Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence

Reversal of smoking ban criticised as ‘shameful’ for lacking evidence

New Zealand is repealing the world’s first smoking ban passed under former prime minister Jacinda Arden’s 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 coalition’s 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.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
    12·
    9 months ago

    nonsmoking women married to smokers

    Pooled estimates associated with secondhand smoke exposure from spouses, at the workplace, and during childhood

    These cohort studies used questionnaires that asked about spousal smoking behaviors

    men married to women who smoked

    Many larger studies have since been conducted in the United States (Brownson et al. 1992; Stockwell et al. 1992; Fontham et al. 1994) and elsewhere (Wu-Williams et al. 1990; Boffetta et al. 1998; Nyberg et al. 1998a; Zaridze et al. 1998; Zhong et al. 1999; Kreuzer et al. 2000; Lee et al. 2000; Wang et al. 2000; Seow et al. 2002) that expanded the assessment of the exposure to include smoking habits of other household members during childhood and adulthood, and exposure at work and in other social settings.

    And so on. It’s all over the article. Do a ctrl+f of “outdoor” and similar terms if you like.

    • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and lung cancer among lifetime nonsmokers. This conclusion extends to all secondhand smoke exposure, regardless of location.

      Yeah, seems pretty clear.

      “It” being your lack of an argument against science that has a literal metric ton of evidence behind it, not to mention common sense?

      “No no, smoke isn’t actually harmful”

      What are you, a 1950’s ad company? XD

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
        12·
        9 months ago

        You just keep not reading, even when I copy paste it for you. I don’t know what else I can do here. The conclusion is disingenuous and the proof is right there in the report. Continuing to regurgitate the same words that I’m saying are wrong is not an argument.

        • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 months ago

          You’re not making an argument.

          You’re saying “no the data doesn’t agree with their conclusions”, without any argument. “It was lifetime smokers they were married to, and they smoked indoors btw.”

          So what? That doesn’t meant that lless exposure isn’t harmful. That’s what they conclude as well. Stomping your foot and saying “no no no it’s not true” won’t change the conclusions, and you’ve shown nothing that shows their conclusions are false.

          This is hilarious

          • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
            11·
            9 months ago

            The conclusions are an inaccurate representation of the data. Let’s start there. We can move on to the larger point later since it’s too much for you to grasp apparently. Can you agree with me that there have been no studies about occasional outdoor secondhand smoke?

            • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
              1·
              9 months ago

              “They conclude that it’s very clear that all smoke exposure is harmful. But they never studied people who only get exposed outdoors. I’m betting smoke magically becomes non-harmful when there aren’t walls around you, despite them clearly concluding ALL smoke is harmful. Also, I don’t need to provide any evidence for my ridiculously asinine and illogical premise, it’s enough that I can recognise that this specific instance wasn’t studied by itself, so it can mean whatever I want it to, despite reality”

              You’re honestly like one of those Flat Earth nuts who’s trying to convince us that NASA is guarding the icewall at the end of the Earth. “But like, can you agree with me that no-one’s ever seen the actual edge of the Earth?”

              No, I really really can’t, because you’re crazy. :D

              First, there are several studies looking into the effects of “outdoor smoking”. We understand very well how aerosols work indoors and outdoors, so it really doesn’t matter where you are during the exposure, it matters how much you are exposed to.

              https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22870289/

              https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e007554

              There’s literally almost a century of data on this. You’re like an antivaxxer. :D “Nooo, we haven’t actually established that smoke exposure is always harmful, and I don’t need to provide evidence that it isn’t.”

              We have established with insanely high certainty that all smoke exposure is harmful.

              It’s like if you tried arguing that we don’t know for certain that asbestos exposure is harmful, because you say we haven’t actually looked at asbestos exposure outdoors. :DD

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
                11·
                9 months ago

                It’s kind of funny how you obviously take the time to come up with the worst insults you can think of and then throw them at me even when they don’t make sense. Try “MAGA” next.

                https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22870289/

                Study shows outdoor particulate matter in smoking areas is almost the same level as indoor areas where smoking is banned (43.64 µg/m3 vs 36.90 µg/m3, respectively).

                https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/4/e007554

                Even the conclusion here supports what I’m saying. Almost half of the surveyed smokers report smoking outside, yet only 24% of nonsmokers report being exposed to smoke at all outdoors. Also, this study doesn’t deal with the concentration.

                Results Smokers reported smoking outdoors most in bars and restaurants (54.8%), followed by outdoor places at work (46.8%). According to non-smokers, outdoor SHS exposure was highest at home (42.5%) and in bars and restaurants (33.5%).

                You have to understand that there is a huge anti-smoking bias in top-level discussions. Younger generations just consider smoking gross. But the data itself doesn’t lie. Look beyond the conclusions and look at the actual data.

                • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  You have to understand that there is a huge anti-smoking bias in top-level discussions.

                  I can’t get over how hilarious you saying this is.

                  Like, quite literally, you’re a textbook case of trying to copy 1950’s tobacco company rhetoric.

                  So probably you’re doing it on accident, because you’ve actually bought into it, which is hilarious.

                  So here’s something to enlighten you on the subject

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

                  Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

                  Abstract

                  Confronted by compelling peer-reviewed scientific evidence of the harms of smoking, the tobacco industry, beginning in the 1950s, used sophisticated public relations approaches to undermine and distort the emerging science.

                  The industry campaign worked to create a scientific controversy through a program that depended on the creation of industry–academic conflicts of interest. This strategy of producing scientific uncertainty undercut public health efforts and regulatory interventions designed to reduce the harms of smoking.

                  A number of industries have subsequently followed this approach to disrupting normative science. Claims of scientific uncertainty and lack of proof also lead to the assertion of individual responsibility for industrially produced health risks.

                  ANY SYSTEMATIC INVESTIGATION of the modern relationship of medicine and science to industry must consider what has become the epiphenomenal case of the tobacco industry as it confronted new medical knowledge about the risk of cigarette smoking in the mid-20th century. This, of course, is not to argue that the approach and strategy undertaken by big tobacco are necessarily typical of conventional industry–science relationships. But the steps the industry took as it fashioned a new relationship with the scientific enterprise have become a powerful and influential model for the exertion of commercial interests within science and medicine since that time…

                  Well, “rwad it yourself”, no point in me pastingthe whole thing.

                • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  1·
                  9 months ago

                  “Worst insults”? :D

                  Thanks for letting me know you’re offended, those are apt descriptors, not attempts at insults. I could show you some actual insults, but that’d be rude and against the rules.

                  There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. That’s it.

                  You can equivocate all you want that “there isn’t enough evidence”, but don’t be surprised when people laugh at you, since that’s exactly the thing the tobacco companies have been trying to repeat for almost a century. “Noo, the evidence isn’t in yet!” Yes, it is.

                  yet only 24% of nonsmokers report being exposed to smoke at all outdoors

                  Ah yes, asking people “were you bothered by smoke” definitely proves that they weren’t exposed to any smoke at all. It’s not like people’s subjective experiences are worse than objective science.

                  All smoke-exposure is harmful. When you prove there is a level of smoke exposure that’s safe, then you have an argument. Before that, you don’t. You simply do not. You’re exactly like a Flat Earther, who refuses to believe the evidence in favour of some contrived bullshit that doesn’t even support the facts they think it does.

                  “Look at the actual data.”

                  It’s honestly hilarious how you keep stomping your foot, crying “no no no no no muh data”, but you don’t even have any, and then you pretend like some data on reported experiences about the levels of smoke they were exposed to proves that smoke exposure isn’t harmful?

                  My stomach is hurting I’m laughing so much :DDD

                  • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    11·
                    9 months ago

                    You can equivocate all you want that “there isn’t enough evidence”, but don’t be surprised when people laugh at you

                    The laughter of idiots is equivalent to the approval of thinking people. So, thank you.

                    Now that you’re arguing against the concept of data, where do we go from here? I mean if you fundamentally disagree with reality, well…dunno what to tell you dude. The data ain’t saying what you want it to. That sucks. But it is what it is.