat.
I agree itās very unfortunate that thereās such a ridiculous bias in studiesā conclusions. I suspect itās related to funding and PR. We shouldnāt have to dig into the data of a study to see if it supports the conclusion that the authors wrote. But thatās where weāre at.
I donāt think this is the norm. I hope not. I suspect smoking is just a very charged topic and no scientist wants to lose funding by being known as the guy who put out a pro-smoking study.
No evidence of what? That second hand smoke is harmful? Are you on meth?
āNo, the science is wrong, and me, a childish person on a pseydoanonymous forum ASSERTING the science is wrong is more credible than the science they use to show their conclusions are backed up by the data. Oh and donāt even try to get me to actually comment on what I think is wrong in the data, because I havenāt even read it.ā - You
Yes, it is grasping. Because youāre not even refuting that SHS is harmful, youāre trying to assert that outdoors, there is no SHS, by trying to show concentrations measured. So implicitly, youāre admitting that any SHS IS harmful, because of course you are, because we all know that to be true, lol.
My stomach canāt take much more of this :DDD
See, you already ignored the studies when I only quote their conclusions and the most important parts of them. What on Earth are you gonna do when I paste the entire study here?
This is from this exact thread, 3 comments earlier:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/
#No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways
https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/
https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/
#It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS
āWidely recognised.ā
Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke. Please. Iāve been waiting and asking for several comments now. Oh and, a bit too ashamed to answer the comment where you talk about āyou need to understand thereās a huge bias with tobaccoā¦ā when I replied to it with this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/
#Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics
Completely unlike what youāre doing, amirite? :DDDDDD Thatās what is so hilarious; youāre using century old rhetoric. Itās like arguing someone whoās genuinely insistent that āreefer madnessā is a thing :DDD
You havenāt linked a single study of any sort. You just keep stomping your foot and saying āNYAAAH NO NO NO THEYāRE WRONG AND I DONāT NEED TO TELL YOU HOW THEYāRE WRONG THEYāRE JUST ANGRY AT SMOKERS NYAAAAHā
Straw man. Donāt be stupid. Argue against what I said, not what you want me to have said