[CSM]

Good read.

[Mears]

Bump

[Age of Reason]

I recently learned that Nazi Germany was the first government to ban smoking in public places.

[Age of Reason]

However, are we to believe that by some mysterious filtering process, smoke is purified of carcinogens in the lungs of a smoker, such that the smoker exhales only safe smoke?

[Modernman]

I think, at this point, there's very little smoking-rights advocates can really do. I think we'll see smoking become pretty much illegal in the next decade or so.

[r9etb]

Well, Mr. Milloy seems to be telling us (without evidence) that second-hand tobacco smoke has no ill effects, which is nearly as dishonest as the claim he's addressing here.

It would be very interesting to see a study on health insurance claims and/or absences in workplaces, before and after the building went smoke-free.

If the general trend is anything like it was in the building where I was working when it happened, there should be a dramatic difference.

(As for me personally, once the building was smoke-free I no longer had to use my inhalers at work).

[Just another Joe]

BTTT

[SheLion]

PUFF!!!

I have to go grocery shopping. I will be back in a bit.

Second Hand Smoke Frauds

[RedBloodedAmerican]

I would disagree with the article. I guess mainly from the fact I had a family member die at OHSU of cancer and the cause was second hand smoke. If so many people are saying that second hand smoke has no effect, then why don't they call (for example) the oncology department at OHSU and ask them, or call any oncology dept that specializes in lung cancer?

I know my reply may not be the popular one, but this has been my experience.

[Alberta's Child]

I've been through Helena a few times, and I can assure you that this study is a lot of crap.

The damage to one's health from smoking 100 packs of cigarettes a day in Helena pales in comparison to the damage to one's health from breathing the air in that city -- the place is wall-to-wall oil and gas refineries.

Eliminating smoking in public places in Helena is about as effective at improving public health as drinking a Diet Coke instead of regular Coke with two dozen slices of pizza.

[aruanan]

Dr. Stan Glantz (search) (more on him later) -- as if some statistical mumbo-jumbo would credibly explain why the 1998 dip in heart attack rates was just an anomaly but the 2002 dip was definitely due to the smoking ban.

Shouldn't this be Dr. Stan Glans? He really does sound like one.

[UseYourHead]

I am inclined to believe that the inhalation of microsocopic shards created by the combustion of tobacco is not a good idea and a constant inhalation of these particles is going to cause irrevocable damage.

However, I would also be inclined to give smokers a little leeway if they would STOP FLICKING THEIR BUTTS ON THE GROUND!!! When you are at a stoplight or stopsign later today, look out your driver's window and look at the curb - There is no excuse for that kind of behavior.

Clean it up, smokers!

[aculeus]

Neal Boortz fell for this Helena garbage ... big time.

[N. Theknow]

Even though I am not a resident of Montana, much less Helena, I did not suffer a heart attack during those six months. Nor did anyone else I know suffer a heart attack.

And the article says it was junk science!

< /sarcasm >

[aruanan]

I’m almost surprised that anyone is still trying to link secondhand smoke (search) with heart disease. The University of Chicago’s Dr. John Bailar -- no friend of the tobacco industry-- published in the March 25, 1999, New England Journal of Medicine his quite devastating analysis of the alleged link between secondhand smoke and heart disease.

University of Chicago BUMP!

[aruanan]

It just might clear up the smoke they’re blowing in our eyes.

I don't think that's where they've been blowing the smoke. For another good read and some fascinating history of anti-tobacco zealotry, see Jacob Sullum's For your own good : the anti-smoking crusade and the tyranny of public health.

[RippleFire]

Maybe Elvis was there

[qam1]

"I could only laugh last April when I first heard about a study claiming that a smoking ban in Helena, Mont., cut the city’s heart attack rate by 58 percent in six months..........

So did I. They expected to have 7 Heart attack cases but instead only 3 happened and they call that science.  

Yeah I am going to believe a study of 7 people over six months verses a study of 108,000 people over 40 years that showed nothing.

"I asked Dr. Glantz’s colleague if he would be studying whether the NYC smoking ban experience confirmed or contradicted his Helena study claims...........

Why wait?, Just apply Stan the Sham Glantz's methods to California

In 1998 The year of the Bar smoking ban in California 68,946 Californians died of heart disease A year later in 1999, 69,900 died of heart disease.

So can using the logic of the Helena study can we conclude that 954 people died of heart disease because of the smoking ban.

To be fair, The heart disease death rate in California in 1998 was 205.9 per 100,000 while in 1999 it decreased 0.7 to 205.2. However from 1980 - 1997 the average decrease in Heart disease deaths from the year prior was 4.2 people per 100,000 while from 1998-1999 it was only 0.7. So if  we use liberal logic that a decrease in the amount of increase is a cut then we can conclude that the Heart disease death rate actually increased in 1999 by 3.5 (4.2-0.7)which according to this and the methods of the Helena study you can conclude that the smoking ban in California caused heart disease death rate to rise by 83.4%

Year	Rate per 100,000	Change from prior year
1999	205.2	-0.7
1998	205.9	-1.3
1997	207.2	-2.3
1996	209.5	-2.6
1995	212.1	-2.8
1994	214.9	-2.8
1993	217.7	3.9
1992	213.8	-5.9
1991	219.7	-5.5
1990	225.2	-13.1
1989	238.3	-10.9
1988	249.2	-0.9
1987	250.1	-1.4
1986	251.5	-10
1985	261.5	-0.7
1984	262.2	-0.5
1983	262.7	-8.4
1982	271.1	+2
1981	269.1	-9.6
1980	278.7

Source:

http://www.dhs.cahwnet.gov/hisp/chs/OHIR/Publication/LeadingCauses.htm

[Publius6961]

I talked to one of researchers about that simple observation. After stumbling and stammering for an explanation, he finally referred me to the “study’s statistician,” Dr. Stan Glantz (search)

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Jabba the Hutt in a white smock?
The "doctor" who has existed his entire life working on "antismoking" "studies"?
The loser who would starve without another grant this year?
The world's largest quack (in every sense of the word)?

That Dr. Glantz?

[INSENSITIVE GUY]

Waddya bet,Glantz smokes in private?

[CyberCowboy777]

BTTT!