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

Mar 2009
2,187
2
#1
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
 
Mar 2009
369
1
#3
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.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#4
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.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#5
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.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#6
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.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#7
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)
 
Last edited:
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#9
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?
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#11
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.
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#12
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. :p

I think banning polluting cars is only going to fall hard on the poor. And so i can't support such an act.
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#13
'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... :confused:
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#14
'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... :confused:
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!
 
Jul 2009
5,702
420
Opa Locka
#15
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!
:p 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. :cool:
 
Apr 2009
1,943
5
Disunited Queendom
#16
:p 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. :cool:
Haha! Quite. Also without the forced slavery of the Native american People...
 

Similar Discussions