Smoking Science

Voyageur

Ambassador
Ambassador
FOTCM Member
Woke to read this; strange – this just seems so flawed and subjective. Smoking did not end, it just went outside from these venues. Yes people quit too, however, not enough to represent these numbers?

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/04/12/smoking-ban-restaurants-hospital-admissions.html

CBC said:
Public smoking bans seem to have paid off in fewer hospital admissions for heart and lung problems, a Canadian study suggests.

The study looked for any effects of Toronto's 2001 ban on smoking in restaurants, aimed at reducing exposure to second-hand smoke, which the researchers say is a major factor in preventable poor health and premature death.
In Monday's issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the researchers reported the following changes since the ban took effect:

• 17 per cent decrease in the heart attack hospitalization rate.
• 33 per cent decrease in rates of admission for respiratory conditions such as asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis.
• 39 per cent decrease in admissions because of cardiovascular conditions such as angina and stroke.

"Research delineating the impact of smoke-free legislation on cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes could have an immense impact on public health, given that an estimated one billion people are expected to die during the 21st century as a result of tobacco-related disease," study author Dr. Alisa Naiman of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto and her co-authors wrote.

The study concluded that the findings are consistent with evidence that exposure to second-hand smoke is detrimental to health "and legitimizes legislative efforts to further reduce exposure."
'Immediate and dramatic' benefit

"These results show an immediate and dramatic decrease in these conditions and offers further evidence that anti-smoking legislation is an integral component of reducing exposure to tobacco smoke and for those who quit, reaping the rewards of a healthier lifestyle," study co-author Rick Glazier, a senior scientist at ICES, said in a release.

The model suggests that eliminating smoking in restaurants contributed to the substantial decline in hospital admissions for the conditions studied in Toronto, but the study can't credit the ban alone for the decline.

The decline in hospital admissions occurred in combination with the decline in the number of smokers, greater efforts to tighten restrictions on tobacco sales, and general improvements in preventive care, the researchers said.

Smoke-free demands

Public health campaigns and demand for smoke-free environments have also played a role, said Pippa Beck, a policy analyst with the Canadian Non-Smokers Rights Association.

"It's amazing when you see major hotel chains that have voluntarily gone 100 per cent smoke-free," Beck said.
"They are not doing that because the government is telling them to. They're doing that because they're responding to the market demand of their customers and in fact it helps the bottom line as well. It's less cost for cleaning and upkeep."

The study's authors called for more research to determine where smoking bans work best.
The ban hasn't resulted in fewer smokers in Toronto, according to federal statistics.

The city's smoking ban has made it tougher to be a smoker, said Michelle Cameron as she sipped a coffee and smoked a cigarette outside a cafe in the city's east end.

Cameron has changed where she lights up since the ban, which she supports. She is also trying to quit. "I've had the patch, I've had the gum, I've had the puffer. Slowly but surely, I'm coming around to it."

So far in Canada, Vancouver is contemplating expanding smoking bans to include outdoor public places such as parks and beaches.

In a commentary that accompanies the study, Prof. Alan Maryon-Davis of Kings College London, United Kingdom, argued for comprehensive cost-benefit analyses to weigh the potential health benefits of anti-smoking legislation against infringements on personal liberty and effects on jobs and livelihoods.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/04/12/smoking-ban-restaurants-hospital-admissions.html#ixzz0kzQscNJS
 
Absolute propaganda, imho. There is NO emphasis publicly on healthy living for smokers, the programming runs so deeply. The last few times I had conversations with people about switching to natural tobacco, natural rolling papers, and changing the diet in conjunction with exercise, they looked at me like I was an alien, as if I had just said the sky was pink and I saw a whale fly by the window.

This type of programming, imo, is not even on the level of "the government couldn't possibly want to hurt us." It's on the deep, deep level of things like childhood wounding, and hardcore belief in the tenants of religion or science. To 99% of the people out there, smoking cannot be ok, period. Even in smokers' minds this holds true.

*sigh*

:cool2:
 
[quote author=CBC]
Public smoking bans seem to have paid off in fewer hospital admissions for heart and lung problems, a Canadian study suggests.

The study looked for any effects of Toronto's 2001 ban on smoking in restaurants, aimed at reducing exposure to second-hand smoke, which the researchers say is a major factor in preventable poor health and premature death.
In Monday's issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the researchers reported the following changes since the ban took effect:

• 17 per cent decrease in the heart attack hospitalization rate.
• 33 per cent decrease in rates of admission for respiratory conditions such as asthma, pneumonia and bronchitis.
• 39 per cent decrease in admissions because of cardiovascular conditions such as angina and stroke.

"Research delineating the impact of smoke-free legislation on cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes could have an immense impact on public health, given that an estimated one billion people are expected to die during the 21st century as a result of tobacco-related disease," study author Dr. Alisa Naiman of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto and her co-authors wrote.
[/quote]

I agree with JonnyRadar, this is a propaganda piece.

We have no way of knowing if those people who suffered heart attacks/respiratory conditions were smokers or non-smokers. They are presenting two pieces of information (timing of smoking bans and disease trends) and claiming they are related.

One could also say that internet broadband usage is responsible for the decline in heart disease too! :lol:
 
Yes, it is subjective, IMO:
"Research delineating the impact of smoke-free legislation on cardiovascular and respiratory outcomes could have an immense impact on public health, given that an estimated one billion people are expected to die during the 21st century as a result of tobacco-related disease," study author Dr. Alisa Naiman of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences in Toronto and her co-authors wrote.
Hard facts, data please.... otherwise is wishful-thinking projection.

Perhaps missing from the 'data-set' is the psychology of anti-smoking
mass social programming that smoking is bad, pushes smokers deeper
underground for fear of being singled out mercilessly and being perhaps
be forced to pay for "damages" not only against themselves, for others too?

SOP for the PTB on terrorism, health, (non-GMO) foods, (non-phama)
natural products... and more?

Tell a lie often enough, and the majority of the masses will believe it?

All in a day's work for the PTB. the [negative, social]
programming will soon be completed?

FWIW,
Dan
 
Since 2001-on they succeeded in creating this new consciousness where you have the smokers, considered unhealthy and ridiculously careless about the other's around, and the non smokers witch represent the healthy bunch that go about jogging and overcautious with their appearances - in other words: dress 'up to date', don't smoke, look good, give the impression that you are under control and happy, and you are healthy, a model of quality of life. ... how ridiculous!

I've noticed that this type of people are walking more and more around us. The mall is full of them. The diff. is so big from what it was just 10 years back, where actually people were looking into other people's eyes without feeling so different and important. Now they only seem to lift their eyes to only those that fit their specific model. Yakkk.

sorry for the rant guys, :cry:
 
That's the kind of propaganda that fires my imagination and leads me to think that it's just groundwork being laid; the references that the PTB will eventually use to justify further anti-smoking legislation.

I used to wish for a National Office of the Censor, where only objective information backed by objective data ever gets published for mass consumption. Anything else would be accompanied by bold disclaimers. I suppose I occasionally tend towards an over-active imagination.
 
I saw this article to day , wondered how deep the propaganda or effect of propaganda go. this could be propaganda or tobacco science or proof of effect of anti-smoking propaganda

15 Factors That (Allegedly) Gauge Whether You’ll Get Divorced

5. If only one partner in your marriage is a smoker, you’re 75 percent to 91 percent more likely to divorce than smokers who are married to fellow smokers. Says the story, “Dissimilarities between spouses increase divorce risks.” Happily, Rory and I are both nonsmokers.

This is the highest percent contributor of all the 15 factors they mention. Could be simple propaganda.
 
Back
Top Bottom