New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern
New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern
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.
You're viewing part of a thread.
They're literally quoting the conclusions part of the study, and you claim they are cherrypicking quotes and distorting the actual data.. ?
You've been mixing some "whacky" in your "tobaccy", haven't'cha?
The conclusions are biased and in some cases outright not supported by the underlying data.
The surgeon general set out to report that cigarettes are scary and by god he'd do so, data be damned.
Look for yourself. The data is right there.
It's insane that people have devolved to the point where they will actively provide the proof against themselves and then ignore it.
I looked myself.
I read the "conclusions" part and it was rather adamant about the study being conclusive for that part.
I assume you "don't have the time" to actually explain your argument, and I'll just have to "look myself", to see that the opposite of what they conclude is true?
It's literally on the same page, I already linked it. This isn't a "do your research" YouTube conspiracy video thing. The conclusions say one thing, the studies say something else.
Oh, another "oh yeah, it totally says the opposite of what it concludes but I can't actually explain how". I'm shocked.
I'm gonna place a personal bet that you haven't even looked at any of it. Trying to argue "we haven't proved tobacco smoke is harmful" in 2024. You're cracking me up, man.
Comment looks pretty dumb now huh? I quote you the report and you claim I'm the one not reading it
Yes, all of your comments do look pretty dumb. That's why I keep engaging with you. You're veeerry entertaining. :D
You haven't made an argument.
Linking a piece showing they've looked at lifetime smokers and then you making an indoor/outdoor argument when the conclusions say "REGARDLESS OF LOCATION", is pretty funny.
You still don't have an argument.
This is funny, but it's also sad to see that while the science is very clear on the subject, there are still trolls like you.
This isn't a debate any more than "the Earth is actually flat" is.
I could link you literally thousands upon thousands od studies showing how harmful smoke is and you can't link a single one showing it isn't, and you're not making any rational point about this one either.
It's funny, but also, slightly worrying.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
"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
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.
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).
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.
"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
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.