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.

  • Buffaloaf@lemmy.worldEnglish
    51·
    10 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·
      10 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·
        10 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·
          10 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·
            10 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·
              10 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·
                10 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
                  13·
                  10 months ago

                  Comment looks pretty dumb now huh? I quote you the report and you claim I’m the one not reading it

                  • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    Yes, all of your comments do look pretty dumb. That’s why I keep engaging with you. You’re veeerry entertaining. :D

                    You haven’t made an argument.

                    Linking a piece showing they’ve looked at lifetime smokers and then you making an indoor/outdoor argument when the conclusions say “REGARDLESS OF LOCATION”, is pretty funny.

                    You still don’t have an argument.

                    This is funny, but it’s also sad to see that while the science is very clear on the subject, there are still trolls like you.

                    This isn’t a debate any more than “the Earth is actually flat” is.

                    I could link you literally thousands upon thousands od studies showing how harmful smoke is and you can’t link a single one showing it isn’t, and you’re not making any rational point about this one either.

                    It’s funny, but also, slightly worrying.

            • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
              12·
              10 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·
                10 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

                • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
                  12·
                  10 months ago

                  You just keep not reading, even when I copy paste it for you. I don’t know what else I can do here. The conclusion is disingenuous and the proof is right there in the report. Continuing to regurgitate the same words that I’m saying are wrong is not an argument.

                  • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    1·
                    10 months ago

                    You’re not making an argument.

                    You’re saying “no the data doesn’t agree with their conclusions”, without any argument. “It was lifetime smokers they were married to, and they smoked indoors btw.”

                    So what? That doesn’t meant that lless exposure isn’t harmful. That’s what they conclude as well. Stomping your foot and saying “no no no it’s not true” won’t change the conclusions, and you’ve shown nothing that shows their conclusions are false.

                    This is hilarious