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.

    • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
      83·
      9 months ago

      a) studies don’t show it’s harmful unless you live or work with someone who smokes indoors*

      b) smoking in public areas, even outdoors, is mostly banned already

      *note: you will find some proclamations from official and pseudo-official bodies saying things like “there is no safe level of secondhand smoke”. These are shameful goddamn lies and when you try to find the science they’re based on, you find nothing at all. When you look at the actual report collating every study ever done on secondhand smoke you’ll find that every single study has only measured effects of prolonged exposure to indoor smoking. There has been no study, ever, that I’m aware of, that has shown a correlation between occasional outdoor secondhand smoke and increased cancer or other negative effects

      But all that being said, again, smokers (in the West) are mostly relegated to certain designated outdoor areas which you are free to not go to.

      • Buffaloaf@lemmy.worldEnglish
        51·
        9 months ago

        Conclusions

        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.

        The pooled evidence indicates a 20 to 30 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer from secondhand smoke exposure associated with living with a smoker.

        Seems pretty clear.

        • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
          34·
          9 months ago

          Only if you pick and choose the parts you read. Look at the study subjects. Every single one of them has prolonged exposure to indoor smoke. The majority of study subjects are spouses of longtime smokers.

          • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            9 months ago

            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?

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                21·
                9 months ago

                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?

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  12·
                  9 months ago

                  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.

                  • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    31·
                    9 months ago

                    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.

                    Is smoking harmful? No, it’s the science which is wrong!

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  12·
                  9 months ago

                  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.

                  • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    2·
                    9 months ago

                    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