Re:We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans
by zimbu668 on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @12:27AM
(#13761416)
Everyone knew the dangers of smoking. Smoking bans were mostly based on the dangers of second hand smoke, which are basically non-existent. So all these bans were pushed through on the power of "fake news".
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans
by FullMtlAlcoholc on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @01:12AM
(#13761640)
Let's refrain from using that term as hyperbole. It wasn't fake news as much as it was unknown or mistaken news.
Also, second-hand smoke does have negative health consequences AND in an enclosed, unventilated area like a bar or restaurant, it is impossible to avoid having the smell cling to your clothes and hair. I smoke occasionally, but it's a disgusting and filthy habit and I don't want to assault someone else's senses, similar to reheating fish in the office microwave.
Re:We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans
by stuaxo on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @04:41AM
(#13762529)
Clubs and bars used to be full of smoke.
It's way easier to breath as an asthmatic, though I'm sure it was affecting others.
It's good to not come back home smelling like an ashtray.
One good thing, is that was a way of breaking the ice to talk to people.
Re:We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans
by broodje on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @08:45AM
(#13763562)
Not entirely sure why you'd consider it fake news. My grandfather has suffered from bladder cancer twice, though he has never smoked. He did, however, work in kitchens of restaurants/bars that allowed smoking. Once he left those kitchens, he went into remission and has remained so.
Re:We Used Terrible Science to Justify Smoking Bans
by coralreef on Wednesday March 01, 2017 @12:39AM
(#13761478)
Huh, Wikipedia shows evidence that dangers are existent:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_smoking#Controversy_ov...
It also shows some rebuttals by tobacco sponsored research.