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.

  • @CryophiliaEnglish
    0•9 months ago

    after I’ve explained that you need to find the evidence

    My entire point is that there is no evidence since there’s no studies. You can’t prove a negative, but a massive analysis of previous studies comes close.

    show you studies that show how widely recognised it is that there is no safe level of SHS exposure.

    The studies don’t show that. They merely assert that, without the data to back it up. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you this whole time.

    just grasping at something like “no but see the measurements of exposure from an outdoor smoking area were almost as low as…” which isn’t an argument.

    That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything. What tiny amount of data we have on the subject does in fact support what I’m saying. And I’m not even saying it’s conclusive evidence, just some level of support that I’m only bringing up for lack of real good data.

    And you still haven’t sent any proof. You find a study, you read the conclusion, you throw it at me, I read the data, I throw that at you, you ignore it and find a new study, rinse and repeat.

    I agree it’s very unfortunate that there’s such a ridiculous bias in studies’ conclusions. I suspect it’s related to funding and PR. We shouldn’t have to dig into the data of a study to see if it supports the conclusion that the authors wrote. But that’s where we’re at.

    I don’t think this is the norm. I hope not. I suspect smoking is just a very charged topic and no scientist wants to lose funding by being known as the guy who put out a pro-smoking study.

    • @DasusEnglish
      1•9 months ago

      No evidence of what? That second hand smoke is harmful? Are you on meth?

      The studies don’t show that. They merely assert that, without the data to back it up.

      “No, the science is wrong, and me, a childish person on a pseydoanonymous forum ASSERTING the science is wrong is more credible than the science they use to show their conclusions are backed up by the data. Oh and don’t even try to get me to actually comment on what I think is wrong in the data, because I haven’t even read it.” - You

      That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything.

      Yes, it is grasping. Because you’re not even refuting that SHS is harmful, you’re trying to assert that outdoors, there is no SHS, by trying to show concentrations measured. So implicitly, you’re admitting that any SHS IS harmful, because of course you are, because we all know that to be true, lol.

      And you still haven’t sent any proof.

      My stomach can’t take much more of this :DDD

      See, you already ignored the studies when I only quote their conclusions and the most important parts of them. What on Earth are you gonna do when I paste the entire study here?

      This is from this exact thread, 3 comments earlier:

      https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

      #No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways

      https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

      https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

      #It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

      “Widely recognised.”

      Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke. Please. I’ve been waiting and asking for several comments now. Oh and, a bit too ashamed to answer the comment where you talk about “you need to understand there’s a huge bias with tobacco…” when I replied to it with this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

      #Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

      By the early 1960s—despite categorical research findings indicating the harms of smoking—a significant “controversy” had arisen (at the behest of the tobacco industry) over the validity and meaning of these findings. Indeed, given the widespread acceptance of the conclusion, especially among those who had analyzed and evaluated the research most closely, the persistence of debate about the harms of smoking is a striking demonstration of the powerful impact of the tobacco industry’s public relations campaign. The industry insistence, at the direction of Hill & Knowlton, on the notion of no proof and the need for more research was an inspired if cynical manipulation of the natural tendencies within science to encourage skepticism and seek more complete answers to important questions.

      Completely unlike what you’re doing, amirite? :DDDDDD That’s what is so hilarious; you’re using century old rhetoric. It’s like arguing someone who’s genuinely insistent that “reefer madness” is a thing :DDD

      You haven’t linked a single study of any sort. You just keep stomping your foot and saying “NYAAAH NO NO NO THEY’RE WRONG AND I DON’T NEED TO TELL YOU HOW THEY’RE WRONG THEY’RE JUST ANGRY AT SMOKERS NYAAAAH”

      • @CryophiliaEnglish
        0•9 months ago

        No evidence of what? That second hand smoke is harmful?

        Straw man. Don’t be stupid. Argue against what I said, not what you want me to have said

        • @DasusEnglish
          1•9 months ago

          “No, the science is wrong, and me, a childish person on a pseydoanonymous forum ASSERTING the science is wrong is more credible than the science they use to show their conclusions are backed up by the data. Oh and don’t even try to get me to actually comment on what I think is wrong in the data, because I haven’t even read it.” - You

          That’s absolutely an argument, and it’s not grasping at anything.

          Yes, it is grasping. Because you’re not even refuting that SHS is harmful, you’re trying to assert that outdoors, there is no SHS, by trying to show concentrations measured. So implicitly, you’re admitting that any SHS IS harmful, because of course you are, because we all know that to be true, lol.

          And you still haven’t sent any proof.

          My stomach can’t take much more of this :DDD

          See, you already ignored the studies when I only quote their conclusions and the most important parts of them. What on Earth are you gonna do when I paste the entire study here?

          This is from this exact thread, 3 comments earlier:

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

          #No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways

          https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

          https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

          #It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

          “Widely recognised.”

          Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke. Please. I’ve been waiting and asking for several comments now. Oh and, a bit too ashamed to answer the comment where you talk about “you need to understand there’s a huge bias with tobacco…” when I replied to it with this? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

          #Inventing Conflicts of Interest: A History of Tobacco Industry Tactics

          By the early 1960s—despite categorical research findings indicating the harms of smoking—a significant “controversy” had arisen (at the behest of the tobacco industry) over the validity and meaning of these findings. Indeed, given the widespread acceptance of the conclusion, especially among those who had analyzed and evaluated the research most closely, the persistence of debate about the harms of smoking is a striking demonstration of the powerful impact of the tobacco industry’s public relations campaign. The industry insistence, at the direction of Hill & Knowlton, on the notion of no proof and the need for more research was an inspired if cynical manipulation of the natural tendencies within science to encourage skepticism and seek more complete answers to important questions.

          Completely unlike what you’re doing, amirite? :DDDDDD That’s what is so hilarious; you’re using century old rhetoric. It’s like arguing someone who’s genuinely insistent that “reefer madness” is a thing :DDD

          You haven’t linked a single study of any sort. You just keep stomping your foot and saying “NYAAAH NO NO NO THEY’RE WRONG AND I DON’T NEED TO TELL YOU HOW THEY’RE WRONG THEY’RE JUST ANGRY AT SMOKERS NYAAAAH”

          1

          You ignored 98% of the comment.

          • @CryophiliaEnglish
            0•9 months ago

            I mean yeah when it looks like you had a seizure and started flopping around on your keyboard, I tend to ignore that

            • @DasusEnglish
              2•9 months ago

              Oh, I didn’t realise that you’re delusional to the point that it distorts your perceptions. My bad. I’ll try to format it even simpler for you.

              Show me ANY STUDY WHATSOEVER that says that there is a SAFE level of second hand smoke.

              Because all the science on the subject says there isn’t one, but you keep arguing there is.

              Now I’m going to paste URL’s, they might look a bit weird, they’re like links to pages on the internet. Hang in there!

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2974716/

              https://news.ufl.edu/2023/09/secondhand-smoke-exposure/

              https://tobaccoatlas.org/challenges/secondhand-smoke/

              Here are a few things the studies behind these URL’s say:

              #No level of smoking or exposure to secondhand smoke [SHS] is safe. Even at the lowest detectable levels of exposure, we could detect changes in gene expression within the cells lining the airways

              #It is widely recognized through scientific evidence that there is no safe level of exposure to SHS

              I find it hard to believe that you didn’t actually understand my previous comment, but who am I to say that the cognitively challenged don’t browse Lemmy? But if you made it this far in the comment, then you’re probably not challenged that severely, so we can both admit that you’re just pretending not to understand, because you’re willfully ignoring the evidence. Exactly like Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers do in every debate they engage in.

              You’re (poorly) parroting 1960’s tobacco companies rhetoric. It’s ridiculous. :D

              https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3490543/

              The story of the tobacco “controversy” and the industry’s deliberative attempts to disrupt science is now, fortunately, fairly well known. In large measure, this story emerged only as a result of whistle blowers and litigation that led to the revelation of millions of pages of internal tobacco documents that both laid out this strategy and documented its implementation.39 But what has often gone overlooked in the assessment of the tobacco episode was the highly articulated, strategic character of seizing the scientific initiative, the engineering of science. This, however, was a factor well understood by John Hill and the public relations teams that advised the companies. They carefully documented what the scientific investment would buy and how best for the companies to protect and defend that investment.

              “What you need to understand… is that there’s a huge bias against tobacco” - you :DDD