Sembra che molta scienza dietro il bando delle sigarette, in particolare gli studi sul fumo passivo, fosse tarocca...
Slate explores the implications of the junk science used to ban smoking on grounds of secondhand dangers. I believe we are in an age of rising puritanism. Tobacco is the drug in the cross hairs. It is low brow. Interestingly alcohol and marijuana are higher and rising status. Once again, mood affiliation and out-group shaming guides public policy.
...
Il bello è che se anche non lo fosse i provvedimenti legislativi sono comunque anti scientifici...
According to the Coase Theorem, externalities do not call for government regulation unless it is too costly to privately negotiate an efficient solution.
In the case of indoor smoke, it is almost never costly to negotiate the optimal solution. That's because in most cases the optimal policy toward indoor smoking will be the policy that maximizes the value of the property. Thus a restaurant owner will have an incentive to set a smoking policy that maximizes the value of her business. Ditto for the owners of office buildings, apartments and airplanes. Actual public policies toward second hand smoke are almost nothing like what the science would suggestion...
Sì accusano I conservatori di negare la scientificità del riscaldamento globale Ma questa negazione riguarda comunque un solo principio scientifico, chi invece sopporta il bando delle sigarette così com'è ora nega almeno due insegnamenti della scienza...
1. The science of how to establish statistical significance when there is publication bias in favor of rejecting the null hypothesis.
2. The science of the Coase Theorem, and particularly its implications for public policy.
A volte la scienza ci piace e a volte no spesso Questo dipende dalle conseguenze politiche di ciò che ci dice più che dalla nostra mentalità scientifica
Many people claim that some conservatives reject the science of global warming because they are not comfortable with the policy responses proposed by people on the other side. I prefer not to attack motives, but if that is your view, shouldn't you also be asking how many progressives reject the science of second hand smoke, and also the science of when to use government regulations, solely because they don't like the policy implications of those two types of science?...
What would a scientific cigarette policy look like?, by Scott Sumner https://www.econlib.org/archives/2018/02/what_would_a_sc.html
