this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
218 points (96.2% liked)

worldnews

4831 readers
1 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil. Disagreements happen, that does not give you the right to personally insult each other.

  2. No racism or bigotry.

  3. Posts from sources that aren't known to be incredibly biased for either side of the spectrum are preferred. If this is not an option, you may post from whatever source you have as long as it is relevant to this community.

  4. Post titles should be the same as the article title.

  5. No spam, self-promotion, or trolling.

Instance-wide rules always apply.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
218
New Zealand repeals world-first smoking ban passed by Jacinda Ardern (www.independent.co.uk)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
172 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

The burden of proof is on you.

You're the one screeching against established science. You're the one saying that "the data doesn't support the conclusions" while refusing to actually even make an argument.

"My theory"

You don't seem to understand what the word means. That's a hypothesis, and one not supported by any science, despite you saying that the conclusions of a peer-reviewed study isn't supported by the data they have, that the data in fact supports your notion, but you still can't seem to show how or why?

So your argument is "if you're not exposed to smoke, then you're not harmed by it"? Wow. What a great argument. Unfortunately, when you're exposed to smoke, no matter the amount, it is harmful. This has been proven time and time and time again, but despite you childishly arguing against it, you haven't even tried looking if there's data available on it, because you know of course there is and it all proves you wrong.

The burden of proof is on you. You're simply unable to produce any supporting evidence for any of your anti-vaxxer, flat-earth level garbage, instead preferring to write vague pseudointellectual garbage. :D

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."

Almost as if that's what the evidence points towards and your pathetic little "b-b-b-b-but what about if you're only outdoors and you're 100 meters upwind from the closest smoker so then you're not exposed to smoke at all so then it's safe so there is actually a safe level of second hand smoke exposure which is literally to not be exposed at all and that's my mighty smart argument that I'm now making and the fact that there's a literal library full of studies which prove that there is no safe level of second hand smoke is completely irrelevant as I'm not even gonna look at it I'm just gonna pretend like I won the argument I didn't even actually manage to make"

SEe why I'm entertained? D:DD

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago (1 children)

you still can’t seem to show how or why?

That's a problem with your comprehension, not with my explanation.

Run spell check please.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

.... deep sigh

So in your previous comment you ask "but you can't find evidence for it?" after I've explained that you need to find the evidence, because the burden of proof is on you because you're the one trying to argue against scientific consensus.

Despite the burden of proof being on you, not me, I show you studies that show how widely recognised it is that there is no safe level of SHS exposure.

You refuse to acknowledge it.

So tell me, how exactly are you different from a Flat Earther or an Anti-vaxxer? Because you can't seem to make an argument of any sort, you're 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. It's an observation, that in no way disproves that all SHS is harmful.

What aren't you getting? Why are you ignoring when I show you proof? What is your argument? Oh you don't have any so you end up with these childish games like pretending you didn't see anything I just wrote and linked and are unable to Google "is second hand smoke dangerous" yourself?

Make. An. Argument. Please?

But you won't.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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"

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

“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.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

:DDD

[–] [email protected] 2 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"Ofc I can't reply to any of what you wrote, because I'd have to address how deeply wrong I am in this, but my obsession over getting 'the last word' means I literally can't stop replying no matter how stupid I look in the thread"

Please. By any means, prove me wrong and produce data on safe SHS levels.

Oh wait, all the data says there is no safe level of exposure.

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

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

I stopped reading bc I assumed you'd shortly die from laughter, and there's no sense debating a dead man

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

"I'm obsessed over this to the point I need to reply, but I also need to pretend I didn't see a single line of text whole entire three sentences you just wrote. I just have to reply, despite knowing how wrong I am. I can't admit that Israel is genociding people. I'd rather pretend I can't read than admit that I have been influenced by propaganda."

Please. By any means, prove me wrong and produce data on safe SHS levels.

Oh wait, all the data says there is no safe level of exposure.

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

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

[–] [email protected] 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

See? If you can't argue the matter, why are you replying?

You're incapable of saying why you are in this thread to begin with. Everyone knows, it's written right there.

So defend your argument, stop replying, or (and this I assume is the one you choose) keep acting like a five-year old and pretend like you don't even know what I'm talking about.

All the data says there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

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

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

But please, prove to everyone that you are a petulant kid by replying once more, but without being able to address why you're ignoring everything and acting like a toddler.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 8 months ago

See? If you can't argue the matter, why are you replying? Just like I said. Dancing to my exact tune. Why not just give up, why make a fool of yourself?

You're incapable of saying why you are in this thread to begin with. Everyone knows, it's written right there.

So defend your argument, stop replying, or (and this I assume is the one you choose) keep acting like a five-year old and pretend like you don't even know what I'm talking about.

All the data says there is no safe level of exposure to second-hand smoke.

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

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

But please, prove to everyone that you are a petulant kid by replying once more, but without being able to address why you're ignoring everything and acting like a toddler.