New research shows second-hand smoke does NOT cause cancer.

[PunditLisa]

@Joey_P

I didn’t say that they didn’t, I just said that I don’t like that they can tell a bar or restaurant owner that they can’t let customers smoke in their bar.

I think that a state imposed ban is the best way to do it. Why? Because it takes the decision away from private owners who’d have to make a really risky judgment call: Do I piss off the smokers or the non-smokers?

By having the state impose the ban, it relieves owners from having to make that call, and it also deflects anger by smokers from them to the “government.” And by imposing it on ALL eating/drinking establishments, it instantly levels the playing field for everyone, with the notable exception of businesses that border states that still allowed smoking.

There are still states that don’t impose statewide smoking bans, but most larger cities have local anti-smoking bans already in place. It’s just a matter of time, IMO, before these non-smoking laws will be universal and we’ll be looking back and wondering what the hell the big fuss was about. Or does anyone *really *believe that a person’s decision to smoke supercedes another person’s right to breathe clean air?

WRBLawsMap.pdf

[Cerealbox]

@Joey_P

A)I didn’t know farting in someone’s face was illegal, gotta cite?

B)Smoking in public is NOT illegal, what’s illegal is smoking in privately owned businesses. People tend to forget that a business that’s open to the public is not a “public place” but actually private property. When the state banned smoking in bars/restaurants etc, they weren’t banning people from smoking in public (you can still go stand out on the sidewalk and smoke), they told people that they could no longer smoke in their own buildings and businesses.

However, smoking in a bar may have an effect on others, I’ll give you that, but no one is forcing others to be there. Said others may leave if they don’t like the smokey atmosphere. There’s non-smoking bars, restaurants and coffee shops all over the place (at least around here) that they are welcome to go to.

On preview I see what Siam Sam said. To add to that, I think even if were proven totally true that second hand smoke caused ZERO harm, we wouldn’t go backwards. I think the only way to go backwards and allow smoking indoors again would be to prove that cigarettes weren’t harmful at all, and that’s not happening anytime soon. About a year ago I had to go to a meeting in a casino in Milwaukee that still allows smoking. I forgot what it was like to open a door and get hit in the face by a cloud of smoke. Again even as a (former) smoker, I’m glad I don’t have to remember to leave my coat in the car in 0 degree weather just so it doesn’t smell like smoke for the next three days. But it would still be nice to have the choice.

It winds up in the news every once in a while. It’s considered assault. (or battery, whatever)

[wevets]

@Rachellelogram

Your question is already answered in the part you quoted. If there was an increase, it was not statistically significant.

Nope. Since the effect was not statistically detectable, one needs to examine the power analysis of the study being used, i.e., how big an effect can be detected by a study of this size and design?

The question exists after I read the available article, I did not ask it before I read the article.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@wevets

Nope. Since the effect was not statistically detectable, one needs to examine the power analysis of the study being used, i.e., how big an effect can be detected by a study of this size and design?

The question exists after I read the available article, I did not ask it before I read the article.

Exactly. WHen designing studies one must calculate the “power” of the study. In other words, how many people do you need to include in order to reasonably detect an infrequent, but statistically real phenomenon. For example, this is why sometimes rare, but significant, side-effects of drugs aren’t really documented until the drugs are being taken by millions of people and are missed in the clinical trials.

I’m going to try to logon to the article using my University credentials to see if we have a subscription through our library. I’m actually surprised that an NIH publication is behind a pay-wall, as those are usually made public.

[wevets]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

I’m going to try to logon to the article using my University credentials to see if we have a subscription through our library. I’m actually surprised that an NIH publication is behind a pay-wall, as those are usually made public.

In case of peer-reviewed papers, this is usually true, but this appears to be a news report about a conference presentation in JNCI’s “News” section rather than a paper.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@wevets

In case of peer-reviewed papers, this is usually true, but this appears to be a news report about a conference presentation in JNCI’s “News” section rather than a paper.

Ah. So there’s not even a peer reviewed article out there? This is just about data presented at a meeting?

[wevets]

@IvoryTowerDenizen

Ah. So there’s not even a peer reviewed article out there? This is just about data presented at a meeting?

As far as I can tell, you’ve got it.

Try the link

@Judy Peres in JNCI

“The fact that passive smoking may not be strongly associated with lung cancer points to a need to find other risk factors for the disease [in nonsmokers],” said Ange Wang, the Stanford University medical student who presented the study at the June 2013 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology in Chicago.

[IvoryTowerDenizen]

@wevets

As far as I can tell, you’ve got it.

Try the link

I’ll wait for the peer reviewed article that’s been validated. How many presentations at meetings ended up being trashed upon an attempt at publication…

[Rachellelogram]

@wevets

As far as I can tell, you’ve got it.

Try the link

That’s pretty lame, then.