Smoking ban costing millions

[Techman]

martin, obesity is almost as costly to the health system as smoking is. Diabetes, heart disease, and many other health problems are directly linked to being obese.

If non-smokers have a problem with my consumption of cigarettes let them petition the gov't to ban tobacco products altogether. But they won't do that. It's easier for them to push for laws that infringe on my rights. If I own a bar I should have the right to cater to the clientèle that I wish to serve. If someone can open a gym that caters only to women, or a gay bar, or even a restaurant that serves only sushi or any other type of food, why can't I open a bar for smokers? No one is forcing non-smokers to enter or to work there just as no one can force any client to drink an alcoholic beverage in a bar.

 

[Techman]

The only thing that would compare would be a place where smoking is the main purpose.

OK, how about cigar lounges which are still legal? Don't want to piss off the people who can afford to smoke expensive cigars now do we? It's interesting how they are still allowed to be open.

If I owned a smokers bar, I would not discriminate against anyone who wanted to work there, smoker or not. The point is that they would not be forced to work there. I would however ask them to sign a release absolving the bar from any smoke related illnesses that may result from them working there.

I would agree if I didn’t know that some way or another, non-smokers will be dragged in these places.

What? People don't have the willpower to stand up for their convictions unless there is a law backing them up? When did people stop being responsible for their own actions? Are non-smokers going to be forced to go to these places at gunpoint? "Mommy!! I had to go in there, Billy forced me to!" "If Billy told you to jump off a bridge, would you do that to?"
Give me a break.

Here's an idea...let's ban everything that may be dangerous...ban all fatty foods, sell only pre-cut, pre-cooked foods so that we can ban knives, stoves that can cause fires and unhealthy foods. Hell, let's ban meat altogether. Your kid is allergic to peanuts? Ban peanuts. I'm allergic to perfume...ban all perfume and personal hygiene products. While we're at it. let's make all unprotected sex illegal...if you want to have children it has to be by in-vitro fertilization. Where do you want to stop it once it starts?

EDIT: by the way, seeing as how cigarettes are now well on their way to being declared a dangerous drug, I think the Quebec drug plan should start covering the cost of smoking. The gov't is partly responsible for all of us hooked smokers after all. If heroin addicts can get free needles we should get free smokes. Or at least a tax deduction.

 

[JustBob]

Excuse-moi JustBob, mais en quoi les torts des uns excusent les torts des autres? Oui la pollution est un problème, mais c’est rationaliser que de dire que la loi anti-tabac est juste une « feel good legislation ». Tu oublies les gens qui travaillaient dans les restaurants et qui étaient obligés de travailler dans un environnement néfaste pour leur santé.

Pas d'accord. Le gouvernement se complait dans la facilité. On s'attaque à la proie la plus facile à démoniser, et on effleure à peine les vrais enjeux. A ce que je sache, personne n'est "obligé" de travailler dans les bars et les restaurants. Il existe plein d'emplois à risque et ceux qui choisissent d'occuper ces emplois le font de plein gré. Si les clients ne fréquentent plus un établissement ou si le patron ne peut plus trouver d'employés parce qu'il permet aux gens de fumer, il va perdre de l'argent et ce sera à lui d'appliquer les mesures qui s'imposent s'il ne veut pas faire faillite. Je suis pour les campagnes de prévention et d'éducation, je suis absolument contre toutes ces mesures coercitives qui s'appliquent à des établissement privés et contre ces lois qui dé-responsabilisent des individus.

Interdire la cigarette est évidemment irréaliste. On a qu’à se rappeler l’échec que fut la prohibition de l’alcool. La cigarette ayant les mêmes effets aliénants que la drogue, un marché parallèle se mettrait en place ce qui est déjà plus ou moins le cas avec les « cigarettes à plumes.

Marché secondaire, marché noir, fini les revenus de taxes des cigarettes pour le gouvernement. Il n'aurait évidemment pas les couilles d'interdire complètement. On préfère "légiférer"...

Analogie boiteuse selon moi car il ne s’agit pas ici de protéger uniquement le fumeur contre lui-même, mais aussi son entourage et la société en général qui se passerait bien des frais causés par ce fléau.

Pas de problème, qu'on enraye ce fléau par la prévention et l'éducation. Quand à l'argument de la nocivité de la fumée secondaire (à moins de passer 12 heures par jours avec 100 fumeurs), pour chaque étude qui proclame qu'elle est néfaste, je peux t'en trouver une qui dit que les résultats ne sont pas concluants. Et de toute façon, personne n'est "obligé" de travailler dans les bars.

Le « nanny state » m’ennuie aussi, mais je ne pense pas que ça s’applique ici

Evidemment que ça s'applique. Le gouvernement infantilise la population en prenant ses responsabilités à sa place tout en continuant d'engranger les profits et d'éviter les vrais enjeux. Pour citer Foglia:

"On vit dans un étrange pays où le cancer s’attrape par la fumée secondaire à la terrasse d’un café tandis que les noires fumées des usines nous font une santé économique. Le seul pays au monde qui vaccine ses ratons laveurs contre la scarlatine et où, le lendemain d’un accident, les chroniqueurs se torturent les méninges pour en tirer du sens, une morale et une autre merdique mesure de sécurité."

Un tenancier de bar n’a pas la maturité pour décider si son établissement sera fumeur ou non-fumeur, l’État va décider à sa place. Un parent n’a pas la maturité de décider si sa fille de quinze ans peut fréquenter le deuxième voisin qui en a vingt-deux, l’État va décider à sa place. Quelques cyclistes tombent sur le crâne, l'État va décider que les cyclistes doivent porter un casque. 40,000 personnes à Montréal attendent plus de six mois pour des chirurgies, mais, ne vous inquiétez pas, une poignée d’infirmières et d’employés d’hôpitaux ne peuvent plus fumer près des portes...

 

[Esco!]

FFS would you guys stop speaking in Francais, I have enough trouble understanding English, so FFS continue in Anglais, Sil Vous Plait

 

[JustBob]

Apparement, les seules études démontrant que la fumée secondaire n’avait pas d’impact étaient financées par… des compagnies de tabac. Qui manipule qui?

Ca aussi c'est un argument facile. C'était peut-être vrai il y a 25 ans, mais plus aujourd'hui. Il existe de nombreuses études sérieuses qui concluent que l'impact de la fumée secondaire va de négligeable à non-existant. Note, que si je le voulais, je pourrais utiliser l'argument conrtraire du tien et arguer que depuis 25-30 ans les études douteuses ne viennent pas (seulement) des compagnies de tabac:

Over the last thirty years the Antismoking Lobby has grown from a small group of extremists to an industry controlling the purse strings of over 800 million dollars a year. Those purse strings buy a lot of media savvy and studies designed to please the purse string controllers. Think about it: if you want a grant from the “Center For Tobacco Free Kids” would you design a study showing secondary smoke as fairly harmless or one portraying it as deadlier than the Bubonic Plague?

..........................

Personne n’est « obligé » de travailler dans les bars, c’est vrai. Mais c’est un argument facile. Tiens dans la file de bus, je ne suis pas non plus « obligé » de respirer la fumée de tabac, je pourrais quitter la file… Mais pourquoi ça serait à moi de me tasser? Pourquoi ce serait aux travailleurs de se priver d’un emploi pour permettre aux fumeurs de s’adonner à leur vice? Pour une fois, avec la loi anti-tabac, c’est aux fumeurs de se TASSER

J'ai déjà expliqué clairement ma position la dessus. Un bar est un établissement privé et la cigarette est un produit légal. C'est au propriétaire de décider s'il veut laisser les gens fumer dans son établissement ou non. Le seul droit que tu as est celui de choisir d'y aller ou non. Le gouvernement n'a pas à venir foutre son gros nez de gardienne la dedans.

Si tu n'est pas d'accord avec ce principe, il est évident que cette conversation n'ira nulle part et que personne ne changera d'avis.

 

[Ben Dover]

by the way, seeing as how cigarettes are now well on their way to being declared a dangerous drug, I think the Quebec drug plan should start covering the cost of smoking. The gov't is partly responsible for all of us hooked smokers after all. If heroin addicts can get free needles we should get free smokes. Or at least a tax deduction.

All I can say is -- Techman, if you run for office, you have my vote.

BD

 

[JustBob]

From Health News Digest:

Up In Secondhand Smoke: What Does Science Tell Us?


By Michael D. Shaw

[Introduction by Michael J. McCurdy, founder/publisher of HealthNewsDigest.com]

Few health issues are as controversial, emotional, and as subject to political correctness as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) or passive smoking. So this week I invited Michael D. Shaw, an environmental scientist, to comment on the latest news released on Wednesday the 9th from the California Air Research Board, that second-hand smoke causes breast cancer in 20 - 90% of women and children. The American Cancer Society said that the study is "controversial."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a scientist who regularly writes about indoor air quality, I must approach this topic with an appropriate degree of objectivity: I do not have a vested interest in the politics of this matter, but I do have a responsibility - both as a biochemist and member of the scientific community - to dispel some commonly held myths about secondhand smoke and the risk of cancer.

Unfortunately, the entire subject of secondhand smoke resides in an area of discourse heavily laced with activists, who, passionate about their mission of improving public health, far too readily exaggerate the dangers. Moreover, the whole notion of ETS being listed as an indoor air pollutant started in the mid-1980's, as hapless tenants in overpriced windowless high-rise office buildings sought creative means of breaking their leases. No doubt, workers could be irritated by ETS, but then, they could also be irritated by perfume. Indeed, excessive perfume is considered an indoor air pollutant in some quarters, along with cooking odors.

As to the matter of someone being "allergic" to ETS, based on the traditional definition of an allergen being an agent that promotes an immunological response, ETS fails that test, and so far, at least, can only be classified as an irritant. Properly, people are "sensitive" to ETS. But, playing on the well known dangers of smoking, the doom-profiteers have worked many people into a frenzy, by conflating the bad habit of smoking with the much different matter of breathing in secondhand smoke.

Science, at its best, should never have an agenda, and should aid the quest for truth. In the days before big media and big research grants, bizarre claims could be subjected to the harsh light of objective science. Nowadays, though, it is sometimes the alleged "science" that promotes the bizarre claims.

Back in the 1960's, many health agencies proffered a set of two graphs. One tracked the increase in cigarette smoking from 1900-1930, and the other tracked the increased incidence in lung cancer from 1930-1960. That the two graphs could virtually be superimposed was as ringing an indictment of smoking as any gory autopsy picture of a smoker's cancer-ravaged lungs. Contrast this with the paradoxical claim by the Centers for Disease Control a few years ago that passive smoking could explain an increase in asthma over the last decade, even though as asthma was increasing, the number of smokers was decreasing.

So, how dangerous IS secondhand smoke? The most reliable data would indicate that it is nowhere near as serious a threat as elements of the media (and their supporters within academia) would have us believe. In fact, ETS is, at its most extreme, far less dangerous than numerous other indoor air pollutants such as carbon monoxide, toxic mold, and radon.

The biggest study on this topic, covering 39 years, and involving 118,094 adults, with particular focus on 35,561 who never smoked, and had a spouse in the study with known smoking habits, came to this conclusion:

"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."

Not surprisingly, considering the non-PC findings, the May, 2003 article detailing the study generated a good deal of hate e-mail on the journal's website.

Several other studies support these results, including one from the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, published back in 1975, when smoking was rampant in bars and other public places. The paper concluded that the concentration of ETS contaminants in these smoky confines was equal to the effects of smoking 0.004 cigarettes per hour. In other words, you would have to hang out for 250 hours to match the effects of smoking one cigarette.

But this issue is controversial, right? Just a few days ago, the trend-setting California Air Resources Board announced results of their draft report, "Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant." The report concludes that women exposed to secondhand tobacco smoke have a 90 percent higher risk of breast cancer. The document also pegs the annual death toll of secondhand smoke at 73,400.

It should be noted that the World Health Organization and other groups that examined the same evidence found no link to breast cancer. Furthermore, the Air Resources Board gives more weight to animal studies, but much epidemiology of suspected human carcinogens indicates that animal data overstates the actual risk.

My gut tells me that the Air Resources Board is wrong, but we'll see how this all plays out.

 

[JustBob]

From the Fraser Institute:

Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Fellow and President
The Fraser Institute Foundation

Vancouver, BC - A new book released today by The Fraser Institute, , calls into question the US Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) assessment that second-hand smoke, also known as environmental tobacco smoke (ETS), causes cancer. The authors, Drs. Gio B. Gori and John C. Luik, assert that the EPA "was caught red-handed in a conspiracy of public dis-information."

"Given the current move among Canadian municipalities, such as Victoria, to enact stringent anti-smoking bylaws, we need to look carefully at what science, not conjecture, is really telling us about second-hand smoke," says Patrick Basham of The Fraser Institute.

The book carefully examines a recent decision by Judge William Osteen, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, who said the EPA started from the preconceived claim that ETS is a risk for lung cancer and set out to prove that claim by whatever means imaginable.

The Court determined that the EPA had knowingly, willfully, and aggressively disseminated false information with far reaching regulatory implications throughout North America.

"Here we have, not a private commercial interest, but the EPA-a public agency chartered and funded to provide truthful information and factually based norms- (that) cherry-picked suitable reports, haughtily disregarded obvious explanations for opposite conclusions, fiddled with statistical procedure to feign non-existing precision ,and abused the public trust by spinning deceptive public messages with ominous regulatory, social and cultural consequences," say Gori and Luik.

"At bottom, then, the EPA's resort to corrupt science appears to have legitimized official scientific misrepresentation as long as such misrepresentation is done from the allegedly pure motives of promoting public health," contend the authors.

The key points leading to the Court's decision included the following considerations:

- Epidemiological studies of ETS and lung cancer do not qualify as science because these studies cannot test the hypothesis that ETS causes lung cancer with the rigour required by science.

- The Court noted that the EPA switched to opposing arguments in different chapters, choosing whatever was momentarily expedient-at times, for example, maintaining that the mainstream smoke that smokers inhale is comparable to ETS, while at other times contending that this smoke it is not comparable.

- The EPS ignored most of the literature indicating there are dozens of risk factors for lung cancer that, unless accounted for, may affect the results of ETS studies.

- The EPA used statistically insignificant studies and meta-analysis trickery to reach arbitrary assumptions-such as the unsubstantiated assumption that ETS causes 3,060 cancer deaths each year in the United States.

- While there were 58 studies that examined the risks of lung cancer in ETS-exposed populations, the EPA based its analysis on only 31 of these studies. As a result, evidence that was not helpful to the EPA's desired conclusion was eliminated.

- The EPA asserted that ETS is similar to the smoke that smokers inhale and therefore carries a similar, yet reduced, risk. In fact, ETS is chemically different in a number of ways.

- The Court found that the EPA disregarded a statutory requirement for an advisory committee broadly representative of the interests concerned, and instead used an advisory group with members most deferential to the agency.

"The Osteen decision at its core is about truth: it is about how the government uses science to determine whether something constitutes a risk to our health; it is about how the scientific processes for disseminating truth can be corrupted; and it is about public policy consequences of institutionalizing such corrupt science," conclude Gori and Luik.

 

[Techman]

martinl68, your last post means nothing. The Fraser Institute is very well respected and you are trying to say that their studies are controlled by the tobacco companies? As far as Shaw is concerned, I would think he would have more to gain by stating that second hand smoke is even deadlier than reported to sell more of his detection equipement. I really don't get the point you're trying to make.

 

[JustBob]

martinl68, your last post means nothing. The Fraser Institute is very well respected and you are trying to say that their studies are controlled by the tobacco companies? As far as Shaw is concerned, I would think he would have more to gain by stating that second hand smoke is even deadlier than reported to sell more of his detection equipement. I really don't get the point you're trying to make.

Correct. Attacking sources, while it is sometimes warranted, is more often used as a substitute for a lack of arguments. And in this case, attacking the sources, proves absolutely nothing:

The Fraser Institute might be a conservative think thank, but in this case, and when one bothers reading the article, they merely released a book, not write it.

The book carefully examines a recent decision by Judge William Osteen, of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, who said the EPA started from the preconceived claim that ETS is a risk for lung cancer and set out to prove that claim by whatever means imaginable.

The Court determined that the EPA had knowingly, willfully, and aggressively disseminated false information with far reaching regulatory implications throughout North America.

If one does not agree with the findings, one should blame the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Who knows, maybe the tobacco companies bought the judge!


And about Dr. Shaw:

Michael D. Shaw is executive vice president and director of marketing for Interscan Corporation, a Los Angeles-based manufacturer of toxic gas detection instrumentation and related software. Interscan's products are used in more than 80 countries, and its customer list includes some the most prestigious industrial companies, research centers, health care facilities, and government agencies.

Hmmmm okayyyyy. And? How does this, in any way, shape or form, make Dr. Shaw suspicious, biased, or in bed with tobacco companies? Simple, it does not.

 

[JustBob]

But the above does not invalidate the court ruling and criticism from judge Osteen. And my whole point is that your contention that all studies that show that effects of ETS being exaggerated are all biased and are all funded by tobacco companies is false. And that furthermore, the powerful anti-smoking lobby is just as biased and will distort and manipulate studies to fit it's own agenda. So we can play "attack the source" all day and we're still not going to prove anything one way or another.

Now consider this. A 40-year study of Californians, the largest study on secondhand smoke to date, was published in the highly respected British Medical Journal. It concluded that claims about the health risks from secondhand smoke were highly exaggerated as to be insignificant. You didn't hear a peep about this in the US media or in the American scientific journals. Why? Because they won't publish anything that does not support their all out assault on smokers and the tobacco industry. Furthermore, they tried to discredit the study by arguing that it was funded by the tobacco industry. This is partly true, but only for the last 2 years... The study was initiated by the American Cancer Society which maintained the original database. The results are based on the ACS's own numbers. Then, follow-up was conducted at UCLA with funding from anti-tobacco money gained through taxes on cigarettes. That means smokers kept the study going. In 1997, when anti-tobacco lobbies learned that the study would prove that their claims about the detrimental impact of secondhand smoke were unfounded, they yanked the funding. For only the last two years of the study, funding was provided by the Center for Indoor Air Research, which indeed received its funding mainly from tobacco companies but which also no longer exists. To call this a study funded by Big Tobacco is ludicrous to anyone with a modest amount of common sense.

Believe me, the tobacco companies aren't the only ones messing around with "science" and we're far from a concensus in the scientific community about the effects of ETS.

 

[chef]

..........Now consider this. A 40-year study of Californians, the largest study on secondhand smoke to date, was published in the highly respected British Medical Journal. It concluded that claims about the health risks from secondhand smoke were highly exaggerated as to be insignificant. ..........

I really don't care what the studies say when after spending a few hours in a strip club before the smoking ban I used to spend the next couple of days smelling smoke and coughing my lungs out, which even the most diehard smoker has to admit is unhealthy. Yes, my experience is contrary to what the studies say, which, as far as I'm concerned, makes the studies wrong; also, I have seen statistics being manipulated very easily. Fortunately I learned very quickly and made sure I did not repeat the (bad) experience more than once.

BTW the "highly-respected BMJ" may easily be questioned - I used to work in a hospital, and was astounded at the number of doctors and nurses who smoked; they, if anyone, should have known better.

 

[JustBob]

I really don't care what the studies say when after spending a few hours in a strip club before the smoking ban I used to spend the next couple of days smelling smoke and coughing my lungs out, which even the most diehard smoker has to admit is unhealthy. Yes, my experience is contrary to what the studies say, which, as far as I'm concerned, makes the studies wrong; also, I have seen statistics being manipulated very easily. Fortunately I learned very quickly and made sure I did not repeat the (bad) experience more than once.

Nobody has argued that ETS wasn't an irritant, and that some people are more susceptible to it than others. As to all the other claims however...

BTW the "highly-respected BMJ" may easily be questioned - I used to work in a hospital, and was astounded at the number of doctors and nurses who smoked; they, if anyone, should have known better.

I fail to see what this, in any way, shape or form, has to do with the respectability of the British Medical Journal.

The British Medical Journal (BMJ), is one of the most popular and widely-read peer-reviewed general medical journals around the world. The BMJ is an emphatic advocate of evidence-based medicine, and publishes original research, clinical reviews, news, editorial perspectives, personal views and career focus articles to mention a few. Recently, its readership has witnessed a surge in the number of articles focussing on medical ethics and health in developing nations. The BMJ is considered to be one of the 'core' general medical journals; the others being the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) and The Lancet.

Those knee-jerk "let's attack the source" arguments are getting silly.

 

[chef]

I fail to see what this, in any way, shape or form, has to do with the respectability of the British Medical Journal.
Those knee-jerk "let's attack the source" arguments are getting silly.

You missed my point - when the researchers are possibly smokers themselves, I question their findings regardless of how well-respected they are.

 

[JustBob]

You missed my point - when the researchers are possibly smokers themselves, I question their findings regardless of how well-respected they are.

Ok, sounds a little odd to me (since these articles are peer-reviewed and only 6% of them make it to publication), but I assume you'd apply this principle regardless of what the findings are then.

 

[chef]

Ok, sounds a little odd to me (since these articles are peer-reviewed and only 6% of them make it to publication), but I assume you'd apply this principle regardless of what the findings are then.

Well, the findings as they stand fly in the face of common sense, and that is precisely why I question them.

 

[Techman]

Considering that most researchers into obesity and heart disease have probably consumed, and probably still consume saturated and trans-fats in their diet, the fact that some researchers and doctors are smokers should not invalidate their findings.

As far as the reactions of some non-smokers to spending time in a smoking environment, there are many people in the world who have the same reactions from standing next to someone wearing perfume or other scented product. Some people are sensitive to certain things. You can't ban everything although I'm sure that some people would like to do just that.

Just look at the increasing number of people who are allergic to peanuts. Contact with peanut products can result in almost immediate death for many people. Most schools have banned peanut products due to the health hazard they represent to some students. But peanuts and peanut products are still marketed in every grocery and corner store in the country. I'm just waiting for some enterprising researcher to tie peanut allergies to second hand smoke.

The bottom line is the total hypocrisy of the situation. The way I look at it there are only two choices...ban the sale and consumption of all tobacco products or not. Obviously the government is as addicted to tobacco tax revenues as the smokers are addicted to the product.

 

[chef]

Considering that most researchers into obesity and heart disease have probably consumed, and probably still consume saturated and trans-fats in their diet, the fact that some researchers and doctors are smokers should not invalidate their findings........

Okay, let's say I grant you that. However, I was not the only one who did not take the findings of the BMJ on blind trust. I remember that when the report was released there were scores of other well-respected organizations who also questioned those findings. I go back to my previous statement that it is common sense that second-hand smoke is bad for the health. There is anecdotal evidence (no firm studies) that children of smokers suffer from stuff like ear infections more than children of non-smokers.

I worked in the medical research environment for a few years, and we lived in fear of having our research grant cut or not renewed. The threat of funding going up in smoke may well be enough for some researchers to doctor results.

Curious is it not? Smokers (e.g. my nemesis Techman) take the report to be correct, whereas non-smokers (e.g. myself) take the report to be fatally flawed.

 

[JustBob]

I worked in the medical research environment for a few years, and we lived in fear of having our research grant cut or not renewed. The threat of funding going up in smoke may well be enough for some researchers to doctor results.

You worked in the medical research field and your argument against this report is that "it flies in the face of common sense"? Wow, that's convincing criticism of the methodology used in a scientific process! Again, the BMJ is a peer-reviewed journal, and only 6% of peer-reviewed research makes it into print. And if you had read the article I posted, you would have noted that funding was indeed cut off, because the anti-smoking lobby didn't like the results... Following your logic, researchers should then have doctored said results in favor of the anti-smoking lobbies in order to continue their research. Well if that had happened, the research would never have passed the peer-review process...

Curious is it not? Smokers (e.g. my nemesis Techman) take the report to be correct, whereas non-smokers (e.g. myself) take the report to be fatally flawed.

No offense, but the grounds on which you base your "fatally flawed" arguments are ridiculous.

 

[chef]

...........No offense, but the grounds on which you base your "fatally flawed" arguments are ridiculous.

I have run an untold number of gauntlets of smokers while entering and exiting buildings, coughing my lungs out because of the acrid smoke emitted by cigarettes. Common sense tells me that that is bad for my health. The researchers tell me that it is not bad for my health. I prefer to draw my own conclusions, ridilculous though that may sound.