Once More Round the Wheel

I crossed the line. My last shot, certainly got someone’s attention. What I thought was just a spirited debate, is starting to blow a few circuit breakers. My recent post about anti-smokers being power hungry control freaks hit a nerve over at Respectful Insolence, and the normally emotionless and rational Orac has actually gotten angry.

Let me note first, that I never said that proponents of the smoking bans are geeky kids trying to get even with the cool kids that smoke. That’s just reducing my original argument to the point of ridiculousness. What I’ve been saying, is that kids who grew up being bullied, sometimes grow into adulthood with a tendency to bully. The fabled Napoleon Complex is one example of this phenomenon. The way I got treated by scientists, for suggesting that a bicycle emits the same amount of CO2 per mile as a Moped was another. (I still have a few bruises, from what happened on THAT playground.)

I believe that people who were bullied, sometimes grow up to be bureaucrats who use the power of government to push others around, and lose sight of the human aspect. This example certainly fits the dictator I mentioned in my last post (He who Cannot be Named). I did not mean to associate the horrors of his regime with smoking bans. But when you start making the decision that public health is more important than the investments of small business owners, you are invoking tyranny. Sure it’s just a small step towards dictatorship, but it is the same concept.

I think some scientists might also harbor a version of the Bureaucrat Complex. I think when a person spends too much time in the laboratory, he starts looking at everything as a lab experiment. People become less like individuals, and more like figures on a report, that can emotionlessly be pushed around to achieve a favorable result. So what if a few people lose their livelihoods, if it will marginally increase public health? (Orac suggested as much when he inferred that he might have succumbed to the legendary surgeon’s “god complex.”)

I stated that a lot of people in the Minneapolis Food and Beverage Industry have suffered material hardship. (Others have suggested that the link I provided was biased, and without a proper control). In response, Orac pulled up a few “studies.” But before we move on to those, lets look at what the author of that “biased” link (a non-smoker) had to say about his motivations for jumping into the debate:

“My career of 15 years, selling Smokeeter air filtration equipment to bars and restaurants came to an abrupt end once the debate for smoking bans began ...

During that time period of being unemployed, without the ability to continue making car payments my vehicle quickly fell into repossession status, and eventually was surrendered. Without the ability to continue making child support payments a family court judge decided I was in contempt and ordered me to jail. Without the ability to continue making mortgage payments our home quickly fell into foreclosure status, the sheriff's sale ocurred on May 5, 2006, and as it currently stands we are to be evicted”

Ouch. That’s kind of hard to look at when you get real close isn’t it? This kind of suffering never shows up in “studies.” And his story is only one of hundreds. I’m telling you, the loss is real. I’ve talked to a lot of the people with stories similar to the ones on his list.

A friend of mine owns a restaurant connected to a small bar. Since he is a bit of a gourmand, he made the restaurant portion of his establishment non-smoking, long before the ban. The bar side of his restaurant, catered to an entirely different crowd. A factory down the street was a boon for his business, since workers could walk there for lunch, and after shift drinks. It also served as a place where diners could enjoy a cigarette with their aperitif, or a smoke after dinner.

When the ban passed, the bar went entirely empty. No more lunch crowd, no shift change, and the smokers all rush straight outside after dinner. He told me that the ban has cost him close to $125K per year in lost revenue. Fortunately, his restaurant is successful enough to keep him afloat, but as he told me, “If I had been just a mom and pop, beer and a shot bar (like most of the ones that closed are) the ban would have devastated me. None of those smaller operations could bear a loss like that.”

But if you want statics. Let’s take a look at some of the links Orac provided in his response:

This one was from a group headed by Dr. Stanton Glantz and “supported by grants from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.” Pardon me, if I don’t take that one seriously. I would be laughed out of the room if I sent anyone to a link on the Phillip Morris website, for a study compiled by Richard Lindzen. I trust Orac will grant me the same courtesy here.

His second link, cites a New York Times article. It is a questionable study done by comparing tax revenue and employment in restaurants before and after the ban. I don’t really put a lot of credibility in this methodology. However the study concluded, that by those proxies, that New York Food and Beverage business is up. But deeper in the article is a suggestion why:

''The increase in tax payments and jobs must be weighed against the restaurant industry's emergence from the post-9/11 recession, said David Rabin, president of the New York Nightlife Association”

A perfectly reasonable criticism since the study compared tax revenues from 2003 to 2002; less than a year after 9/11. It seems to me that this would have set off a big red light for a scientist as skeptical as Orac. But what makes it even more questionable is the following statement:

“The report does not reflect the harsh realities faced by the city's bars, which catered to a smoking-heavy crowd before the ban, said bar merchants, who questioned why bar data was not separate in the report. The city's answer is that data that separates bars from restaurants is not reliable, said Sam Miller, a spokesman for the Department of Finance.”

Not reliable? Or maybe it didn’t fit well into their agenda. Such a possibility seems to be proven on the third link. I don’t even think Orac bothered reading the original report this article was based on. (Bad Orac!) If he had, he certainly would have had his interest piqued by the following:

“For the remaining two categories of businesses, revenues decreased from 2004 to 2005. The rate of decrease for neighborhood bars was 4.15 percent, and for downtown clubs, 0.09 percent. “

Furthermore, during that same time frame, bars and restaurants had raised their prices around 15% to pay for the Minnesota minimum wage hike. So actually, tax revenues should have been up 15% over that time frame. If statistics were compiled from bars and restaurants outside of the Twin Cities, it would have given a much better perspective on the true state of the Industry. Comparing revenue to the previous year is an inferior control.

It seems my claim of a recession in the Twin Cities Food and Beverage Industry isn’t specious. I ask again: Why must every bar be smoke free? There is obviously a market for smoking bars in America. Orac, as a non-smoker, might not understand the concept; but it is real. His insistence that all bars must become smoke free, (just because that is how He chooses to drink) is why I accused him of tyrannical behavior.

Here’s the Slagle Compromise: Currently 20% of the population in the United States are smokers. Why not allow States to allow 20% of all liquor licenses to be designated “Smoking Allowed.” They could originally take bids for the licenses, after which they become property of the establishments. Ultimately they could trade smoking exemptions amongst themselves. So a bar that relies on smokers for it’s business could buy an exemption from an establishment that wants to open a non-smoking restaurant. This way, 80% of the bars and restaurants would be smoke free, and smokers could still find a bar or two where they could light up. Non-smoking waitresses who didn’t want to expose themselves to the 1.2 risk of heath complications, would still be able to find work in the other 80% of the bars and restaurants. (I still think some non-smoking waitresses would rather work in the smoking bars, because it is my understanding that smokers are much better tippers).

I think this is a perfectly reasonable solution to the dilemma. However, it runs contrary to what I believe is the ultimate goal of the Anti-Smoking Lobby: Complete Tobacco Prohibition. Those who doubt me, need to reacquaint themselves, with the concept of incrementalism.

Correction: I originally misread the New York Times article. I thought the tax revenue was averaged over the amount of restaurants. Most certainly, a closed bar would be reflected in total tax receipts, which was how the study was conducted. I have applied changes to the article to reflect this realization.

Almost Had Me

After the incredibly fun week of back and forth over Global Warming, my arch nemesis Orac posted a follow-up, in regards to my question on Second Hand Smoke. He wrote:

“Certainly indoor smoking bans at workplaces and in restaurants and bars are defensible on a scientific and public health basis.”

In full disclosure, I’ve been opposed to smoking bans, since day one. I’ve got myself in trouble a couple times being civilly disobedient, and once I even made the 10:00 News in Minnesota, leading a smoking rally. (BTW: I will be back in Minneapolis October 2 - 6, the week after the Minnesota State ban goes in effect .,.. Stay Tuned!). I also tend to spend more time talking politics with right wing people (since all my leftist friends refuse to do it anymore). My slant is admittedly going to be on the side of the tobacco companies. At least,I admit my bias.

It always frustrates me when people only see that bias. Of course there is the corporate position. A company that has enriched itself providing a legal product that people enjoy, is going to take the side of themselves and their customers. And people DO want cigarettes. There is this peculiar notion, that every person who smokes is hopelessly addicted, and would quit tomorrow if it were possible. That is simply not true. Some people just like smoking. They know its unhealthy, but which of us non-smokers is completely guiltless when it comes to other self destructive behaviors, like drinking, overeating, and a negligent exercise schedule?

On the other side of the debate, is a motivation far more insidious. It is a desire for power. Many people who see the debate as manipulated solely by tobacco money, never look at that angle, nor recognize that for some, power is far more seductive than profit. There was a very power-hungry person, who once advocated smoke free workplaces. He is the one who cannot be named. (Not because there are dark powers associated with the name, it is because current protocol dictates that the first person to invoke his name, automatically loses the debate ... spend a little time playing with you Googler, and I’m sure you’ll figure it out.) But I think it’s no coincidence that one of the worlds’ most infamous megalomaniacs, didn’t want people smoking around him.

The reason why I am suspicious of things like Second Hand Smoke, and Global Warming is not because I am anti-science. I actually enjoy science. I spent some time in college studying it, (and if I hadn’t decided I like beer and girls better, I might be studying it still.) Actually, I am anti regulation, and anytime somebody tells me that science has proven a need to regulate my life, I get really suspicious. When I asked Orac if he could send me some links to prove the negative health consequences of smoking, I was genuinely curious. He wasn’t the first person I asked. However he was the first person who provided me with some.

I stayed in the background throughout the debate, because I didn’t want to embarrass myself again. I also didn’t have to join in. Somehow, from out of ether, came a swarm of angry bloggers, ready to call Orac on the carpet. He had to write two follow-ups, one on relative risk, and another on the famous Helena Study. He even did a fourth article on the effects of smoking on Parkinson’s Disease. I looked at what he had to say, and what his multitudinous opponents had to say in return. It was highly educational.

Here’s what I learned: There are studies that suggest a health risk from second hand smoke. The risk factor depends on whether you’re looking at lung or cardiovascular, and whether the person lived with a smoker, or worked around a lot smokers. It varies from 1.2 to 1.3. (Notice, that there is no study to indicate that standing next to someone smoking at a bus stop, or in the house next door, will have ANY impact on your health.)

I had known that somewhat. But from what I had been told, any risk under 2.0, is negligible. Orac corrected those who suggested such a thing. Apparently there is no practice within epidemiology (the study of stuff like this) to discount such statistics. According to him, there has been a propaganda campaign (most probably orchestrated from inside the tobacco companies) to discredit SHS studies, and a list of suspicious quotes discrediting epidemiological studies under 2.0, has been circulating the Internet. I had to throw in the towel at this point. I’ve never studied Epidemiology, and I have to take his word for it. If he says a risk below 2.0 is significant, it is significant. I guess I was wrong.

I was going to write him a note telling him so, until I ran across this. Apparently, a recent study found there is an increased risk of developing cardiovascular disease for people who drink a can of pop every day. And look at that risk rate. Over 1.4. Now granted this is just one isolated study, and Orac stressed the need to look at isolated studies without a biologically plausible mechanism skeptically, but it really puts things in perspective. Apparently the risk of getting heart trouble from second hand smoke, is almost identical to drinking a can of pop every day. So working in a smoky bar, is as bad for you as a can of pop. In fact, since most people who work in bars have access to the soda gun, there is a good chance that every non-smoker in those SHS studies, drank a glass or two of pop every single day.

So have I changed my mind? Yes and no. I can no longer defend the statement; “There is no science finding adverse health consequences from second hand smoke.” But is there enough danger in second hand smoke, to pass sweeping legislation? Not really.

Especially since that legislation has resulted in the bankruptcy of hundreds of small business owners. I honestly don’t understand why every bar has to be non smoking. I think that owners, customers and employees are all capable of making such a decision on their own, whether they want to subject themselves to a slightly elevated risk of cancer and heart disease. Certainly when smokers were forced to decide between drinking at home, or going to a non-smoking bar, they just opted to stay home.

But I wouldn’t expect Orac to understand. Some people just don’t care about the plight of the average Joe. To them it’s just about the numbers. It’s why I often find myself butting heads with Statists. I care more about the impact of Global Warming legislation on the economy today, than I worry about a projected 23 inches of ocean rise. I am more concerned about the real loss incurred by bar owners, than some mythological non-smoking waitress, who couldn’t find work anywhere else. But these people let their egos run out of control, and presuppose they know more than the individual business owners.

Orac wrote: “ There's nothing inherent in the work required in bars or restaurants that demands exposure to SHS, other than tradition.”

It’s beyond tradition, it’s why many people go into a bar in the first place. A place to smoke and drink. What he said is almost as ridiculous as as saying: “There is no reason to add Tequilla to a Margarita, other than tradition.” or “I just don’t see why exotic dancers need to take all their clothes off.”

This whole argument started over a bit I did, about how scientists probably got beat up on the dodgeball court when they were kids. I was trying to illustrate how some nerdy kids will grow up bitter with a disregard for humanity, and they disguise this disregard as logic. Orac started this thread disputing my allegation.

He might think that a bar should be able to survive, just by providing a place to drink, but statistics prove otherwise. At least a hundred families in Minnesota have lost their life investment, and at least a thousand more people are now out looking for work. Meanwhile there has been a recession in the various industries surrounding food and beverage in the Twin Cities.
How could anyone think that is, an acceptable sacrifice? Or maybe nobody really does. Maybe they are just getting even for Dodgeball.

Environmental Fashion Plates

I said it over a year ago. According to an article by Robert Samuelson yesterday, the popularity of the Toyota Prius has nothing to do with the environment:

“Prius so outsells the rival Honda Civic Hybrid. Both have similar base prices, about $22,000, and fuel economy (Prius, 60 miles per gallon city/51 highway; Civic, 49 mpg city/51 highway). But Prius sales in the first half of 2007 totaled 94,503, nearly equal to all of 2006. Civic sales were only 17,141, up 7.4 percent from 2006. “

Why the disappointing sales figures? Well, the Hybrid Civic, looks just like a regular Civic. What sense is there in paying all that extra money for the high tech, if nobody knows you have it? Saving the planet, is just a side benefit; impressing your friends and neighbors is Job One. Today the average Prius is only driven around 7000 miles per year. So it seems that they're not really being purchased for transportation. It reminds me of my college days, when you could tell how much a guy paid for his stereo, by the size of his speakers.
Samuelson apparently concurs with my speculation that Priuses (Prion? Prii?) are fashion statements. As I said in 2006: "If you want to sell a Hybrid, you need to make it look like a Hybrid, so it's easier to pick up the vegan chicks." Back then, it was Ford Motor that reported disappointing sales of Hybrid SUVs. Now it seems Honda is stricken with the same plight.
The photo above is an idea for a possible option that Honda should offer. An attached flashing neon sign, that telegraphs your environmental awareness to the world. They certainly need something, to spare the Hybrid Civic from the same fate as the Hybrid Accord, which was recently discontinued.

King of Comedy

Well it seems that the field of Presidential candidates, is getting more and more crowded every day. Right now there are at least 25 people seeking the position.

But I never thought, that I would have to issue a denial. But here goes:

No, I am not seeking the office of the President of the United States. Also I'm not Elvis, I've never been abducted by a UFO, nor have I opened for Bat Boy.


However, you CAN go here and vote for me, as you favorite talking head:

Thankyouverymuch.

TIM SLAGLE HAS LEFT THE PODIUM. I REPEAT, TIM SLAGLE HAS LEFT THE PODIUM.

Shut up Orac

During my recent week in Chicago, My show was attended by Orac, of the marginally famous blog Respectful Insolence. I recognized him right away, because he was the only guy in the room that night, wearing a cape and wrestling mask. (I found out later, that on the few occasions he leaves the house, he likes to remain incognito).
When the show ended, we went over to the bar. After he was done signing autographs, I made the mistake of asking him a couple questions. They were honest questions, because I respect his intelligence. I’ve never been able to get an answer from political opponents on two issues: Is there any scientific basis for Al Gore’s claim of the oceans rising 20 feet? And whether there were any conclusive studies on the dangers of second hand smoke. He told me to send him an eMail, and he would respond. I did not know that I was setting myself up to be trashed. You can read his snippy review of my show, and the flimsy reply to Al Gore’s claim of 20 feet here. My response follows:

I'll try and keep this as brief and readable as possible. Going point by point tends to bore.

1. Ad Hominem attacks: Remember this was a comedy show, and ad hominem is funny. (Perhaps not so much when you are a target, but laughing at oneself is a good measure of a sense of humor.) Comics like Don Rickles focus entirely on ad hominem attacks. The biggest attack on Gore was not that he was fat, but rather a hypocritical Televangelist, who uses fear of apocalypse to enrich himself, promote his agenda, and gain political points. We all distain Pat Robertson for similar behaviors, but Gore is awarded with Oscars and a Nobel Prize.


2. I never said Global Warming wasn’t true: I said that people (not scientists) tend to explain every extreme weather event as a result of Global Warming. Certainly, if a 116 degree day in Vegas, or a devastating hurricane is evidence of Global Warming (As proponents such as Laurie David and RFK jr. often suggest), then the 30th coldest February in recorded history, must be evidence to the contrary. By suggesting that February was proof that Global Warming isn't happening, I was using satire, to illustrate that those who cite anecdotal evidence, are off base.
And yes, I am aware that some climate models do predict areas of the earth to go colder, but that is only areas that require the gulfstream and the Thermohaline Conveyor for their temperate climates. That doesn’t include Chicago. Anyone who thinks this past cold winter in the Midwest was evidence of Global Warming is seriously misguided, and deserves any ad hominem I can toss their way.


3. Scientist Envy: This was another ad hominem attack, I used to generate a little levity. Just between you and me, it’s semi-autobiographical. I was that geeky kid with allergies and asthma, who got beat up for lunch money, and creamed on the dodgeball court. And I understand how such a childhood can translate into bitterness and envy. I also know, that outside of a few large profile celebrities, who have no intention of giving up their high end lifestyles (See: Live Earth), most of the people campaigning hard for things like legislative restrictions on consumption, tend to be on the lower end of the income brackets; and are usually Starbucks baristas, bicycle messengers, or government employees (more ad hominem levity).
My speculation is, that smart kids who are bullied in school, grow up to be bullies themselves. Only, they become intellectual bullies. My liberal use of insults on stage is one symptom of that syndrome. Your need to publish the response to my question on your blog, without even asking me if I would mind, is another. (I’d have given you permission, I just would have liked if you asked first, and given me fair warning that I needed to prepare a rebuttal). Such behavior is indicative of someone still hurting from those dodgeball welts. I think perhaps, the reason you didn’t find the bit funny. is because it made those welts sting again. Your remark about getting laid a lot, doesn’t do much to alleviate my suspicions either.


4. Scientists have been wrong before: They have. And they will be wrong again the future. They could be wrong right now. We just don’t know. What I do know, is that any legislation passed to “rectify” global warming will far outlive any consensus. It is not the science I oppose, it is the solutions.
Look at the Kyoto Accord. India and China were both exempted from any restrictions on burning carbon, because at the time they were considered “developing” nations. They are now home to two of the hottest economies in the world, and China is now the number one producer of CO2 in the world. So what would have Kyoto done to slow Global Warming? Nothing measurable. On the other hand, it would most probably have been devastating to the US economy, and put outsourcing into high gear. Cheap labor has already soaked up a lot of American manufacturing; cheap energy would have been a final nail in our economic coffin, Meanwhile, the Kyoto Accord is still alive, and there are people who insist that America needs to sign on.
Incidentally, it is not true that Scientific consensus “overwhelmingly favors the contention that global warming is indeed due to a significant degree to human activity.” The latest survey put that consensus at 55.8% of climate scientists. Your citation of the IPCC report as an indication of consensus is incredibly misleading, since some scientists who oppose the report, had their opinions dismissed. Richard Lindzen even claims he had to sue to get his name removed from it.
And even if the consensus were 99.9%, does that make it correct? Scientific consensus was vehemently opposed to Plate Tectonic theory, for forty years. Consensus is not science, it is politics.

5. 20 Feet: This was the only point I really wanted to discuss, before you decided to make me a lengthy blog entry. You write: if half of the ice sheets in Greenland and West Antarctica melted, sea levels could rise 20 feet (6 metres).” (emphasis mine)
That’s a big “If." You know, If flying space monkeys lifted up Mt. Everest, and dropped it into Lake Michigan, the resulting tidal wave could destroy Chicago, Milwaukee, Benton Harbor and Green Bay. But is there any science suggesting either occurrence is likely?
Here is a great example of how scientists are occasionally wrong (even Orac). You write:

“The last time the polar regions were significantly warmer than present for an extended period (about 125,000 years ago), reductions in polar ice volume led to 4 to 6 metres of sea level rise.”

But according to an article released just last week in Science, DNA samples indicate that Greenland did not melt 125,000 years ago. In fact: “The new discoveries suggest that southern Greenland has been ice-covered for at least four times longer than previously thought.”
And what about Antarctica you say? It’s been getting colder. And the ice is getting thicker.

Hardly reason to sell the beach house.