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.

  • Cryophilia@lemmy.worldEnglish
    11·
    9 months ago

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

    • Dasus@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      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