According to the news today there were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks in England in the year after July 2007 - when the smoking ban came in.
The question as every student of dodgy statistics asks is 'is there any linkage?'
The stats would suggest not!
Bob, the chart title is "Acute myocardial infarction admissions", giving a clue as to the type of heart attack being reported on. If you matched this chart wih one showing the growth in use of statins, beta-blockers, aspirin etc., you may see the same trend, but in reverse.
Ergo, there's much more "heading off at the pass" due to better diagnosis and treatment before heart attacks get acute. Also ambulances now carry better equipment to deal with heart problems and paramedics do a terrific job in sorting most out before they get serious. Furthermore, patients don't have to wait for stents to be fitted as they did years ago, and that helps avoid heart problems becoming major.
So, I would say it is a coincidence with regard smoking bans because they don't actually stop anyone from smoking, just going to the pub! On that basis, it would be interesting to see a graph of pub closures since the introduction of the smoking ban.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
What the smoking ban has really done is drive thousands of pubs to the wall and in the process put thousands of people in the pub trade out of work. This shameful piece of nanny state legislation needs amending; pub landlords should have the option to opt for their establishments to be smoking or non-smoking.
I find the notion that smoking represents a huge drain on NHS resources quite ridiculous; firstly, smokers put a small fortune into the Excheque's coffers (pardon the pun!) and, not to put too fine a point on it, what is the NHS there for if not to be used by smokers and non-smokers alike? BTW, I'm a reformed smoker. Last fag I had was New Year's Eve 1999. Ten and a half years and counting, and I still miss it, especially after a meal.
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
But Sid - people like me can go to the pub and enjoy a drink now, something we could not do before the ban. I have actually used pubs more since the ban!
I am sure it is right that we are seeing a continued decline in heart attacks rather than all being down to the ban, but dont rule out some of this impact being as a result of less secondary smoking and maybe some 'part-time' smokers smoking less. Heart attacks are also not the only health benefit.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
BAZ;
We are nearly at one on this;
As an ex chain smoker I chose to pack up about 15 years ago, after many failed attempts, even now i think i would start again if i had that first fag.
But now my eyes sting when i go around with people that smoke,
Iv been in relatives houses where about 10 people were smoking and it was like being in a big haze.
I had to go down the garden to get some air.
Maybe the ban should have been clearly signed pubs thsat wanted to have
smokers or not
then u would know this is a smokinhg pub so i wouldnt go there
or this one is just non smokers so i would go there.
I dunno just an idea, but we are where we are.
Hey Barry, it was Andy who asked for a ban reversal, not me although I would support his radical idea of freedom of choice! Surely that's what the Tory party stands for?
Blimey Keith, we agree again.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
quite right about freedom of choice, the majority would probably choose to stay non smoking, whilst a sizeable minority would welcome smokers back spending their money with them.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Yes Sid absolutely, freedom of choice.
Non-smokers like me who cant suffer other people's waste matter now have the freedom to choose to enter any pub/restaurant without fear of being assaulted by smoke.
Smokers are not being denied their right to smoke, they are only being denied to right to inflict it on other people in pubs/restaurants and other places of work.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I do agree that there could be separate areas in eating and drinking places for smoking and non-smoking, and I wonder if the statistics have taken into account how many people have caught a nasty cold standing out in the frost and wet cold of a street in front of a pub smoking a cigarette in the 'designated smoking area'!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
They could always stop smoking Alexander - it would do their health a massive amount of good. Really cant understand why anyone would want to fill their lungs with that disgusting poison anyway. But its their choice.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, people could also stop driving a Rolls Royce, you know, or stop eating caviar, or stop going to 5 star hotels! Cars pollute and I have to breath in the pollution, as do many others! Leave my cigarettes in my room, please!
No Alexander, smoking areas are NOT the answer. Non-smokers would still suffer.
Allowing establishments to choose for themselves whether to be a smoking or no-smoking place is the democratic, sensible and adult method which should be adopted.
Barry, with seperate establishments you would be able to choose which NON-SMOKING place to frequent, and you wouldn't be denying anyone else their freedom of choice. Your post indicates a strong aversion to smokers, to the extent you would deny them the same rights as yourself. If we all took that view on everything, we would become a divided and fragmented nation very quickly.
The only risk to allowing freedom of choice is that pubs etc., will clamour to get back their lost customers and become smoking places again, but, reports on this very Forum tell us that the smoking ban hasn't damaged the liesure trade, so, this is not likely to happen in a major way, is it?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Not an aversion to smokers Sid, an aversion to their smoke.
In every group of people who pop out for a drink there is likely to be a smoker or two. So where do you go a smoking establishment to the discomfort and health implications of non-smokers or a non-smoking establishment where smokers, if they want to indulge, can do so outside?
I think your suggestion would be divisive and the best way is a total ban, as now. In the past in order to be sociable I have had to put up with running eyes, smelly clothes and sometimes choking on smoke just in order to be sociable. Refuse to go out with them, OK - and be slagged off for being unsociable. One Christmas there was a row over just that when I simply could not stand another lunchtime swathed in smoke.
Now, if smokers were generally less selfish and were considerate to non-smokers, avoiding voluntarily, poisoning the air in the presence of non-smokers, then there would not be any reason for the ban. Sadly that is not the real world.
Personally I am doing my bit and my target is to be drug free by 2020.
BarryW and Sid - we are as one!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
woud any of the anti smoking brigade consider not using their motor vehicles to help solve the air pollution problem.?
If smoking achieved anything other than bad breath and ill health it might be a comparison. As it is I can get to work in my car, but not on a cibarette.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
Bern
Smoking does achieve some things - reduction of stress levels for one, and a lot of people do enjoy their cigarettes. I do agree with Barry that some smokers can be extremely selfish when it comes to their weed habit, though. But what I cannot see is why every pub, every restaurant, every railway carriage, every public building and even the grounds of every hospital have to be non smoking. Smokers are modern day lepers - when the last person has quit, who will society turn on next, I wonder?
True friends stab you in the front.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I find that smokers really underestimate and have difficulty in understanding just how revolting their habit casn be to others. Either that or they dont care.
There are better ways to reduce stress, Andy, indeed there was a study that said that the stress reduction provided by smoking was a falacy and merely relative. Without smoking those smokers would reduce their stress in other ways.
Howard - you do go on with that driving red herring. I dont find myself breathing in motor vehicle fumes in pubs and restaurants, only outside where I also find the awful stench of smokers waste matter as well.
Indeed, BarryW.
Andy - physiologically, smoking increases the stress response, increasing heart rate and sending blood pressure up. That feeling of "well being" is simply the rush of inhaling chemicals+oxygen into your bloodstream direct from your lungs, from where they travel all around your body via the bloodstream into every nook and cranny of your body including the eyes, brain and genitals, narrowing blood vessels, increasing the liklihood of impotence, blindness, cancer and subsequent loss of limbs due to amputation because of dried up veins. Secondary smokers, such as children living in the same house as a smoker or those who have to share air space also suffer similar consequences. A woman living with a man who smokes has a significantly increased chance of a heart attack as a result.
