Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/16/08 01:47 AM, marchohare wrote:

At 12/16/08 12:17 AM, Elfer wrote: That's because mg/kg is a standardized measurement of toxicity. 0.5 mg/kg is a low amount to be lethal. Considering humans weigh around 75 kg, that's still not much.

Ah, you need to look into the meaning of that unit of measurement you're using, bud. It's a relative proportion, parts per million. Body mass is irrelevant. I used an absolute value (milligrams): in that instance, body mass is a factor.

Dude, I'm a chemical engineer. Do not lecture me about units. I realize the difference between an absolute mass and a relative mass. mg/kg is the standard unit for measuring toxicity.

I wasn't trying to claim that nicotine was a more potent poison than strychnine (obviously, it isn't), just the nicotine is a relatively toxic substance, relative to the doses you would need for it to be active orally. I wasn't discussing nicotine vs. strychnine, I was discussing nicotine vs. nicotine.

For this reason, the amount of money the pharmaceutical industry would have to dump into lobbying and advertising to get cigarettes outlawed is going to outweigh their long-term return on the investment.

I suppose potentially it could be continued to be marketed in dermal patches for therapeutic effect, but there would be a fairly small market for this, due to the side-effects like dependency and night terrors.

At 12/16/08 01:47 AM, marchohare wrote:

That's because it was the most expensive and comprehensive second-hand smoke study ever done.

Where'd you get that info? Not to mention that it seemed to focus solely on lung cancer when there's links to asthma, crappy babies , heart disease and useless doctor visits.

Not to deny the irrefutable fact that:

In echoing the above and as a response to tobacco industry mischaracterization of earlier IARC research, the twenty-nine international experts of the scientific working group convened by the Monograph Program of the International Agency for Research on Cancer concluded in June 2002 that second-hand smoke is carcinogenic to humans and a cause of lung cancer: "Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer...[thus] involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers."

It would make no logical sense whatsoever that second-hand smoke be harmless. It's basically physically IMPOSSIBLE.

The best things that any study AGAINST seems to show ( the 1993 EPA and the 1998 WHO ) is that it's inconclusive... And of course they're often attacked by the Tobacco companies ( in fact wasn't the EPA specifically challenged by Tobacco company lawyers? ).

3) Outright lies. This EPA study

You are aware that there's been hundreds all over the world since then, right? And that the EPA study was heavily attacked by, guess who, tobacco interests.

Who managed to stave off the "cigarettes cause cancer" studies for decades.

They're bogus, faked exactly as I've described above.

Well that sure is convenient. There is a fair amount of parroting and obvious over-reaction, but the results are just jaw-droppingly one-sided no matter where you go.
Apparently Big Pharma controls all the governments, hospitals and universities on the planet.

considering your other "contributions" to this forum.

Hahaha and what contributions should someone make on a forum?

Seriously, how did you ever get to be a moderator?

Big Pharma pays me to keep the smoke-related topics down.

Last time I checked the pollution from cars was worse than the pollution from second-hand smoke.

Why don't they ban cars.

If they think that kind of stuff is harmful.

no?

At 12/16/08 11:22 AM, Elfer wrote: Dude, I'm a chemical engineer. Do not lecture me about units. I realize the difference between an absolute mass and a relative mass. mg/kg is the standard unit for measuring toxicity.

You're a chemical engineering student. However, I apologize for not knowing you knew the difference, and have no doubt you'll make a good engineer.

You do know, then, that your numbers looked scarier to the uninitiated than what I presented. A casual reader probably would not have known the difference. No slight was intended. I don't necessarily write only for the the person I am addressing. If I did, I'd use PMs or email.

At 12/16/08 11:40 AM, poxpower wrote (regarding my assertion that the WHO study was the largest ever conducted):

Where'd you get that info?

LOL! Did you even look? The study was conducted from twelve centers in seven European countries over a period of seven years. There's never been another one like it. That information is all over the 'net. I even found a Faux News article pointing that out:

The largest-ever study on secondhand smoke and lung cancer, published in 1998 by the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, reported no statistically significant increase in lung cancer risk associated with exposure to secondhand smoke...

I keep up on this stuff, Pox. It's sort of a hobby. However, I don't check for updates every day like I did five years ago: the results make me furious.

Pox quoted:

"...Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer...[thus] involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers."

Pox, that statement is ludicrous on the face of it. In fact, I'm looking forward to Elfer's critique of it, because with his background he'll undoubtedly see what I'm about to say before he reads this (spoiler warning, Elfer):

First, the "thus" is a non sequitur (and not part of the original quote): the conclusion does not follow from the assertion. Eating a bell pepper "involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke." So what? Poison is in the dose. Exposure doesn't matter. Concentration does, and sidestream smoke is... well, to call it attenuated is an understatement. See this study from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

Second, "involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers," is downright stupid on the face of it. It does not follow from the original statement. Obviously, people get lung cancer for other reasons, and there are types of lung cancer that have never been linked to smoking at all.

That statement isn't science. It's advertising copy. Pure propaganda.

Furthermore, you listed links from two anti-tobacco organizations, About.com, and WebMD. Try broadening your search, and follow the money.

It would make no logical sense whatsoever that second-hand smoke be harmless. It's basically physically IMPOSSIBLE.

You haven't understood a single thing I've said about dosage, have you?

By the logic you have presented, we should ban cars, nuclear power plants and a whole list of other things that emit chemicals and/or radiation that causes lung cancer, because there's "no safe level," right? That's the idiotic assertion of the anti-tobacco fanatics. It's garbage.

You are aware that there's been hundreds all over the world since then, right? And that the EPA study was heavily attacked by, guess who, tobacco interests.

So what? The EPA study was pure junk. You're actually supporting a point I made earlier: that the tobacco industry has been so discredited they can't even refute a bogus study. By your logic, the tobacco industry's mere opposition must mean a study is true. I don't believe I need to point out the logical flaw in that reasoning.

Well that sure is convenient. There is a fair amount of parroting and obvious over-reaction, but the results are just jaw-droppingly one-sided no matter where you go.

Actually, they're not. The reported results are jaw-droppingly one-sided. They're doing meta analysis--studies of studies--and throwing out the data that does not support what they want to prove. It's "for our own good." The anti-tobacco movement sees the end as justifying the means.

Apparently Big Pharma controls all the governments, hospitals and universities on the planet.

No. Obviously, if the results were conclusive you'd never see anything like this.

The scientific community knows the second-hand smoke myth is bogus. Scientists also know that if they holler too loudly about it, their research grants will dry up. The anti-tobacco movement isn't "grass roots," it's a juggernaut.

At least people like the late Michael Crichton are able to speak freely (see link above). As a popular writer, he could do that, even though he was a Harvard educated M.D.

Big Pharma pays me to keep the smoke-related topics down.

Now, that was actually funny.

Anyway, as I said on the previous page, I didn't want to derail this thread. I hate giving people promoting a dangerous myth the last word, but it looks like I have no other choice. Y'all have the floor now.

Just keep this in mind: in the late 1930's, "everybody knew" that marijuana use led to violence, insanity, and death.

This scam is no different. If you want to understand the politics of marijuana, look into the politics of tobacco. Same shit, different day.

At 12/16/08 02:37 PM, marchohare wrote:

I keep up on this stuff, Pox. It's sort of a hobby. However, I don't check for updates every day like I did five years ago: the results make me furious.

Isn't this one bigger: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/
7398/1057
Over 100 000 people over 38 years...

Whatever it's not important.

Poison is in the dose. Exposure doesn't matter.

Exposure to smoke is the poison.

That statement isn't science. It's advertising copy. Pure propaganda.

While the stats don't show a clear super-high risk of getting lung cancer just from standing in a smoke-filled environment, it's pretty established that the smoke from a cigarette causes a cornucopia of adverse health effects. The difference is just a matter of long-term exposure.

The question is : how much exposure would you actually need? And is it necessary to take preventive measures like banning smoking in public?

And yes I admit they're trying to scare people ( as usual ) with this way more than is cause for concern, but I doubt there's any conspiracy going on. Just the same chicken-shits in the media trying to scare people so they agree with their traditional family values and their "everyone is safe" Nazi paradise.

and follow the money.

You still haven't explained what anyone has to gain financially from banning tobacco and taking on the multi-billion dollar tobacco industry. I heard "nicotine patches" which is a product aimed at smokers and you've already admitted that smoking is detrimental at least to the smoker.

Scientists also know that if they holler too loudly about it, their research grants will dry up.

Well if you have any articles from scientific journals, I'll read them.

So anyway, why didn't you refute any claims about the other ailments it causes besides lung cancer?

=========

Well I guess we'll have to see what the future holds. I find it pretty ridiculous to try and ban pot from homes but I find it equally ridiculous that people claim it's some magic all-upside plant that cures all diseases, causes no harm to anyone and is super-fun.

At 12/16/08 02:37 PM, marchohare wrote: Pox quoted:

"...Involuntary smoking involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke produced by active smoking, which is the principal cause of lung cancer...[thus] involuntary smoking is a cause of lung cancer in never smokers."

First, the "thus" is a non sequitur (and not part of the original quote): the conclusion does not follow from the assertion. Eating a bell pepper "involves exposure to the same numerous carcinogens and toxic substances that are present in tobacco smoke." So what? Poison is in the dose. Exposure doesn't matter. Concentration does, and sidestream smoke is... well, to call it attenuated is an understatement. See this study from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

That all really depends. You're both kind of right and kind of wrong. Both exposure and concentration matter. No matter how low the dosage is, there will still be bioaccumulation of the substances in question. The amount eliminated from the body also depends on the amount found in the body. Eventually, you'll reach a steady state where the amount eliminated from the body is the same amount that's absorbed in eight hours of exposure. Depending on factors like body mass, metabolism, ventilation in the environment, humidity, number of patrons, etc. etc.

Any concentration of environmental smoke will raise your risk of cancer, just not necessarily to a statistically significant level. For example, when you go outside, you might be struck by a high energy cosmic ray, break a bit of DNA and get cancer. It's just not that likely.

Since some studies do show a statistically significant increase in the risk of smoking-associated diseases, it's reasonable to suspect that at a high enough concentration, living or working in an improperly ventilated, smoky environment can cause maintained levels of toxic chemicals that have an appreciable chance of inducing cancer or other diseases over a period of say, 20 or 30 years.

Perhaps a a reasonable solution is that smoking bans be voluntary (which some restaurants/bars would now be willing to do, since many patrons have a taste for smoke-free environments now), and restaurants who wish to allow smoking be required to monitor their air quality and keep the levels of toxic substances in the air below standard acceptable levels (which already exist for nearly every substance that you'd get from burning plant matter).

Fun fact: Balances and equilibria are a gigantic part of what I do at university

At 12/16/08 03:31 PM, poxpower wrote: Isn't this one bigger: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/
7398/1057
Over 100 000 people over 38 years...

I'm glad you found that one. It's a real gem. It was limited to a single geographic region (Google the word "confounder"), and while its statistical sample was larger than the WHO study's (35,561--far short of the "over 100,000" you claim), sample size hits an extreme point of diminishing returns above a number like the 2,192 participants in the WHO study--far below that, actually.

However, I'll give you "larger," since most people would think that by "large" I was talking only about sample size.

I wasn't, however. I was talking about methodology, the depth of the data being mined, and the number of geographical centers involved. Weird as this might sound, even a sample of 2,192 participants is unnecessarily large. Elfer, who has had to study statistical analysis, is going to understand this immediately, but it's pretty counter-intuitive to the average person:

Using a sample larger than 1,000 to 1,500 participants does not produce significantly more accurate data.

From How Polls Are Conducted by Frank Newport, Lydia Saad, and David Moore - The Gallup Organization:

"...with a sample size of 1,000 national adults, (derived using careful random selection procedures), the results are highly likely to be accurate within a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points....

...if we increase the sample size to 2,000 rather than 1,000 for a Gallup poll, we would find that the results would be accurate within plus or minus 2% of the underlying population value, a gain of 1% in terms of accuracy, but with a 100% increase in the cost of conducting the survey. These are the cost value decisions which Gallup and other survey organizations make when they decide on sample sizes for their surveys."

However, the funniest thing about you citing that study was this, from your own link, Pox:

"MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals for deaths from coronary heart disease, lung cancer, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease related to smoking in spouses and active cigarette smoking."

As you've seen if you followed the links I've already provided, a 95% confidence interval is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Did you even read the study's conclusion, Pox? Here it is:

"CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support a causal relation between environmental tobacco smoke and tobacco related mortality, although they do not rule out a small effect. The association between exposure to environmental tobacco smoke and coronary heart disease and lung cancer may be considerably weaker than generally believed."

"They do not rule out a small effect..." How's that for weasel words? "We can't prove it, but by golly, we're just SURE it's there!" That isn't science, it's an editorial comment.

Having your opponent hand you evidence that supports your argument and discredits his own: PRICELESS!

* * *

Now, can we get back to the subject of pot now?

At 12/16/08 04:54 PM, Elfer wrote: Perhaps a a reasonable solution is that smoking bans be voluntary...

I have absolutely no problem with that. My opposition is not to smoking bans per se, but to governments telling private business owners that they must enforce them, in a scam based on junk science, buggered statistics, and citing studies that do not prove what they are purported to prove.

Let private business owners decide, and let individuals decide whether they want to patronize or work in smoking-permitted establishments or not. Posting a sign on the door saying "SMOKING PERMITTED" or "SMOKING PROHIBITED" is sufficient.

Bottom line, if a majority really wanted smoking bans, businesses would have enacted them a long time ago, without coercion from Big Brother. Businesses don't become successful by ignoring the preferences of their customers.

* * *

Can we please get back to pot now?

Yeah all I'm interested in is freedoms for small businesses rather than the state throwing a spanner in the free market. Which is similar to drugs laws, except for the spanner the state throws in creates a massive black market.

Clubs often smelt better when you could smoke in them. Because they turned on the AC, and because the smoke overpowered the smell of arse and BO. Also the only way I can do a shit in a smelly toilet, like a festival portaloo, is if I light a cigarette in there.

At 12/16/08 04:54 PM, Elfer wrote:

Any concentration of environmental smoke will raise your risk of cancer, just not necessarily to a statistically significant level.

Yes that's pretty much what I said -_-

At 12/16/08 05:24 PM, marchohare wrote: (35,561--far short of the "over 100,000" you claim)

It says right at the top that they followed over 100 000 people for it.
But like I said it's not really important since, like you say, there's a point at which it's useless to have more participants.

As you've seen if you followed the links I've already provided, a 95% confidence interval is NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT. Did you even read the study's conclusion, Pox? Here it is:

Yes I did read the article. I wasn't trying to find one that contradicts you, I was trying to find one that's bigger.

Having your opponent hand you evidence that supports your argument and discredits his own: PRICELESS!

I already admitted in the last post that it was overblown. In fact I never really thought that occasional second-hand smoke would cause cancer.
I moved on to focus on the other health detriments but twice now you've ignored it. So whatever.

Bottom line is that I doubt second-hand smoke really does shit-all except in some exceptions or after some ridiculous amount of time/exposure.
At no point did I advocate any bans, and at no point did I say second-hand smoke was a big health risk to people at large.

Now, can we get back to the subject of pot now?

Pot is too expensive.
I demand that the price of pot be lowered.

At 12/16/08 12:32 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Last time I checked the pollution from cars was worse than the pollution from second-hand smoke.

Why don't they ban cars.

If they think that kind of stuff is harmful.

no?

Nobody is going to drive a car indoors while I'm trying to enjoy my dinner. rofl.

I think that Barrack Obama at least showed some consideration for the legalization of marijuana, so good news, stoners, there's hope!

At 12/16/08 05:33 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 12/16/08 04:54 PM, Elfer wrote: Perhaps a a reasonable solution is that smoking bans be voluntary...

I have absolutely no problem with that. My opposition is not to smoking bans per se, but to governments telling private business owners that they must enforce them, in a scam based on junk science, buggered statistics, and citing studies that do not prove what they are purported to prove.

I think the important part of what i was saying was right after that, about air quality monitoring.

At 12/16/08 06:15 PM, poxpower wrote: I moved on to focus on the other health detriments but twice now you've ignored it. So whatever.

How is repeatedly pointing out that the poison is in the dose ignoring what you asserted? How does it single out carcinogens? The real issue is that any danger--from any element or compound--is dose related, and dosages of sidestream tobacco smoke are too low to produce any danger at all... unless you want to talk about ludicrous, unrealistic scenarios.

At 12/16/08 06:39 PM, Elfer wrote: I think the important part of what i was saying was right after that, about air quality monitoring.

I can't agree that it's important, mainly because... monitoring for what? As I already stated, finding actual, verifiable, unsafe levels of environmental tobacco smoke would be impossible. They don't want to open up that can of worms, because if they honestly pinned down the acceptable levels of exposure, they'd find that there was no reason for monitoring. Those levels only exist in a Health Nazi's fantasy world.

But there's an even worse Pandora's Box it would open: again, monitoring for what? Our buildings, airliners, and other constructs are LOADED with things far worse than environmental tobacco smoke. Have you checked into the toxicity of carpet glue lately? Hydrocarbon emissions? Radon gas? The wisdom of our hermetically-sealed buildings? The concentration of disease-causing organisms and dead flakes of passengers' skin in the pressurized cabins of aircraft?

Those are rhetorical questions, Elfer. I'm sure you're aware of some of the answers. Problem is, if one was going to be honest about it, he'd have to admit that we've created completely toxic environments, everywhere. If you applied the same ridiculous air quality standards to everything that the anti-tobacco cartel applies to environmental tobacco smoke, civilization would grind to a halt.

* * *

Finally (and I'm answering this last, out of sequence, because it's back on topic):

At 12/16/08 06:31 PM, Ericho wrote: I think that Barrack Obama at least showed some consideration for the legalization of marijuana, so good news, stoners, there's hope!

I would love to believe that, but I don't. Bill Clinton gave the same impression. He lied, and increased government spending on the War On (some) Drugs to far above even the levels set by the Reagan administration.

Obama isn't going to change anything about this, and here's why: the corporations that bought his incredibly expensive ticket into the Oval Office, their lobbyists, and their bought-and-paid-for whores in Congress will never permit it to happen.

I've seen a lot of pooh-poohing of the idea that corporations will spend vast amounts of capital on lobbying for new laws and regulations that seem, to the average person, insignificant to their profit margins. What most folks don't understand is that such lobbying goes on all the time. They spend amounts that would appear vast to the average Joe, only to obtain a slight edge.

Slight edges add up to unbelievable profits.

A high-end entrepreneur or the CEO of a large corporation could confirm this. However, such people are unlikely to be posting on Newgrounds. Maybe Tom could confirm it if he showed up, but I can't imagine anyone else here running with dogs big enough to be fully aware of it.

The Drug War is not for your protection. It's for the protection of enormous, well-connected, immensely powerful corporate entities.

I don't happen to like that, and you probably don't like it either, but the people who are calling the shots don't give a shit what we like.

At 12/16/08 07:28 PM, marchohare wrote: I can't agree that it's important, mainly because... monitoring for what? As I already stated, finding actual, verifiable, unsafe levels of environmental tobacco smoke would be impossible. They don't want to open up that can of worms, because if they honestly pinned down the acceptable levels of exposure, they'd find that there was no reason for monitoring. Those levels only exist in a Health Nazi's fantasy world.

There is no "tobacco smoke" safety level, it's for the chemicals that are released by tobacco. Some of these, particularly the more complicated organic hodge-podge that's released by burning plant matter, can be lumped into categories.

I'd say that in many cases you'd be right, but in older buildings with poor ventilation, particularly in humid climates, there is a real cause for concern if ANYTHING is regularly being burned inside.

Alternatively, we could have a system where the ventilation system has to be certified as being able to consistently clear the air to acceptable levels, with only periodic maintenance checkups on air quality.

Again, industrial standards of air quality are MUCH stricter, I don't see why you're so pissy about the same thing being applied to the hospitality industry.

As a side note, can you explain your earlier statement of 95% confidence intervals not being statistically significant? For my field, that's actually considered industry standard.

ON THE DRUG WAR:

Personally, for many drugs, including opiates, I don't think the drug war is about corporate interests, it's used mainly as a political propaganda tool for politicians to say "look how much good stuff I'm doing for our country!"

The drug trade is worth billions, do you think corporations actually want to turn that over to gangs and shit? I doubt it. Schedule I is not in the interest of big business.

It is, however, in the interest of several law enforcement agencies.

At 12/16/08 07:28 PM, marchohare wrote:

How is repeatedly pointing out that the poison is in the dose ignoring what you asserted?

I did address it like 2-3 times with the same answer: you admit it's enough for a smoker when they smoke, so logically there is a way to get the same results strictly from second-hand smoke.

Wether it causes the effects is not really in question, the question is: can people actually inhale enough second-hand smoke to cause X things?
And it varies from ailment to ailment, obviously. How would you know that if it can't cause lung cancer, it also can't aggravate asthma or cause babies to malform when the mother is smoking?

Those levels only exist in a Health Nazi's fantasy world.

It's probably mainly inside pubs/ bars with a high concentration of smokers.

Slight edges add up to unbelievable profits.

I still fail to see how the sale of nicotine patches would somehow validate the billions and billions they've spent on coruption governments until they churn out dozens of studies and tv ads against tobacco for decades and decades. Not to mention that the tobacco industry is a giant.

Seems like a really bad business decision, they'd be way better off selling ritalin and sleeping pills like everyone else.

The Drug War is not for your protection. It's for the protection of enormous, well-connected, immensely powerful corporate entities.

I just think it's an easy way to "fight crime" and make people feel safe. It's a good political move more than a financial one and it ties very well with the religious folk who love to ban anything and everything and they represent a LOT of votes.

At 12/16/08 08:09 PM, Elfer wrote: There is no "tobacco smoke" safety level...

You're parroting an idiotic statement. There is always a safe level of exposure for any substance (including radiation, even though I can't really call that a "substance"). Think about what you're saying, because it's bone-stick-stone stupid. There is always a safe level of exposure, for anything!

If you want to know why I get pissy, it's because of statements like that. You might as well be asserting that the sun orbits the Earth, or that dinosaurs and men lived together. I don't even know how to respond to such crap.

I'd say that in many cases you'd be right, but in older buildings with poor ventilation...

Um, how does that follow? In every study of toxic environments I've ever read (several), the opposite has always been asserted to be true: older buildings are safer because they have windows that open. They aren't hermetically sealed. It's the newer buildings, with their tight seams and sealed-up windows, that are more likely to pose a significant health hazard.

Just what are they teaching in schools nowadays, anyway?

...can you explain your earlier statement of 95% confidence intervals not being statistically significant? For my field, that's actually considered industry standard.

That is another one of those questions that makes my jaw drop. I'm not sure how to proceed, because unless chemical engineering has its own set of unique standards, you're just flat wrong:

"There is a difference in meaning between the common usage of the word 'confidence' and its statistical usage, which is often confusing to the layman. In common usage, a claim to 95% confidence in something is normally taken as indicating virtual certainty. In statistics, a claim to 95% confidence simply means that the researcher has seen something occur that only happens one time in twenty or less. If one were to roll two dice and get double six, few would claim this as proof that the dice were fixed, although statistically speaking one could have 97% confidence that they were. Similarly, the finding of a statistical link at 95% confidence is not proof, nor even very good evidence, that there is any real connection between the things linked."

Seriously, I feel like I've just had someone who claims to be studying engineering tell me that pi is 3.0. Stuff like that knocks my head back.

You've taken courses in statistics, right?

But seriously, can we drop this? I feel like I might as well be arguing with bricks.

At 12/16/08 06:18 PM, Drakim wrote:
Nobody is going to drive a car indoors while I'm trying to enjoy my dinner. rofl.

What about while you're walking your dog. And there are plenty of restaurants by the street.

And there are other things besides your comfort like, you know, the environment. (another reason claimed for the anti-smoking)

At 12/16/08 09:28 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 12/16/08 08:09 PM, Elfer wrote: There is no "tobacco smoke" safety level...

You're parroting an idiotic statement. There is always a safe level of exposure for any substance (including radiation, even though I can't really call that a "substance").

Boy, way to ignore context completely. I'm saying that you can't put a quantifiable amount of "tobacco smoke" that is safe or not as a bulk substance. You have to measure the actual chemicals within the smoke.

Um, how does that follow? In every study of toxic environments I've ever read (several), the opposite has always been asserted to be true: older buildings are safer because they have windows that open. They aren't hermetically sealed. It's the newer buildings, with their tight seams and sealed-up windows, that are more likely to pose a significant health hazard.

I was thinking more of restaurants. Older restaurant buildings, particularly ones with two floors, tend to have poor ventilation, which allows smoke to accumulate to higher, potentially dangerous concentrations in the long term. I'm sure as hell not talking about residences, because I don't want to outlaw people smoking in their own homes.

Obviously a place with good ventilation/filtration is unlikely to build up dangerous concentrations of smoke.

Just what are they teaching in schools nowadays, anyway?

Well, for one thing, about commercial ventilation systems.

That is another one of those questions that makes my jaw drop. I'm not sure how to proceed, because unless chemical engineering has its own set of unique standards, you're just flat wrong:

"There is a difference in meaning between the common usage of the word 'confidence' and its statistical usage, which is often confusing to the layman. In common usage, a claim to 95% confidence in something is normally taken as indicating virtual certainty. In statistics, a claim to 95% confidence simply means that the researcher has seen something occur that only happens one time in twenty or less. If one were to roll two dice and get double six, few would claim this as proof that the dice were fixed, although statistically speaking one could have 97% confidence that they were. Similarly, the finding of a statistical link at 95% confidence is not proof, nor even very good evidence, that there is any real connection between the things linked."

I know what a confidence interval is.

It's the very fact that it's only likely to happen one in twenty times that MAKES it statistically significant. Just for reference purposes, in chemical engineering, confidence intervals are extremely important in process monitoring and control. Also, confidence intervals tend to be reported at their maximum confidence value, and 95% is the cutoff point below which things are always considered insignificant. It's an arbitrary boundary, but the standard has to be somewhere.

This means that every twenty studies, we will get a false positive, so we have to meta-analyze and see if these positives are only occurring in one in twenty studies.

The dice example is irrelevant, because we have knowledge of the probability of dice being fixed. You'd have to use a bit of Bayesian analysis to determine the probability of fixed dice.

Seriously, I feel like I've just had someone who claims to be studying engineering tell me that pi is 3.0. Stuff like that knocks my head back.

I told you that 95% is the industry standard for statistical significance. The difference between engineering and research scientists is that research scientists do shit a million times to be sure. That's why there's always way more than one study.

You've taken courses in statistics, right?

Yes, I have. Have you?

At 12/14/08 11:58 AM, Gwarfan wrote: The effects of Marijuana use are heavily debated, Effects of Marijuana on the Lungs Someone who smokes marijuana regularly may have many of the same respiratory problems that tobacco smokers have.

You have to be really athsmatic or smoke ALL the time to get fucked up respiration.

These individuals may have daily cough and phlegm, symptoms of chronic bronchitis, and more frequent chest colds. Continuing to smoke marijuana can lead to abnormal functioning of lung tissue injured or destroyed by marijuana smoke.

Meh, doesn't bother me.

Regardless of the THC content, the amount of tar inhaled by marijuana smokers and the level of carbon monoxide absorbed are three to five times greater than among tobacco smokers. This may be due to marijuana users inhaling more deeply and holding the smoke in the lungs.

Umm... no. Cigarettes are evil fucking sticks of cancer causing death laced with heavy doses of extremely addictive substances. Weed is a natural thing just like tobacco, but it is not a lifetime commitment, whereas cigarettes all too often are. Bud alters your perception, yes. Why is that a bad thing?

Other Short Term Effects Dry mouth and/or throat, problems with memory and learning, distorted perception (sights, sounds, time, touch), trouble with thinking and problem solving,

When you're high. That's part of the fun.

loss of motor coordination,

If you're FUCKING TOASTED maybe. Otherwise, no. Maybe you pay less attention or care less, but you are no less able to move with coordination.

These effects are even greater when other drugs are mixed with marijuana.

DUH. I can't think of any substance that alters your mind noticeably that is more mellow than herb. DUHHHH

Persons high on marijuana show the same lack of coordination on standard drunk driver tests as do people who have had too much to drink.

NO. I've driven with so many goddamn high drivers it's not even funny. I've only ridden with a few SLIGHTLY drunk drivers. I've never had any doubt about the ability of the stoned drivers, whereas the drunk ones scare the shit out of me.

Long Term Effects Marijuana smoke contains some of the same cancer-causing compounds as tobacco, sometimes in higher concentrations. Someone who smokes 1 to 3 joints can produce the same lung damage and potential cancer risk as smoking five times as many cigarettes.

Bullshit. Fucking bullshit lies.

So is Marijuana eventually going to get legalized?

It should. It is the only really harmless substance out there that will get you high. Alcohol can kill you and is a sloppy inebriation, whereas you CANNOT overdose on weed. Weed is more of a high than the depressant action of alcohol.

Bullshit weed is more dangerous than cigarettes. Take it from someone who's seen a lot of people smoke both. You can choose not to smoke weed after your first few bowls.

At 12/16/08 11:39 PM, Elfer wrote: Boy, way to ignore context completely. I'm saying that you can't put a quantifiable amount of "tobacco smoke" that is safe or not as a bulk substance. You have to measure the actual chemicals within the smoke.

Ah... I'm extremely sensitive to the phrase. "There is no safe level of tobacco smoke" is an oft-used, idiotic soundbite that implies, "Any level of exposure, no matter how small, is dangerous." I'm sure you've heard it. Unless you have lived in a cave for the last fifteen years, you couldn't miss it.

The meme might have originated from the meaning you intended, but as used in propaganda, it's intended to imply something entirely different.

It's designed to scare people shitless.

(Regarding taking college-level statistics):

Yes, I have. Have you?

Yes, although it was 28 years ago. I don't think the field has changed much since then, however.

I've rarely used it professionally, although occasionally it comes in handy.

Jesus...

At 12/17/08 12:00 AM, marchohare wrote: Yes, although it was 28 years ago. I don't think the field has changed much since then, however.

I've rarely used it professionally, although occasionally it comes in handy.

Well, in any case, as I see it, 95% confidence means exactly what it sounds like: There's a 5% chance it was an accident. If we only see this level of confidence occurring 5% of the time, we can meta-analyze and conclude that there's nothing going on. That's the great thing about scientific rigor.

In my field, we're trained to use 95% confidence as a red flag all the time, because if we take action and there was no problem, no big deal. If there is a problem and we don't take action, it could cost millions of dollars.

Anyway, if not with confidence levels, how would you define statistical significance?

The thing that really annoys me about all this is that after the Netherlands legalized marijuana, usage of it actually decreased. Why is the government apparantly unaware of this?

At 12/17/08 04:41 PM, Ericho wrote: The thing that really annoys me about all this is that after the Netherlands legalized marijuana, usage of it actually decreased. Why is the government apparantly unaware of this?

The government's not unaware, the people are, so the government panders to them to gain votes.

At 12/17/08 04:47 PM, Elfer wrote: The government's not unaware, the people are, so the government panders to them to gain votes.

Riiiiight. That's why, even though at least 73% of the public favors the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use, the federal government comes jackbooting into states like California that try to legalize it and proceeds to haul people off to prison.

(Incidentally, I'm not in favor of legalizing pot for medicinal purposes; I'm in favor of legalizing pot for ALL purposes, and ending the entire fascist, ridiculous, wasteful War On (some) Drugs as well.)

That's why in states like Nevada, where they put legalizing pot for personal use to a vote, the federal government hit the state with a media BARRAGE of lies, horror fantasies and propaganda. The initiative failed by a slender margin. The federal government would not disclose what it spent on its propaganda campaign.

But it's all the fault of the pee-pull yes siree!

At 12/17/08 05:42 PM, marchohare wrote:

At 12/17/08 04:47 PM, Elfer wrote: The government's not unaware, the people are, so the government panders to them to gain votes.

Riiiiight. That's why, even though at least 73% of the public favors the legalization of marijuana for medicinal use, the federal government comes jackbooting into states like California that try to legalize it and proceeds to haul people off to prison.

Well, what the FBI does to justify the funding of their vice unit and what the executive branch says to keep people happy are two different things. No politicians are talking about how awesome they are for busting up legal medical clinics.