Orac is the nom de blog of a humble pseudonymous surgeon/scientist with an ego just big enough to delude himself that someone, somewhere might actually give a rodent's posterior about his miscellaneous verbal meanderings, but just barely small enough to admit to himself that few will. (Continued 
A couple of weeks ago, inspired by a somewhat drunken encounter two weeks prior, against my better judgment, I waded into the evidence supporting the contention that secondhand smoke is harmful to health, increasing the risk of heart disease and lung cancer in workers chronically exposed to it. In response to a list of quotes going around the Internet claiming that relative risks less than 2 are so unreliable that they may be ignored (conveniently enough, most relative risks reported for exposure to SHS are in the 1.2 to 1.3 range), I pointed out what a load of dishonest quotemining the list was, while Tim Lambert pointed out that it was an intentional and concerted campaign by the tobacco companies to cast doubt on the science showing SHS to be harmful. I thought I was done, but apparently I wasn't. Or, as Michael Corleone said in The Godfather, Part III, "Just when I thought that I was out they pull me back in."
So it was over the weekend, when the Libertarian comic who started it all tried to pull me back in. He managed to annoy me more than enough to lead me to oblige his apparent desire for some more Respectful Insolence™, except that it took a lot of effort not to drop the "respectful" part.
I probably didn't succeed.
It started out in the comments, in which Tim Slagle stated:
I agree.Nobody should be dragged into a bar against their will.
To which I responded:
Of course, the workers don't necessarily have a choice but to be subjected to it for periods of time far longer than all but the most degenerate barflies. No doubt Tim will claim that no one has to work in a bar or restaurant with smoking, but that is, of course, a naively touching bit of Libertarian fantasy that has little relationship to the real world.
To which Tim made this breathtakingly bad analogy:
Coal mines exist in the "real world." Even with modern OSHA regulations, 3% of all coal miners will still contract Black Lung Disease by the time they are 50. And I would suggest, there are far more employment opportunities in Chicago for a non-smoker, then there are in a coal mining town in West Virginia.Should we stop mining coal? (Is it even a possibility?)
Tim seems to be arguing that exposure to SHS is an inherent risk of working in bars and restaurants that workers must simply accept or find work elsewhere. That is, of course, ridiculous. There's nothing inherent in the work required in bars or restaurants that demands exposure to SHS, other than tradition. In contrast, exposure to coal dust is a risk inherent to working in coal mines that can't be completely eliminated. You can't change the properties or location of coal to prevent worker exposure to coal dust. Even so, guess what? We do try to decrease that risk as much as possible. In fact, assuming that Tim's figures are correct, they are an excellent argument that OSHA should do more to decrease the unavoidable risks inherent in coal mining, not that we as a society should do less to minimize risks to workers not inherent to the job that can be fairly easily decreased in other industries.
This is where Tim decided to respond on his blog, and it was every bit what we've come to expect from him. In it, while calling me his "arch-nemesis" (egads, he must not have many people who are his nemesis if he considers me his "arch-nemesis"), he launches into more of the same. Before we get to the stuff that irritated the hell out of me, let's give Tim credit for one positive admission:
But from what I had been told, any risk under 2.0, is negligible. Orac corrected those who suggested such a thing. Apparently there is no practice within epidemiology (the study of stuff like this) to discount such statistics. According to him, there has been a propaganda campaign (most probably orchestrated from inside the tobacco companies) to discredit SHS studies, and a list of suspicious quotes discrediting epidemiological studies under 2.0, has been circulating the Internet. I had to throw in the towel at this point. I've never studied Epidemiology, and I have to take his word for it. If he says a risk below 2.0 is significant, it is significant. I guess I was wrong...So have I changed my mind? Yes and no. I can no longer defend the statement; "There is no science finding adverse health consequences from second hand smoke."
Very good. There may be hope for Tim yet. Or there might have been if he hadn't repeated a truly boneheaded analogy that he had used before in my comments:
I was going to write him a note telling him so, until I ran across this. Apparently, a recent study found there is an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease for people who drink a can of pop every day. And look at that risk rate. Over 1.4...Apparently the risk of getting heart trouble from second hand smoke, is almost identical to drinking a can of pop every day. So working in a smoky bar, is as bad for you as a can of pop. In fact, since most people who work in bars have access to the soda gun, there is a good chance that every non-smoker in those SHS studies, drank a glass or two of pop every single day.
Can anyone spot the fallacy in that analogy? Sure, I knew you could. Drinking a can of pop every day harms no one but the person drinking the pop. (Yes, we're both from the Midwest; so we say "pop" instead of "soda.") Unless you're forcing someone to drink a can or more of pop every day, it's ridiculous to compare this to the effect of SHS. And, invoking Tim's Libertarian principles, workers are perfectly free to ignore that soda gun and not drink pop. They are not free to stop breathing when there's a lot of cigarette smoke in the air.
Then, sadly, Tim couldn't resist falling into some even worse reasoning. I should have expected it, given the Photoshopped image of Orac in a Maoist backdrop, which didn't annoy me the first time I saw it but does now. (Someone comparing me to Maoists or Communists always annoys the hell out of me. I'm funny that way.) Then, not unexpectedly, Tim launched into an argumentum ad Nazi-ium so bad that I seriously thought of siccing the Hitler Zombie on him:
On the other side of the debate, is a motivation far more insidious. It is a desire for power. Many people who see the debate as manipulated solely by tobacco money, never look at that angle, nor recognize that for some, power is far more seductive than profit. There was a very power-hungry person, who once advocated smoke free workplaces. He is the one who cannot be named. (Not because there are dark powers associated with the name, it is because current protocol dictates that the first person to invoke his name, automatically loses the debate ... spend a little time playing with you Googler, and I'm sure you'll figure it out.) But I think it's no coincidence that one of the worlds' most infamous megalomaniacs, didn't want people smoking around him.
The "one who cannot be named"? Who is Tim talking about? Lord Voldemort? It's as if Tim thinks that by not actually writing the name he can pretend that his brain hasn't actually been chomped on by the Undead Führer.
Actually, it would have been better if he were referring to You Know Who. In fact, what I suspect that Tim to be referring to is Robert Proctor's book, The Nazi War on Cancer. It's a fascinating read, and very instructive. Not surprisingly, its take-home message is far more complex than the facile "Hitler tried to ban smoking" ploy that smoking ban foes like Tim trot out all too frequently as an all-purpose means of invoking Godwin. Let's put it this way: Just because the Nazis were the first to do studies that found the epidemiological link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer and tried to discourage smoking through public health measures, taxation, and advertising does not mean that efforts to ban indoor smoking must be a sign of incipient Nazi-ism or fascism or that the motivations of those who seek to decrease smoking or ban indoor smoking must derive from a lust for power. Let's put it another way: The Nazis collected taxes on cigarettes; that doesn't mean collecting taxes on cigarettes is a sign of incipient fascism. The Nazis had a rather interesting charitable program called the Winter Charity (Winterhilfswerk), where they collected money to distribute to the poor. (Its slogan was "None shall starve nor freeze" and the program was designed to provide food and fuel to indigent Germans.) That doesn't mean that running a charity is a sign of incipient totalitarianism. The Nazis built the first superhighway, the Autobahn. That doesn't make building superhighways a sign of incipient Nazi-ism. In other words, just because the Nazis did something that many governments might find legitimate reasons to do does not necessarily mean that our doing the same thing is a sign of Nazi-ism or fascism or that the motivation must be a lust for power. Unfortunately, what Tim said is only a slightly watered down version of the same analogy that one particularly loony commenter used. All that's missing is the New World Order conspiracy-mongering and an explicit appeal to Hitler's name.
As you can imagine, I don't particularly like being compared to Hitler, regardless of how oh-so-coyly Tim couches his comparison. (By the way, you don't have to mention Hitler's name for Godwin's law to apply, particularly when it is mind-numbingly clear to whom you are referring.) I like it even less when, after lamenting how many bars have supposedly closed as a result of smoking bans, Tim says:
But I wouldn't expect Orac to understand. Some people just don't care about the plight of the average Joe. To them it's just about the numbers. It's why I often find myself butting heads with Statists. I care more about the impact of Global Warming legislation on the economy today, than I worry about a projected 23 inches of ocean rise. I am more concerned about the real loss incurred by bar owners, than some mythological non-smoking waitress, who couldn't find work anywhere else. But these people let their egos run out of control, and presuppose they know more than the individual business owners.
Quite frankly, it's taking a lot of restraint on my part to refrain from violating my usual blog policy about not directing the f-word at Tim here. I highly resent Tim's accusation. Even if his figures are correct (and, given the biased source from which they come, a blog run by a man who proclaims that his livelihood was destroyed by a smoking ban, I have my doubts that they tell the whole story but will have to investigate further to decide), I could retort that Tim apparently cares for the "little guy" even less than he thinks I do. After all, he apparently thinks nothing of expecting hospitality workers to expose themselves to potentially harmful smoke as a condition of employment and blithely says that they can just find another job doing something else if they don't want to expose themselves to the elevated risk of heart disease and respiratory diseases due to prolonged exposure to SHS. He dismisses workers harmed by SHS and the concerns that they can't find work in other industries as "mythical." Unfortunately, these workers are not "mythical," and fortunately there is emerging evidence that indoor smoking bans are already improving their health. Indeed, in New York, air quality in hospitality venues has improved markedly since the ban, and a recent study showed that the indoor smoking ban in New York has already resulted in lowered levels of biomarkers of SHS exposure. Such bans are also associated with improvements in symptoms, spirometry measurements, and systemic inflammation of bar workers. Tim also neglects to note that a 30% increase in heart disease due to SHS could be very significant, given how common heart disease is in the general population. Denying this evidence hardly shows "concern for the little guy" that Tim claims to value so highly, particularly since the economic impact in Minnesota may be neutral or not nearly as bad as the anti-ban advocates claim, results similar to New York City, where bar and restaurants do not seem to be hurting since the ban.
It's too bad. There could have been a reasonable discussion about whether the hazards posed by SHS, which are moderate, merit indoor smoking bans, once Tim had reluctantly admitted that science supports the contention that SHS is harmful. I've said from the beginning that these issues are not necessarily black and white or easy to sort out and have even pointed out that extrapolating the data on SHS to try to support outdoor smoking bans, for example, is utterly ridiculous. Everything in politics--yes, even Libertarian politics--and law is a balance between competing interests, more than one of which are usually valid, in this case, avoiding unnecessary harm to workers versus the potential economic impact. Instead of basing an argument on why his favored interests (decreased regulation, personal freedom regardless of whether it might pose a risk to others) trump the scientifically demonstrated harmfulness of SHS, Tim seems to feel the need to label those who come down on the side of indoor smoking bans as, in essence, Nazis who don't care about the little guy. And, no, that's not a straw man. Read his entire post if you don't believe me.
But, in fact, it's even worse than that, because Tim finishes by returning to a theme that irritated the hell out of me enough in the first place to post about it originally. Yep, we nasty, fascistic scientists who want power and will supposedly abuse science to attain it, are once again portrayed as childhood geeks who are now getting even with the cool kids, who, apparently, besides being rich enough to afford Hummers and big houses that contribute to global warming, also smoked:
This whole argument started over a bit I did, about how scientists probably got beat up on the dodgeball court when they were kids. I was trying to illustrate how some nerdy kids will grow up bitter with a disregard for humanity, and they disguise this disregard as logic. Orac started this thread disputing my allegation.He might think that a bar should be able to survive, just by providing a place to drink, but statistics prove otherwise. At least a hundred families in Minnesota have lost their life investment, and at least a thousand more people are now out looking for work. Meanwhile there has been a recession in the various industries surrounding food and beverage in the Twin Cities. How could anyone think that is, an acceptable sacrifice? Or maybe nobody really does. Maybe they are just getting even for Dodgeball.
Actually, this whole argument started about several bad arguments and misrepresentations of science that Tim used in his act, only one of which was his idiotic routine about geeks who got beat up and excluded from the cool kids' parties, some of whom, according to Tim, grew up to become scientists who would later wreak horrible vengeance upon their former tormentors by exaggerating the dangers of global warming, the better to separate them from their CO2-belching SUVs and large houses. Now, apparently, we're at it again, exercising our Maoist and Nazi tendencies (what, no mention of Stalin?--I'm disappointed), this time to use the dangers of SHS as a cudgel to beat the hospitality industry over the head with and bring about its demise and-cackle, cackle--get thousands of bartenders and wait staff fired. Why? Because, he seems to really think that we want power and don't care about the little guy, hence our nefarious plan for vengeance on those drinking, smoking cool kids who are now adults.
I think the most revealing part of Tim's post, though, is here:
The reason why I am suspicious of things like Second Hand Smoke, and Global Warming is not because I am anti-science. I actually enjoy science. I spent some time in college studying it, (and if I hadn't decided I like beer and girls better, I might be studying it still.) Actually, I am antiregulation, and anytime somebody tells me that science has proven a need to regulate my life, I get really suspicious.
I retort that Tim appears to like science when it provides him useful and cool things like iPods, plasma TVs, the treatments of modern scientific medicine, computers, pictures of galaxies and supernovas, and all the wonders of technology and knowledge. Then science is neat. But when science tells Tim something that he doesn't want to hear, something that he doesn't like, something whose consequences suggest that some sort of government action or regulation might be advisable or that some sort of change in human behavior should be encouraged, for example, that human activity is contributing to global warming or that SHS exposes hospitality workers to an increased risk of respiratory ailments, lung cancer, and heart disease, suddenly Tim doesn't like science so much anymore. Suddenly, in his eyes and his comedy routine, scientists become power-hungry geeks seeking to impose their will on the rich and/or cool kids who excluded them or beat them up. He can't refute the science; so he attacks the messengers, the scientists whose work supports these findings, using his comedy as a weapon during his act.
That sort of thing may work in comedy, but it's a sad excuse for an argument.
Medicine & Health
Comments
Just for the record Hitler was a vegetarian so we know that all those concerned people who don't eat meat are in reality fascists.
On the subject of people in bars restaurants etc losing their livelihoods the German State Governments are at the moment going through the pangs of introducing/not introducing anti-smoking laws, as a result the German press is full of stories about other countries that have already introduced such bans, in all countries that have done so the gastronomy industry has seen a substancial increase in turnover and not the decline that the defenders of smoking had prophesied.
Posted by: Thony C. | July 31, 2007 11:38 AM
"But I wouldn't expect Orac to understand. Some people just don't care about the plight of the average Joe."
I suspect that by "average Joe" Tim means "struggling comic who's afraid some potential venues of employment will shut down if smoking is banned".
Even this self-centered view is pretty silly, since every well-conducted study I've seen, from El Paso to New York City, has shown that the economic effects of bar and restaurant smoking bans are either neutral or slightly positive. We just had a local newspaper story suggesting the same outcome in Ohio, which recently instituted a statewide smoking ban.
The stuff about the nerds resenting the "cool kids" smoking is truly laughable. Far from picturing hip singles puffing away while savoring the good life, the image that comes to mind when I think of "smoker" is a wrinkled, prematurely aged emphysema sufferer hauling around a wheeled oxygen tank with a cannula in his nose.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | July 31, 2007 11:44 AM
Orac, this guy is a complete moron. It's useless to argue with him.
And for the record, the smoking ban was the best thing to ever happen to NYC bars. Speaking as a music-loving patron.
Posted by: Alaya | July 31, 2007 12:04 PM
Just to distract you again, Dean Esmay is back with a long series of how all cancer research is misfocused and has produced nothing but suffering for patients (I'm sure in the end the conclusion will be because it doesn't look at THE one thing he thinks is the correct answer to all cancer... though I can't remember whether it was DCA or Duesberg these days). Just check out his blog for all the articles (written somewhere else and reposted by him I believe).
Looks to me like they are cherry-picking the data pretty crazily. For instance, picking 4 metastatic cancers that have seen the least improvement in survival rates to argue that decades and millions of dollars of work on cancer have nothing to show for it.
Posted by: plunge | July 31, 2007 12:07 PM
There's also another problem with the "nerds resenting cool kids" stuff.
This "cool kids"-phenomenon is something purely American, as far as I know. Different countries tend to have different education systems. This apparently didn't occur to Tim. I, for example, attended the German education system. In Germany there is a three-tier system, after elementary school the pupils are grouped according to their previous accomplishments (changing the tier is still possibly, though.). Smart and nerdy kids attend "Gymnasium", average kids attend "Realschule" and the rest attends "Hauptschule". Thus there are no cool kids per se around the nerds, only slightly cooler nerds.
And since not all scientists are American and since most SHS and Global Warming studies around the world tend to produce the same results the "nerds were bullied and now bully others themselves" story doesn't fly at all.
Posted by: DCP | July 31, 2007 12:09 PM
And for the record, though I hope I don't get lumped in with Tim, I still have far more sympathy for the libertarian policy side of things here. The fact is, some people want bars in which they can smoke and some workers are willing to work under those conditions. We shouldn't legally prevent that from happening for those that want it (if you want to come down hard legally to make sure it's fairly rare, ok, or demand that all sorts of special equipment is used to suck smoke away from others: but instead most of these policies have worked to COMPLETELY ban the practice no matter what safety precautions are taken, which goes too far). After we figure out the risk involved, the issue is not one of science anymore, but of not using the law to enforce your beliefs about acceptable health risks on others. Using the law to force an employer to ban smoking just isn't comparable to an employer starting a bar that allows smoking, which still does not "force" any employee to work there no matter how much you fret about it.
Whatever you say about the little guy, no one "deserves" to have SOMEONE ELSE provide them the particular job that they want. I don't claim that this is about caring about the little guy: it's caring about the rights of property owners and business people. I also don't think they should be the ones who bare the burden of making their facilities compliant either: if there is a moral obligation to provide accessible restaurants and stores to the disabled, then this burden falls on EVERYONE (via taxes), not just people who happen to put up a store.
Posted by: plunge | July 31, 2007 12:22 PM
So... Because I wasn't among the coolest cliques growing up, I am going to try to get back at the other kids (who mostly didn't smoke, either) by researching cancer and supporting public health programs like no smoking laws? I understand that this is supposed to be a joke, it just isn't a funny one. Since he's just parroting somebody else's lines, I have to call him the worst insult a comedian can be called. He is a hack.
Posted by: Robster, FCD | July 31, 2007 12:45 PM
geeks who are now getting even with the cool kids,
I wish we had that kind of power. First, we'd hang the anti-nuclear activists...
Posted by: Joseph Hertzlinger | July 31, 2007 1:04 PM
Since when has liking girls and beer been an obstacle to being a scientist ?. More than a few times times in my life have I drunk more than was wise in the company of scientists.
Posted by: Matt Penfold | July 31, 2007 1:48 PM
The forums for our local APA pool league recently had a topic concerning the viability of non-smoking pool halls (one just opened in town a few days ago), and many of the smokers, but by no means all, went immediately into a ranting screed about how not allowing smoking would infringe their rights and if they couldn't smoke, they wouldn't shoot and everyone else just needed to either get over it or just not come to the pool hall. They were the same group that wouldn't hear that the rest of us weren't asking them not to smoke, we were just asking them not to make us put up with it too.
Every time this topic raises, you always have people screaming about how people want to outlaw smoking and take away their rights, when I honestly don't care if they smoke or not, I just don't want to have to smoke with them. they already can't have their cigarettes over the tables, so if they are so much of a slave to their addiction that they can't take a 5 minute break to step outside, or at least into a designated part of the room (a tactic that works quite well for the citywide tournament), I think they have far greater problems than a public smoking ban.
Posted by: Godless Geek | July 31, 2007 1:50 PM
"I don't claim that this is about caring about the little guy: it's caring about the rights of property owners and business people. I also don't think they should be the ones who bare the burden of making their facilities compliant either..."
Where this line of argument falls down is that _in no other business or industry_ do we excuse hazardous working conditions because of "the rights of property owners and business people". In no other line of work does our society shrug and say "Well, you don't have to work there." In no other occupation does anyone seriously propose creating a class of workers who will, supposedly, gladly accept health hazards in return for jobs while their colleagues in similar positions elsewhere are protected.
As special as smokers feel themselves to be, they are not special enough to put either employees or patrons of restaurants, bars and other facilities at risk.
Posted by: Dnagerous Bacon | July 31, 2007 1:51 PM
How many people get the equivalent of 7 cigarettes per month, second hand?
That amount of exposure is shown to be sufficient to addict some kids.
http://archpedi.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/161/7/704
I'd bet it works from second-hand smoke. I know cotinine, the breakdown product of nicotine, shows up in kids exposed to tobacco smoke. Quantify this, someone?
No wonder this issue is important. It's basic to marketing.
The first seven are free, little child .....
Posted by: Hank Roberts | July 31, 2007 2:27 PM
Dnagerous Bacon writes: "Where this line of argument falls down is that _in no other business or industry_ do we excuse hazardous working conditions because of "the rights of property owners and business people"
In no other business? I'm sorry, did you not see the reference to coal mines? According to the CDC, 3% of all coal miners will contract Black Lung Disease before they are fifty.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5215a3.htm
Posted by: Tim Slagle | July 31, 2007 3:14 PM
Tim, it's still a "breathtakingly bad analogy". Read Orac's demolition of your "argument".
Or if your lips get tired easily, focus on this: we have made strenuous efforts to limit hazards that are _inherent_ to coal mining. Surely if we can easily eliminate a hazard that is _not inherent_ to going to a bar or restaurant (except by easily relinquished custom), we should do so.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | July 31, 2007 3:27 PM
Orac,
Tim said,
" But from what I had been told, any risk under 2.0, is negligible"
At the risk of reopening old wounds, I thought that if there was only one study and the RR was 2 or less, the results are, at best, interesting but not definitive. The results could be meaningful or the result of error, bias, etc. On the other hand, if you had multiple studies, and the RR were 2 or less, then there was strong evidence that the risk factor was real (SHS indoors is health problem and should be regulated.)
Is my interpretation correct?
Thanks,
Bruce.
Posted by: BEW | July 31, 2007 4:07 PM
"Where this line of argument falls down is that _in no other business or industry_ do we excuse hazardous working conditions because of "the rights of property owners and business people"."
I'm not sure why this argument is supposed to be compelling to me. "That's the way we've always done it and everyone does it"?
Furthermore, even if we take your "that's not the way it works in most other places" argument and run with it, in most other risky industries, we don't ban the industry altogether: we demand that appropriate safety precautions be taken. But according to most anti-smoking laws, you can't even have a smoking bar in which all employees wear scuba masks and breathe clean air pumped in from outside, let alone having forced air filtration systems that suck smoke up and away. NO level of second hand smoke is apparently safe enough. That's where reasonable turns into extreme, and you have to start to suspect that the purpose of the law is to punish smokers rather than just to protect employees. Reasonable compromises, even unreasonable ones (like scuba suits) are discarded in favor of an outright ban.
"In no other occupation does anyone seriously propose creating a class of workers who will, supposedly, gladly accept health hazards in return for jobs while their colleagues in similar positions elsewhere are protected."
I'm not proposing "creating" anything. I think people should, in general, be allowed to choose, and that further, no one is OWED a job or money. I'm currently unemployed and hurting socially and financially from it. But I don't "deserve" a job, let alone a job to my liking.
Posted by: plunge | July 31, 2007 4:33 PM
Out of curiosity, do the fascists here believe that smokers, in general, prefer to work in non-smoking environments? There may be those that do, but as far as I can tell, they are few and far between.
Since smoking is very common in the food service industry, you might want to remember that in general you're trying to protect smokers from second hand smoke. This seems like the height of stupidity.
Posted by: Rich Paul | July 31, 2007 5:23 PM
I don't see any reason why a smoker would prefer that additional OTHER in addition to themselves smoke in the place of business: it does them no good, and lots of ambient smoke is at best not a problem, if not an annoyance, even for a smoker.
Posted by: plunge | July 31, 2007 5:32 PM
"Since smoking is very common in the food service industry, you might want to remember that in general you're trying to protect smokers from second hand smoke."
Oh, yuck. Now I have an image in my head of a liberal sprinkling of cigarette ashes on the McDonald's cheeseburger I had for lunch.
And yes it would be odd to try to protect smokers from SHS, but that is not what is being argued here. The phrase "very common" does not equate with "all" by any means. There are non-smokers in the food service industry who should not be expected to sign on for lung cancer when they go to work.
Posted by: LCR | July 31, 2007 5:42 PM
Rich
Fascists? Are thetre any postign here? Most fo them are taking the opposite view - that the non-smokers' freedom not to be harmed trumps the smokers' freedom to harm them.
As for your claim - if true, do you not realise that it is in fact a strike against your position? That given that non-smokers are in the majority in the general population, the (claimed) fact that they are in a minority in the food service industry suggests that the prevalence of smoking actively discriminates against them?
Posted by: Robin Levett | July 31, 2007 5:54 PM
D Bacon writes: "Surely if we can easily eliminate a hazard that is _not inherent_ to going to a bar or restaurant (except by easily relinquished custom), we should do so."
If you were paying attention, you might have noticed that's where the debate is right now: Whether smoking is inherent to certain businesses. Certainly if a solvent business closes, directly after the ban has been passed, it would indicate that smoking WAS inherent to that business.
You can read my proof of that allegation, and my response to Orac here:
http://www.timslagle.com/blog/2007/07/once-more-round-wheel.html
Posted by: Tim Slagle | July 31, 2007 6:02 PM
"Where the debate is right now" is whether smokers will get a sufficient grip to accept the new reality and adjust to their terrible privations, or to continue whining and wheedling until everyone is sick to death of it, and the prohibitions become more encompassing in response.
Every pitiful smokers' rights-type argument I've heard here (and many more) have been raised and thoroughly debunked elsewhere, for example in these threads (which are probably a lot more entertaining than T. Slagle's blog (no offense, natch):
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=399501
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=381404
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=377541
Enjoy.
"But WHY can't you make an exception for us smokers? It's not fair! Please? (wheedle)
No.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | July 31, 2007 7:19 PM
Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a valid line of reasoning.
Speaking of anecdotal evidence for the effect of smoking bans, I've spent many hundreds of dollars more going to shows and bars since Seattle instituted its smoking ban. I stayed away from both when smoking inside was legal.
Posted by: Davis | July 31, 2007 9:20 PM
Wait. The legislation on smoking ban is a matter of "Pro Life" and "Pro Choice". It's a matter of health and morals on one side and individuals right on the other. People who has a stand in the middle like ban on late term and allow some kind of abortion should let some business owners and workers choose their poison.
For those who love arts and upscale entertainment. Write to all opera company to ban smoking on stage when they perform "Carman". Or they should delete that part of the opera. Better yet, write your legislators to censor "Carman".
So, if you are Pro Choice or Pro some Choice, quit posting your view point on pro smoking ban. Same for people who are Pro life to the point that government should outlaw abortion, quit talking about individual rights.
Posted by: Lisa | July 31, 2007 10:28 PM
Lisa, do you mean "Carmen"?
... and was that a serious post or are you joking?
Posted by: LCR | July 31, 2007 11:42 PM
Apparently, Lisa, you think that there are only two kinds of people in the world. As it happens, so do I: those who assume that all false dichotomies are valid, and those who don't. Although it's all too common a trope in politics to act as if there are only two possible combinations of opinions to hold (see "liberal" vs. "conservative" in America), it's ridiculous to state it as if it were undeniable fact.
Dangerous Bacon:
Tim Slagle:
Sadly, I'm inclined to think you're right. In principle, we should ensure safe working conditions so far as is practical, but all too often we fall short of that ideal. However, I do find it rather incongruous that you seem to be suggesting that other industries should be as unsafe as coal mining. So much for caring about the average Joe.
To me, it sounds in the passage including the "average Joe" reference as if you don't believe in the future, or at least you're unwilling to believe any evidence suggesting that something should be done about future problems. Or maybe it's just bad if it seems that a state might intervene.
I consider Godwin's Law descriptive rather than prescriptive (after all, how is "losing" more meaningful than the truth of a proposition except insofar as we're biased by ego?), but the argumentum ad nazium doesn't help the argument. At least you've the honesty to disclose an antiregulation bias, but exercising it in baseless conjecture about the motives of those with differing views doesn't lead one to confidence in your conclusions.
Posted by: wrg | August 1, 2007 1:02 AM
Bacon, all other matters aside, it's pretty darn stupid to cite a DEBATE (not to mention on a board I was a member of and debated this very subject on) as evidence that all rights/choice arguments have been "debunked." The science side of SHS denial seems pretty settled, but the other issues are most certainly not, seeing as they hinge on a lot of very different policy and moral principles that honest people can disagree on.
Posted by: plunge | August 1, 2007 1:14 AM
What always irritates me about constant niggling over the science is that it distracts everyone from the policy issues, which as plunge pointed out are a lot more complex.
I don't know enough about epidemiology to dispute the science of second-hand smoke, so I don't. But I am a policy wonk, both by profession and nature and there are steps beyond "SHS is dangerous" that have to be taken before a ban is justified. These steps involve evaluating different possible solutions and this is outside the expertise of epidemiologists (though they can inform on the specifics of the proposal.
Other possible solutions to the dangers of SHS could include:
1) Mandating ventilation in bars that allow smoking such that internal smoke levels are acceptably low.
2) Permit smoking only in bars that are run entirely by their owners and/or smokers (the incremental health effect of a smoker can't be high and owners can expose themselves to SHS at their own risk).
3) Do nothing. As Orac pointed out this is about balancing rights. Assuming the balance favours the employees is begging the question.
There are probably other options, I just can't think of them now. Maybe there are good answers to these alternatives, but they do deserve an answer before we start banning things. The trouble with politicians is that they never use a scalpel when there is a meat cleaver handy.
Posted by: James | August 1, 2007 2:16 AM
No, it wouldn't. All bars closing due to a smoking ban would indicate that smoking was inherent to the bar business. Some closing and some remaining open is proof positive that smoking is not inherent to the business; if your competitors manage to thrive even with a smoking ban in place, but you can't cope, that doesn't mean the smoking ban is at fault. It means your business sucks.
Posted by: MartinM | August 1, 2007 8:32 AM
Hitler ate applesauce. Therefore, applesauce is inherently and perpetually evil.
Posted by: Mike Nilsen | August 1, 2007 8:51 AM
"Bacon, all other matters aside, it's pretty darn stupid to cite a DEBATE (not to mention on a board I was a member of and debated this very subject on) as evidence that all rights/choice arguments have been "debunked."
Obviously the debates were not meant as "citations", but as interesting reading, especially for anyone on the "smokers' freedom" side who thinks he/she has come up with novel and irrefutable arguments as to why others should breathe their smoke. People aren't buying into it, which is why antismoking ordinances keep spreading. The secondhand smoke hazards (for employees and patrons) are the final nail in the coffin.
For James: ventilation systems haven't been shown to work, there is no "acceptably safe" level of SHS according to the Surgeon General, one-owner/employee businesses are not a realistic alternative for serving the "needs" of smokers, and doing nothing is not an option. Nonsmokers (who make up about two-thirds of the population and are a growing percentage) will not accept a heightened risk of cancer, cardiovascular and pulmonary disease in order to serve the convenience of smokers.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | August 1, 2007 9:02 AM
Ooops - lets try again, with speelign turned on.
Rich
Fascists? Are there any posting here? Most of the posters are taking the opposite view - that the non-smokers' freedom not to be harmed trumps the smokers' freedom to harm them.
As for your claim - if true, do you not realise that it is in fact a strike against your position? That given that non-smokers are in the majority in the general population, the (claimed) fact that they are in a minority in the food service industry suggests that the prevalence of smoking actively discriminates against them?
Posted by: Robin Levett | August 1, 2007 10:29 AM
Certainly if it closes directly after the ban has passed, it would not have had the time to even notice if there were losses due to the ban. It seems to be the ban was just a contrived excuse for closing. Certainly the experience in Sweden has been that since the smoking ban a few years back, the income of restaurants and bars has increased, thanks to more patrons. I, for one, am now able to eat in restaurants without getting sick.
Posted by: kai | August 1, 2007 10:33 AM
wrg writes: " I do find it rather incongruous that you seem to be suggesting that other industries should be as unsafe as coal mining. So much for caring about the average Joe."
I don't think other businesses should be that dangerous. 3% of all coal mine workers is an enormous risk. Since incidences of Black Lung outside of coal mining areas are less than five per million, the relative risk of working a coal mine is probably around 6000. Compared to the 1.3 risk of working in a smoky bar, it would make more sense to close the coal mines, and leave the bars open.
And if you had read my most recent response:
http://www.timslagle.com/blog/2007/07/once-more-round-wheel.html
You would see that I offered a compromise, that should satisfy all parties involved, if the interest in smoking bans was honestly a way of protecting the health of non smoking employees.
But I don't think it is. Look at the rage and anger behind some of the things people have said here. Bars must "relinquish"rights? Do you really doubt my speculation that for some, a smoking ban is more about power and control, than health and working conditions?
Davis wrote: "Post hoc ergo propter hoc is not a valid line of reasoning."
On my blog, I clearly showed that revenue for Neighborhood bars in Minnesota was down 4.1% post ban. That's pretty close to the profit margin of most Mom and Pop establishments.
Martin M wrote: All bars closing due to a smoking ban would indicate that smoking was inherent to the bar business. Some closing and some remaining open is proof positive that smoking is not inherent to the business."
You're making an incorrect assumption that All bars provide a similar function. For instance, an ordinance that requires women to keep their clothes on, would not affect All bars. But the Gentlemens Clubs would certainly close down. What a lot of you are failing to grasp is that there are places (Neighborhood Bars) where people go to smoke while they drink, and standing outside, in the Minnesota winter is NOT an option.
Posted by: Tim Slagle | August 1, 2007 12:40 PM
Tim: You must really be hoping that no one actually checks the link forming the basis for your claim about neighborhood bar revenue in Minneapolis following institution of the indoor smoking ordinance in 2005.
What the report shows is that for the 353 businesses surveyed, revenue went UP over 7% after institution of the ban, compared to the previous year. For the subset of "neighborhood bars" there was a 4% drop, but the study authors noted that this occurred after a lowering of the allowable blood alcohol level for motorists and a hike in the minimum wage, never mind other potential economic factors. And your list of places that went out of business includes such joints as Perkins and Cracker Barrel, not especially known for hosting the "shot and a smoke" crowd.
And while your example of the marketer of "Smoketeer" air filtration devices losing business is sad, somehow the "suffering" of this individual doesn't really stack up against the suffering of people who will develop serious and fatal diseases thanks to secondhand smoke.
"Do you really doubt my speculation that for some, a smoking ban is more about power and control, than health and working conditions?"
I don't doubt it at all. The increasingly small smoker minority wants to maintain the power to control the air that everyone has to breathe. The majority has decided not to put up with it anymore.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | August 1, 2007 2:13 PM
"For James: ventilation systems haven't been shown to work, there is no "acceptably safe" level of SHS according to the Surgeon General, one-owner/employee businesses are not a realistic alternative for serving the "needs" of smokers, and doing nothing is not an option. "
All of this smacks as extremism, not reasonable policy. The fact that there is no acceptably safe levels of SHS is a pretty sure sign that science is not an issue: there's no dose-effect measure? At all? Is SHS like homeopathy, where at some point the less of it there is, the more potent it's effects?
The fact that very reasonable compromises that seem to address all the stated concerns like owner/employee businesses or attempts at making SHS as safe as possible are discarded out of hand is a sign of extremism, not reason. The fact is, people like you don't seem to CARE whether or not, say, special ventilation systems are effective at reducing SHS exposure. Smokers and smoke is evil, ban ban ban. That's not a sign of good faith (not that all people who support smoking bans are working on such bad faith of course, but many of these laws do take the extreme point of view in effect)
But if no amount of SHS exposure is small enough, then you must think Orac is insane for saying that banning outdoor smoking is unreasonable: after all, that sadist hater of public health is there endorsing the idea that some tiny amount of exposure is likely not worth worrying about.
Posted by: plunge | August 1, 2007 2:33 PM
I'm so glad to see agreement here!
POP not SODA
Posted by: Mindy | August 1, 2007 2:42 PM
dnagerousbacon writes: "The increasingly small smoker minority wants to maintain the power to control the air that everyone has to breathe."
Please show me where I said that. The truth is, I would be hesitant to share any air with the likes of you.
What I said is, that smokers should be able to open a business, exclusively for smokers, and staffed by smokers; or at least people who are aware and unconcerned by the risk.
Isn't this the same kind of reasoning that has allowed Gay Bath Houses to continue operating in Big Cities, despite the obvious risk of deadly blood borne diseases? (Including "second hand" exposures?)
PS Mindy: I usually say, "soda" (unless it's Faygo®, or I'm buying it at a Party Store).
Posted by: Tim Slagle | August 1, 2007 3:00 PM
Tim said:
"3% of all coal mine workers is an enormous risk. ... Compared to the 1.3 risk of working in a smoky bar, it would make more sense to close the coal mines, and leave the bars open."
First of all, no one is suggesting that we close the bars. Just ban the cigarettes.
Second of all, it is still an absurd comparison. In order to run a mining business, you must mine coal which exposes you to coal dust. Even with the best OSHA restrictions, some exposure is unavoidable. On the other hand, bars do not need cigarettes in order to function and be profitable.
Posted by: LCR | August 1, 2007 3:21 PM
LCR writes: "bars do not need cigarettes in order to function and be profitable."
That is just an assumption on your part, (probably based solely on your personal preference and ego) and it is absolutely incorrect. I highly doubt you have ever run a bar.
Some bars DO need cigarettes to function and remain profitable. Especially neighborhood bars.
Posted by: Tim Slagle | August 1, 2007 3:37 PM
"Some bars DO need cigarettes to function and remain profitable."
That is an absurd statement, "probably based solely upon your personal preference and ego", because it is certainly NOT based upon empirical evidence. Dangerous Bacon, in a few posts up, has shown that even the cases you cite in support of your argument actually tear it down.
The fact that a few bars go out of business after bans go into affect contributes only a correlative value to this discussion, not a causitive one. Many other factors could be the culprit. However the fact that the majority of businesses continue to run and even thrive after the ban is implimented more strongly supports the contention that the only ones being imposed upon to a significant degree by these smoking bans are not the bars and restaurants, but the smokers themselves.
Posted by: LCR | August 1, 2007 4:03 PM
LCR writes: "Dnagerous Bacon, in a few posts up, has shown that even the cases you cite in support of your argument actually tear it down."
Sorry, I though his remark was so ridiculous that it didn't warrant a response. According to the report, revenue for neighborhood bars in Minnesota was down over 4%, at the same time that total bar revenue in the Twin Cities was UP 8%. All bars were affected by the same blood alcohol level. Hence, the Neighborhood bars had revenues 12% below the norm.
I would also like to have you or DB show me, how a wage hike affects the gross sales. Wage hikes, affect the net, not the gross.
Finally, Neighborhood Bars are fairly immune from increased DWI enforcement. The idea of a NEIGHBORHOOD bar, is a place you can walk to. Normally, neighborhood bars thrive when there is a crackdown on motorists.
Posted by: Tim Slagle | August 1, 2007 4:24 PM
Tim Slagle writes:
standing outside, in the Minnesota winter is NOT an option.
By your own logic, Tim, smokers have the freedom to move where standing outside is much more comfortable. Their choice to live in Minnesota doesn't give them the right to impinge on the health of others.
Posted by: Ahistoricality | August 1, 2007 4:36 PM
Ahistoricality writes: "Their choice to live in Minnesota doesn't give them the right to impinge on the health of others."
Did you see my comment above?
Smokers should be able to open a business, exclusively for smokers, and staffed by smokers; or at least people who are aware and unconcerned by the risk.
Isn't this the same kind of reasoning that has allowed Gay Bath Houses to continue operating in Big Cities, despite the obvious risk of deadly blood borne diseases? (Including "second hand" exposures?)
Have you read the Slagle Compromise?
I don't see why there has to be a conflict.
Posted by: Tim Slagle | August 1, 2007 5:02 PM
"Hence, the Neighborhood bars had revenues 12% below the norm."
No, that's not how you calculate it. The value of 7% is not the average, it is the total increase in revenue for the entire region for combined sales of food and alcohol. Nice try mixing apples and oranges. You can only compare neighborhood bars with neighborhood bars for these numbers, in which case their revenue dropped a little over 4% in the months following the introduction of the ban... and amount of about $450 total for that span of time. That is what the bare numbers are saying.
A couple of points to flesh those numbers out a bit:
The researchers from this study (not dangerous bacon) are the ones citing the changes in alcohol laws and wage hikes as possibly confounding the data. They also acknowledge that there may be other factors (weather, population changes, economic changes in a community) that may be the main causitive factor for changes in business sub-populations. This does not take away from the overall view that for the majority of businesses, smoking bans do not appear have an overall negative impact on revenue.
This study was also limited to the few short months after the ban went into affect. What happened after that? Did the neighborhood bars rebound? Did they all shut down? We don't have a complete picture, and we still don't have clear, uncontrovertible evidence that smoking bans harm business. On the contrary, the evidence seems to suggest that for the most part, they benefit business. For the few that didn't benefit, they are hardly an argument against bans. They do not support the imposition of SHS on any non-smoker in those businesses. They are mearly an argument for further investigation.
Posted by: LCR | August 1, 2007 5:03 PM
Strange.
When they suggest the ban was a benefit, those numbers are relevant,
When they suggest that neighborhood bars had a downturn, "we still don't have clear, uncontrovertible [sic] evidence that smoking bans harm business." and "are mearly [sic] an argument for further investigation.
Nice cherries you got there mister, gonna make a pie?
Posted by: Tim Slagle | August 1, 2007 5:23 PM
Something else to consider: "neighborhood bars" have been under economic pressure in many cities in recent years for reasons that have nothing to do with smoking bans - including higher property taxes, gentrification and competition from other venues. It would not be surprising if in the face of an impending smoking ban, faced with dire predictions from the bar and restaurant lobby and from smokers declaring they'd rather drink at home, some bar owners decided to sell out rather than take a chance on staying afloat. A short-term modest decline in "neighborhood bar" revenue (in the face of an overall healthy jump in bar and restaurant earnings) in Minneapolis does not support the apocalyptic warnings of smoking interests concerning business health.
Tim Slagle says: "I would also like to have you or DB show me, how a wage hike affects the gross sales. Wage hikes, affect the net, not the gross."
Don't you think they might just have an impact on the business closings you referred to previously?
"The truth is, I would be hesitant to share any air with the likes of you."
Oooh. Such spite coming from someone who earlier said "Look at the rage and anger behind some of the things people have said here."
I wonder how the kindler, gentler side of Tim deals with hecklers during his comedy act.
Heckler: "Hey, Slagle, you stink! Get some new material!!"
Slagle: "My, someone needs a _hug_.
:)
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | August 1, 2007 9:00 PM
Bacon writes: " in the face of an impending smoking ban, faced with dire predictions from ... smokers declaring they'd rather drink at home, some bar owners decided to sell out rather than take a chance on staying afloat"
Yes, that's exactly what happened. The Smokers stayed at stayed at home. Glad to see we're on the same page.
Now please explain the problem with the Slagle Compromise. I can't understand why no one here likes the idea. It protects both health AND rights.
Posted by: Tim Slagle | August 1, 2007 9:40 PM
I have to say that I really like the compromise. Living in Portland, I have gotten used to the fact that more than half the venues that serve alcohol, don't allow smoking. I see absolutely no reason that a venue should not be allowed to apply for a smokers license - there are several bars in Washington, that would still be in business, if that were allowed. Considering that in most of the bars around here, the employees smoke, it doesn't seem like any sort of imposition to me. Hell, at most of the ones that don't allow indoor smoking (many of which are traditional bars, rather than restaurants that serve alcohol) you see the employees sneaking out for a smoke, with the smoking patrons.
What a lot of you are failing to grasp is that there are places (Neighborhood Bars) where people go to smoke while they drink, and standing outside, in the Minnesota winter is NOT an option.
Wimp. I'm a Michigan boy, spent a lot of time working in the U.P., haven't smoked a cigarette indoors in years. Still smoke, just can't stand smoking in a confined space. I used to get up in the morning, step out into the snow, in the buff to smoke. Woke me up as sure as the coffee that I took with me.
Posted by: DuWayne | August 1, 2007 10:48 PM
Tim's "compromise" still would subject employees to secondhand smoke hazards. It would be as if we allowed a percentage of factories to disregard safety regulations because of purported convenience or economic benefit to the owners, along with the undocumented assumption that jobs are so plentiful that people could choose not to work in dangerous surroundings.
But why compromise on 20% of bars/restaurants being allowed to have smoking? There's an exemption currently in place in some if not most localities with ordinances banning smoking in public facilities. Anyone can establish a private club made up of smokers, who would pour their own drinks, bus their own tables and inhale their own gases without subjecting employees to them. There could be an unlimited number of these clubs. Perhaps nonsmoking Libertarians might join, eager to show the Man that they can't be bossed around.
Oh, and one regarding one more dubious Tim claim from earlier - that a lowering of the legal limit for drivers' blood alcohol in Minneapolis couldn't have been a cause of declining revenue at "neighborhood bars" because everyone walks to them.
These bar patrons would have to be massive exceptions to the common American practice of driving even a few blocks rather than (horrors) having to walk, not to mention receptive to the idea of walking during frigid Minneapolis winters. So I suspect this claim is laden with as much BS as all the others he's made.
Posted by: Dangerous Bacon | August 1, 2007 11:11 PM
Okay, let me get this straight:
It would be acceptable to Dnagerous Bacon, for me to start a club, where I can invite smo