|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
 Posted - 01/21/2009 : 06:56:58 [Permalink]
|
Re | Cuneformist: You'll note that in many cases we're talking about venues that have been in business, successfully, for decades. Many of them testify that their places were packed pre-ban, and empty post ban. You're right, these are typically smaller venues that cater to a smoking crowd. Venues that cater to younger customers, or more affluent customers, who aren't as likely to smoke, are not impacted as much, if at all. It's the blue collar and blue hair places that get hit the hardest. |
I have no doubt that some businesses suffer and have suffered because of smoking bans. Indeed, a place like Joe's Smoke, Bowl and Beer Shack-- a place where smoking is emphasized-- will see reduced business.
Then again, Joe's Lead Paint Emporium probably suffered when laws clamping down on lead paint popped up in the late 70's. And indeed, various laws prevent me from opening up my own Most Dangerous Game Park in the forests of Upstate New York.
So at some point, using the "but businesses are being hurt" argument loses some impact-- or at least, it should be set on the back-burner until the question of SHS is resolved.
| However, government numbers show gains in the hospitality industry. Iowa Workforce Development shows 2,400 more jobs in hospitality this month than last year at this time. Likewise, bar and restaurant earnings are up 1.5 percent. |
1.5% is pretty low. What's the margin of error in that number? More importantly, how many of those places were non-smoking before the ban? |
It's sort of funny that when you chose to question facts presented in a news feature, it's this.
But you're right-- I don't know any more about the numbers than what's in the article (and context matters-- 1.5% would be low for, say, 1996. But in 2008, any positive number is impressive. You're aware of the current economic situation, I'm sure).
In any case, I'm sympathetic to your cause, but I just don't know of an ideal solution. Personally, I really love that I can go to a bar and not deal with smoke. And I was shocked to enjoy that same thing in Italy this past December. But I also know that some people want to smoke and bowl, or just watch TV, have a beer, hang out with the locals, and smoke a few.
|
 |
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 11:44:49 [Permalink]
|
| It wasn't a similar dip. If you look at the chart from the presentation, there was a dip in 1998 but the variability during that time was higher. It was more spread out. This indicates that the dip in 1998 was more likely to be random variation than the dip in 2002. |
It wasn't so much spread out, it was shorter. One month rather than three. Like you said, random variation. Just like the three months it dipped post-ban. Just like the spike in month four.
How about the fact that the dip they reported on only lasted for three months, but the researchers reported it lasted for six? Is that fraudulent? Or is there some magical math that makes that "accurate?"
| At least in the Netherlands the regulations surrounding smoking are not focused on the customers but are focused on the people working in the bar. |
That is the claim of anti-smokers everywhere, and it's nonsense. Bars where every employee smoked, and there were a lot of them, were not exempt.
| Looking at the data you presented from that meeting, it will have been more than two that didn't comply, but it is highly unlikely that it is a majority. In such a case, the authors did well to go with the official source. |
They did well to choose an official source when they knew, without question, that it was inaccurate? When they heard, first hand, testimony that three out of five casinos were ignoring the ban? How is that not fraudulent? Intentionally fraudulent.
If the funding source has an effect on the accuracy of a study, any study (and it seems obvious that it has to have an effect, with researchers knowing future funding will be unavailable if their results are contrary to the funders agenda), it makes sense to consider that when evaluating any study, on anything.
| In any case, I'm sympathetic to your cause, but I just don't know of an ideal solution. |
There may not be a perfect solution, but that doesn't mean draconian ones should be imposed instead. I think the best solution would be to continue educating people, with both facts and propaganda (because my facts are your propaganda, and vice versa), and let the market decide. Let entrepreneurs, the people taking the risks, run their businesses as they see fit, and if that includes serving "poisons," like alcohol, salt, and SHS, let individuals decide which venues they will and will not patronize. The percentage of smokers is half what it was decades ago, fewer people are becoming smokers and more and more people want to patronize smoke free venues. There were smoke free venues before bans went into place, especially restaurants and coffee houses, but some bars as well. (They weren't common, but they existed, and not just in large cities. A smoke-free bar opened in Saratoga years before the NYS ban, and did quite well.)
If we were a free country we'd have plenty of smoke free venues by now, plenty of other venues that catered to smokers, and most likely a majority of places that provided accommodations for both. (Despite Repace's claims, ventilation can do a very good job of clearing the air, even in a room full of smokers, using equipment that is not cost prohibitive for a bar or restaurant owner.) Smokers and non-smokers could all be happy. But anti-smokers would remain furious – they don't want anyone to even see anyone smoking, as is evidenced by their movement to prohibit smoking in open air parks, on beaches and on movie screens. (If Glanz, the leader of the movie nonsense, gets his |
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 13:32:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
Does that mean it's not a real issue? Does that mean those facts aren't really facts? Should we just quietly watch from the sidelines, hoping we don't become the accidental victims of a raid, shrugging it off, skeptically, because there are no studies on it and all the evidence is anecdotal? |
Anecdotes should be considered a starting point for research, not a replacement for it. Whatever the facts are, they exist independent of heart-breaking stories of personal loss. Reality doesn't value human life and prosperity anymore than it values individual electrons. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 14:07:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| It wasn't a similar dip. If you look at the chart from the presentation, there was a dip in 1998 but the variability during that time was higher. It was more spread out. This indicates that the dip in 1998 was more likely to be random variation than the dip in 2002. |
It wasn't so much spread out, it was shorter. One month rather than three. Like you said, random variation. Just like the three months it dipped post-ban. Just like the spike in month four.
How about the fact that the dip they reported on only lasted for three months, but the researchers reported it lasted for six? Is that fraudulent? Or is there some magical math that makes that "accurate?" |
I already responded to this. Actually read my post.
| At least in the Netherlands the regulations surrounding smoking are not focused on the customers but are focused on the people working in the bar. |
That is the claim of anti-smokers everywhere, and it's nonsense. Bars where every employee smoked, and there were a lot of them, were not exempt. |
Because that still forces later workers in an environment that they do not necessarily apply for. There has been discussion about this in the Netherlands, since this does not only apply to pubs but also to other employers. Here the result of the discussion was that this could not be accommodated because that would result in an inconsistency in the law, which would be shot down immediately in court. Not because of any "anti-smoker" stuff.
| Looking at the data you presented from that meeting, it will have been more than two that didn't comply, but it is highly unlikely that it is a majority. In such a case, the authors did well to go with the official source. |
They did well to choose an official source when they knew, without question, that it was inaccurate? When they heard, first hand, testimony that three out of five casinos were ignoring the ban? How is that not fraudulent? Intentionally fraudulent. |
I already responded to this. Read my post, especially the part you've ignored twice already. You complain about fraud when you continuously ignore points I already made, hypocrite.
edited to add: And once again (why am I even surprised by this), read your own fucking source!. The senate minutes you provided state that the three major casinos did not comply, not that three out of five casinos did not comply. If you read the rest of the minutes, there is no indication in them at all that ignoring the ban was widespread. In fact, one comes away with the impression that it was actually quite well adhered to. But I already stated that in my previous post, where I noted the inconsistency in your statements.
| If the funding source has an effect on the accuracy of a study, any study (and it seems obvious that it has to have an effect, with researchers knowing future funding will be unavailable if their results are contrary to the funders agenda), it makes sense to consider that when evaluating any study, on anything. |
Sure, the problem is that you only consider that when evaluating the studies you do not like, instead of considering that consistently with all studies.
And it seems obvious is not evidence, Hittman. You ignore the reality of research that a single study does not give the whole picture, so regardless of the results organizations will often fund multiple studies.
Also, a number of meta-analysis published in the last two years, amongst others by Enstrom and Kabat have found significant increases in cardiovascular diseases and lung cancer, even when the studies from Enstrom and Kabat were included (as well as a number of smoking industry funded studies). None of them have found indications of publication bias (this can be checked using various methods).
|
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 01/21/2009 15:19:19 |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 15:27:36 [Permalink]
|
| I already responded to this. Actually read my post. |
You guessed that it had to do with weather, something that was never mentioned or considered in the report. You didn't address why the dip only lasted three months, nor the fact that they lied about the length of it.
| You complain about fraud when you continuously ignore points I already made, hypocrite. |
The point you made wasn't valid. It was an excuse that ignored the facts. They deliberately lied in their report. They presented data they knew wasn't true.
And you're making excuses for them.
Let's say I'm a reporter, and I go to see the band "Epileptic Mannequins." I estimate the crowd about about a hundred. I ask the ticket taker for a count, and he informs me 95 tickets were sold. The band's promoter, however, issues a press release that says "Epileptic Mannequins Played to a crowd of over 1500 last night." I submit an article, and the only mention of attendence is the line "According to the band's promoter, 1500 fans attended last night's concert." Have I committed fraud?
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
| Edited by - Hittman on 01/21/2009 15:40:31 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 16:29:37 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
| I already responded to this. Actually read my post. |
You guessed that it had to do with weather, something that was never mentioned or considered in the report. You didn't address why the dip only lasted three months, nor the fact that they lied about the length of it. |
The yearly trend in the data I mentioned is not guessing, it is present in all time trend series regarding total mortality, respiratory mortality and cardiovascular mortality in all countries (where they have four seasons of course, other seasonality gives other trends). It is also present in the data of the "outside Helena" AMI admissions. The trend has to do with the combined effects of cold weather and increased virus infections due to more people spending more time together in a small room, instead of outside.
The dip lasted all six months. What you need to be doing with data like this, as I already explained and which you ignored, is that you take a period in the year and compare it to the same period the previous years. The comparison you are making is not valid. This is not rocket science I'm explaining here, it is the very basic of using annual trends. You can ignore this very basic rule, but I am mystified why you think I should be convinced by you doing that. Who do you think you're fooling here?
If you want to make a valid comparison (as if), you need to compare July, August, September of all years with each other, and October, November, December of all years. If you do that (and again I already mentioned this) you notice that the dip is there in both series. And even then, just eyeballing the graph is problematic, doing the statistics would be better. The trendline (at least I assume the line in the graph is a trendline) already gives a bit more insight here.
Using the six months together is valid, especially given the low numbers, if you compare the same six months in every year. As I said, it would have been insightful if they had published the monthly or three-monthly weather averages with the data, but then they needed to have that data to do so and I cannot say they did. I searched my own files but I only have the weather data up to '97 or so for the neighboring states, so that is of no help.
| You complain about fraud when you continuously ignore points I already made, hypocrite. |
The point you made wasn't valid. It was an excuse that ignored the facts. They deliberately lied in their report. They presented data they knew wasn't true.
And you're making excuses for them.
|
It didn't ignore the facts. It pointed out the inconsistency in your reasoning, of which it would be nice if you'd actually address it (but who am I kidding). The absolute worse that you can state based on the data you yourself have supplied is that more than two establishments had ignored the ban, but not a majority. But than, they stated that: "We do not know the prevalence of smoking in venues covered by the ban". This already indicates to a discerning reader, that 2 is not the correct number. Based on the hearing they couldn't determine that prevalence, other than that it was unlikely to be high, which is what is conveyed in the text. Another phrasing they could have used was: "The city council reported x cases of violations, although the number might have been higher. It is unlikely to have been a majority." That might have been a bit more accurate, but not much. It's not fraud. |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
| Edited by - tomk80 on 01/21/2009 16:31:13 |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/21/2009 : 18:29:14 [Permalink]
|
| Let's say I'm a reporter, and I go to see the band "Epileptic Mannequins." I estimate the crowd about about a hundred. I ask the ticket taker for a count, and he informs me 95 tickets were sold. The band's promoter, however, issues a press release that says "Epileptic Mannequins Played to a crowd of over 1500 last night." I submit an article, and the only mention of attendence is the line "According to the band's promoter, 1500 fans attended last night's concert." Have I committed fraud? |
No. You're just lazy. After all, the promoter may have given away 1,400 tickets.
It happens all the time. For instance, an owner of a bowling alley is upset that he's losing business. He blames 65% of his dwindling customer base on a smoking ban. The reporter reports it and no other research is done on the matter.
It's not fraud, but it certainly doesn't make for the most convincing case. |
|
|
|
Hittman
Skeptic Friend
134 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 09:57:23 [Permalink]
|
Yes, they should have taken weather, monthly trends and other factors into account. But they didn't. They presented it as a straight up and down difference. And when we look at it using their own criteria (or more accurately, lack of criteria) we see that the dip was only three months long, not the six they claimed.
| No. You're just lazy. After all, the promoter may have given away 1,400 tickets. |
{throws up hands}. Ok, I give up. The question was not ticket distribution, but attendance. In the hypothetical I deliberately lied by repeating someone else's' lie, even though I knew by both direct observation and casual research it was a lie. But such intentional miss-reporting it isn't fraud in your book. It is in mine. And it is exactly what Sergeant and Sheppard did.
I've learned a lot from this thread.
I've learned that even though it usually takes 150,000 – 400,000 cigarettes over decades for smokers to get lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses, the smoke of half a cigarette per month not only causes them in non-smokers, but reducing that miniscule amount results in instant, magical reductions in heart attacks, and that's perfectly plausible.
I've learned that researcher bias is less important in studies funded by anti-smokers, because they do more of them.
I've learned that cherry picking in meta-analysis isn't bad – it's part of the process.
I've learned that when the results of a study are not statistically insignificant it's perfectly acceptable to fiddle with the CI until they are.
I've learned that hundreds of stories from hundreds of news sources, all saying the same thing is happening to people and businesses all over the world, doesn't mean it's really happening.
I've learned that there is nothing fraudulent about presenting data you know is wrong as long as you quote a source that appears to be credible.
I've learned that "the dose is the poison" is no longer the first rule of toxicology – it is now just a mantra and it doesn't apply to SHS. I haven't brought up the first rule of statistics – correlation does not equal causation – but I'm sure I'd be told that's just a mantra too.
We didn't get into the even more absurd claims about SHS, that it causes SIDS, tooth decay, cervical cancer (you smoked them how?), lower IQ, ADD, etc. It must be true, because they have studies, and no one ever lies with statistics.
I've learned that the root cause of the economic meltdown wasn't the CRA, but has to be something else, because Dave loves the CRA. But it's something magical, because it can't be explained, and asking for an explanation puts one in the same class as creationists.
I've learned a lot, but this isn't an argument. (Yes it is.) Now it's time to go for getting hit on the head lessons.
|
When a vampire Jehovah's Witness knocks on your door, don't invite him in. Blood Witness: http://bloodwitness.com
Get Smartenized® with the Quick Hitts blog: http://www.davehitt.com/blog2/index.phpBlog |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 10:42:46 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Hittman
I've learned a lot from this thread. |
Liar.| I've learned that even though it usually takes 150,000 – 400,000 cigarettes over decades for smokers to get lung cancer, heart disease and other illnesses, the smoke of half a cigarette per month not only causes them in non-smokers, but reducing that miniscule amount results in instant, magical reductions in heart attacks, and that's perfectly plausible. |
Liar.| I've learned that hundreds of stories from hundreds of news sources, all saying the same thing is happening to people and businesses all over the world, doesn't mean it's really happening. |
Liar.| I've learned that "the dose is the poison" is no longer the first rule of toxicology – it is now just a mantra and it doesn't apply to SHS. |
Liar.| I haven't brought up the first rule of statistics – correlation does not equal causation – but I'm sure I'd be told that's just a mantra too. |
Pre-emptive liar.| I've learned that the root cause of the economic meltdown wasn't the CRA, but has to be something else, because Dave loves the CRA. |
Liar.| But it's something magical, because it can't be explained, and asking for an explanation puts one in the same class as creationists. |
Liar.
Or, maybe you're not lying about all of this. Maybe you're simply unable to comprehend my arguments. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 10:50:59 [Permalink]
|
What you haven't learned is that the issue of SHS, like many issues, is not all black or all white. You have placed yourself on the far side of one end the spectrum, and all you see when questions come up is that anyone who doesn't view the materials as you do is wrong. Perhaps you need to hold your line given that you have made this your pet cause. I dunno.
As a smoker, I would love to think that you are right, and I once did. But as a skeptic, I have seen too much contrary evidence (all of which you wave away for one reason or another) to not doubt the strength of the evidence that I used to support my original position on the issue. Oh well...
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 01/23/2009 : 10:51:36 [Permalink]
|
| {throws up hands}. Ok, I give up. The question was not ticket distribution, but attendance. In the hypothetical I deliberately lied by repeating someone else's' lie, even though I knew by both direct observation and casual research it was a lie. But such intentional miss-reporting it isn't fraud in your book. It is in mine. And it is exactly what Sergeant and Sheppard did. |
First-- I wasn't calling you lazy; I was calling the hypothetical reporter lazy.
And in any case-- and I know that we're now arguing about hypotheticals-- you're obviously talking about attendance. And if you asked the ticket guy how many he sold and he tells you 95, all you know is that 95 people paid for tickets. Yes the promoter may still have been telling the truth that 1500 people were at the concert because in addition to the 95 (suckers) who paid for their tickets, another 1400 got their tickets for free and attended the concert, too.
I've learned a lot from this thread.
[snip]
I've learned that hundreds of stories from hundreds of news sources, all saying the same thing is happening to people and businesses all over the world, doesn't mean it's really happening. |
Talk about dishonest! Obviously you're frustrated that we all aren't now solidly in the SHS-is-harmless camp, but at least represent what's been said (by me at least) fairly!
Here's what I said just a few posts ago:| I have no doubt that some businesses suffer and have suffered because of smoking bans. Indeed, a place like Joe's Smoke, Bowl and Beer Shack-- a place where smoking is emphasized-- will see reduced business. |
This doesn't mean that I necessarily buy into the notion that all these places are closing precisely because of smoking bans. It's all well and good for the local small town newspaper to feature an article about the local small town bar closing down. But when the local owner rants that "it's because of the smoking ban!" in said article, why take that at face value? I certainly don't when I read a quote from some right wing mouthpiece saying that tax cuts increase revenue. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Third-hand smoke
