Ban on Smoking in Public Places ... how effective is it?

[deanhills]

The UK has just come up with a study that proves that banning smoking in public places has helped to curb heart disease. Do you think one would be able to evaluate something like that. I would have thought that it could help in a subtle way, but that it has been the overall anti-smoking campaign and getting people to stop smoking that would have made a real impact on the statistics:

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.
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.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8267523.stm

 

[DodgeFB]

I think it is safe to say that not smoking will not harm you.

 

[Delta]

I'd have to agree with you deanhills - there are way too many other variables that could be at play. In any case, I'm all for a ban of smoking in public places.

 

[deanhills]

I'd have to agree with you deanhills - there are way too many other variables that could be at play. In any case, I'm all for a ban of smoking in public places.

Me too. Also in gathering places outside buildings, such as bus shelters, etc. Australia is quite heavy on that with regulations. I like that.

 

[Dirk]

I support the freedom to smoke anywhere and everywhere, public or private. One's health is a personal responsibility. With passive smoking, it is individual responsibility whom to befriend oneself with. With passive smoking in children, it is parental responsibility to keep their children from that environment. In an open area, there is little or no risk of passive inhalation. I also fully support the nullification of all laws restricting the use of marijuana (along with all other drugs). What you do to your body own body should be none of the Government's business.

However, i support groups that encourage people not to smoke. It's a filthy habit. I just reject all legislation against it.

 

[David]

I support the freedom to smoke anywhere and everywhere, public or private. One's health is a personal responsibility. With passive smoking, it is individual responsibility whom to befriend oneself with. With passive smoking in children, it is parental responsibility to keep their children from that environment. In an open area, there is little or no risk of passive inhalation. I also fully support the nullification of all laws restricting the use of marijuana (along with all other drugs). What you do to your body own body should be none of the Government's business.

However, i support groups that encourage people not to smoke. It's a filthy habit. I just reject all legislation against it.

I have to disagree. Florida is a far easer place to breath now that smoking has more or less been outlawed. Want to smoke? Go home, outside, a bar or a smoke shop where smoking is obviously the point. Otherwise keep your cancer sticks away from me.

 

[Dirk]

I have to disagree. Florida is a far easer place to breath now that smoking has more or less been outlawed. Want to smoke? Go home, outside, a bar or a smoke shop where smoking is obviously the point. Otherwise keep your cancer sticks away from me.

*lights spliff in contempt*

(kidding btw)

 

[David]

Hey, I'm not the libertarian here.

I'm allowed to be a bit authoritarian.

 

[Dirk]

But seriously, i see legislation against such things as not only artificial but also an insult.

All legislation constitutes an artificial change. If smoking were made entirely unregulated, the smokers would "cloud up" the town square once again. What needs to change is the perception of this. That is why people need to organise for change that is not necessarily legislative.

It is an insult because it is a message from Government to individuals, which reads:

"Dear individual,

since it is evident that you are unable to restrain your imposed and sometimes involuntary destruction of your own metabolism, in certain environments, we have endeavoured to do so for you.

Love,
The Government."

Do you also propose to ban cars from public places? Do you also propose to ban motorbikes and other recreational or otherwise motorised vehicles from public places - with the exception of perhaps electric cars? The effects of this are comparable to taking bundles of fifty or more "cancer sticks" and smoking them collectively to the filter before switching to a subsequent bundle and continuing this for what is often some hours. Oh, and did i mention this is in relation to a single car? That is the equivalent - i mean this in the instance of passive smokers. With the smoker themselves, i presume we agree it is an individual responsibility?

 

[Dirk]

Hey, I'm not the libertarian here.

I'm allowed to be a bit authoritarian.

Fair is fair.

 

[David]

But seriously, i see legislation against such things as not only artificial but also an insult.

All legislation constitutes an artificial change. If smoking were made entirely unregulated, the smokers would "cloud up" the town square once again. What needs to change is the perception of this. That is why people need to organise for change that is not necessarily legislative.

It is an insult because it is a message from Government to individuals, which reads:

"Dear individual,

since it is evident that you are unable to restrain your imposed and sometimes involuntary destruction of your own metabolism, in certain environments, we have endeavoured to do so for you.

Love,
The Government."

Do you also propose to ban cars from public places? Do you also propose to ban motorbikes and other recreational or otherwise motorised vehicles from public places - with the exception of perhaps electric cars? The effects of this are comparable to taking bundles of fifty or more "cancer sticks" and smoking them collectively to the filter before switching to a subsequent bundle and continuing this for what is often some hours. Oh, and did i mention this is in relation to a single car? That is the equivalent - i mean this in the instance of passive smokers. With the smoker themselves, i presume we agree it is an individual responsibility?

I have no problem with people smoking, just not in public places (and in Florida, that's still legal, despite my own views, so long as your outside). And yes, I do support banning polluting cars, especially now that they've eliminated the plug-in issue with wireless electricity.

 

[Dirk]

I have no problem with people smoking, just not in public places (and in Florida, that's still legal, despite my own views, so long as your outside). And yes, I do support banning polluting cars, especially now that they've eliminated the plug-in issue with wireless electricity.

Yes, at the cost of your sperm, comrade.

I think banning polluting cars is only going to fall hard on the poor. And so i can't support such an act.

 

[David]

'Tis be why money must be abolished. It was great when trying to make the barter system more efficient but now it just gets in the way. How can the person doing backbreaking work be poor just because they have less of some arbitrary and worthless paper then someone else?

We're in the 21st century using a pre-capitalist means of economic exchange and people wonder why the economy sucks...

 

[Dirk]

'Tis be why money must be abolished. It was great when trying to make the barter system more efficient but now it just gets in the way. How can the person doing backbreaking work be poor just because they have less of some arbitrary and worthless paper then someone else?

We're in the 21st century using a pre-capitalist means of economic exchange and people wonder why the economy sucks...

Someday, money will be abolished as the rationing system it is.

Oh, and just to be bitchy, the Federal Reserve guarantees the worthlessness of their notes!

 

[David]

Someday, money will be abolished as the rationing system it is.

Oh, and just to be bitchy, the Federal Reserve guarantees the worthlessness of their notes!

The worthlessness of the Fed is likely the only thing communist and fascists, socialists and capitalists, authoritarians and libertarians and liberals and conservatives can agree on fully and completely. Bankers and fat cats alone support it but they are also the ruling class and so it remains.

We need another Andrew Jackson, only less genocidal.

 

[Dirk]

The worthlessness of the Fed is likely the only thing communist and fascists, socialists and capitalists, authoritarians and libertarians and liberals and conservatives can agree on fully and completely. Bankers and fat cats alone support it but they are also the ruling class and so it remains.

We need another Andrew Jackson, only less genocidal.

Haha! Quite. Also without the forced slavery of the Native american People...

 

[Abbott Presley]

“Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast heaven to hell so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labours left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labours of men that as a result of the labours unfinished of Testew and Cunard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labours of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation is seen to waste and pine waste and pine and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicilline and succedanea in a word I resume and concurrently simultaneously for reasons unknown to shrink and dwindle in spite of the tennis I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell to shrink and dwindle I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per head since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per head approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and than the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Lord six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold on sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to shrink and waste and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (mêlée, final vociferations) tennis… the stones… so calm… Cunard… unfinished…”