It seems difficult to reconcile your above claim with the claim that alcohol inhalation in bars is dangerous. The statements contradict one another.

The more I look at the various studies the more it seems that it is likely second-hand or secondary smoke can be dangerous, though it is not definitely so. Reports funded by the tobacco company are likely to find no connection to cancer while other reports often find a connection.

Whether or not you see the threat, he here is the thing: you can step outside. My favorite bar in Lincoln has a huge beer garden that people love to hang out in. That way the harmful alcohol and tobacco fumes are acceptable. In the summer you can play games and in the winter it is covered and heated. Most Lincoln bars have installed a similar location to accommodate people such as yourself.

I don’t even care if second-hand smoke is absolutely not carcinogenic (which doesn’t seem likely). I would still support the ban because smoke inside is annoying. It makes many eyes itch and water, smells horrible, and makes you smell horrible.

I just don’t get how you spend all your time writing about this topic. Your preface says you have no affiliation to the tobacco industry, so why are you so interested? Is the money that good or is it just that hard to step outside?

====

Adam, if you read the specific response pointed to you’ll note that your claim that “That analogy is by no means apt. Ethyl alcohol doesn’t magically end up in other people’s mouths.” is incorrect. It most certainly does end up in their mouths and up their noses, and it does so in far greater quantities than the recognized human carcinogenic components of secondary smoke would in normal bar/restaurant situation.

I was not referencing or saying anything at all one way or another about the primary study itself or the other Rapid Responders other than what I stated in my own Response itself.

If you’d like a bit more information on the quality of the research in the area of secondary smoke and smoking bans and such things here are some suggestions:

http://www.Antibrains.com – my own site with some book excerpts and links to articles.

http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php?page_id=1 which is the home site for Christopher Snowdon’s excellent “Velvet Glove, Iron Fist….” and which includes various excerpts and articles.

And for a good example of how biased smoking ban studies can be and why they are biased, I’d recommend reading Jacob Grier’s May 27th column and aftercomments at:

http://www.jacobgrier.com/blog/archives/2210.html

to see how researchers write million dollar grant proposals that promise the “right” kind of results before they even do the research!

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

There has been talk about biases in the studies. The link you posted contains what appear to be responses to a paper published on how passive smoking caused by second-hand smoke actually kills people. So the study that was worthy of being published estimated deaths caused by second-hand smoke. Instead of posting the article, you posted people’s opinions on it. The first response supports regulating tobacco. The second one was written by a “Long-term consultant of the tobacco industry.” Some of responses point out that second-hand smoke is likely deadly, but the analysis was flawed. This is hardly unbiased and trustworthy information, and it hardly helps the case that second-hand smoke is not harmful.

Good point in some ways Adam. I guess since we know that ethyl alcohol is a Class A Carcinogen AND a highly volatile liquid that it’s not too much to ask the alkies to pop outside for a few quick gulps after their meals as well. Would you agree?

You can read more on that in the RRs of the British Medical Journal under “Secondary Smoke, Alcohol, and Deaths” at:

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#103642

Michael J. McFadden
Author of “Dissecting Antismokers’ Brains”

Michael: I know the bartender.

If there’s even a chance that second-hand smoke can cause serious harm to others, is it too much to ask to step outside?

Why do bars go out of business? Because people must step outside to smoke? Are any of the smoking ban opponents even from South Dakota? If not that’s fine, I’m just wondering if this was the result of a google search.

Also Jay, I’m all for complaints about Obama, I can’t stand him and I’m thrilled to see his approval rating fall, but come on, your biggest beef with him is a smoking tax? That’s pathetic, it’s also pathetic to try to justify stealing tobacco because the mean old government taxes it too high. I’m against a lot of excessive taxes, but I don’t advocate stealing as a response.

A question for you Adam, in your opinion, since there aren’t any real numbers on this topic: If the uninsured people in America gave up drinking, smoking, and gambling, would a good percentage of them probably be able to afford a basic health policy? Take into account the price of cigarettes, chewing tobacco, and the amount of money dropped in bars every day. I’m not saying people should be forced to quit those things, but I do believe that the question is worth some thought. I see people dropping tons of money in every store I go into on cartons of smokes, cases of beer, and stacks of lottery cards and tickets. Those things may produce large numbers of tax dollars, but given the huge tax payer expense in health care, perhaps we’d be better off without the tax dollars from those sources and with people who make better choices with their money. I know, I’m back to personal accountability vs. government dependency and I know which side of the isle you’re on, but I’m wondering what you think.