digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Heart Attacks Drop 17% in Scotland After Smoking Ban

reuters.com — (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. The study is the first real-time,...

show profanity settings
expand all
  • purkel, on 07/30/2008, -8/+50I thought smoking was good for you?
    • Iztikeit, on 07/31/2008, -13/+2It's just showing that the smoking ban is actually preventing people from smoking, not that smoking is unhealthy.
      • banmaster, on 07/31/2008, -4/+3But the ads told me that smoking 'enlivens the blood'!
      • TomFrost, on 07/31/2008, -1/+12... dude, you had a whole five minutes to re-read that and realize how moronic that statement is.
    • mleick, on 07/31/2008, -6/+10To everyone who is doubting the correlation between the ban and heart attacks... Smoking increases your risk of heart attack from atherosclerosis drastically-

      Smoking is absolutely the most arrogant habit in public spaces- to be diminshing the lives' of others because you want a cig is ridiculous.

      Smoking increases a thiocyanate which then interacts with HDL (good cholesterol which removes buildup in arteries) changing the receptor so that it can no longer prevent plaque buildup. Eventually LDL (bad cholesterol) builds up and your body's immune system responds with macrophages engulfing LDL and making foam cells that line your artery- this is plaque.
      • MalenfantX, on 08/01/2008, -1/+0It's not arrogant. Smokers are drug addicts just as much as a heroin addict is. It's easy to rationalize or completely ignore your bad behavior when you're in the grip of a serious drug addiction.

        They'll bluff and act defensive about their habit, but they're just junkies with no self-control, and could really use some help.
    • dighere, on 07/31/2008, -2/+0Doctrine and Covenants 89:8
      And again, tobacco is not for the body, neither for the belly, and is not good for man, but is an herb for bruises and all sick cattle, to be used with judgment and skill.
    • BabyWookie, on 07/31/2008, -4/+2It is. Moderate smoking greatly enhances the quality of your life.
      • Loonacy, on 08/01/2008, -1/+6So does moderate masturbation but you don't see me doing that in public.
        Not since that one incident, anyway.
  • HxChris91, on 07/30/2008, -48/+58Hooray for the dismemberment of more civil liberties!
    • nobody98, on 07/31/2008, -10/+59To be honest as a smoker myself... I am all for the smoking ban in public places. The smell it leaves indoors is horrid and not pleasant to be around. However I do believe owners of bars, clubs etc should have the option to allow smoking indoors on their property if they wish.
      • cnot3, on 07/31/2008, -9/+7It's the business owner's choice. We must not compromise when it comes to our personal freedoms, as any small compromise will quickly become a large one.
      • thebaron2, on 07/31/2008, -2/+7"It's the business owner's choice."

        Not in Chicago it's not! No smoking indoors at all, unless tobacco accounts for 70%+ of your business revenue. It lots of towns you can't even smoke in beer gardens, but I think those are local ordinances as opposed to state law. Nor can you smoke within 15 feet of an entrance or window to a public building - and that IS state law.

        Just wait - soon it will be extended to public places. After that, how hard is the jump to legislating against feeding your kids fast food? It's unhealthy, after all. We'll slowly work our way to government-mandated meal schedules (OK - maybe that's a BIT overboard but still....)
      • nwoantibody, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2Actually, you're for bars and clubs smelling horrid and not pleasant to be around?
      • Loonacy, on 08/01/2008, -2/+5There's a huge jump from banning things that are unhealthy to people around you to banning things that are only unhealthy to yourself.
      • cnot3, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3I know how ***** is in Chicago, I live in Illinois. It SHOULD be the business owners choice, but our state doesn't have a great track record when it comes to personal freedoms.
      • thebaron2, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1@loonacy

        I don't know if your comment was directed at me, but how big is the jump to say that a lazy mother who feeds her kids McDonalds 3 times a day isn't harming her children? Would that not fall into the "unhealthy to people around you" category?

        What about alcohol in general? Aren't we ALL at a greater risk when we drive at night - and even early in the morning - because of the % of people driving around us with alcohol in their system?
    • hardythedrummer, on 07/31/2008, -22/+34so you'd rather kill people so you can have your smoke break? ok.
      • Otto, on 07/31/2008, -27/+7I would rather kill you, personally, with a machete, than give up one single cigarette.

        As far as I'm concerned, my freedom outweighs your life.
      • Gerz1219, on 07/31/2008, -7/+4It's a good thing your life will be short then.
      • cnot3, on 07/31/2008, -14/+9A little second hand smoke won't kill you. People today are pussies, you're going to die anyway. If you don't like it, go to a smoke-free establishment, there were plenty before the ban.
      • faatbuddha, on 07/31/2008, -2/+9Did you not see the ***** article? People ARE dying from second-hand smoke.
      • BabyWookie, on 07/31/2008, -8/+3Hey, you dumb nazi. In order to inhale the smoke contents of 20 cigarettes, you would have to live in a bar for a year.
      • lastobelus, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1@otto: o rly? Well MY radical belief is that sociopaths are genetically different from human beings, and hence need not be granted freedom, liberty or any of the rights actual human beings get, other than those granted to feed animals. So, sorry, you don't get to smoke even if you successfully make the case that smoking ought to be a rights issue.

    • stgben, on 07/31/2008, -12/+45What about the civil liberties of people who are FORCED to inhale smoke from others. I think you've got it all wrong. This is a boon to my right to not have cancerous toxins corrupt my air.
      • HxChris91, on 07/31/2008, -4/+12This is a reasonable argument, but to have it be regulated that ALL public places be barred from smokers is quite unreasonable. Having designated smoking areas is an idea that works in America...
      • skipdog172, on 07/31/2008, -14/+14nobody is forced to do anything. in an indoor establishment that allows smoking? find one that doesn't allow smoking. working in a bar that allows smoking? go work some place else.

        stop with this "THERE IS NO CHOICE" *****. yes. there. is.
      • borez, on 07/31/2008, -5/+5I hear what you're are saying, but in the UK the problem was that there was no demand for a smoking ban in Pubs and clubs, no wot-so-ever. This was proven when a few pubs became non-smoking and then had to change back because they were empty all the time.

        The ban was forced on us, and that's the problem, and there is always choice if you don't want to go to a pub, nobody was forcing anything on anybody.
      • Markpdotcom, on 07/31/2008, -5/+6Borez, you are talking out of your arse!

        There WAS a public demand for the smoking ban in the uk, as 80% of the population are non smokers!

        Stop being a dick, the ban is here, its improving health, which will be a great relief for our over stressed NHS, which will also help our economy. Its a win win situation for all, even smokers. If you want to smoke, thats fine, but do it in your own home.
      • Paulish, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Alright. Stay out of my bars.
    • Laminarcissus, on 07/31/2008, -4/+26Like my "right" to pay for your angioplasties and heart transplants, after you suddenly realize that no treatment is too heroic to preserve your life after your third heart attack and a lifetime of smoking?

      We have railings in front of steep cliffs -- sometimes people need to be constrained for their own safety.
      • Otto, on 07/31/2008, -9/+6So, in order to not be a hypocrite, you have no health insurance of any kind, correct?

        Because if you have health insurance, then you're basically expecting other people to pay for your medical care as well. And that would mean that you don't engage in any sort of risky activity at all, including driving a car, eating fatty foods or meat, or ever setting any kind of fires for any reason.

        Everything involves risk. Get a helmet.
      • OldJesser, on 07/31/2008, -4/+5All three of those things you mentioned are generally necessary risks in life. Meat has some good nutrients in it, fires are required in various places, and driving a car can be absolutely essential depending on where you live.

        Smoking? Not so much.
      • thebaron2, on 07/31/2008, -3/+5How many people digging this comment are pro-government provided health care? Because this is the same argument that most people use AGAINST it.

        The majority of diseases that people suffer from are in many cases caused by their lifestyle. Diabetes, AIDS (unless it's a botched blood transfusion or something along those lines), the multitude of problems that the obese face, most causes of heart attacks and liver failure.

        If you refuse to help take care of smokers with your tax money, then the same argument and logic can be extended to the obese, drunks, and generally irresponsible people
      • Laminarcissus, on 07/31/2008, -2/+8@Otto:

        Everything involves risk, but it's different degrees of risk. Evaluating that risk and taking appropriate action is why human beings were born with judgment, and that judgment is why we're still not living in caves and dying of syphilis.

        To say, "Sure I could smoke all my life and be at a huge risk for a heart attack" and then in the next breath say "but then again I could stab myself in the heart peeling an apple" is anti-intellectual. Those are two entirely different probabilities, and we approach them differently for that reason.

        To use your example, driving a car is a risky activity, and it kills about 50,000 every year. We don't ban it, however, because it provides a necessary utility.

        But compare that to smoking: 450,000 people per year are killed by illness directly related to their smoking. Compared to driving, smoking is a bloodbath. So we take action on smoking because it's nearly ten times as deadly as driving, and if it's banned everything will still get delivered tomorrow.

        So that's why we use our judgment to sort these things out rather than simplistic, throw-up-our-hands, slippery-slope arguments.
      • Laminarcissus, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2@thebaron2:

        But that's the problem, baron -- we don't "refuse" to treat them. We treat them no matter what because we're human. So they lie in a hospital bed using up fortunes upon fortunes of dollars being treated for something that could have been prevented.

        But you've stumbled into exactly what we on the Left have had to put up with for years from the Right. The Left want to set policies that head many of these social problems off at the pass, like the crippling costs of treating smoking-related illness, or the uninsured going to emergency rooms for things that could have been solved through preventative care.

        But as a result we have had to put up with lectures from right-wingers about "freedom" and "government encroachment on personal liberties" and, most galling, being told that no one can afford universal healthcare by the people who are perfectly happy running up a $490 billion deficit on an Iraqi vacation.

        So please don't co-opt my argument for the Right -- the Right is about philosophizing us over a cliff and then feigning surprise when we land. I'm on the Left, and talking about small constraints on people's actions now that result in big benefits for everyone later.
      • Paulish, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3"sometimes people need to be constrained for their own safety."

        I shivered when I read that. I believed that we call that "Velvet Authoritarianism".
      • Laminarcissus, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1@Paulish:

        It's called "Velvet Authoritarianism" only if you're a screenwriter, or find life more entertaining if you think like one.

        In the real world, we use our intelligence to try to find a fair path balancing risks to individuals and risks to our society with risks to freedom and personal liberty.

        Note that the words are intelligence, fairness, and balance. Those that would simply chant "freedom" or even "velvet authoritarianism" insult those people who are devoted to all three.
      • thebaron2, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1@Laminarcissus

        But I don't think you addressed my question. This isn't a left vs. right thing, at least that's not where I intended it to go.

        It's a question of where do you draw the line at which preventable diseases should be treated using tax dollars. I can appreciate heading problems off before they arise, but where's the line? Do we offer help to alcoholics, who are recognized as having a disease, even though they chose to drink themselves and it was completely avoidable?

        What about a 500lb. obese person who needs liposuction and triple bypass surgery to survive? No one held a gun to their head and told them to eat and avoid exercise. And what about people who aren't morbidly obese but significantly overweight? They may end up with diabetes or countless other heart problems that require expensive and long-term treatment. Are they worthy of our tax dollars and collective care?

        I'm not saying I have the answers to these questions, and I'm not sure how effective a government-run healthcare system would be compared to a privatized one. I'm personally waiting on the results from some states - like Mass. - who have chosen to make changes themselves.

        Regardless, the question is: why should we shun providing healthcare to smokers at the taxpayers expense but not alcoholics or the obese? What's the difference? The resultant health problems are all a result of poor lifestyle choices.

        Would you support angioplasties and heart transplants for a non-smoker who needed them as a result of other poor life choices, be it drug use, overeating, or something entirely different?
      • Laminarcissus, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1@thebaron2

        Thanks for the reasoned response, I'll try to respond in kind.

        The only real place I go apoplectic on these issues is where I see the posts that make slippery-slope arguments or, worse, the arguments that say "well if we start banning smoking then next thing you know we'll have to start giving dogs driver's licenses..." etc. We've already shown in a number of areas that we can use our judgment on individual issues and, if not find the solution, at least find ways of solving problems as they arise.

        Can we determine that line on every issue in advance? Nope. Can we find some one-size-fits-all algorithm that defines the line for us every time? Nope. We just have to rely on human beings identifying a problem and then coming together, wrassling around, sometimes loudly and contentiously, to find a compromise that works in the context of people's beliefs.

        So really there is no line, just a process. I know that gives certain people the creeps, but in my experience they tend to be the people that don't want to acknowledge that they are part of an interdependent society anyway.

        So, moving ahead on the "ideological compromise" premise, let's get to the ideological stuff. I will make a blanket statement that, within the boundaries of accuracy of most blanket statements, I believe to be true:

        What has been consistently missing from the Right's approach to social issues is an ideological understanding or even belief in prevention. They lecture us about individual liberties when the Left tries to ban smoking, they don't fund smoking cessation programs saying that's not the job of the government (even when the private sector isn't doing it), and then find someone to blame when 450,000 are dying a year from illness related to their smoking.

        How about treatment for serious drugs? I can speak with authority here -- I'm a drug addict who used for ten years, now with ten years clean. I was lucky enough to have private insurance for rehab, but I can tell you that philosophies about the role of government aside, if the federal government had paid for my program it would have gotten its money back a hundred times over. As of this month I've been a productive member of society for longer than I was an addict, thanks to programs that aren't available to people with less money than me.

        So please don't mistake my original frustration with a reticence to treat smokers, or addicts, or obese people. We're humans and we're compassionate, and we will always help to the best of our abilities. That's the problem. We'll never refuse to help, even the most self-destructive cases, so it becomes an issue of how many we have to treat and how much it will cost.

        That's why, rather than just waiting to treat the end result of a lifetime of freedom-based self-destruction, we as a society should fund every phase in chain -- information, diversion, prevention, treatment, recovery, and treatment of resulting illnesses. We save an incredible amount of money for every person we can keep from moving even one step down that chain. That's why I have such frustration with people who were shouting "freeeeeedom" and asserting the right to do whatever they want and for government to keep its nose out.

        "Keep your Nazi helmet laws off me fascist!"

        "That's all well and good, but this fascist is the one who has to pick up the bill on the three month hospital stay and nurse to spoon feed you when you get a head injury without being courteous enough to die."

        Because the Right has an aversion to funding for educational programs, rehab or cessation programs, long-term follow-up, or legislative limitations, we find ourselves right where we are now, with 450,000 dead every year from smoking related illness, using up incredible amounts of money in the process of dying.

        So I'd suggest that the standard image of "the line" is, in this case, is in the wrong direction. Normally it represents cutting a process off at a certain point. The line I'd like to see defines a process of finding a problem, finding the lowest cost solutions to divert people from the worst outcomes, and then funding the whole thing. In other words, a line of thought and careful consideration that we follow rather than trip over.

        Sorry, longest post ever.
    • Hetman, on 07/31/2008, -7/+5I agree hardythedrummer now all we need to do is ban cars, power plants and factories. Damn those toxins.
    • SmokedL, on 07/31/2008, -5/+6This guy is saying that he believes his right to smoke wherever he wants outweigh the right of other human beings to live.

      I'd suggest those of you digging him give that just a bit of though.

      The fact that he is getting positive diggs is bloody depressing. I for one believe that the right to live trumps the right to smoke.
      • Loonacy, on 08/01/2008, -2/+5I'd rather shoot you full of holes than have my freedom to shoot you full of holes be infringed.
      • SmokedL, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Loonacy said: "I'd rather shoot you full of holes than have my freedom to shoot you full of holes be infringed."

        You know, people are so utterly senseless discussing this that I had to check your commenting history to be sure whether you were being facetious or not. Case in point, this wonderful quote from Otto that appears to be 100% seriously intended judging by hist posting history:

        "I would rather kill you, personally, with a machete, than give up one single cigarette.

        As far as I'm concerned, my freedom outweighs your life."
    • ZenMojo, on 07/31/2008, -3/+8First, smoking isn't a right, it's a luxury. Second, you can still do it as much as you want as long as you don't force ME to participate.
    • rlbond86, on 08/01/2008, -3/+4Except, the article stated that it had positive effects on non-smokers.

      Meaning that smoking has a negative effect on non-smokers.

      Meaning it's not a civil liberty, because it hurts others.
  • ironeus, on 08/01/2008, -5/+34That is a substantial jump from a 3%/yr annual decrease in years past.
    • OstrakonX, on 07/31/2008, -0/+10But there's no statistical correlati...

      Nah, I can't do it.
  • allaboutdatiki, on 07/31/2008, -5/+16Ah, but aren't they just delaying the inevitable?

    We're all gunna die! :O
    • ToeCracker, on 07/31/2008, -2/+8You are a cynical bastard . . . I love it! Too true though.
      • louiebaur, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2I agree all of us will have our time some day
      • ZimbuTheMonkey, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3How is it cynical to admit that we're all gonna die?
    • drunkmonkey01, on 07/31/2008, -5/+20Yes we're all gonna die, and if someone wants to smoke their entire life and die before me that's perfectly fine with me. The problem is when people smoke in restaurants and other public areas, everyone around is affected.

      Plus cigarette smoke smells terrible.
      • sugarazor, on 07/31/2008, -8/+8You can't make a law based on what people think smells good. If you can get enough people to say grilled meat smells bad, you could shut down every restaurant in the country.

        I understand the health argument (although I think the statistics surrounding second-hand smoke are grossly exaggerated), but you can't legislate smell.
      • Otto, on 07/31/2008, -7/+4When are you planning to ban all perfume and underarm deodorant? Or are you just a hypocrite?
      • skipdog172, on 07/31/2008, -6/+4how horrible it is to allow people a CHOICE on whether to go into a restaurant that allows smoking or to go into one that does not. oh noes!!!

        this is just more feel-good BS like recycling
      • samdu, on 07/31/2008, -7/+5Here's an idea... DON'T GO TO PLACES THAT ALLOW SMOKING!!!! There, at least in the US, was nothing at all keeping a bar or restaurant owner from enforcing a non-smoking environment. But instead of patrons complaining to management/ownership, they decided to go to the government. Which is exactly the wrong way to handle it.
      • EtherGnat, on 07/31/2008, -4/+4"but you can't legislate smell."

        Maybe not, but I can still get pissed off at the assholes who have no consideration for those around them. Smoking is illegal in public places here now, but when it used to be legal every time I'd see somebody light up in my vicinity I felt like farting in their face.
      • BabyWookie, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2You smell terrible too. Please, stay away from smoking establishments.
      • sugarazor, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3"Maybe not, but I can still get pissed off at the assholes who have no consideration for those around them. "

        There are a lot of non-smoking assholes who have no consideration for those around them as well. Should we make talking on a cell phone in public illegal? Manners are subjective and you can't legislate them, as much as the moral crusading types would like to.
      • Paulish, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3A restaurant is not a public place. It is privately owned, and the owner allows people to enter and dine. You would not ban smoking in my dining room would you? So why a restaurant owner's?
      • EtherGnat, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2A restaurant may be privately owned, but once you open a location to the public it is no longer strictly a private place. We put many restrictions on places of business: sanitation, food safety, alcohol sales, etc etc. Smoke is a health issue, it's no different that regulations prohibiting lead paint on the plates, cooks to wash their hands, or mold growing in the ice machine.
      • Gizza, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1"but you can't legislate smell."

        Tell that to all the countries who have banned the Durian fruit in most places because it smells so bad.
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4Screw that. You can have my immortality when you pry my cold, dead fingers off of it.

      Or, uh, something like that.
  • Pvisi111, on 07/31/2008, -1/+28That's a pretty ridiculous jump
    • krnldmp, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6With emphasis on "ridiculous".
    • cutekelvins, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2pics or it didnt happen.
    • Naruki, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2As a non-smoker who is fairly militant about reclaiming the right to breathe in public, I am nevertheless tempted to call shenanigans.
  • surfsusan, on 07/31/2008, -13/+45That is what I call good news - the ban actually helps - as a non-smoker I'm delighted to read this.
    • cnot3, on 07/31/2008, -7/+9In other news stabbings have increased 1000% due to irritated smokers.
  • DeskFlyer, on 07/31/2008, -8/+32I mowed my lawn twice last week and a giant chunk of ice broke off Greenland.
    • SmokedL, on 07/31/2008, -5/+10Yea, but you see; a sane analysis would go something like this:

      Examine known reality. Collect known to be true premises:

      Known: Smoke from cigarettes increase the risk of heart attacks.
      Known: Eliminating said smoke has major positive effects on the cardiovascular system within days on quitting smoking and major overall health effects within a year.
      Hypothesis: Eliminating smoke intake will improve health and decrease frequency of heart attacks.
      Known: Law forbidding people from poisoning public places with cigarette smoke is created, second hand intake is drastically reduced.
      Known: There is a 10% drop in the occurrence of heart attacks.

      Hypothesis with quite a bit of supporting evidence: The law prevented about a thousand people from having a heart attack in the year that was studied.

      Guess what, it's not conclusive proof, but it sure as hell seems likely the hypothesis is correct.
      • DeskFlyer, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6I agree, I was just being facetious. Nicely said. :)
  • mysteryshop, on 07/31/2008, -12/+4How so you measure that? Count those who have heart attacks or those who don't?
    • aflaks, on 07/31/2008, -2/+9the # of heartattacks? this is probably the simplest thing to measure...
    • OrangeSoda31, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6It is pretty difficult to understand, let me see if I can help you. If there were 1000 heart attacks last year, and this year there were only 830 heart attacks then you---. Well, I hope that your 8th grade algebra teacher explained the next part to you. It can get pretty complicated. I don't think I am qualified to explain long division.
    • HxChris91, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1...wow...
  • Cadenzah, on 07/31/2008, -17/+30So? That doesn't justify the ban... we could ban cars and the accidents would drop dramatically, or maybe sugar? McDonald's?
    • Laminarcissus, on 07/31/2008, -5/+21What would in your mind? The point being that people who are smoking are killing themselves and the rest of us, what other purpose is there for public health and safety laws?

      Would you eliminate a ban on asbestos because it's limiting companies' "freedom" to use asbestos?
      • skipdog172, on 07/31/2008, -4/+8so you are ok with giving people the CHOICE to either eat at mcdonald's or to eat something healthy.

        why are you NOT ok with giving people the CHOICE to either go into a restaurant that allows smoking or to go into one that does not allow smoking?
      • OldJesser, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6Apples and oranges. What a person does to themself is their own business, but what they do to everyone else is a public concern.
      • Laminarcissus, on 07/31/2008, -1/+15@Skipdog172:

        When I eat a Whopper, I am not forcing everyone around me - patrons and staff alike, to eat Whopper Jr.s Cigarettes spread carcinogens everywhere, to everyone in the room.

        I'll ask you the opposite hypothetical. If I set off a smoke bomb of a known carcinogen equivalent to a room full of smokers, you would be all over me. But somehow, because people go through the motion of inhaling it into their lungs it's now an essential liberty?

        If you have a nicotine addiction, fine. Wear a patch. Wear ten patches for all I care. Patches don't spread your addiction around the room and into kids lungs.
      • BabyWookie, on 07/31/2008, -7/+4First of all, life is a terminal condition and smoking works great of treating the symptoms. Secondly, how the ***** are we killing the rest of you? The amount of pollution that the cig smoke produces is statistically insignificant. In order to inhale a pack worth of cig smoke, you would have to stay in a bar 24/7 for about a year. Stop with this BS propaganda.
    • Hetman, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3How many people die of car accidents that are not there fault. I hear about a hit and run at least once a week in chicago. And according to the chicago tribune on average it is almost one a day. I do not think people are responsible enough to drive, we should all take public transportation.
      • OldJesser, on 07/31/2008, -2/+4If you can come up with a plan to convert 100% of all traffic to public transportation, guarantee nothing ever goes wrong with it, ensure that it is just as efficient, and come up with a budget plan everyone can agree with, then I agree. Until then, it's easy to rid ourselves of smoking because it's not a necessary part of life. When it's easy to replace the need for private vehicles (I'm not holding my breath for that one), then we should be able to get rid of it.
      • EtherGnat, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6There's a reason there are so many regulations for driving. We regulate what people can drive, where, how fast, what condition the driver must be in, safety equipment, and more. When people break the rules and unnecessarily endanger other people we punish them.

        Cars also provide a huge benefit to society. Banning them would be devastating. Banning smoking? Not so much.
      • metalpres, on 08/01/2008, -1/+0im pretty sure MOST of those hit and runs were accidents though, ofcourse the running away part is intentional but thats not the point, you are not accidentally smoking a cigarette and affecting everyone around you, you are doing it intentionally, just like intentionally driving down the street picking people off with your bumper is not allowed. your point is baseless and stupid. now go buy yourself some chew or some patches and shut up.
    • Prosequi, on 07/31/2008, -3/+1Since you mention it - as of yesterday fast food has been banned in portions of LA
      http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/116693.ph ...


      • EtherGnat, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4No, a zoning ordinance has been instituted for a year prohibiting construction of new fast food places because there are already an insane number in the community. Nobody is trying to keep you from getting you Big Mac, although you might have to walk 600 feet instead of 300 to get it with this regulation.

        I still don't agree with it, but don't be so damned sensational about it.
    • vpshockwave, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2One big difference. Cars serve a purpose. Does smoking? No. Maybe you should've never started smoking in the first place.
  • lesleye, on 07/31/2008, -1/+16given that scotland has the worst health record in europe, this can only be a good thing.
    • glaz, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1It would be a good thing, regardless. If they had the best record, could it only be a bad thing ? I don't understand your reasoning.
  • damian7, on 07/31/2008, -24/+9Look at the dumb ***** complaining about civil liberties being breached

    Go die of AIDS you ignorant *****
    • appleseed1234, on 07/31/2008, -3/+3Dugg for *****.
    • ZimbuTheMonkey, on 07/31/2008, -1/+8People don't die "of AIDS". AIDS weakens the immune system and you die of other *****.
      • damian7, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2ORLY?

        So it's inaccurate to say someone die of a gunshot wound because in reality you are dying from organ failure and blood loss?
      • OldJesser, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3No, that's still accurate. The gunshot wound is the cause of the organ failure and blood loss. AIDs is not the cause of the common cold, or the flu. It simply provides a weakened immune system that allows a seemingly mild ailment to kill.

        Also, we should always complain about civil liberties being breached, even if we find out we are mistaken. At the very least, we should not be afraid to voice our concerns. Though I disagree with the right to smoke anywhere anyone damn well pleases, I do think they have a valid complaint about civil liberties. My civil liberties are just more important than to allow a smoker to choose to destroy my lungs.
  • josepablos, on 07/31/2008, -13/+5this is not true .. period.!
    • ArmedJimmy, on 07/31/2008, -3/+5anything to back that up or are we just making random statements?
    • TomFrost, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Actually, that was period exclamation-point.! An odd choice of punctuation, if you ask me.!
  • theutopian, on 07/31/2008, -11/+17I don't understand why people are stupid enough to start in the first place.
    • skipdog172, on 07/31/2008, -14/+8because it is perceived as enjoyable to them so they want to try it and see if it actually is enjoyable. some of us smoke because we enjoy it, but any non-smoker will claim it is 100% addiction. nothing we can do but tell those who want to insult our intelligence to ***** off. we know the risks. we accept them.

      so...***** OFF
      • dudefaceguyman, on 07/31/2008, -8/+7You enjoy it because it SATISFIES YOUR ADDICTION.

        -though I don't care if you smoke. You wanna kill yourself? Fine. Just go smoke your ***** in a designated smoking zone. Otherwise I'm gonna start spraying you with pepperspray then say, "It's my right to squeeze this button on this bottle. If you don't like it? ***** OFF
    • PoSSeSSeDCoW, on 07/31/2008, -6/+4They start it because either they were born before it was known to be harmful or they're mentally retarded.
    • flashback99, on 07/31/2008, -6/+3Firstly, people who smoke are not stupid.

      Secondly, there are a variety of reasons people start to smoke. For many it helps cope with nerves, and relaxes people. Many smokers are aware of the risks, that doesnt make them stupid.

      What is stupid is assuming that people who smoke need you to tell them your opinion about "how bad it is."

      Smoking can and does kill, but then so does life.
      • jsaic, on 07/31/2008, -3/+5that's the stupidest argument ive ever heard. so life can kill to so why don't i try to speed up the process. yeah. why don't i go juggle some torches to or jetski in a tank of sharks or oh yeah, why don't i start drinking bacon grease for every meal for the next 35 years. smoking causes cancer and yes, people who choose to smoke knowing that fact are very stupid.
      • flashback99, on 08/01/2008, -3/+4Why the ***** is it your business if I choose to speed up the process? ***** what you think.
    • MrHappyMan, on 07/31/2008, -3/+6Because it looks so cool
    • BabyWookie, on 07/31/2008, -6/+4Why? Moderate smoking is fun and greatly enhances the qualify of your life. It relieves stress, helps you meet people and socialize, treats depression, etc.
      • rtbenson, on 08/01/2008, -3/+4Wow. Do you work for a cigarette company?
  • dafunkmonster, on 07/31/2008, -17/+41Correlation does not prove causation. Good lord, I hate seeing statistics in the hands of journalists. Its like watching toddlers play with fire.
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/31/2008, -17/+7Considering smoking HAS been proven to cause heart attacks, I'd say the onus of proof that the smoking ban DIDN'T result in the drop is on you.
      • dafunkmonster, on 07/31/2008, -4/+6Just because you banned public smoking, and smoking increases your STATISTICAL risk of a heart attack, doesn't mean that the public smoking ban directly caused the decrease in heart attacks.
      • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -5/+6No, but the data strongly suggests that it somehow caused a decrease in heart attacks. And I'm inclined to believe that the simplest explanation is THAT FEWER NON-SMOKERS WERE SUCKING DOWN TAR.
      • flashback99, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3Why on earth do you think that smokers would actually stop smoking if a ban was put in place? Smokers must have found another place to smoke.

        It's not like the smoking ban forced people to quit and then suddenly all these quitter DIDN'T get heart attacks.

        that's insane. Use your heads people. *smokes j*

        http://www.reuters.com/article/blogBurst/health?ty ...
    • alpha19, on 07/31/2008, -8/+3Like toddlers playing with fire... like adults playing with fire, you can still get burned. The statistics still show the same correlation whether it's a journalist or yourself.
      • OrangeSoda31, on 07/31/2008, -2/+4I think you missed the first sentence. Correlation does not prove causation.
    • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -8/+21Well, lets see, we have a potential reason that a ban would cause a drop. We institute a ban, a drop happens. All we need to do to prove it is remove the ban and show heart attacks go back up. You game?

      And funny how it shows a dosage effect, with people who experienced the MOST change from the ban seeing the greatest benefit.

      I'm sorry, but this is not mere accidental correlation.

      So, do you have a better explanation for the evidence? A SIMPLER explanation?
      • OldJesser, on 07/31/2008, -5/+2That doesn't actually prove it. To absolutely prove it, you'd have to remove all the other possible factors to make sure the only thing that could possibly cause a drop in heart attacks was the fact that no one was smoking publicly.

        Maybe they just went easy on the haggis this year, eh? ( Note: I do believe that smoking is indeed bad for the smoker and those around him, but this article doesn't prove that point, nor do the statistics in it).
      • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -2/+5No matter how finely you divide it, you can never control everything. Thats why we do randomized studies, because the influence of the externalities that we can't control winds up in the error. 17% is a pretty large difference, and they would have to immediately start eating haggis the moment the smoking ban was lifted to fool the second reciprocal experiment.

        But fine, block the city in two sections, have the ban in one. Then you'll say something mysterious happened in that one section that didn't happen in the other. DID they in fact stop eating haggis? Does that explain the dosage effect? No. So what is your point?

        I'm not stupid: literal PROOF is impossible. But this was a pretty damn good addition to all the other studies that say smoke causes heart disease.
    • Skywise, on 07/31/2008, -9/+4Especially when the science says that the damage caused by smoking doesn't leave the body for 10 years.
      • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -3/+11Science says the initial reversal in effects starts in days. Don't lie. The risk of CANCER drops after 10 years. The stress on the heart beings to ameliorate in mere weeks. Cardiovascular effects in months to years.

        Would you like a reference? I'm sure I can find one.

        Is it really so hard to believe that sucking less poison into your lungs might make you less likely to die??
      • Skywise, on 08/01/2008, -2/+3"Would you like a reference"

        Sure would.

        The lung damage effects of tar and hardening of the arteries (y'know, those things that cause heart attacks) do NOT go away after "days".

        Now if you want to attribute a 17% drop of heart attacks due to nicotine stimulant effect... well, time to ban coffee next...
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Your blood pressure drops and oxygen capacity improves the moment the nicotine is gone as smooth muscle relaxes. Higher blood pressure increases strain on the heart and can precipitate an attack because those other factors are still present. Coffee doesn't raise the blood pressure of the person standing next to you, but its not quite that simple -- coffee hasn't been tied to heart attacks in my knowledge, even among heavy coffee drinkers.

        From the U.S. Centers for Disease Control 2004 Suregeon Generals Report

        Within 20 minutes after you smoke that last cigarette, your body begins a series of changes that continue for years.

        20 Minutes After Quitting
        Your heart rate drops.

        12 hours After Quitting
        Carbon monoxide level in your blood drops to normal.

        2 Weeks to 3 Months After Quitting
        ***Your heart attack risk begins to drop.***
        Your lung function begins to improve.

        1 to 9 Months After Quitting
        Your coughing and shortness of breath decrease.

        1 Year After Quitting
        ****Your added risk of coronary heart disease is half that of a smoker’s.****

        5 Years After Quitting
        Your stroke risk is reduced to that of a nonsmoker’s 5-15 years after quitting.

        10 Years After Quitting
        Your lung cancer death rate is about half that of a smoker’s.
        Your risk of cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas decreases.

        15 Years After Quitting
        Your risk of coronary heart disease is back to that of a nonsmoker’s.

        Thank you for wasting my time. A google could have helped you. http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/sgr ...
      • ApokalypseNow, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3It is a shame that there aren't better statistics for people like myself, who have maybe 3 to 4 cigars in a year, and do not inhale the smoke. Given the infrequency and how little smoke is actually entering the lungs, I would think it not much more than a non-smoker, but I'd like to see some numbers. Then again, my demographic is probably too small to get anything meaningful out of it.
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2I'd say your risk is probably proportional to the frequency. It can't be good for you but it can be relatively insignificant. I burn incense. There's only anecdotal statistics for that. And I am suspicious in some ways it might be worse.

        Of course I don't burn it frequently.
      • Skywise, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2"20 Minutes After Quitting Your heart rate drops."

        Stimulant effect, right there...

        "****Your added risk of coronary heart disease is half that of a smoker’s.****"

        That's my point. That's not a heart attack, that's RISK OF CORONARY HEART DISEASE. What, so I as a 20 year old individual stand next to a smoker and now I have twice the risk of having a heart attack as a non-smoker? Don't think so.

        Smoking over time builds up the coronary heart disease that can't be alleviated in just a year's time.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/08021 ...
        "Researchers in Rome compared acute coronary events in the city for five years preceding a public smoking ban with those occurring one year after the ban. They found an 11.2 percent reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74."

        Odd how the rates DROP the older you get (and the longer you've been smoking)... isn't it?

        Note also that those that stayed at home had NO CHANGE in their rates of death
        " * While the ban resulted in a significant reduction in acute coronary events in the two younger age groups, the older group (aged 75-84 years) showed no reduction.
        ...
        "The older age group spends more time at home than in the workplace or public businesses," said Giulia Cesaroni, M.Sc., senior researcher at the Department of Epidemiology, Rome, Italy. "The smoking ban has a greater effect on those of working age and those who spend a lot of their time in public places.""

        If anything it's the pollution level (lack of oxygenation) causing heart attacks - (from link above)
        "The indoor concentration of fine particles decreased significantly from a mean level of 119 ìg/m3 before the ban to 43 ìg/m3 one year after the ban."

        So it's more reasonable to conclude that smoking doesn't cause heart attacks so much as breating densely polluted air (generated by smoking) causes heart attacks.

      • ApokalypseNow, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2That's pretty much what I was thinking.
        Incense... I didn't know there were even anecdotal risks associated with that. Interesting, but I suppose it makes sense, as it is just a fragrant smoke.
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2You seem to be ignoring the part where the risk of heart attack drops within weeks. If you think its a stimulant effect and not lack of oxygen carrying capacity in the blood, or inflammation making a clot more likely to lodge in an artery, whatever. The surgeon general says risk of heart attack drops in weeks, not 10 years.

        Whatever it is, second hand smoke causes it and a ban in public spaces reduces it by ~17%.

        I'm really not sure what you are bitching about. I never said your arteries would be scoured out in a few days. I said your risk of heart attack doesn't take 10 years to drop.

        You were wrong. Get over it.

      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah Apoc, I read a while ago where non-smoking priests have higher rates of lung cancer than you would expect, it was attributed to exposure to burned wood resins in incense. Like I said, more of an anecdote really.
      • Skywise, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2I wasn't wrong... you already proved my statement right.

        "Especially when the science says that the damage caused by smoking doesn't leave the body for 10 years"

        "10 Years After Quitting
        Your lung cancer death rate is about half that of a smoker’s.
        Your risk of cancers of the mouth, throat, esophagus, bladder, kidney, and pancreas decreases.

        15 Years After Quitting
        Your risk of coronary heart disease is back to that of a nonsmoker’s."

        "I never said your arteries would be scoured out in a few days"

        No, in your anti-smoking crusade and hysteria generation you called me a liar.

        "Science says the initial reversal in effects starts in days. Don't lie. The risk of CANCER drops after 10 years. The stress on the heart beings to ameliorate in mere weeks. Cardiovascular effects in months to years."

        From your link:
        "15 Years After Quitting
        Your risk of coronary heart disease is back to that of a nonsmoker’s."

        You were wrong. Get over it.
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Now you're just being stubborn. What crusade? What hysteria. I'm just agreeing "yup, study says smoking bans work."

        The stress on the heart drops in weeks and so do heart attacks. This is known. You tried to invalidate the study by saying the effects were seen too quick. You were clearly committing a lie of omission, implying that this study was wrong because it takes 10 years before a drop in heart attacks could have occurred.

        Personally I think a case can be made that smoking should be allowed in bars, and its tyranny of the majority, but it doesn't mean I'm not going to enjoy the tyranny as I'm in the majority.
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1"From your link:
        "15 Years After Quitting
        Your risk of coronary heart disease is back to that of a nonsmoker’s.""

        Again, you are being dishonest. From my link:
        "2 Weeks to 3 Months After Quitting
        Your heart attack risk begins to drop."

        I thought we weren't talking about coronary artery disease. Can you make your case honestly or not? I'm not going to give you any more links if you're going to quote them selectively to commit lies of ommission.
      • Skywise, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Touchy touchy...

        Do you always hide behind straw man arguments?

        I said and stand by that the study isn't saying what they say it is. I've also backed that up.

        So if heart disease goes back up 17% next year (not that anybody will study it they'll blame it on the next socially correct windmill to tilt over) does that mean smoking bans DON'T work?
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1We're done here. I have no interest in allowing you to drag this argument out further since you have failed to make your case.
    • ryannerd, on 07/31/2008, -3/+5My statistics teacher used to often say that he could prove that ice cream sales cause rape. If you look at the number of rapes that occur during certain times of the year for each month -- they increase and decrease in common with ice cream sales.

      The reason for this is that most rapes occur during the summer and of course ice cream sales increase during the summer.

      In the case of this smoking ban, it is likely that there is an actual correlation, but I question the numbers. 17% seems exaggerated to me.
      • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -5/+517% is big?

        Maybe cigarette smoke, containing hundreds of nasty chemical compounds, some of which we still don't know what they do, as is suggested by hundreds of animal studies, REALLY IS BAD FOR YOU.

        Stop eating red meat and exercise. I'll bet that makes the 17% seem small by comparison. There is no reason anyone EVER has to die of a heart attack. It comes as no surprise to me that little things can make a big difference to a disease that shouldn't be happening in the first place.
      • Loonacy, on 08/01/2008, -1/+4In the case of ice cream sales vs. rape you have another correlation, as you said, with the season. The study with the cigarette ban doesn't have any other major correlation, and goes for an entire year. If they banned ice cream and suddenly rapes dropped a significant percentage for an entire year without any other major social change, I'd probably believe there's more than just a correlation between ice cream sales and rape.
      • dafunkmonster, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2"The study with the cigarette ban doesn't have any other major correlation."

        You don't know that. Come on now, lets not go assuming that a study likely focused on proving the success of a public smoking ban went and examined ALL of the factors influencing people's health in Scotland. Who knows, the reason could be that all the people who had heart attacks in scotland last year either moved or died. Plus, a year isn't a statistically significant enough period of time to determine what is going on in the population.

        Personally, I think its silly that smoking is even banned in bars. I mean, really. We ban people from destroying their lungs publicly, but they can still destroy their liver to their heart's content.

        Also, Ice Cream causes murder too. (Actually, the common correlation between Ice Cream sales and crime is probably civil unrest or weather)
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1"Personally, I think its silly that smoking is even banned in bars. I mean, really. We ban people from destroying their lungs publicly, but they can still destroy their liver to their heart's content."

        Right, you're biased. So you are skeptical of the obvious connection between second-hand smoke and disease. Well, at this point the coffin has been nailed shut on cigarettes. If you want to say that all the studies that have been done were just poorly controlled and there is another cause for the relationships seen, you need to identify and test the relationship that you think is REALLY killing non-smokers.

        The dosage effect is the clincher. People who actually saw less smoke, among all the people in the study, saw the greatest gains.
      • lydecker, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2I go to bars. And occasionally, it bothers me that people smoke to their hearts content when they get sick and I get vomit on me. Otherwise, I don't care.

        When smoking goes on in bars I care. I don't want to smoke, I don't want to breathe it, and when it's allowed in bars I can't go out without breathing it.

        Today, I have friends that don't drink, that go out to bars without drinking or smoking or experiencing displeasure or negative health effects from others that do.
      • Skywise, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2"There is no reason anyone EVER has to die of a heart attack."

        You ARE aware that there are genetic causes, irrespective of environment (IE diet, smoking), that cause plaque build up in the arteries... right?
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1Oh yes, try isolating those genetic effects from the effects of diet and environment, I dare you.

        Sure, they may be there, and thank goodness there are statin drugs.
      • Skywise, on 08/01/2008, -2/+2Jim Fixx... Healthy eater, dieter and non-smoker for 10+ years until his death from a heart attack (long after the risk is supposed to be "reduced")
        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=hea ...
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1Anecdotal, Skywise. One data point. Why are you being so biased?
      • Skywise, on 08/01/2008, -2/+3How'd you say it?
        "Thank you for wasting my time. A google could have helped you."

        http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/02/60II/mai ...
        "Generations of this family have fallen victim to heart disease. They assumed it was due to diet and exercise. But this past week, doctors at the Cleveland Clinic reported they discovered something unique about the Steffensens -- something that had never been found, but long suspected.

        The Steffensens, it turns out, have a heart attack gene. The gene doesn't merely increase their risk of a heart attack. It's an absolute guarantee."

        "Topol says the gene may be unique to the Steffensen family, but it's more reason to believe that it all starts in the genes: “That’s what causes heart attacks, not the cholesterol per se. So in many ways, there’s been a misguided sense of what was going to be the basis of heart attacks.” "

      • lydecker, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2Lydecker: "And occasionally, it bothers me that people [DRINK] to their hearts content"

        Whoops. Fixed that.
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1Really? Absolute guarantee? No chance anything could be done to prevent it? Transplant surgery, bypasses, drugs, or even perhaps not having more children now that they know they are all doomed to die of heart attacks with no chance of avoiding it? Interesting.
    • dhughes, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2 The CBC news website has a better explanation, here's an excerpt:

      "The study tracked heart attacks in nine hospitals in the 10 months before and after a 2006 nationwide ban on smoking in public places that included the workplace as well as bars and restaurants.

      Heart attack patients were interviewed about their exposure to smoke, and doctors measured the nicotine levels in their blood."

      http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2008/07/31/heartatt ...
    • thegbe, on 08/01/2008, -2/+3the smoke doesn't cause cardiovascular disease...it merely accelerates it if the cause is already present -- aka consumption of massive amounts of saturated fats.
      • StaticThunder, on 08/01/2008, -3/+2 I can just as easily say that saturated fats accelerate the disease that is caused by smoking. Smoking causes higher blood pressure and inflammation, high blood pressure and inflammation causes the deposition of plaques in the arteries.
  • okiemike, on 07/31/2008, -13/+14Hey we can do the same everywhere. Yeah, let's outlaw all things that are bad for you, like in that Stallone Movie Demolition Man which has been right on with a lot of things. Salt, McDonalds, Fat, outlaw it all. You know this will come to America once we go socialized medicine ( or Universal Health care as the leftists like to call it). Once this is the case, who can argue with protecting the public from the excesses of your bad health? Why should the public pay for your fatness?
    We are all ( humanity) going down a very bad path and becoming our brothers keepers will end in a complete disaster for civil liberties the world over.
    • damian7, on 07/31/2008, -4/+9Referencing demolition man for the win
    • Fiola, on 07/31/2008, -6/+7RTFA, this is a ban on smoking in public places, not a ban of smoking. People can do whatever they want to their own body at their homes but why should anyone else have to breath in the polluted air caused by second hand smoke in public?
      • cnot3, on 07/31/2008, -6/+2Yeah, so while you're in a restaurant scarfing down cheeseburgers or killing your liver with alcohol, you don't have to go, "COUGH COUGH! EXCUSE ME DON'T YOU KNOW THAT'S BAD FOR YOU!"
    • TomFrost, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6Yeah man, and what about my freedom to inhale anthrax in public places? And asbestos? It's my freedom at stake!
    • Laminarcissus, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3I love people who indulge in slippery-slope fapping without once recognizing that human beings have judgment to bring to bear on each one of those eventualities, and each one will be evaluated at the right time on its own merits.

      For example, here in New York, we're trying to curb obesity. We didn't ban fast foods, but we did require restaurants to label food nutritional information on the menus.

      "But if you're too stupid to know that a Big Mac has a million calories then.." you might fap...Of course we know, but did you know that some of their salads do to? People need information to make intelligent choices, something the freeeeeeeedom-chanters never account for.

      So see, in New York, on one issue, your anti-intellectual slippery-slope rant is being handled in a smart way by people who are not you.

      But to make you even dumber, this case doesn't even apply. The difference between smoking and Big Macs is when you eat a Big Mac, you're not forcing the kids two booths down to eat part of it themselves. A cigarette however, much like your logic, has a blast radius that hurts everyone.

      So please, I know you're right wing, or even an idiot libertarian (redundant), but try to think every once in awhile, yes?
      • hamishmacdonald, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1I thought "fapping" was Internet for "masturbating".
      • Laminarcissus, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1It is. That's how I meant it. It's a literary imagery thing.
    • sk11, on 07/31/2008, -0/+2I don't think an American is in any position to criticise Britain on civil liberties!
    • rlbond86, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Or we can just set up a ridiculous straw-man argument to prove a point.
  • aserer511, on 07/31/2008, -5/+10this data is preliminary at best. i think it's silly to say that 2 years after a ban on public smoking, all associated heart attack drops are due to this ban. that said, in for repeat study in 8 years
    • Laminarcissus, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4And you're a statistician?

      A public health specialist?

      Just for fun, tell us exactly what you do for a living that would cause us to put some weight behind your post.
      • aserer511, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1Well, clearly you're a moron if you think that a decrease in smoking will present tangible, statistically significant benefits after TWO years.
      • Laminarcissus, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2Sorry for the double post, but this somehow ended up in the wrong place:

        @aserer511:
        You're right -- I wouldn't expect it after two years. I would expect a ban on smoking to create statistically significant results the next day if the proper study were in place.

        Every time a person takes a drag on a cigarette they are drawing a significant number of dangerous chemicals into their bloodstream, putting stress on their heart. Every drag they don't take is one less stress event that could be their last.

        We're not talking cancer here, we're talking heart attacks -- several studies have shown that in just three years after quitting the risk factors for coronary artery disease related to smoking return to those of people who *have never smoked*. It's already known (by the morons who do the studies) that quitting has tangible, immediate benefits.

        But hey, I'm apparently the moron here, so why don't you take a second out of your busy life and look it up like I did, that way you can be a moron too.
  • whiterice0, on 07/31/2008, -14/+17The smokers will now desperately try to bury this story and any positive comments about it, as well as scream bloody murder about "civil liberties being violated" because addicts are desperate to hold on to their addiction.
    • Hetman, on 07/31/2008, -9/+6Yea because freedom is a horrible idea. I do not even smoke but if you want to you should be able to. It is your body you can do whatever you like with it. I can see ban in public places that are in doors. I cannot justify a law that bans smoking in the private sector. That should be up to the person who owns the property.
    • skipdog172, on 07/31/2008, -10/+4nobody forces anybody else into a smoky bar. there is no reason owners should have to outlaw smoking. i can smoke in my house and invite people into my house. if i were to open a public establishment i should be able to put a big sign on the front that says "FEEL FREE TO SMOKE! DEAL WITH IT OR GTFO!" where folks then have a CHOICE of going into the location, or going outside the location.
    • BabyWookie, on 08/01/2008, -3/+3You are addicted too... to the *****.
  • krnldmp, on 07/31/2008, -10/+5 "with non-smokers benefiting most"

    Far as I can tell that pretty much indicates they're barking up the totally wrong tree.
    • WasabiBomb, on 07/31/2008, -3/+6Nope. Think about it a bit further, and you'll see why.
      • krnldmp, on 07/31/2008, -9/+2Whatever homie. If 17% of potential heart attacks Really didn't occur in 2006 just because of the absence of second hand smoke, they're gonna occur in 2007 anyway.
      • WasabiBomb, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Um, okay, "homie".

        People die of all sorts of things. Heart attacks can be prevented, not just delayed.
      • krnldmp, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2Right, and someday heart attacks will be entrely prevented, and there will be no medical reason to keep people from smoking.
      • Loonacy, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Because smoking only causes heart attacks. There are no other unhealthy side effects.

        Yep.
    • Laminarcissus, on 07/31/2008, -1/+3Really? Can you walk us through your statistical methodology on that, or is it something that you, your corncob pipe, and the shotgun across your lap all agreed on in advance?
  • Hetman, on 07/31/2008, -13/+6They forgot to add that suicide rates unfortunately rose 75%
    • OrangeSoda31, on 07/31/2008, -2/+5I dugg this comment down because it was stupid.
  • Hetman, on 07/31/2008, -12/+3They forgot to add that suicide rates rose by 75% though.
    • OrangeSoda31, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3and, I dugg this comment down for being a doublepost.
  • nullcodes, on 07/31/2008, -7/+13Great news, this calls for a cigar!
  • Tyrghast, on 07/31/2008, -13/+8If you really thing secondhand smoke is a factor in heart attacks, you are sorely mistaken. Even if you've inhaled enough secondhand smoke to cause heart or breathing problems it would take longer than two years for your lungs to clean themselves up (you should also stop sucking the smoke directly off the lit end of someone's cigarette).
    • SmokedL, on 07/31/2008, -2/+5Try facts rather than nonsense:
      http://quitsmoking.about.com/cs/afterquitting/a/af ...
      • Tyrghast, on 07/31/2008, -4/+2I'm pre-med, and I'm reciting my professor and my textbooks. I know what I'm talking about.
      • SmokedL, on 07/31/2008, -2/+4"I'm pre-med, and I'm reciting my professor and my textbooks. I know what I'm talking about."
        Right.
        Then please tell me what about the content on the page I linked to is incorrect.

        Oh, you didn't read it did you? You figured that 2 year figure you heard was the only relevant figure related to the recovery of a body from smoke intake didn't you? Apparently your professors, and your books, have yet to tell you about the many health improvements that happen within days huh?
        You really, really, should think further than that when considering issues related to your work in the future. Failing to do so could cause people to die.

        Working in medicine i a huge responsibility. You will be taking an oath eventually to do no harm. Perhaps you should consider that before spouting misleading factoids that if listened to will keep people in harms way.
  • Otto, on 07/31/2008, -13/+6And in other news, freedom and liberty also reporting drops of 100%.

    Welcome to socialism, where the dictates of your political masters override all personal freedoms. Enjoy being a slave to the whims of the state.
    • fallenidol, on 07/31/2008, -1/+7do you even know what socialism is?
      • Otto, on 07/31/2008, -3/+2Yes, but clearly you do not.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
      • hamishmacdonald, on 07/31/2008, -1/+0I'm Scottish, and love my country. Our governing party at the moment is the Scottish Nationalist Party. The socialists didn't win, but they *were* in the election. Hell, we even had communists vying to be on the ballot. We're not afraid of words, nor do we turn them into jingoistic bogeymen.

        This is the country of the Enlightenment; long let us question what's best for our countrymen today and into the future, and make collective decisions based on the greater good, rather than the self-interested wishes of the few.

        Our state gives us the National Health Service, which is not perfect, but reflects an interest in the general welfare, rather than an Ayn Randian type of "dog-eat-dog" society, whose "freedoms" you seem to prefer. Assuming you're in the States, trust me when I say that your keepers do not have your best interests in mind. Replace them with the other party as soon as possible; I'm sorry that you have only the freedom to swing from one compromised party to another. Here in Scotland, we have the freedom to choose between a number of parties, and chose the SNP, who co-lead with the Greens.

        Is this idea of a nation frightening you yet?
    • fafnir314, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1Now you've got it! Government legislation of things that go on in public IS socialism! Where's Braveheart when you need him?
      • stealthc, on 07/31/2008, -1/+1Last I checked, my body was a private place.
      • SmokedL, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1"Last I checked, my body was a private place."
        The air that I breath is not your private place.
        My right to be trumps your right to smoke where I am.
      • jerrycurley, on 07/31/2008, -1/+0hey stealth...when you destroy your body because you are too weak to enjoy your life without killing yourself, you hurt me. I am not paying onne more penny for your welfare than I already am paying to support your unemployed worthless life. I don't want the economy to suffer one bit due smoker's sick days
    • sk11, on 07/31/2008, -0/+1Because freedom and liberty are doing SO well in America lately...
      • jerrycurley, on 07/31/2008, -2/+0and what freedoms have you lost, exactly?

        Answer: None. You are still fre to be the worthless, lonely outcast of society that you always were.
      • sk11, on 08/01/2008, -1/+1@jerrycurley
        Since you go around calling everyone you disagree with social outcasts, I guessing it's an actual reflection of your own insecurity.
  • jcastillo81, on 07/31/2008, -11/+14This just in: Car accident deaths drop by 100% after automobile ban!
    • mmastrac, on 07/31/2008, -0/+6Now if only cigarettes could get you somewhere.
      • Magnus150, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1They can get you to coolsville baby!
  • damian7, on 07/31/2008, -7/+34This is about public smoking, I don't wanna breathe some *****'s smoke
    • skipdog172, on 07/31/2008, -14/+6then go into the non-smoking bar? or the non-smoking restaurant? or be OUTSIDE where somebody smoking isn't going to affect you at all??

      oh noes, too much work. we just can't let a bar owner allow smoking even if each and every resident is fine with it and is perfectly happy accepting the risks. OH NOES WE CANNOT DO THAT!!!!!!!
      • monkeyrun, on 07/31/2008, -3/+14holy crap! going outside will immediately shield me from 2nd hand smoke!? Even when someone is smoking right next to me?

        ***** You, why do non-smokers have to run away from your disgusting smoke?
      • sensor, on 07/31/2008, -1/+6Are you ***** serious?! I've never walked in my town without breathing tobacco smoke.... and I've tried. Almost every public building has people smoking at or near the entrances and you cannot escape the fumes.
    • BabyWookie, on 07/31/2008, -4/+2We don't want to see your smug, ugly face either, but we deal.
      • BabyWookie, on 08/01/2008, -3/+1Why don't you ***** wear a gas mask then? It will also spear us from seeing your smug, ugly face.
  • tbri001, on 07/31/2008, -8/+13all the liberties stuff aside--it seems like a very short period of time to be making statements like this....

    i just don't know if i can trust these super anti smoking people...theyre almost as bad as the tobacco companies once were i think...
    • Loonacy, on 08/01/2008, -0/+5Because anti-smokers make so much money off of people not smoking.
      • SmokedL, on 08/01/2008, -0/+3Not to mention all the people that die from not smoking.
  • trav12221, on 07/31/2008, -13/+8I don't blow my smoke at non-smokers and smoking relaxes me, whats the problem now?
  • TonyTheTerrible, on 07/31/2008, -13/+7*****.
  • buddyw, on 07/31/2008, -14/+9I think Patrick Henry said it best, "Give me liberty, or give me death!"

    Even looking past the fact that there is no statistical link between the 17% drop and the ban, some things, like freedom, are more important than a 17% drop in heart attacks.
    • adam07, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4Like the freedom not to breathe someone's cigarette smoke?
  • Sfear, on 07/31/2008, -5/+3Even if this is true, it has as much to do with the fact that people drink less due to smoking ban as it has to do with any reduction in smoking.
  • Methuselah4869, on 07/31/2008, -10/+6I don't mind people smoking, just not when near me. I hate smelling it and the idea of it. (Crippling my lungs so I can't do things like daily athletics.) Second hand smoking is a killer; and I'm often paranoid about them. At least I'm having a good sex life...^^''

    People need to die early and quickly to slow down the population that is increasing... It's more like Scotland is killing themselves with this ban. Therefor, I support those smokers. XD
  • sooch, on 07/31/2008, -8/+7correlation is not causation. look, this stone's been here since the ban took effect, must be the stone's presence that caused the decline in heart attacks... absurd, but just as logical.
    • sk11, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Except smoking has been found to cause heart problems in medical experiments...
  • borez, on 07/31/2008, -9/+5I don't believe those figures, one ***** bit.

    And I'm seeing another worrying trend in the media, the government is starting on drinkers in a big way too. Also FTR the only place you can still smoke in a public place in England, is....the House of Commons bar.
  • sooch, on 07/31/2008, -7/+6Also, you're gonna die, get over it. Less heart attacks, more cancer. Less cancer, more Alzheimer's. Choose one.
    • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -4/+4He was gonna die eventually anyway, so it really doesn't matter that I shot him, right officer?

      OH SNAAAAP!
    • stealthc, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6Can I pick shark attack? At age 90?
    • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4Death from a stroke caused by excessive orgasms.
    • Methuselah4869, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2I prefer better sex life and better life spand to take care of my love ones... It's not the death that concerns me, it's their happiness.
  • edd17, on 07/31/2008, -3/+6I guess the decline in the popularity of the deep fried Mars Bar had nothing to do with it?
  • nosamesame, on 07/31/2008, -8/+12If you really believe that there were 17% less heart attacks because they removed 2nd hand smoke from the equation you're nuts.
    • thestranger, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3and its only been less then 2 years since the ban.

    • Loonacy, on 08/01/2008, -1/+3If you really don't believe that there were 17% less heart attacks because they removed 2nd hand smoke from the equation you're nuts.

      Whee! Unqualified statements are fun!
  • cnot3, on 07/31/2008, -5/+4What happened to the freedom loving Scotland that gave us man-skirts, Nessie, and William Wallace? These statistics are probably not accurate, since very little of what the anti-smoking Gestapo publishes is.
  • andrewtheart, on 07/31/2008, -4/+3And I bet the percentage of the population afflicted with various other addictions and problems "coincidentally" shot up. That's not a joke - I personally know people whose alcoholic tenancies would be exacerbated if they didn't smoke all the time. In many instances, it comes down to choosing between drunk drivers involved in vehicular accidents that impact entire families versus an individual's insidious death from cancer? They're both bad, and both should be eliminated, but there's a lesser of the two evils.
    • Zadernet, on 07/31/2008, -0/+3That was a good comment. You must be smart.
    • Loonacy, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2They can still smoke in their own homes. It's only a ban on public smoking.
  • kreativenaim, on 07/31/2008, -3/+6Most "public places" are still *private property*. People have a right to do whatever the hell they want. If I buy a restaurant, and I want to allow smoking, so be it. If you don't like it, eat somewhere else.
    • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6Then don't apply for a business license or a food service license, a liquor license or commercial zoning. You want those, we get to regulate you.

      So if you want to open a private club, on the unincorporated outskirts of town, that does business through barter, and doesn't serve prepared food, where you can smoke, BE MY GUEST!
    • z28com, on 07/31/2008, -2/+6I have the right anywhere I damned well please without having to inhale carcinogens. People don't have the right to shoot 9mm guns at people in a restaurant, they also don't have the right to cause others to stink like them or to cause lung cancer for others. I already know 5 people who have died from 2nd hand smoke. So you can go ***** yourself and die you ***** *****. God damn I cannot stand smokers. I should just go get a gun and do drive-by's on every person I see on the street smoking a cigarette.
      • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2After all, it was their choice to be in a private establishment where bullets could be flying ;-)
      • Magnus150, on 08/01/2008, -0/+1Jesus man, you could use a smoke.
  • Trigonometron, on 07/31/2008, -6/+1And soon, GATTACA

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca
  • ender7074, on 07/31/2008, -10/+1Wooo Hooo!!! The libs favorite word, BAN!!!! More rights down the tubes in socialist countries... Pretty soon you will have to consult a politician to take a crap.
    • FyberOptic, on 07/31/2008, -0/+4Sounds more like what the republicons are doing here in America. You know, stripping away our rights under the guise of protecting us from terrorists. At this rate, we'll have to ask permission from the local police before we go to the grocery store to use our food rationing cards. Don't forget to take your national ID with you, or they'll lock you up under suspicion of terrorism!
  • mogdor, on 07/31/2008, -1/+10Personally, I don't care about public smoking, but for everyone saying "why don't we outlaw Mcdonald's if we outlaw smoking".......that's a pretty stupid comparison. Chowing down on a big mac doesn't affect the health of the person standing next to you.
    • algaeturd, on 07/31/2008, -4/+1The air quality OUTSIDE of a bar is worse than air quality inside of some bars that allow smoking. THOSE are studies, too.
    • z28com, on 07/31/2008, -5/+1We need to outlaw McDonalds. Just as a bartender has to stop serving you alcohol when you're drunk, a cashier should not allow you to buy cookies, cake, soda or anything fattening if you're a ***** tub-o-lard. All things bad should be illegal. If you don't like it, tough ***** *****, then move to another god damned planet.
    • BabyWookie, on 08/01/2008, -3/+2Your smoking doesn't really affect the health of the person next to your either. It's all BS propaganda. The amount of toxins inhaled via second hand smoke is insignificant.
  • samdu, on 07/31/2008, -3/+6Similar results were seen in a smoking ban in Helena, Montana. Oh... wait, the results were complete *****... http://www.davehitt.com/facts/helena.html I wonder if these conclusions are as tainted.
    • rlbond86, on 08/01/2008, -0/+2The guy who wrote that article had NO IDEA how statistics work.
  • thestranger, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2This could also be a result of smokers wanting to smoke, and causing them to drink less at bars, eat crappy bar food, and also cause them to not eat out as much.

    I am not saying it isn't from people cutting back on smoking, but it could also be due to smokers cutting back on the unhealthy lifesytle that goes along with "going out".
    • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -1/+4Then why did non-smokers benefit the most? Presumably they would be going out more, and getting more of the crappy bar food and alcohol?
      • thestranger, on 07/31/2008, -2/+2Like I said it is possible.

        But a lot of "non-smokers" like to smoke a lot when they drink. Also when less people go out (the smokers), others tend to not go out as well (non-smokers).
      • StaticThunder, on 07/31/2008, -1/+2Then why are you calling them non-smokers? Do you have any data to back up your contentions that these are significant effects? Or is this just anecdotal.

        I know I go to MORE bars now that there is a smoking ban in effect where I live. Also anecdotal. But I'd like to see the magnitude of the effect of these "phantom" smokers.
  • algaeturd, on 07/31/2008, -3/+4Oh, yeah because most non-smokers have heart attacks after being around smoke at bars while they guzzle straight liquor all night. Sounds like a perfectly sound study to me. No, really. No holes in that theory.
  • z28com, on 07/31/2008, -6/+6Why don't they just outlaw cigarettes altogether and call it a ***** day? Geez. Then I could finally go to restaurants in the midwest without having to breath that god damned ***** in my lungs. To all smokers: ***** YOU.
    • SmokedL, on 07/31/2008, -2/+3Because freedom is bloody important.
      Now the freedom to be in a public place without being poisoned sure as hell trumps the freedom to spread toxins around in a public place, but there's no way I'll agree to the state having the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to smoke in a way that harms nobody by me.

      I don't though. Smoking is bloody idiotic. But it's my choice to make.

      I wonder what the confused people who believe freedom is the same as no rules at all will make of this post. Here's a hint for you guys: IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. There are plenty of freedoms that when exercised restrict other peoples rights. Like, in this case, the right to spend time in public places without being poisoned. Please learn to see the world in color instead of ridiculously simplified black and white.
      • hamishmacdonald, on 07/31/2008, -2/+4I have a friend who was reduced to breathing with one-half of one lung because of smoking, and soon after he died.

        Walking four feet had him wheezing, gasping desperately for breath.

        He was not free.

        That a corporation profited from this moves me from sadness to anger.
      • SmokedL, on 08/01/2008, -1/+2"I have a friend who was reduced to breathing with one-half of one lung because of smoking, and soon after he died.

        Walking four feet had him wheezing, gasping desperately for breath.

        He was not free.

        That a corporation profited from this moves me from sadness to anger."

        I feel for you and your friend. I really do.
        My father, a long time smoker, suffered a stroke two years back.
        My mother, a long time smoker, can't speak more than a sentence or two without coughing.
        Believe me, I know what you're talking about.

        I'll tell you what I do believe should be punishable by harsh legal penalties:
        * Astroturfing to try to spread doubt about the health effects of smoking.
        * Smoking advertisements targeting children.
        * Any and all attempt at spreading misinformation about the health effects of smoking.
        * Any advertising of cigarettes that do not reference information on the health effects of smoking.
        * Smoking in places that will cause others, who have not given consent, to inhale your smoke.

        I also believe that smoking causes a huge cost to society, and that it would be perfectly fine for there to be a very high tax on tobacco products to balance that cost.

        Making smoking itself illegal though? No. That would make most of the currently idiotic comments on this article correct. That would be like outlawing french fries, coca cola, being overweight etc. I do not believe that smoking in itself is morally wrong.

  • FyberOptic, on 07/31/2008, -3/+8Now let's ban it in America too and get it over with. All the rude bastards who don't care to force their habit on others can go to Mexico I guess.
  • ovset, on 07/31/2008, -0/+8A smoking ban took place here in Houston a while back. I'm a smoker and I couldn't really care less. So people don't want my lovable carcinogens in their face; I can go smoke outside or just wait it out.

    Not saying I agree or disagree with the ordinance -- it just doesn't bother me either way.
  • monkeyrun, on 07/31/2008, -4/+5Smokers should only be allowed to smoke when they are absolutely alone, no one is interested in sharing their 2nd hand smoke.
  • twinklyJesus, on 07/31/2008, -2/+14Unfortunately, rage crimes committed by smokers have gone up 36%
    • z28com, on 07/31/2008, -2/+1I'd rather have rage crimes than cancer.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.