
We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans - gwern
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2017/02/secondhand_smoke_isn_t_as_bad_as_we_thought.html
======
phlipski
I thought this was an April Fools joke, but it's a month early...

The author seems to only focus on smoking's alleged role in heart attack's. I
thought the science is pretty well established that smoking increases cancers
rates significantly. The author mentions cancer 5 times in the article and
heart attacks 32 times!

And finally he brings up the "stigma" against smokers. Guilty as charged here.
I personally look at smoking like a simple IQ test. Stupid people smoke. If
you're under the age of 40 and you smoke you failed the test. You were raised
knowing the dangers and yet you still did it. Why?

I do not miss going to bars and coming home smelling like an ash tray. Sorry
dude - smoke in your own home.

~~~
zimbu668
Everyone knew the dangers of smoking. Smoking bans were mostly based on the
dangers of second hand smoke, which are basically non-existent. So all these
bans were pushed through on the power of "fake news".

~~~
FullMtlAlcoholc
Let's refrain from using that term as hyperbole. It wasn't fake news as much
as it was unknown or mistaken news.

Also, second-hand smoke does have negative health consequences AND in an
enclosed, unventilated area like a bar or restaurant, it is impossible to
avoid having the smell cling to your clothes and hair. I smoke occasionally,
but it's a disgusting and filthy habit and I don't want to assault someone
else's senses, similar to reheating fish in the office microwave.

------
joshvm
Governments _really_ want people to stop smoking. They're going to make it as
difficult and expensive as they possibly can. It's hard to nail down whether
it costs the economy more to support smokers than we get back in tax [1], but
it's a good political argument. It's also an occupational hazard if you work
in an enclosed space where people are allowed to smoke (e.g. pubs and
restaurants).

This article would be better if it wasn't biased to the point of inaccuracy
[2]. It also contains sweeping generalisations like:

> Most nonsmokers find smoking inconvenient and have little regard for the
> smoking minority’s preferences.

Lest we forget that Big Tobacco has an extensive history of dodgy scientific
study. As someone posted on Reddit today, it's a similar attitude to climate
change denial:

1) Cigarettes aren't bad for you.

2) Cigarettes might be bad for you but the science isn't in yet. We need to
study the issue more.

3) Cigarettes do have some negative health effects, but they aren't that bad.

4) Okay cigarettes are terrible for you, but people have a right to smoke if
they want.

[1] [https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-
makes...](https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes-
treasury/)

[2]
[https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=h...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fmeduza.io%2Ffeature%2F2017%2F02%2F15%2Fpassivnoe-
kurenie-ne-tak-opasno-kak-my-dumali)

(I'm amazed with the quality of the translation, if that's automatic)

~~~
pravda
>Governments really want people to stop smoking.

Are you sure that's true? Governments earn an awful lot of money from smokers.

Given the upcoming pension crisis so many US cities and states are facing, it
might make sense to encourage smoking.

Things might be different in the UK.

Here's a nice smoking picture: [http://pepesnonsmokingpartytimelounge.com/wp-
content/uploads...](http://pepesnonsmokingpartytimelounge.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/03/hollywood-smoking-12.jpg)

~~~
hhandoko
What Government earns from tobacco taxation [1] is eclipsed by the cost of
healthcare and economic impact from smoking [2].

[1] -
[http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-...](http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-13-taxation/13-6-revenue-
from-tobacco-taxes-in-australia)

[2] - [http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco](http://www.health.gov.au/tobacco)

~~~
voxic11
Neither of those links gives any data about the costs of smoking, what do you
propose the costs are? I thought smokers cost governments less then the
average person.

> However, smokers die some 10 years earlier than nonsmokers, according to the
> CDC, and those premature deaths provide a savings to Medicare, Social
> Security, private pensions and other programs.

> Vanderbilt University economist Kip Viscusi studied the net costs of
> smoking-related spending and savings and found that for every pack of
> cigarettes smoked, the country reaps a net cost savings of 32 cents.

[http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-
to...](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-04-08-fda-tobacco-
costs_N.htm)

~~~
hhandoko
There's an overview with data and sources in another section of the website
[1].

I think the key difference in Australia and USA is that the Australian
government, due to our extensive Medicare coverage [2], bears most of
healthcare burden for smokers. Thus, for Australians, paying for smokers'
medical costs nearing their end of life is more expensive than keeping them
healthy.

[1] -
[http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-17-economics/17...](http://www.tobaccoinaustralia.org.au/chapter-17-economics/17-2-the-
costs-of-smoking)

[2] - [http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/20/how-does-
austr...](http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2014/02/20/how-does-australias-
medicare-compare)

~~~
voxic11
That page notes

>Some researchers have estimated that the lifetime health care costs for
smokers are lower than for non-smokers. In the models these researchers used,
the health care cost savings attributed to smokers' premature death from
smoking-associated illnesses more than offset their higher annual medical
costs.39,40 Other analysts have found the reverse—that although smokers do, on
average, die earlier than people who have never smoked, this 'saving' in terms
of medical expenditures does not fully offset their higher medical costs—the
lifetime medical costs for smokers are higher than for non-smokers.

------
anotheryou
From personal experience I can say a smoky bar feels really bad. I feel it in
stomache and throat (and it smelled so aweful I couldn't even keep the dirty
clothes in my room).

No science needed, please let me have a beer without smelling like an ashtray
and needing medicin to calm my stomache.

------
dboreham
Surely we banned it because it is highly irritating to people who don't smoke?
The medical aspect was used to win the argument with selfish smokers who don't
give a crap about the well being of other people.

~~~
squozzer
Before you issue your fatwa, for the record, I don't smoke tobacco. Nor do I
have a problem with places banning smoking -- I just believe it should never
have been a law.

> Surely we banned it because it is highly irritating to people who don't
> smoke?

That part is correct.

> The medical aspect was used to win the argument with selfish smokers who
> don't give a crap about the well being of other people.

Stated another way, the second-hand smoke research was glommed onto by
puritanicals who enjoy bossing people around - because the irration argument
would never stand up in a legislative committee or a court of law - it would
have rightfully been called a blue-nose law.

Maybe the term "bossing people around" is a bit loaded but without the second-
hand smoke studies, no one would have felt the need to ban smoking everywhere.
Another system might have emerged where some places ban smoking and others
don't. There's a restaurant in my town that banned minors instead of smokers
to comply with our state law (actually not a bad trade, imo.)

But that wasn't good enough for some -- smoking had to be banned everywhere --
because certain people felt entitled to walk into an arbitrary venue and not
have to smell cigarette smoke -- hence the use of the terms "puritanical" and
"bossing people around."

------
stymaar
The author self identifies as a libertarian strongly opposed to any kind of
government regulation. That can explain why this article looks so biased:
because it is …

------
sn41
I guess one of the questions is about second-hand smoke. Interestingly, Sir
Richard Doll [1], one of the scientists who first proved the link between
smoking and lung cancer, was not convinced that second-hand smoke was harmful
[2] - it seems that on this, Sir Doll was wrong.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll)

[2] [http://www.bcmj.org/articles/commonplace-condemned-
discovery...](http://www.bcmj.org/articles/commonplace-condemned-discovery-
tobacco-kills-and-how-richard-doll-shaped-modern-smoking-ce)

~~~
phonon
> it seems that on this, Sir Doll was wrong.

Ummm, did you read the article? Its whole point was that the dangers of
second-hand smoke had been greatly exaggerated. So Sir Doll was right.

 _Despite the mounting evidence that transient exposure to secondhand smoke is
more an annoyance than a mortal threat, smoking bans have become widespread
and politically entrenched._

~~~
sn41
Oh, I read the article.

I'd rather believe the scientific studies which showed a 17 percent drop in
heart attacks.

~~~
phonon
When a topic continues to be studied, and the trend for the magnitude of the
effects keeps dropping the better and larger the study is designed, coupled
with just-so-story physiological explanations that don't real stand up to
analysis, it's probably a sign that there is no effect at all...

So believe what you wish, but I don't think it's correct.

------
tasty_freeze
At the time the dramatic drop in heart attack rates was reported, I was quite
surprised, to the point of incredulity.

Although I've never been a smoker, both of my parents smoked a couple packs of
Kool cigarettes every day from the age of 20 until their mid 70s. The fact
that it took more than 50 years for them to kill my mother (small cell lung
cancer) and my father (massive stroke) leads to suspect that the dramatic
reduction in heart attacks was faulty statistics, otherwise few smokers would
live as long as they do.

