Should smoking in all the public places (indoors and outdoors) be banned?

[Cinitiator]

So you admit that it isn't established whether or not frequency to outdoor smoke is enough to make it a health concern but you're willing to assume it is? It isn't logical what you're doing, it's irrational to suit your beliefs that people shouldn't smoke.

That's a straw man fallacy. This isn't what I said at all. I'm not willing to assume it is. I'm not even willing to use terms such as "is". I simply interpret the questions in terms of the degrees of certainty with the evidence gathered up to date. Certain logical deductions with varying degrees of certainty can be made if the premises are empirical, but if the evidence on the conclusion is lacking. As I've already said, there's no reason to think of empirical evidence as having only two conditions. As it doesn't, due to the fact that inductive reasoning has to be used in a world where attaining perfect information is impossible.

 

[Cinitiator]

That's true but you've failed to take into account that this isn't purely a matter of logic but one of values. You might value all the consequences of smoking lower than the benefits but that doesn't mean everyone will. I'm perfectly fine with the idea of free treatment for giving up smoking but don't try to argue that smokers are illogical or irrational.

In no way am I trying to argue that they are. However, the conditions of nicotine addiction, by their definition, hinder the self-retention and cost-benefit analysis mechanisms in regards to the source of the said nicotine.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

That's a straw man fallacy. This isn't what I said at all. I'm not willing to assume it is. I'm not even willing to use terms such as "is". I simply interpret the questions in terms of the degrees of certainty with the evidence gathered up to date. Certain logical deductions with varying degrees of certainty can be made if the premises are empirical, but if the evidence on the conclusion is lacking. As I've already said, there's no reason to think of empirical evidence as having only two conditions. As it doesn't, due to the fact that inductive reasoning has to be used in a world where attaining perfect information is impossible.

There is no degree of certainty because there is no evidence at all to suggest that frequency of close proximity to smokers outside means that the short term exposures add up to significant health risks.

Funny that you call straw man before presenting one. Nowhere did I suggest perfect information or black and white evidence, I'm simply pointing out you do not have enough to meet a good degree of certainty to back up your claim.

 

[Cinitiator]

There is no degree of certainty because there is no evidence at all to suggest that frequency of close proximity to smokers outside means that the short term exposures add up to significant health risks.

Funny that you call straw man before presenting one. Nowhere did I suggest perfect information or black and white evidence, I'm simply pointing out you do not have enough to meet a good degree of certainty to back up your claim.

There are degrees of certainty as there are empirical premises. Such as, the levels of nicotine accumulated by the victims of the second-hand outdoor smoking. There's also the empirical premise of the effects of cigarette smoke. These, as well as other premises add up to a medium to low degree of certainty on the harm of second-hand outdoor smoking. However, the risks of such consequences are so high that they make up for the lacking evidence with regards to policy making. The risks plays as an additive factor. However, in no way does the risk relate to the degree of truth of the conclusion - as I've already said, it serves as an "additive factor".

Here's a more concrete example to illustrate my point:
If getting ran over by a car has been proven to cause rather frequent death in all the areas where such accidents have already happened, one can make inferences and extrapolate the effects of getting ran over by a car to other locations. The reason one can do that is due to a set of empirical premises giving the conclusion a rather high degree of certainty.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There are degrees of certainty as there are empirical premises. Such as, the levels of nicotine accumulated by the victims of the second-hand outdoor smoking. There's also the empirical premise of the effects of cigarette smoke. These, as well as other premises add up to a medium to low degree of certainty on the harm of second-hand outdoor smoking. However, the risks of such consequences are so high that they make up for the lacking evidence.

You are missing a huge chunk of evidence. The frequency in which this occurs. The studies posted in this thread show that close proximity to an outdoor smoker for hours per day is significant (akin to second hand smoke indoors with a live-in smoker) but you cannot infer from that that outdoor smoking is a significant risk to public health if you do not know whether or not that proximity and time scale is the norm.

If you want an example it would be like saying that evidence suggests that 10 hours per day in close proximity to people wearing cravats is a risk to health then banning cravats even though there is rarely-never any circumstance wherein someone is in such close proximity for so long.

Here's a more concrete example to illustrate my point:
If getting ran over by a car has been proven to cause rather frequent death in all the areas where such accidents have already happened, one can make inferences and extrapolate the effects of getting ran over by a car to other locations. The reason one can do that is due to a set of empirical premises giving the conclusion a rather high degree of certainty.

You can do that because we know that car use is fairly homogeneous. This is not the case with what we are discussing because the data we have is from a situation that we do not know is very typical or highly atypical.

 

[russ_watters]

You entered the thread before I did, Ryan. I don't seehow the fact that you know I disagree means I shouldn't express it.

 

[Cinitiator]

You are missing a huge chunk of evidence. The frequency in which this occurs. The studies posted in this thread show that close proximity to an outdoor smoker for hours per day is significant (akin to second hand smoke indoors with a live-in smoker) but you cannot infer from that that outdoor smoking is a significant risk to public health if you do not know whether or not that proximity and time scale is the norm.

If you want an example it would be like saying that evidence suggests that 10 hours per day in close proximity to people wearing cravats is a risk to health then banning cravats even though there is rarely-never any circumstance wherein someone is in such close proximity for so long.

You can do that because we know that car use is fairly homogeneous. This is not the case with what we are discussing because the data we have is from a situation that we do not know is very typical or highly atypical.

Even without the frequency of occurrence statistics, certain low-to-medium credibility deductions can be made. Also, there are population density, infrastructural statistics and urban planning statistics which add up and can play a role of a premise for such a statistic.

For example, if we know the smoking population, and if we know the outdoor places where smoking has a very high chance of occurring, and if we know that such places are often population-dense, we can still make low-to-medium risk deductions.

 

[WannabeNewton]

I couldn't care less of smoking harmed the smoker. They have all the right to systematically destroy their lungs if they want. What does annoy me is when they get that disgusting smoke in my face. I don't want to have any contact with that barbaric act but I have no choice when people are free to smoke in public.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Even without the frequency of occurrence statistics, certain low-to-medium credibility deductions can be made. Also, there are population density, infrastructural statistics and urban planning statistics which add up and can play a role of a premise for such a statistic.

For example, if we know the smoking population, and if we know the outdoor places where smoking has a very high chance of occurring, and if we know that such places are often population-dense, we can still make low-to-medium risk deductions.

So if asked you can provide all this data that you claim you have?

 

[Cinitiator]

I couldn't care less of smoking harmed the smoker. They have all the right to systematically destroy their lungs if they want. What does annoy me is when they get that disgusting smoke in my face. I don't want to have any contact with that barbaric act but I have no choice when people are free to smoke in public.

This also is a big factor for my support for banning outdoor public smoking. The effects of cigarette smoke on my eyes (irritation) as well as on my otolaryngological system (coughing, irritation) have also been observed. This often happens when I simply pass by, or when I'm in a given tight outdoor public place.

 

[Cinitiator]

So if asked you can provide all this data that you claim you have?

Sure. The data in question is the population density data, as well as the infrastructural information and urban planning data (ex: bus stops). You can access it via a search engine, as providing the said data for the entire world would be more than problematic and not very time efficient.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Sure. The data in question is the population density data, as well as the infrastructural information and urban planning data (ex: bus stops). You can access it via a search engine, as providing the said data for the entire world would be more than problematic and not very time efficient.

You claimed you were basing your conclusion that exposure to outdoor second hand smoke was significant based on this. Are you now saying you haven't looked at it?

Even so the data you suggest won't give anything more than a back of the envelope guestimation (bearing in mind that none of that will give you accurate information on smoking habits). Not something fit for deciding public policy!

 

[AlephZero]

I couldn't care less of smoking harmed the smoker.

You should, unless you don't care about paying more for your medical insurance to cover part of their higher treatment costs.

 

[Cinitiator]

You claimed you were basing your conclusion that exposure to outdoor second hand smoke was significant based on this. Are you now saying you haven't looked at it?

Even so the data you suggest won't give anything more than a back of the envelope guestimation (bearing in mind that none of that will give you accurate information on smoking habits). Not something fit for deciding public policy!

"You claimed you were basing your conclusion that exposure to outdoor second hand smoke was significant based on this."

Not at all. I was claiming that this gives a mild to a moderate credibility to the evidence up to date. There's no reason to think of empirical evidence in terms of true or false, as one has to use inductive reasoning in a world with imperfect information, which doesn't yield true or false results in every case by its definition (the truth of the conclusion doesn't depend on the truth of the premises)."bearing in mind that none of that will give you accurate information on smoking habits"

It will give some estimation, especially after looking at the statistics of the percentage of the smoking population. Based on the said percentage, one can make regional population distribution inferences for a given time period and connect them to the infrastructural properties, adding some credibility to the conclusion of harm of outside second-hand smoking.

Of course, this won't have a high degree of certainty, and I never claimed it would be. However, the risk plays as an additive factor of taking an action on the issue, as the public health risks are a second factor of our decision making process.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

"You claimed you were basing your conclusion that exposure to outdoor second hand smoke was significant based on this."

Not at all. I was claiming that this gives a mild to a moderate credibility to the evidence up to date. There's no reason to think of empirical evidence in terms of true or false, as one has to use inductive reasoning in a world with imperfect information, which doesn't yield true or false results in every case by its definition (the truth of the conclusion doesn't depend on the truth of the premises).

You are completely missing the point, again. Unless you've looked at this evidence how do you know it will back you up? You stated:

Yes. The frequency of close proximity to the smoker is often observed in the real world situations. And outdoor smoking should be banned even before such studies will be carried out, as the evidence up to date is enough to do so.

I asked you what this evidence was after pointing out there is none. You've stated that by looking at population density and smoking demographics that we can get a rough idea (btw as standards of evidence goes that's mildly better than anecdotal and shouldn't be treated as anything more than that. It's not even anywhere close to a preliminary study and certainly nothing of strong enough note to start creating policy over unless you want all policy decisions to be so ill informed) but you admit you haven't looked so you are just assuming that it will back you up based on...?

"bearing in mind that none of that will give you accurate information on smoking habits"

It will give some estimation, especially after looking at the statistics of the percentage of the smoking population. Based on the said percentage, one can make regional population distribution inferences for a given time period and connect them to the infrastructural properties, adding some credibility to the conclusion of harm of outside second-hand smoking.

Of course, this won't have a high degree of certainty, and I never claimed it would be. However, the risk plays as an additive factor of taking an action on the issue, as the public health risks are a second factor of our decision making process.

It will not give you a reasonable amount of data to base policy on. Population distribution is based on where people live, not how close they get to each other. You keep saying infrastructual properties so perhaps you can provide some data to what you mean and how it helps your case.

Responding with "use a search engine" is not good enough, the burden of proof is on you and if you make a claim you are the one who has to provide the evidence for it (especially if you claim such data exists and supports you).

 

[Cinitiator]

You are completely missing the point, again. Unless you've looked at this evidence how do you know it will back you up? You stated:

I asked you what this evidence was after pointing out there is none. You've stated that by looking at population density and smoking demographics that we can get a rough idea (btw as standards of evidence goes that's mildly better than anecdotal and shouldn't be treated as anything more than that. It's not even anywhere close to a preliminary study and certainly nothing of strong enough note to start creating policy over unless you want all policy decisions to be so ill informed) but you admit you haven't looked so you are just assuming that it will back you up based on...?


It will not give you a reasonable amount of data to base policy on. Population distribution is based on where people live, not how close they get to each other. You keep saying infrastructual properties so perhaps you can provide some data to what you mean and how it helps your case.

Responding with "use a search engine" is not good enough, the burden of proof is on you and if you make a claim you are the one who has to provide the evidence for it (especially if you claim such data exists and supports you).

"but you admit you haven't looked so you are just assuming that it will back you up based on...? "

When did I do so?

"It will not give you a reasonable amount of data to base policy on. Population distribution is based on where people live, not how close they get to each other."

The said population distribution maps are enough to make some inferences on the people's proximity to one another, provided that they're combined with the infrastructural properties of the area in question.
If, say, oral cyanide toxicity studies up to date have only looked at the cyanide administered via a capsule method, we can still make inferences on the oral cyanide toxicity for other administration cases.

"the burden of proof is on you and if you make a claim you are the one who has to provide the evidence for it"

I've fulfilled my burden of proof by providing the evidence type and addresses. Obviously, I can't post ~millions of links to the detailed infrastructural and population statistics; the best I can do is give the general direction and type of the evidence in question.

 

[Cinitiator]

I will even try to fulfill my burden of proof more for the city of New York, for example:
http://andyarthur.org/data/maps/0/0/7/8/5/map_007858_large.png

Source: allenschool.edu

Infrastructural information:
New York at Google Maps.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

When did I do so?

Are you saying you have?

The said population distribution maps are enough to make some inferences on the people's proximity to one another, provided that they're combined with the infrastructural properties of the area in question.

Demonstrate this then. Population density can tell you how many people live in a square kilometre. That does not tell you how close in proximity they actually are nor how long they will be around someone who is smoking. Again: where is this data you keep mentioning of "infrastructural properties" that will show the concentration of people along with number of smokers?

If, say, oral cyanide toxicity studies up to date have only looked at the cyanide administered via a capsule method, we can still make inferences on the oral cyanide toxicity for other administration cases.

That is totally non-comparable. Bioavailablity is a well studied pharmaceutical field, it's relatively easy to convert oral ingestion to something else like intravenous. That situation has no bearings on this one which is looking into whether or not most people are exposed to second hand smoke outside for significant periods of time.

I've fulfilled my burden of proof by providing the evidence type and addresses. Obviously, I can't post ~millions of links to the detailed infrastructural and population statistics; the best I can do is give the general direction and type of the evidence in question.

No you really haven't. Firstly because what you claim will support you arguably won't for the reasons I've listed and secondly because simply saying "this will support me" is no substitute for providing citations to research and data that support your claim.

I will even try to fulfill my burden of proof more for the city of New York, for example:
Infrastructural information:
New York at Google Maps.

That does absolutely nothing to help you. As I've pointed out population density will not give you any indication as to whether or not the average person is in close proximity to an outdoor smoker for a significant period of time on an average day. And google maps? Are you trolling or something? A map of New York is not data on infrastructure use! What you need to provide is data that shows how many people are in particular areas for a significant time around smokers.

If you had data that suggested that there were places in New York that regularly become congested with people who visit regularly (e.g. a major intersection) and wherein outdoor smoking was common to the point that we can deduce that people visiting said places will be exposed to significant levels of outdoor second hand smoke then you might finally have some firm data to support a no-smoking zone in that area. I'd happily support one if that was the case. But you don't have anything like that.

 

[Cinitiator]

"As I've pointed out population density will not give you any indication as to whether or not the average person is in close proximity to an outdoor smoker for a significant period of time on an average day."

It does, along with the infrastructural properties. This is the exact point of our disagreement, so I think we should focus on it. Even though it doesn't give a highly credible prediction, it does give a prediction of a weak credibility.

 

[Pythagorean]

As Ryan is saying though, weak credibility is not what you base public policy on. It would give you preliminary data (maybe... if you formalized it better and did more research on the smoking demographics) to apply for a grant to actually do the research and ask the question. But it's not the answer. It's just motivation for the question. It's just saying, "this might be worth looking into."

 

[Cinitiator]

As Ryan is saying though, weak credibility is not what you base public policy on. It would give you preliminary data (maybe... if your formalized it better and did more research on the smoking demographics) to apply for a grant to actually do the research and ask the question. But it's not the answer.

Risk is a second factor of public policy making. Risk couples with evidence credibility to provide us with a decision on the public policy taking. If the credibility is low to moderate but the risk is very high, then the policy should be implemented, but further research is required, which would change our view on the issue by changing the evidence credibility variable.

 

[WannabeNewton]

You should, unless you don't care about paying more for your medical insurance to cover part of their higher treatment costs.

Well when you put it that way...

 

[Ryan_m_b]

It does, along with the infrastructural properties. This is the exact point of our disagreement, so I think we should focus on it. Even though it doesn't give a highly credible prediction, it does give a prediction of a weak credibility.

Firstly you haven't actually done this though have you? You don't have anything like I've posted above with regards to how congested various public spaces get on a regular basis along with estimated smoking habits? You've talked about it but you don't have any data.

If you did it would be as Pythagorean says, you'd have some weak preliminary data that suggests that further study might be warranted. Whilst weak is better than nothing it's not good enough to start doing anything about.