# Property owners rights and smokers. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 20, 2003, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304 "2003-11-20T14:27:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 5:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/41 "2003-11-21T05:10:09Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by cmosdes \* > \*\* > However, see my post to **ExecutiveJesus** about employer responsibility. If you are going to say the employer has no responsibility to guard your well being, I’d be surprised. If you say the employer does hold some responsibility, I’d like to know where you draw the line. \*\* The employer is, of course, liable for a number of accidents that might occur on his property, on a negligence theory. And as an “invitee” I have an even better chance to recover for injury under older common law rules. Specifically, the property owner is obligated to warn his invitees of a dangerous condition on his property. Tort law definitely allows for the doctrine of assuming the risk. That can be either explicit, or implicit. Probably a sign at the front door, saying “Smoking Allowed Inside - Patrons May Encounter Second-Hand Smoke” would do the trick. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/42 "2003-11-21T05:33:23Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Why is it that when we get into these arguments, you libertarian-types always essentially assume your conclusion? Sure, I agree that if you are a market fundamentalist who believes that the only legitimate avenue for people in a society to decide what they do is through the market then your conclusions necessarily follow. But, that begs the question of whether the market is the one and only way to resolve these questions. Those of us who believe that the Market and God are not one and the same don’t necessarily buy this proposition. \*\* What other ways exist to decide my actions in society than through the market? The market is merely the free exchange of goods and services. If I want something, I find someone who can provide it and exchange value for value. The only other way to get what I want is to put a gun to someone’s head and take it by force, and I still fail to see how that’s a viable alternative. Frankly, I don’t see how compelling others to give me what I want should be a legitimate avenue of pursuit. But anyways, how are we to debate in this case? I believe, for a long litany of simple reasons, in the basic principles of individual freedom as commonly advocated by libertarianism. Now, every time we debate whether such-and-such policy should be implemented, do we actually have to spend 4-5 pages debating the fundamentals of why we hold our particular perspectives? Well just do this. I want to smoke, the restaurant wants to let me on their property and will allow me to smoke while I drink and eat, the wait-staff agrees to work there in exchange for compensation in the form of wages. I see several freely adopted contractual relationships there. Give me a reason why these individual adults, acting free of compulsion and/or fraud to enter an agreement by their own will, should be _prohibited_ from making and acting upon that agreement? ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/43 "2003-11-21T05:49:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Why is it that when we get into these arguments, you libertarian-types always essentially assume your conclusion? Sure, I agree that if you are a market fundamentalist who believes that the only legitimate avenue for people in a society to decide what they do is through the market then your conclusions necessarily follow. But, that begs the question of whether the market is the one and only way to resolve these questions. Those of us who believe that the Market and God are not one and the same don’t necessarily buy this proposition. \*\* What other ways exist to decide my actions in society than through the market? The market is merely the free exchange of goods and services. If I want something, I find someone who can provide it and exchange value for value. The only other way to get what I want is to put a gun to someone’s head and take it by force, and I still fail to see how that’s a viable alternative. Frankly, I don’t see how compelling others to give me what I want should be a legitimate avenue of pursuit. But anyways, how are we to debate in this case? I believe, for a long litany of simple reasons, in the basic principles of individual freedom as commonly advocated by libertarianism. Now, every time we debate whether such-and-such policy should be implemented, do we actually have to spend 4-5 pages debating the fundamentals of why we hold our particular perspectives? Well just do this. I want to smoke, the restaurant wants to let me on their property and will allow me to smoke while I drink and eat, the wait-staff agrees to work there in exchange for compensation in the form of wages. I see several freely adopted contractual relationships there. Give me a reason why these individual adults, acting free of compulsion and/or fraud to enter an agreement by their own will, should be _prohibited_ from making and acting upon that agreement? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 10:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/44 "2003-11-21T10:40:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by whuckfistle \* > \*\*What are your thoughts, should the city/state step in or not? \*\* It should not. In my city, restaurants and bars have color-coded signs on the door that say whether smoking is allowed inside (green: no smoking; yellow: smoking in designated areas; red: smoking everywhere). If you don’t like smoke, then when you see a yellow or red sign, you can continue down the street until you find a green sign. Problem solved. Should employees be forced to work around smoke? Of course not… and they aren’t. They can continue down the street until they find a green sign, just like anyone else. Now, what if there aren’t enough green-signed restaurants to serve all the people who don’t want to be around smoke? In that case, I would support a “smoking license” rationing system (only X smoking restaurants allowed per square mile), because the market is not responding to demand. But an all-out ban on an otherwise legal activity–such that an owner, a bartender, a waitress, and a customer who all smoke are prohibited from coming together to do business–is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > _Originally posted by RexDart_ > **The smoking thing is just a crusade by those who follow the left’s new religion, Healthism. Their official hymn is "Better Safe than Sorry, Better Safe than Free."** Please. I’m a liberal nonsmoker and I’m against a smoking ban. It’s not about left or right, it’s about wanting to force businesses to offer the environment you prefer. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/45 "2003-11-21T14:34:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Jackmannii \*To get a look at the science behind the reports of secondhand smoke dangers go to [this site](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed) Well, propaganda zombie, I’ve been there, and I took at look at the largest and most comprehensive such study ever made, one done by the World Health Organization: [http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf](http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf) [QUOTE] Our results indicate no association between childhood exposure to ETS and lung cancer risk. We did find weak evidence of a dose–response relationship between risk of lung cancer and exposure to spousal and workplace ETS. There was no detectable risk after cessation of exposure. [QUOTE] And if you look at their paper in depth, you will find that their “weak” relationship is so tiny that the confidence interval includes LOWER risk than for the general population. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 2:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/46 "2003-11-21T14:39:31Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > McDonald’s has been smoke-free for quite a few years now, but I’d suggest that a double quarter-pounder with cheese, super size fries, and a large coke are probably much worse for your health than spending an evening in a bar where people smoke. Don’t worry, the exacte same lawyers who engineered the “tobacco settlement” are now filing lawsuits against fast food establishments for FORCING people to get fat. I am not joking. The nannies and busybodies are industriously leading the sheeple and propaganda zombies along their merry path. First demon rum (oops, sanity reasserted, try again), then demon tobacco, now demon food. Don’t worry, eventually we will live in a country where it will be illegal to make any decision at all and everything will be planned out nice and safe for us. We just have to be happy in our slavery. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/47 "2003-11-21T15:38:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jeevmon \* > \*\*Eh, no, that’s not how it works. Why not “if you don’t want to work in an environment with unsafe working conditions, don’t”? \*\* Exactly, why not? It’s like saying, well, in this warehouse I work in, boxes keep falling on my head. I guess I’ll wait until the government makes a regulation against falling boxes before I quit. _ **cmosdes** said_ > [@](#): > > Don’t you think employees should have a reasonable expectation that working in a given place will not adversly affect their health? > I guess I would be very surprised if you felt it would be okay for your employer to start dumping lead into the coffee or water. I expect employees to have a brain in their head to avoid dangerous working conditions. And if my employeer injured me in any way, I would quit. ---
**Author:** ![jeevmon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@jeevmon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeevmon)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/48 "2003-11-21T16:29:14Z")
It’s nice to see there are people still nostalgic for the good old days of the 19th century. Back then, workplaces pretty much followed the model that **Bruce\_Daddy** and others are advocating. And they were wretched and downright dangerous places. And when someone suggested that maybe that wasn’t a good thing, they were told that the employees always had the choice to work someplace safer. " But somehow, it never worked out that way. There was nowhere safer. Because when there is always someone there to take the place of the person who quit because of “unsafe working conditions,” no employer had the incentive to provide for minimally safe working conditions. And as long the burden was placed on the replaceable employee to seek out safe places of work, there was no way to provide that incentive. It’s easy for those of us typing on our computers, many of whom have white collar jobs, savings accounts, and retirement plans, to say stuff like “if my employee injured me, I would quit,” and forget that there is a whole world of people out there who just don’t have that choice. Unless and until we come into an era of severe labor shortage (which hasn’t happened in foodservice, for example), there is no way that employees can, by changing jobs, create the necessary incentives to force employers to compete for employees by, for example, providing safer working conditions. ---
**Author:** ![Dogface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@Dogface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dogface)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 4:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/49 "2003-11-21T16:44:56Z")
jeevmon, go read the World Health Organization’s complete report: [http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf](http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf) Read the whole report. The “risk” posed in the workplace from ETS is debatable. However, it may still qualify under being “unpleasant conditions”, but if that’s the real reason, then be honest about it and stop fraudulently claiming “cancer” or other risks. ---
**Author:** ![jeevmon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/87869e/32.png) [@jeevmon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jeevmon)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/50 "2003-11-21T17:46:30Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > \*\*jeevmon, go read the World Health Organization’s complete report: > > [http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf](http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf) > > Read the whole report. The “risk” posed in the workplace from ETS is debatable. However, it may still qualify under being “unpleasant conditions”, but if that’s the real reason, then be honest about it and stop fraudulently claiming “cancer” or other risks. \*\* If you’ll read up above, I have offered no opinion on the risks or lack of risks from secondhand smoke. The title of this thread is “property owners rights and smokers,” not “is secondhand smoke a danger.” Several posters ( **ExecutiveJesus** , **RexDart** , **Bruce\_Daddy** ) have said or implied that the property owner has the right to allow or not allow smoking on their property, and that if such smoke is dangerous, the duty is on the customers and employees to find somewhere else to eat and work (respectively). It is that proposition with which I take issue. ---
**Author:** ![Apos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/838e76/32.png) [@Apos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Apos)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/51 "2003-11-21T17:55:54Z")
> [@](#): > > there is no way that employees can, by changing jobs, create the necessary incentives to force employers to compete for employees by, for example, providing safer working conditions. An important question, however, is that where is the money coming from to make the workplace safer? If it’s coming out of the employer’s pockets, then arguably the workers are paying for it anyway in lower wages AND they then have no incentive themselves to take the efforts to be safe and careful that they otherwise would have. You also seem to have the assumption that if a worker can’t find a job that’s safe enough for them, whatever specific owner they want to pester about this are obligated to provide one. If workers can’t find good work, that’s bad, but why is it the fault of any specific employer? If there’s a moral duty to provide safer jobs for those that want them, shouldn’t that duty fall equally on everyone, and come out of general taxes instead of out of one single employer’s pocket? ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/52 "2003-11-21T18:07:50Z")
**jeevmon** , I suppose we’ll just have to disagree. I believe in personal responsibility and have faith in people to make the correct choices for themselves and you apparently have faith in the government to protect people who are not able to live healthy, safe productive lives with out it. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/53 "2003-11-21T18:42:58Z")
That reads snarkier than I intend it. I apologize if it sounds that way. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/54 "2003-11-21T19:08:44Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dogface \* > Well, propaganda zombie, I’ve been there, and I took at look at the largest and most comprehensive such study ever made, one done by the World Health Organization: > > [http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf](http://jncicancerspectrum.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/jnci;90/19/1440.pdf) Could you please explain to us why we are supposed to believe the results of this study (which, by the way, did not show the lack of an effect on lung cancer rates but merely an effect that was not statistically significant given their small sample size) over all the other studies that have been done, besides the fact that it seems to sort of give the answer that you want to believe? In a field with many epidemicological studies, it is almost always possible to cherry-pick a few to support anything you want unless the effect being studied is really huge. Also, could you explain why WHO itself issued a press release saying that the study was being misinterpretted and that it did not demonstrate that secondhand smoke does not cause lung cancer? ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/55 "2003-11-21T20:21:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Bruce\_Daddy \* > These things tend to work themselves out without government intervention. That is patently false. Jeevmon keeps beating me to the punch here, but to reiterate, if you look at history or at 3rd World countries presently, it is quite obvious that things do NOT “work themselves out”. Things are only the way they are today in the U.S. because of government intervention. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/56 "2003-11-21T21:04:51Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr2001 \* > Now, what if there aren’t enough green-signed restaurants to serve all the people who don’t want to be around smoke? In that case, I would support a “smoking license” rationing system (only X smoking restaurants allowed per square mile), because the market is not responding to demand. I wouldn’t be opposed to such a system, but I am vehemently opposed to the “let the market sort it out” system that so many smoking proponents seem to favor. The plain truth of the matter is that before they started enacting these smoking bans, the availability of non-smoking venues fell DISMALLY short of a number proportional to how many people desired such venues. Sure, that’s great for smokers, but it sucks for non-smokers. I’ve noticed that those of a Libertarian bent tend to employ circular reasoning in this regard. They claim that the “market” always responds to demand, then claim that lack of non-smoking venues is proof of lack of demand. It’s an unfalsifyable statement. You can never show that the market _didn’t_ respond to demand if you define demand as what the market responded to. > [@](#): > > _Apos:_ > An important question, however, is that where is the money coming from to make the workplace safer? If it’s coming out of the employer’s pockets, then arguably the workers are paying for it anyway in lower wages AND they then have no incentive themselves to take the efforts to be safe and careful that they otherwise would have. Workplace safety is not simply a matter of employees being “safe and careful”. Would being “safe and careful” prevent black-lung disease or asbestosis, for example? ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/57 "2003-11-21T22:44:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RexDart \* > What other ways exist to decide my actions in society than through the market? We can decide to take actions collectively through something called “democratic government”. > [@](#): > > The market is merely the free exchange of goods and services. If I want something, I find someone who can provide it and exchange value for value. The only other way to get what I want is to put a gun to someone’s head and take it by force, and I still fail to see how that’s a viable alternative. Frankly, I don’t see how compelling others to give me what I want should be a legitimate avenue of pursuit. But anyways, how are we to debate in this case? > > … > > Give me a reason why these individual adults, acting free of compulsion and/or fraud to enter an agreement by their own will, should be _prohibited_ from making and acting upon that agreement? Like you said, getting too far into this is taking us on a hijack. Clearly, you are a market fundamentalist who believes that the only legitimate way for people to interact is through the market system (although I am sure you will come up with some exception where you want government too). I believe that markets have many virtues but that they are imperfect for a variety of reasons (deficiencies of information, effects of free exchanges between two parties on third parties, one-dollar-one-vote, the sometimes effectively coercive nature of interactions between an economically strong and economically weak person\*, …) Thus, I see the need to sometimes take action collectively. The one point I merely wanted to make is that your premises ordain your conclusions. I.e., noone should be surprised that you conclude that things like these smoking restrictions are unjustifiable when you start with the presumption that the market system is infallible…Or, at least, infallible in regards to this case. As **blowero** points out, the arguments by libertarians tend to get rather circular in this regard. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [November 21, 2003, 10:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/58 "2003-11-21T22:47:59Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by blowero \* > \*\*I wouldn’t be opposed to such a system, but I am vehemently opposed to the “let the market sort it out” system that so many smoking proponents seem to favor. \*\* How is the system described by **Mr2001** not a market-based system? It isn’t materally different from the status quo, the only difference being you can know whether or not a place allows smoking from the sign outside instead of having to open the door and peek inside. There’s nothing to prevent me, pre-ban, from peeking in the doors of pubs along a street until I find one with a “no smoking” sign inside. The signs are a nice convenience and nothing more. \*\* > [@](#): > > The plain truth of the matter is that before they started enacting these smoking bans, the availability of non-smoking venues fell DISMALLY short of a number proportional to how many people desired such venues. \*\* Obviously, most non-smokers didn’t care terribly much whether a particular venue allowed or disallowed smoking; if they did, they would not frequent establishments that permitted smoking – they would go to nonsmoking establishments or they would stay home. Market forces measure the depth as well as the breadth of demand. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/59 "2003-11-22T03:07:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow \* > **How is the system described by Mr2001 not a market-based system? It isn’t materally different from the status quo, the only difference being you can know whether or not a place allows smoking from the sign outside instead of having to open the door and peek inside. There’s nothing to prevent me, pre-ban, from peeking in the doors of pubs along a street until I find one with a “no smoking” sign inside. The signs are a nice convenience and nothing more.** Well, that part actually is the [status quo](http://www.tobaccofreespokane.org/big-air.htm) here - by “my city” I meant Spokane, not the hypothetical land of Mr2001ville. 😉 The part of my plan that hasn’t been implemented yet (AFAIK) is the smoking license, which would promote smoke-free restaurants by limiting the number of smoking restaurants. It’s still market-based, in a sense. Businesses would be allowed to bid on smoking licenses as they become available, or buy licenses from other businesses that are no longer using them. > [@](#): > > \*\*Obviously, most non-smokers didn’t care terribly much whether a particular venue allowed or disallowed smoking; if they did, they would not frequent establishments that permitted smoking – they would go to nonsmoking establishments or they would stay home. Market forces measure the depth as well as the breadth of demand. \*\* Indeed they do… but even if all the people who hate smoke stay home, the market may not respond by offering nonsmoking restaurants. Restaurants may prefer to target the 75% of customers who don’t mind smoke, instead of the 25% who do. (Numbers are made up.) To use another example, we see almost the same thing happening on network TV. The big four networks fight over the same audience (people who don’t have cable), so the programming tends to aim for the majority and ignore the minority. If most people want news at 6:00 PM, you’ll probably see news at 6:00 PM on every network, even if there’s a significant minority who would rather watch something else. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [November 22, 2003, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304/60 "2003-11-22T04:41:38Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Could you please explain to us why we are supposed to believe the results of this study (which, by the way, did not show the lack of an effect on lung cancer rates but merely an effect that was not statistically significant given their small sample size) over all the other studies that have been done, besides the fact that it seems to sort of give the answer that you want to believe? In a field with many epidemicological studies, it is almost always possible to cherry-pick a few to support anything you want unless the effect being studied is really huge. > > Also, could you explain why WHO itself issued a press release saying that the study was being misinterpretted and that it did not demonstrate that secondhand smoke does not cause lung cancer? \*\* You’re wasting your (pause for irony) breath. But good points anyway. Of course, well beyond the documented cancer hazards of secondhand smoke are the variety of miseries it poses for people with all sorts of chronic lung diseases - asthma, bronchitis, emphysema etc. More “property rights” issues - "Hell, I _own_ the coal mine/textile mill/vermiculite plant (this one’s for you, W.R. Grace) - why should I have to do anything about black lung/brown lung/mesothelioma? Here’s a couple studies I found that says the risks are way overblown! And those ungrateful workers can find a job someplace else. You want to eat, don’t you?" [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/property-owners-rights-and-smokers/214304.md?page=4)