Options
Vindication of the smoking ban?
blueisthecolour
Posts: 20,127 Forum Member
✭✭✭
An international review of smoking bans found:
10% reduction in premature births
10% reduction in severe childhood asthma attacks
5% decline in children being born very small for their age
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26770009
If this is true surely it ends any sensible debate about the merits of the ban?
10% reduction in premature births
10% reduction in severe childhood asthma attacks
5% decline in children being born very small for their age
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26770009
If this is true surely it ends any sensible debate about the merits of the ban?
0
Comments
what would have been the effects of any of the alternatives?
if your position is the smoking ban in pubs has reduced smoking related illnesses then i guess you would see that as a victory. but it was somewhat inevitable.
if we banned smoking completely, banned alcohol, banned fatty foods, and made exercise compulsory then a year or two later you would be able to post some figures to the effect of the improved health. and if that were the criteria, declare your policy a success and say the figures have ended any sensible debate over your policy.
your criteria for ending debate and declaring victory were inevitable, and not contested at the time.
And yet the Conservatives haven't overturned it (using Tory logic about anyone who complains about policies 79-07)
For example there could be a 10% reduction in premature births every year (on average) in countries without smoking bans. So saying there's been a 10% reduction in premature births a year after smoking bans and there's been a 10% reduction in premature births a year without a smoking ban could both be true.
Basically there's no control group in the study. Or at least if there is they aren't mentioning it for whatever reason.
10 people are all told for their entire lives to listen to Eric Clapton once a day. 3 get cancer of some form. Listening to Eric Clapton has links to increasing the chances of developing cancer.
Two questions...
1. Surely the greatest exposure is at home? With parents surely more likely to smoke at home in light of the ban, does this mean exposure to smoke reduced asthma and premature briths?
2. What was the trend before the smoking ban? Were all these not already in a steady decline?
I've lost count of the numbers of claims made by health 'experts' that completely ignore the trend prior to a ban or legislation.
I'm not a smoker. And it matters, dear troll, because if baseless evidence is allowed to prevail as justification for policy, then all sorts of measures could potentially be implemented in future (plain alcohol packaging, plain food packaging, e-cigs bans, prohibitions and daily allowances etc etc) on the back of what amounts to lying to the public.
I'm not a smoker.
I just don't like a conclusion predicated on false logic.
I would have thought that was the main aim, but its very telling that you think it's a bonus.
And it's not just smokers that criticise anti smoking laws, state infringement on liberties and freedoms is something which doesn't appeal to a lot of people.
No, but you just can't bring yourself to say anything even slightly good about the last government.
Passive smoking increases the risk of lung cancer and respiratory disease.
Smoking causes lung cancer.
Medical facts. I would be happy with any policy that sought to address those facts.
Ehy? Have I said I don't support the ban? I do for purely selfish reasons.
I just reject the logic in the OP. And acknowledge that ideologically it's indefensible.
I remember how odd it felt going to clubs directly after the ban when for the first time you could smell the stench of sweat and farts!
ANd which study are you quoting to prove 2nd hand smoke has an effect on people? because that one in the 90s was debunked and proven to be utter shite.
In 2004, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization (WHO) reviewed all significant published evidence related to tobacco smoking and cancer. It concluded:
These meta-analyses show that there is a statistically significant and consistent association between lung cancer risk in spouses of smokers and exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke from the spouse who smokes. The excess risk is of the order of 20% for women and 30% for men and remains after controlling for some potential sources of bias and confounding.[3]
Subsequent meta-analyses have confirmed these findings,[68][69] and additional studies have found that high overall exposure to passive smoke even among people with non-smoking partners is associated with greater risks than partner smoking and is widespread in non-smokers.[59]
So not the 1990s research then.
I totally agree.
Our attitude toward the highly damaging, hard drug, that is alcohol needs to be addressed, just as we have done with smoking over the last 10-15 years to a certain degree of clear success.
Or you could focus your attention on the fact that I'm an adult and consequently what I choose to put into my body is none of your damned business.
Just a thought.
I don't focus my attention on what you put in your body, my point was aimed at the people that constantly point out the dangers of smoking to my health, whilst necking back pint after pint after pint.
My point was aimed at the government who add 28p to a packet of **** yet drop 1p of beer, despite the effect alcohol has on people.
Maybe you could stop being so damned rude? Just a thought
It's not that simple though is it, I'd say we certainly don't want to go backward to how it used to be with this damaging drug.