These all link to quite old studies and as I mentioned there’s far more than one link in the slate article I linked showing that the risks of secondhand smoke have not been substantiated by more modern research in the last 10 years. Certainly nowhere near the certainty with which you casually throw around the “50,000” number as though it is heaven’s writ.
Let’s also be clear, even if that number was correct it in no way justifies banning cigarettes or tobacco smoking. Secondhand smoke is a public health issue in public, which laws and regulations have largely removed it from public settings. If people are exposed to secondhand smoke in private settings it is not the issue of government to intervene.
At the end of the day you’re simply advocating extreme nanny state, government paternalism. I don’t care frankly how many different ways you choose to speak about it–I disagree with it. It is not the business of government to protect us from ingesting plants.
As to your anti-tobacco company screed, the whole purpose of Master Settlement Agreements was to settle the various issues you mentioned with cash payouts, which have been done. Many of the tobacco majors have gone under and consolidated and that’s to be expected.
Tobacco is a vice. Companies will exist to satisfy vices. Those companies won’t be paragons of virtue. None of this is the business of government. Likewise it is typically far worse when government goes into prohibitionism than to just leave matters alone.
2014 & 2012That is in the last ten years. 2005 was the other one.
And all I have seen is one, count them one cite dating from 2010, and not written by medical specialists, but by RAND economists. If there are other links, trot them out.
There is a growing body of evidence that wood burning stoves and fireplaces correlate with many of the same health risks, would you argue that government should ban those from private homes (where children could very well live) as well?
I never said they were all older than 10 years. But 2014 and 2012 are both old, especially given the relatively weak correlations and small sample sizes involved, and the higher quality studies that have shown second hand smoke is not as dangerous as once was assumed. Note I am not claiming it is not dangerous at all.
Edit to add: The 2014 study is particularly weak in many ways, look at their methodology:
Homes, workplaces, and indoor public places, including restaurants and bars, were assumed to be the major microenvironments where people were exposed to SHS. To estimate the deaths of the two diseases due to SHSe in restaurants and bars, the number of total deaths attributed to SHSe in all microenvironments was multiplied by the percentage of SHS time in this microenvironment, which was estimated by weighting the proportion of the population of interest with SHSe in different microenvironments by their average time spent in each microenvironment. The proportion of males or females exposed to SHS in a specific microenvironment was estimated by multiplying the corresponding general prevalence of SHSe by the proportion of passive smokers who had SHSe in that specific environment as reported in 1996
Wood-burning stoves are not quite banned in the U.S., but at the very least they need an EPA emissions certificate, and in some states are restricted to certain types (e.g., commercial pellets only) and subject to further air-pollution regulations (can’t burn wood when extra smoke controls have been declared).
And that’s a world of difference from being banned…cigarettes have many restrictions on their sale and use as well. Manufacturer’s are required to print warnings on every pack sold, they are an age restricted product, the tobacco companies have had to pay billions into funds that promote smoking cessation, their marketing and advertising is significantly limited. Virtually all workplaces, many apartments, condos, public accommodations disallow smoking, public transit disallows smoking.
There’s a lot more than one cite in the article I linked–I specifically linked it because of the density of cites to peer reviewed papers it contained. I find it tedious to continue a back and forth about links to studies you aren’t even willing or able to look at, so am going to exit myself from the matter of research and secondhand smoke. Given that I have said the state of the research would not alter my position on whether secondhand smoke justifies banning cigarettes, it feels like a pointless matter in any case.
Actually, the business of government is whatever the people say it is, and we’ve collectively expressed that this can be regulated. The end.
Which settlement specifically redressed predatory marketing of cigarettes to black people? I could be wrong but I’m not aware of a case that specifically litigated that.
More lawsuits should be filed, and more companies should go out of business.
I don’t think anyone contests government has the power to do this, but it is not wise. Obviously you disagree and want a nanny state government that regulates every aspect of your life, deciding for you what is best for your life, and that’s fine. I choose not to live that way or to advocate such things. Your position is that government ought do this, if the only justification you have for it is that “government can” then you’re well on your way to embracing tyranny, which should probably lead to some self-reflection. It certainly appears you’ve abandoned any other real logical reason to support the ban as none of the arguments for it have held water thus far.
Sure it is. It’s eminently wise for the government to protect its citizens from rapacious predators.
Yes, obviously I gave a long list of everything in my life and said “big daddy government, please regulate all of it.” And yes, I want a big old nanny state. Nanny nanny nanny. Bonus points if you can work in ‘statist’ or ‘collectivist’ into the smear. You can do it!
Slippery slope arguments don’t fly with me, sorry.
I’d also point out that the last couple of months have pointed out where the actual risk of tyranny is, and it’s not government regulation, it’s white people who want to seize the government with violence because they think their vision of government is the only legitimate one.
in line with your argument, I felt the same way about banning smoking in bars and restaurants–if I tell you in advance it’s a smoking establishment, then you can choose to enter/work or not at your choice. Informed freedom of choice, you shouldn’t stop others from indulging. It’s not like there’s only1 restaurant or bar in town to limit your access.
Either that or vaping. They’ll still need their nicotine fix.
But making cigarettes less enjoyable is probably good in the long run. Cigarettes and obesity#1 are still the two biggest hits on Health Care in the US I’m pretty sure.
I’m not sure I love this law, but at least it should have a positive affect long term.