BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban

Subject: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 01:35 AM

If the latest report is to be believed, the smoking ban in public places has had a dramatic affect in reducing heart attacks by as much as 25%. This was on the BBC news. Quite amazing.

Bans on smoking in public places have had a bigger impact on preventing heart attacks than ever expected, data shows.

Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report.

This "heart gain" is far greater than both originally anticipated and the 10% figure recently quoted by England's Department of Health.

The studies appear in two leading journals - Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Heart attacks in the UK alone affect an estimated 275,000 people and kill 146,000 each year.

Big impact

Earlier this month it was announced that heart attack rates fell by about 10% in England in the year after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced in July 2007 - which is more than originally anticipated.

But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year.

If you are a smoker, the single biggest thing you can do to avoid a heart attack is to give up, which could also protect the heart health of friends and family

Ellen Mason of the British Heart Foundation
Second-hand smoke is thought to increase the chances of a heart attack by making the blood more prone to clotting, reducing levels of beneficial "good" cholesterol, and raising the risk of dangerous heart rhythms.

Dr James Lightwood, of the University of California at San Francisco, led the Circulation study that pooled together 13 separate analyses.

His team found that heart attack rates across Europe and North America started to drop immediately following implementation of anti-smoking laws, reaching 17% after one year, then continuing to decline over time, with a 36% drop three years after enacting the restrictions.

Dr Lightwood said: "While we obviously won't bring heart attack rates to zero, these findings give us evidence that in the short-to-medium-term, smoking bans will prevent a lot of heart attacks.

"This study adds to the already strong evidence that second-hand smoke causes heart attacks, and that passing 100% smoke-free laws in all workplaces and public places is something we can do to protect the public."

Ellen Mason, of the British Heart Foundation, said: "These studies add to the growing evidence that a ban on smoking in public places seems to have a positive impact on heart attack rates, which is clearly good news for our nation's heart health.

"The statistics also show how quickly the benefits can be felt after a smoking ban is implemented and indicate how dangerous second-hand smoke can be to the heart.

"If you are a smoker, the single biggest thing you can do to avoid a heart attack is to give up, which could also protect the heart health of friends and family."

Latest figures show at least 70,000 lives have been saved by NHS Stop Smoking Services in the 10 years since they were established in England.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: ard mhacha
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 05:24 AM

Only idiots would disagree with these figures.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:06 AM

Only idiots would continue to smoke, in the face of all the evidence about the risks involved to themselves and others.

And they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: GUEST,Mr Red
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 06:06 AM

Where is Skipy when you need him?

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Alice
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:24 AM

Years back, when Helena, Montana, started a ban on smoking in public places, the hospital noticed that fewer heart attack patients were showing up in the emergency room. The study then done in Helena was the first to hit the news about the effect of having a smoking ban.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Alice
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:27 AM

2002 ban in Helena, newscientist.com

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: nutty
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:41 AM

I would suspect that the drop in heart attacks was not wholly attributed to Not smoking.

There is also better health care in general
Earlier intervention by medical services and GP'S
Statins and similar preventative medications that are now easily available
Concentration on losing weight, getting exercise and eating mopre healthily.

Add all these together and, yes, the figures are impressive but please stop getting at smokers.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:04 AM

Well said, Nutty.

It's always worth remembering that 42.85% of statistics are made up out of thin air.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:05 AM

Sorry nutty, the numbers are so radical and so clearly linked to the period of the smoking ban, it's just an undeniable truth. The factors you've brought in are much longer-term than the period of the ban (and probably also very arguable - are large numbers of people concentrating on losing weight, getting exercise and eating more healthily? Not if the town I live in is typical).

Those factors help, but the plain, honest (and apparently, to smokers, unacceptable) truth is that the ban has worked.

Sadly, in this region we now have that arty-farty pillock David Hockney appearing on TV, pressing for the ban to be lifted in the case of pubs and clubs, and smoking re-introduced in those places - apparently the ban infringes his human rights. Long may his human rights continue to be infringed.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:20 AM

The figures might mean something if they'd also published the heart attack figures in the years prior to the smoking ban, but on their own they don't really say much. Having said that, I expect there was some beneficial effect from it.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:25 AM

>>Add all these together and, yes, the figures are impressive but please stop getting at smokers. <<

Nobody is getting at smokers. This is a report that I thought worth posting, showing the positive effects that can be achieved through not smoking.

I know a lot of people who still smoke. That is really up to them. I wouldn't dream of mithering them to stop smoking. Its not that easy. You have to want to stop for it to work.

What I do know, is the time I have been running Market Rasen Folk Club/ Faldingworth Live (8/9 years), I have banned smoking. I have never regretted it and it hasn't had any impact on the numbers that come along.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:58 AM

Absolutely correct, Leeneia. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 12:23 PM

LOL

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Alice
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 08:01 PM

The Helena example was in a 6 month period, a small city with a population of about 25,000. Good article, if you click the link and read it.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 08:43 PM

I'd want to look pretty closely at the figures and methodology before I'd be confident about accepting a 25% drop in heart attacks.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: bobad
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 08:58 PM

"I'd want to look pretty closely at the figures and methodology before I'd be confident about accepting a 25% drop in heart attacks."

Perhaps you should get in touch with the scientists who conducted the study and offer them your expertise in data analysis.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:13 PM

The figures might mean something if they'd also published the heart attack figures in the years prior to the smoking ban, but on their own they don't really say much

On the contrary, Smokey, the figures say a great deal.
Do you not understand percentages, or are you trying to convince yourself that there is no harm in smoking?

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:15 PM

There's plenty of information available from a simple Google search, Mr McGrath, so go right ahead and look!

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:23 PM

Do you not understand percentages, or are you trying to convince yourself that there is no harm in smoking?

Neither.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:32 PM

The following Modern Medicine article has the most specific information that I have found about the latest studies. These consist of meta-analysis, meaning several individual studies were taken together and analysed, giving more powerful estimates of the true effect size than those derived in a single study.

From that page you can also follow links to abstracts of the original studies:

Public Smoking Bans Linked to Fewer Heart Attacks

TUESDAY, Sept. 22 (HealthDay News) -- Bans on smoking in public are associated with a drop in hospitalizations for heart attacks and the benefits increase with time, according to one study in the Sept. 29 Journal of the American College of Cardiology and a second study published online Sept. 21 in Circulation.

In the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, David G. Meyers, M.D., and colleagues from the University of Kansas School of Medicine in Kansas City performed a meta-analysis of 11 reports examining the effect of public smoking bans on acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations in 10 locations in the United States, Canada, and Europe. They found that the risk of acute myocardial infarction fell by 17 percent overall, but fell by 26 percent each year after implementing the ban.

In Circulation, James M. Lightwood, Ph.D., and Stanton Glantz, Ph.D., from the University of California in San Francisco performed a meta-analysis of studies examining the effect of public smoking bans on acute myocardial infarction hospitalizations in 12 locations in the United States, Canada and Europe, and compared the observed data with a mathematical model of individual risk based on exposure to passive smoke. They found that one year after the law was implemented the pooled random effects estimate of the rate of acute myocardial infarction hospitalization was 0.83 and the benefit continues with time.

"A 17 percent risk reduction for acute myocardial infarction is not trivial," writes the author a an editorial accompanying Meyers' study. "Therefore, cardiologists should expand their clinical repertoire to include screening and counseling for secondhand smoke exposure, just as they screen for lipid disorders."

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:33 PM

Explain what you meant then, please.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 09:48 PM

I thought it was self explanatory, but it's really not that important - ignore me.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:25 PM

This report, like ALL RECENT ONES ON SECOND HAND SMOKE, is what is called a "meta-study" in which NO NEW RESEARCH IS DONE. The results of prior studies are searched, and the ones that suit the intended conclusion are piled on and "statistical manipulations" are done to produce a conclusion.

The NEWS REPORTS for this one state that multiple prior studies, including both meta-analyses and studies from newly collected data showed no clear improvement in health, but the "authors" of this study, using selected portions of the SAME prior data and analyses were able to "prove" by re-analysis of the same data in the earlier reports that found no correlations that a miraculously accurate and convincing result was clear.

I have not (yet) found anything that identifies other than a "spokesperson" for the researchers, or that identifies who the actual re-compilation pilers were. Apparently some have found additional information, A "magazine" is named in reports I've seen, but no issue, date, or other clear citation from which a peer-review trail could be tracked is given. Some Abstracts are available, but those give only the authors' conclusions with little substantiation. A couple of the news reports gave "names of persons" with no clarification of their connection with the analyses or the results, and with no "credentialing" to show they were qualified to perform the studies claimed. (Being a "professor" is not exactly a "credential" of much note.)

Virtually the same statements can be made for ALL REPORTS on the dangers of second-hand smoke that I have seen during the last eight years. There has been no peer-reviewed report that is the basis for any of the anti-second-hand-smoke harm claimed by Federal health agencies or reported in news media that is accessible to the general public in a form that can be used to assess whether the claimed results are credible as "science."

Can you spell P.R.O.P.A.G.A.N.D.A?

Do you know how to recognize it?

Can you spell P.O.L.I.T.I.C.A.L A.G.E.N.D.A?

Can you recognize it when it suits your bias as well as you do when it contradicts what you want to believe?

There's nothing "wrong" with having an agenda, or with using propaganda to advance a positive agenda; but the claim of scientific basis must be subject to examination by those who may be swayed by it all. In this case, and in ALL OTHER CASES I've been able to find relating to this subject, the "science" is absent – or at least concealed.

(Meta-analysis is perhaps the most difficult form of "research" to do without bias, and the easiest into which (deliberate or unconscious) bias can be incorporated. It is generally avoided by serious researchers, except as a prelude to identifying subjects for "real work." There are virtually no reports of any other kind - supporting the conclusions in this one - on this subject.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Smokey.
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:33 PM

John, that's just what I was going to say, but I had a nice smoke instead :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: bobad
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:46 PM

"I have not (yet) found anything that identifies other than a "spokesperson" for the researchers"

Dr James Lightwood, of the University of California at San Francisco, led the Circulation study that pooled together 13 separate analyses.

"A "magazine" is named in reports I've seen, but no issue, date, or other clear citation from which a peer-review trail could be tracked is given."

The studies appear in two leading journals - Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: bobad
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:56 PM

Cardiovascular Effect of Bans on Smoking in Public Places
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
David G. Meyers, MD, MPH*,{dagger},*, John S. Neuberger, DrPH, MPH, MBA{dagger} and Jianghua He, PhD{ddagger}

* Department of Internal Medicine, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas
{dagger} Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas
{ddagger} Department of Biostatistics, University of Kansas School of Medicine, Kansas City, Kansas

Manuscript received May 13, 2009; revised manuscript received July 20, 2009, accepted July 28, 2009.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. David G. Meyers, Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Kansas University School of Medicine, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, Kansas 66160 (Email: [e-mail]).

Objectives: A systematic review and a meta-analysis were performed to determine the association between public smoking bans and risk for hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction (AMI).

Background: Secondhand smoke (SHS) is associated with a 30% increase in risk of AMI, which might be reduced by prohibiting smoking in work and public places.

Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar databases plus bibliographies of relevant studies and reviews were searched for peer-reviewed original articles published from January 1, 2004, through April 30, 2009, using the search terms "smoking ban" and "heart" or "myocardial infarct." Investigators supplied additional data. All published peer-reviewed original studies identified were included. Incidence rates of AMI per 100,000 person-years before and after implementation of the smoking bans and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Random effects meta-analyses estimated the overall effect of the smoking bans. Funnel plot and meta-regression assessed heterogeneity among studies.

Results: Using 11 reports from 10 study locations, AMI risk decreased by 17% overall (IRR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.75 to 0.92), with the greatest effect among younger individuals and nonsmokers. The IRR incrementally decreased 26% for each year of observation after ban implementation.

Conclusions: Smoking bans in public places and workplaces are significantly associated with a reduction in AMI incidence, particularly if enforced over several years.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: bobad
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 10:57 PM

Submitted on April 3, 2009
Accepted on July 16, 2009
Declines in Acute Myocardial Infarction After Smoke-Free Laws and Individual Risk Attributable to Secondhand Smoke
James M. Lightwood PhD* and Stanton A. Glantz PhD

From the School of Pharmacy (J.M.L.) and Department of Medicine (Cardiology), Cardiovascular Research Institute, and Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, School of Medicine (S.A.G.), University of California, San Francisco.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [e-mail].

Background—The estimated effects of recent pubic and workplace smoking restriction laws suggest that they produce significant declines in community rates of heart attack. The consistency of these declines with existing estimates of the relative risk of heart attack in individuals attributable to passive smoking exposure is poorly understood. The objective is to determine the consistency of estimates of reductions in community rates of heart attacks resulting from smoking restriction laws with estimates of the relative risk of heart disease in individuals exposed to passive smoking.

Methods and Results—Meta-analyses of existing estimates of declines in community rates were compared with a mathematical model of the relationship between individual risk and community rates. The outcome measure is the ratio of community rates of acute myocardial infarction (after divided by before implementation of a smoking restriction law). There is a significant drop in the rate of acute myocardial infarction hospital admissions associated with the implementation of strong smoke-free legislation. The primary reason for heterogeneity in results of different studies is the duration of follow-up after adoption of the law. The pooled random-effects estimate of the rate of acute myocardial infarction hospitalization 12 months after implementation of the law is 0.83 (95% confidence interval, 0.80 to 0.87), and this benefit grows with time. This drop in admissions is consistent with a range of plausible individual risk and exposure scenarios.

Conclusion—Passage of strong smoke-free legislation produces rapid and substantial benefits in terms of reduced acute myocardial infarctions, and these benefits grow with time.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 11:25 PM

John, as you wish to believe cynically that it is all propaganda and people acting with a political agenda, no-one will be able to change your mind. However, it would be polite to read the information I posted above, that bobad has drawn your attention to.

While there is corruption in all fields of endeavour and we are sensible to be on the lookout for it, there is also a great deal of valid research being carried out by conscientious scientists because they want to know, not because they are paid to produce a particular result as you seem to believe.

What you write about meta-analysis is only one way of looking at it. Meta analysis is increasing being used in studies on public health, notably in the UK by NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence who use evidence-based medicine to produce information and guidance on best practice.

Plenty more I could say but from your rant above, I don't feel your mind is open to alternative points of view.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Noreen
Date: 22 Sep 09 - 11:27 PM

Thank you, bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 03:21 AM

What smoking does to you
Smoking:

Doubles your risk of heart attack and doubles it again if you smoke heavily – more than 10 to 15 per day.

Doubles your risk of heart disease again if you also have high blood pressure or high blood cholesterol.

Increases the risk of heart disease and stroke a further 10 times if you are a woman on the oral contraceptive pill.

Increases your risk of gangrene and subsequent loss of limbs, generally through peripheral vascular disease, by over five times.

A smoker's risk of coronary artery disease is directly related to the number of cigarettes smoked daily. In people who already have a high risk of heart disease, smoking is particularly dangerous.

Specifically, smoking:

decreases the level of "good" HDL cholesterol and increases the level of "bad" LDL cholesterol.

raises the blood carbon monoxide level, which may increase the risk of injury to the lining of arterial walls.

constricts arteries already narrowed by atherosclerosis, further decreasing blood flow to the tissues.

increases the blood's clotting tendency, thus increasing the risk of peripheral arterial disease, coronary artery disease, stroke and obstruction of an arterial graft after surgery.

Good enough reason not to smoke, but for some people it is almost impossible to kick the habit. I can understand why many people do not want to kick the habit and it is their choice.

I personally would never want to smoke again, having kicked the habit through my own choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 04:23 AM

Nope Les - every smoker knows that's all P.R.O.P.A.G.A.N.D.A.

BTW, in your list of the effects of smoking, you forgot to mention "causes deafness to good advice, blindness to perfectly obvious visible evidence, and destroys mental capacity to process statistical information".

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 05:07 AM

Forgot "MAKES YOU STINK TO HIGH HEAVEN" as well...

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 05:34 AM

LOL Backwoodsman

Kissing is a turn off as well :-)
Spoils the taste of food

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Two of a Hind
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 08:22 AM

As a smoker I just wish that they would have allowed 10% of pubs to continue as they were and allow us free choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 08:31 AM

You have free choice. Smoke outside or don't smoke. Simples.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: bankley
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 08:39 AM

what about chewing.... 2nd hand spit ?

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Two of a Hind
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 08:43 AM

Perhaps you could share your thoughts on free choice on other subjects as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rumncoke
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 08:56 AM

Having been unable to visit folk clubs for most of my life due to the distress I felt when having to breathe in second hand smoke, I sometimes wonder what difference it would have made to my life if smoking in public had been banned - say - back in the 60s.

An even greater imponderable is what difference it would have made to my whole family if smoking had been declared harmful before my father developed a smoking related illness which prevented him from working, threw the family into poverty, and stopped his children going into higher education.

Ah well - at least I can sing now, and I got a degree from the Open University, and it is good to know that some heart attacks appear to be being prevented.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 10:17 AM

ToaH - "Perhaps you could share your thoughts on free choice on other subjects as well."

This thread's about smoking, please don't try to cloud the issue (pun intended).

My "thoughts on free choice on other subjects" are immaterial to the discussion, and your comment reflects a standard red-herring tactic employed by those whose arguments clearly and visibly have no merit.

You have free choice to smoke where it's permitted, or not to smoke. Stop whining and get a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 11:43 AM

Thanks, John in Kansas. There a lot of things going on in public health besides smoking bans which are responsible for falling heart attack rates. For one thing, many patients are being diagnosed and treated with blood thinners, blockers, etc. before they ever suffer one event, much less the repeated sequence of events many people had in past years.   

Some claim the widespread use of statins plays a huge part, though I'm not on board with that. And though many people aren't doing much to help themselves with diet and exercise, some people are, and their avoidance of heart attacks may be reflected in the overall rate.

I'm sick of 'studies' which correlate one phenomenon with another and claim causation. And they are a favorite tool of social engineers, so much more effective than old-timey propaganda screeds. Unfortunately when it comes to medicine, they can send us down the wrong road for many years doing exactly the wrong thing for our health. The most obvious example was the 'fact' that ulcers were caused by stress and spicy food when in actual fact they were caused by bacteria. How many people suffered for years because somebody jumped to comclusions and it became holy writ.

And tobacco-thumpers, no I am not pro-smoking, I just am sick of our society being whipsawed around by bad science.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 12:17 PM

Bad science or not, smoking stinks (in more ways than one) and is a serious threat to the health of the smoker and those he/she inflicts the waste-products on. Deny that, patty, and you're a fool.

And I'd rather be 'whipsawed around' (W-everTF that means) than poisoned by selfish people. And for every considerate smoker, there are many more selfish ones, IME and IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Les from Hull
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 02:54 PM

Overall I'm happy with the smoking ban in pubs etc, although I would prefer an an element of choice that allowed some pubs to offer indoor smoking facilities, well-ventilated and clearly marked. I feel for those landlords who own the premises and aren't now allowed to smoke in their own homes.

I don't smoke much, only when I drink, and that's on average about twice a week. Even then I tend to have three drags and save the rest for later. I never liked being surrounded by heavy smokers and full ashtrays. But when the smoking ban came in for pubs, my first thought was 'pubs - yes that's where people go for their health'. Mind you, there's often better camaraderie and conversation among the 'snoutcasts'.

What I object to is this so-called 'scientific society', where people always believe the latest scientific study. You can't prove things this way. The only way would be to take two large groups of people, isolate them from everything else, let one lot smoke tobacco and let the others think that they were smoking tobacco, check back after twenty or so years and see who had had the fewer heart attacks.

Yes I believe that smoking is bad for your health. I'm happy to protect non-smokers from my smoke. But to say that these statistics prove anything is wrong. They imply.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 04:46 PM

Like global warming, the effects are over a time scale that people don't percieve as well as, for example, a half hour.

Put Polly Primrose in a medium size waiting room with a smoker and odds are she will survive. Now put Polly in the same room with a Toyota Camry running in neutral and she will be dead in half an hour.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Donuel
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 04:47 PM

btw Polly drives a Camry and has no plans to quit.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: nutty
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 05:27 PM

I've been trying to avoid this but throwing caution to the wind - here are my thoughts on the long term effects of the 'Smoking Ban' and its long term implications.

If people give up smoking .......

People will live longer

The government will lose a huge amount of revenue

The government will need to support an increasingly elderly population

The health service will suffer cutbacks because of the lack of revenue and the need to support an increasingly elderly population.

People will have to work longer as pensions will not be paid until they reach 70.

Government will have to support a growing number of unemployed young people who can't get jobs.

Haelth service will suffer from lack of revenue while supporting the health needs of young people out of work.

Health service dealing with increased illness caused by drug taking, alcohol abuse, and mental health issues among the unemployed

Health service failing to cope with an increasing elderly population.

I may have given up smoking but I did it for financial reasons rather than desire to live longer.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Smokey.
Date: 23 Sep 09 - 07:37 PM

It beats me why non-smokers should still get so wound up about it now we have the ban. I suppose it's a way of exercising prejudice without seeming to be "politically incorrect". Whilst I'm in no doubt, and glad that the ban has had some positive effect on the average health of society, I'm always suspicious of 'studies', reports, etc., which seem to be no more than opinion based on statistics, both of which can so easily be manipulated to become anything someone wants them to be. The key issue here seems to be that of 'second hand' smoke, but now there isn't any, what does it matter?

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 04:21 AM

Smokey, it matters because smokers and their supporters - like Arty-Farty-Planet-Zog-Dweller-Hockney - keep trying to have the ban reversed and blaming it for everything that's gone wrong in the pub industry, despite the overwhelming evidence that:-

1) smoking is very dangerous and kills not only the smoker but also non-smokers who are subjected to smokers' filth
2) pubs were already closing at an alarming rate before the ban
3) pubs are now far, far nicer places to be in (even some of my smoking friends and acquaintances admit that they now prefer smoke-free pubs).

Personally, I have no problem with people smoking, as long as I don't have to inhale their waste (especially when I'm having a meal), and I don't have to smell their vile breath and stinking clothes and hair. If that's 'prejudice', then I confess that I'm prejudiced. I don't see it as prejudice, however - I see it as a personal lifestyle-choice which the government, for once, has agreed with me about and has voted to support that choice.

Smokers have the same lifestyle choices as I do, and they're more than welcome to choose to smoke in permitted places. But it's the intransigence of the inconsiderate ones amongst the smoking fraternity, their insistence on their perceived 'rights' over those of others, and their steadfast refusal to consider other people's health and comfort, that brought about the ban. Inconsiderate smokers have only themselves to blame.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 04:31 AM

Nutty
All of that is already happening. Nothing new there.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Sttaw Legend
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 07:00 AM

I quite fancy a shag ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 07:16 AM

This kind of reasoning reminds me of the assertion that marajuana use leads people to take harder drugs. The reasoning is that most people taking hard drugs also smoked marajuana at some point in their lives. But, upon further questioning, they also admitted to drinking milk at some point in their lives. Could it not also be conclued that drinking milk leads to hard drug use? Cause and result needs much attention to other confounding factors.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 08:24 AM

Do you mean this type of shag SL? Don't look if you get embarrassed easily.

http://outdoors.webshots.com/photo/2074644600066601062ARpFkf

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: nutty
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 11:15 AM

You are missing my point TV

People who smoke are likely to die earlier.

Extra health care needed is balanced out by extra income collected via government taxes

Old people dying means less pensions, benefits or care costs to pay

More work for young people

People in work pay taxes

The population in general benefits from letting people die.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 11:33 AM

Mmmmmmm - now I understand how you came by your Mudcat name! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 12:00 PM

LOL that was a good en BWM :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Les from Hull
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 12:30 PM

Backwoodsman - you don't win an argument by abusing other people. You are obviously not going to listen to any reasonable argument. If you are going to make a valid point, make it properly, instead of impugning other people's sanity. Anyway, I presume you have never heard of TR Malthus.

Mind you, now that pubs are smoke free, anybody notice you can smell farts and body odours much more. Not to mention people drowning in cheap perfume, a real olfactory assault.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: nutty
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 12:51 PM

Backwoodsman - Population figures show that we now have more pensioners than old people - so you need to put forward a reasoned argument to refute mine

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: nutty
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 01:11 PM

Correction

more pensioners than Young people

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 01:55 PM

So what are you suggesting Nutty? That we build gas chambers and send all the old folks there when they reach a certain age?

I would have thought it was better to put a restriction on how many children are born into this world.

Maybe stop giving benefits to women who are having kids just so that they can get benefits.

Its no good looking at the old, you need to look at what the young are doing and maybe all the people coming into this country who we can't sustain and even worse if they keep on shagging and producing children at a level we can't support.

Smoking has nowt to do with your arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: nutty
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 02:08 PM

Nowhere in my comments did I suggest such a thing TV.

Having recently buried an elderly mother who survived her husband by 30 years - I know what is required in caring for the elderly - yet the politicians and medics are hell bent on getting the population to live longer.

Death is a natural consequence of life and personally I would rather die a young smoker than an old dementia sufferer but it has to be a personal choice. And while everyone is applauding the decrease in heart attacks - who is considering the consequence of this.
Certainly not people in this thread.

As for stopping people from having children - China is at present beginning to have to face the consequence of that.
Young people pay the taxes that keep the old people cared for.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 02:12 PM

I wished my parents had passed away 6 years ago. They lived until they were 91 and 93. My mother died this year in nursing care all alone, almost blind, unable to walk or do anything for herself.

I would rather that people could decide when they have had enough, legally.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 04:04 PM

Les, nutty - sorry, I thought the smiley gave it away, it was a leg-pull. Ah well, sense-of-humour-bypass surgery I guess, maybe it's reversible? :-) :-)

"You are obviously not going to listen to any reasonable argument"
I've yet to hear a reasonable argument in favour of lifting the ban on smoking in public places. But the argument that allowing, or even encouraging, smokers to kill themselves and their other victims is 'beneficial' in a socio-economic context, and therefore justifiable, is morally bankrupt and completely unconscionable in 21st-Century civilised society (IMHO, of course - YMMV).

"Anyway, I presume you have never heard of TR Malthus"
You presume wrong, Les. I studied economics for three years in the late 60's as part of my professional examination course.

And now I'm gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 04:21 PM

Eh, I am confused. My last post was directed to Nutty. What you on about Backwoodsman?

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: nutty
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 04:31 PM

But the argument that allowing, or even encouraging, smokers to kill themselves and their other victims is 'beneficial' in a socio-economic context, and therefore justifiable, is morally bankrupt and completely unconscionable in 21st-Century civilised society (IMHO, of course - YMMV).

Yet that is what the Government are doing with drinkers .....
Ban alcohol and the incidence of liver disease would plummet.
or
Ban underage sex and there would be an immediate drop in deaths from cervical cancer.
or
Ban cars and road deaths would be non existant,
Allow people to live for ever and society would collapse

All I'm saying is look at things in the longer term and they have very different outcomes.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Smokey.
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 04:55 PM

Backwoodsman - Thanks for your reply. I suspect Hockney is more bothered about keeping his name visible to the great unwashed than he is about 'rights', however nonsensical that concept may be. I'm a smoker, but I don't feel I have any more right to pollute someone's air than they have a right to clean air in the first place. I wasn't in favour of the ban, it was effectively taking away the freedom (not the right) to smoke in pubs, and to me that was as wrong and as ridiculous as it would be to take away the freedom to drink in pubs. The only tangible end result was that it made one minority group of people happy and pissed off another. For one group to gain at the expense of another's freedom is the thin end of a very unpleasant wedge, in my opinion. I would much prefer to keep my pollutants away from others by choice and through good manners rather than legislation apparently based on highly spurious grounds. The abuse of statistics being bandied about on the subject of the potential harm to others caused by passive smoking is downright laughable to anyone who is not already biased on the subject and actually understands such things. However, I'm perfectly willing to keep my fumes away from anyone who genuinely thinks they will die from them, and more than happy to remove myself to another location.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Les from Hull
Date: 24 Sep 09 - 05:05 PM

Villan - the confusion is - there's more than one person called Les in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Rasener
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 02:36 AM

Thank goodness for that Les from Hull

Les from Market Rasen :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 03:32 AM

nutty - smokers constantly sidestep the issue which is at the heart of the ban.

If I drink myself into oblivion every day, the only person whose health and well-being I'm adversely affecting is me. If a girl shags around and gets cervical cancer, the only person whose health and well-being she's adversely affecting is her. If I live on McDonalds, clog up my arteries with cholesterol and have a heart attack, the only person whose health and well-being is adversely affected is me.

But (and it's a huge 'but'), if you smoke in a room full of people, not only are you affecting your own health and well-being, you're affecting everyone else's in the room. That's it - the reason for the ban - not to prevent smoking, but to prevent non-smokers from being forced to smoke, FFS!

I, and very many others, choose not to smoke. If you smoke in my presence you're forcing me to smoke, despite my choice not to. Why is it so difficult to understand that other people's health and well-being have to take priority over the 'right' that smokers perceive as theirs to smoke anywhere and everywhere?

FWIW, I'm in agreement with you about road traffic. But, whereas the blight of inconsiderate smokers was easy to fix, the road traffic question is infinitely more difficult and will take a long time to solve (if, indeed, it ever is).

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 04:08 AM

Backwoodsman:
Your arguments don't always make sense. "If I drink myself into oblivion every day, the only person whose health and well-being I'm adversely affecting is me. If a girl shags around and gets cervical cancer, the only person whose health and well-being she's adversely affecting is her"
If a girl shags around (as you so nicely put it) she is at risk of contracting, & passing on, several nasty communicable diseases. Her lifestyle choice may well have serious consequences for her partners, up to and including death by AIDS! This is hardly a matter of "the only person whose health she's adversely affecting is her"

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 04:19 AM

Nigel, I'm sure I don't really need to explain but, in response to your diversionary 'red herring' action, I will.

I was answering a specific point made by nutty about promiscuity and cervical cancer. Of course I'm aware of the other risks but, as nutty was being specific, I stayed withing the same boundaries.

Not by any chance a pissed-off smoker are you? :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 04:20 AM

Within, not withing. Dyslexic K/B.

Subject: RE: BS: Heart attacks drop by 25% -smoking ban
From: Smokey.
Date: 25 Sep 09 - 06:28 PM

Backwoodsman, I think you'll find that the vast majority of smokers who were pissed off at the time of the ban have now got over it and moved on.. I recommend we all do that. It's not going to be reversed, not least because there will never be enough public pressure for them to do so. Whatever your beliefs on passive smoking, you are safe; no-one is going to 'force' you to smoke.