http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences-et-environnement/article/2008/02/25/l-interdiction-de-fumer-dans-les-lieux-publics-a-entraine-une-diminution-du-nombre-d-infarctus_1015363_3244.html#ens_id=1011931

Yeah, it's in French :(

But since the ban happened on 1-Jan (prior to that there was a light ban in public places), there has been a decline of 15% in myocardal infarction and brain embolisms.

It's huge, I'd never thought the positive impact of a smoking ban would be so apparent!

Hmmm, makes me wonder if such study has been done here, smoking ban in bars came to effect on last spring here. Few bars got 2-years extension for implementing no-smoking policy, i've heard that they're quite packed. :beer:

Is there a cause-consequence relationship or merely a positive correlation?

Is there a cause-consequence relationship or merely a positive correlation?

Apparently less smoke = less particles in the air = better blood circulation = less problems related to blood circulation (like infarctus and embolisms)

so three years later the French see the same as the Italians did (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16940340?ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum) - apparently French and Italians are not different species after all :groucho:




:p
seriously - they did attribute this to reduction in pollutants in the air mostly but also to a possible change in smoking habits. There is a new study out just a few weeks ago which shows that this reduction was indeed 11% in events - though mostly in people aged 30-65 or so...
its good the French confirm the results of the Italian experiment - now I am looking forward to seeing similar results in those parts of Germany which followed the French and Italian leads :)

We have already seen the impacts of banning in australia. Now only about 17% of the adult population smokes and it continues to decline.

but for every cigar/cigarette you don't smoke a tobacco farmer starves to death:sad:

Is there a cause-consequence relationship or merely a positive correlation?When there is a correlation and a decent reason, explanation, and evidence for why they are linked, it does point to a cause-consequence.

We know smoking is bad for your health. Wouldn't surprise me at all if smoking has been linked to a higher risk of heart attack and/or brain embolisms.

but for every cigar/cigarette you don't smoke a tobacco farmer starves to death:sad:

Yeah! Why can't you just offer 7 measly seconds of your life for his?:(

I fail to see the cause and effect correlation.......

It seems like too short a sample time to be certain http://img116.exs.cx/img116/934/z0tdntknw.gif

It seems like too short a sample time to be certain http://img116.exs.cx/img116/934/z0tdntknw.gif


I agree, I like the smoking bans, but I don't think the effects can be seen this quickly right? Though I odn't know how quickly the body can recover from being around smoke for so long either, maybe it is cnnected.

It seems like too short a sample time to be certain http://img116.exs.cx/img116/934/z0tdntknw.gif

I agree, I like the smoking bans, but I don't think the effects can be seen this quickly right? Though I odn't know how quickly the body can recover from being around smoke for so long either, maybe it is cnnected.

So it's just total random chance that two studies done in two countries about the same thing show similar results in scope and time?

What the studies say is precisely that the reduction in accidents can only happen in a short time. Then it will stabilize at its lower new level, and that's it.

I hope the French Ban is an example for all the rest to follow.

So it's just total random chance that two studies done in two countries about the same thing show similar results in scope and time?

What the studies say is precisely that the reduction in accidents can only happen in a short time. Then it will stabilize at its lower new level, and that's it.

So if they go lower or even higher then what?

So it's just total random chance that two studies done in two countries about the same thing show similar results in scope and time?
That's not out of the question. Remember, we don't know how many studies like these were done. It very well could be chance or possibly a common cause other then smoking.

Such a radical reduction does strike me as rather dubious.

So if they go lower or even higher then what?

I don't know...

That's not out of the question. Remember, we don't know how many studies like these were done. It very well could be chance or possibly a common cause other then smoking.

Such a radical reduction does strike me as rather dubious.

Apparently the radical reduction is directly linked to the immediate and radical improvement in air quality (less particles) in bars and restaurants.

If we are to believe the studies. Medical studies have a bad habit of finding false correlations and overstating things because they overanalyze available information.

And the decline in pirates is causing global warming?

When there is a correlation and a decent reason, explanation, and evidence for why they are linked, it does point to a cause-consequence.Anyone can make up a reason, but who decides it is decent?

What is the explanation for how such a change could happen so quickly?

Where is the evidence for a causative link?

Well well well. Will you look at that!

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3031836920080730?rpc=64

BOSTON (Reuters) - Scotland's 2006 ban on smoking in public places cut the heart attack rate by 17 percent within one year, with non-smokers benefiting most, researchers reported on Wednesday.

Looks like a third country sees fast and dramatic improvements resulting from a smoking ban!

and Germany just scrapped theirs :sad:
well -in part at least-

Reload this Page Result of the French ban on smoking in bars and restaurants...
I hope we follow their example.

Pretty amazing considering the average person probably spends at most a few hours a week in restaurants! I sent the article (and mini-translation) to mom to get her goat (she's all against government interventionism).

With 8 milion smokers (out of 21milion population) i doubt we'll see such a thing done here. 73% of 15-34 year old guys in the capital smoke - lol.
The whole EU-enforced law that says bars&stuff has to have a non-smokers area is a joke - it simply means they have to put some signs that even THEY don't listen to.
We rule (?)
Also because we screwed the EU's nice statistics with our death rates and bad stuff. :D

BOSTON (Reuters) - Scotland's 2006 ban on smoking in public places cut the heart attack rate by 17 percent within one year, with non-smokers benefiting most, researchers reported on Wednesday.

Yeah, but all those people were willing to die from a smoking-induced heart attack, weren't they?

What do you mean Machine?

Nevermind, it was a total brainfart. I was thinking that smokers benefited most. Pathetic of me, since the sentence is so clear upon rereading.

I have wondered why such bans have not been introduced earlier. As an asthmatic thisi very good news. I jsut wish now they could ban smoking from building altogether so that when you aree waiting outside you are not harmed by others smoking.

Poland needs one.

I have wondered why such bans have not been introduced earlier. As an asthmatic thisi very good news. I jsut wish now they could ban smoking from building altogether so that when you aree waiting outside you are not harmed by others smoking.I wonder why there aren't any more non-smoking bars in countries where it's not banned, and why there were virtualy none before the bans.

It's a free market thing. Most cities don't have a sufficient customer base such that such a specialist product would be viable. Each time, a bar can make more money by allowing smoking than not allowing smoking.

I really wish the free market could have done it's thing with regards to customer smoking, because I've known a few bar/pub owners who were hit by anti-smoking legislation and they really were inconvenienced by the transition. Some places saw a sharp decrease in customers, and other places did just fine. I really enjoyed clubbing a lot more once the bans started kicking in.

Now, long-term I benefit, of course. But still, I wish the invisible hand could have gotten the ideal result.

Now we just need to ban alcohol being soldin bars, clubs and pubs..... The perfect safe world.

Actually As a barman and a non smoker I feel the effects of the smoking ban. Before if it was smokey at work I'd feel light headed and short of breath alot. Also I stank after work. Now my working environment is much healthier.

http://www.lemonde.fr/sciences-et-environnement/article/2008/02/25/l-interdiction-de-fumer-dans-les-lieux-publics-a-entraine-une-diminution-du-nombre-d-infarctus_1015363_3244.html#ens_id=1011931

Yeah, it's in French :(

But since the ban happened on 1-Jan (prior to that there was a light ban in public places), there has been a decline of 15% in myocardal infarction and brain embolisms.

It's huge, I'd never thought the positive impact of a smoking ban would be so apparent!
And a 15% decline in individual's property rights. :p

Private businesses like bars should be allowed to decide for themselves whether you can smoke indoors.

It's a free market thing. Most cities don't have a sufficient customer base such that such a specialist product would be viable. Each time, a bar can make more money by allowing smoking than not allowing smoking.

I really wish the free market could have done it's thing with regards to customer smoking, because I've known a few bar/pub owners who were hit by anti-smoking legislation and they really were inconvenienced by the transition. Some places saw a sharp decrease in customers, and other places did just fine. I really enjoyed clubbing a lot more once the bans started kicking in.

Now, long-term I benefit, of course. But still, I wish the invisible hand could have gotten the ideal result.

The uk ban is working well except that the pubs are all going bust. All the non-smokers who said they didnt go to pubs because of the smoke still dont go to the pub. The supermarkets now sell far more booze than before and IIRC 200 pubs a week go bust while people drink more than ever.

And a 15% decline in individual's property rights. :p

Private businesses like bars should be allowed to decide for themselves whether you can smoke indoors.

No they should not. And i am right and also i Say a bunch of add hominem and a strawman to Elrohir because he would certainly do the same . See now i did it first !

No smoking in bars... and soon, no drinking, and no talking.

Anyone?

No they should not. And i am right and also i Say a bunch of add hominem and a strawman to Elrohir because he would certainly do the same . See now i did it first !
Um. Okay then?

but for every cigar/cigarette you don't smoke a tobacco farmer starves to death:sad:

Dang. I had no idea there were so many tobacco farmers in the world.

Or should I say I had no idea how many there were before smoking bans came into place?

I agree, I like the smoking bans, but I don't think the effects can be seen this quickly right? Though I odn't know how quickly the body can recover from being around smoke for so long either, maybe it is cnnected.

It varies depending on the effect of smoking. Some take years to wear off (ex. tar in lungs) whereas others take only a few weeks to months, depending on damage (ex. cilia in throat). So while it'll take years for all the effects to be seen, it's certainly plausible that some could be seen this quickly.

Well well well. Will you look at that!

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSN3031836920080730?rpc=64



Looks like a third country sees fast and dramatic improvements resulting from a smoking ban!

Good to see; hope this helps spread them. I live in two different states in the U.S. and the lack of a smoking ban in one is one of the main negative points for it to me. I've definitely noticed a difference in breathing/mucus after being around smoke a bit too much - fortunately within a couple weeks everything was back to normal.

Kind of amazing that this is happening in Europe. When I was there in 2006 there was much more smoking than there is in most of America. And now they've got far more people covered by bans, even % of population. And of the two states I reside in, the one that's supposedly more backwater is the one with the smoking ban. Odd.