Smoking ban.

[Gringo]

Gringo will no doubt post something

No he won't cos he doesn't think that arguing with fools will enhance the debate. On other threads people who said they only wanted to drink in lemon fresh pub environments now call smokers sad rocket polishers. Where's the truth in there orignial argument? None - they were lying then and are sad rocket polishers now? Other people who said they would go to the pub more often once smoke was vanquished then said they spent 18 quid a week going out. Others who said the pubs were closing down to property speculators in the middle of a property crash now blame the supermarkets, People buy from supermarkets cos they can't smoke in the pub. The facts remain the same, the excuses vary. In a few years no real pubs left and you'll all be drinking your spritzers in all bar one. Well done.

[ianrobo1]

no Gringo, they are all factors just depend which one you may believe is the over ridding one

[Gringo]

Of course. Yet you are still spouting tosh about property companies in the middle of the biggest property slump in nearly 20 years and your other "factor" is the fact that supermarkets are selling cheap beer which they have been doing for years. Next you'll be telling us it's all the fault of the sub prime market in the USA even though pub closures are up 1000% on last year, even though the UK has only just now entered recession. Were all these pub giants guessing that there income would be slashed or did they know it already had been. Smoking ban kills pubs, In Ireland, in the UK in France, wherever.

[ianrobo1]

the property thing was apparent before the smoking ban

I just believe the smoking ban was a thin that tipped already struling pubs over the edge,, they would have gone under anyway, it is a shame but the social patter of drinking has changed and especially those non food places

[Gringo]

Yes the property thing was apparent before the smoking ban - but you use it as a reason for pubs closing down, even though pubs are closing 10 times faster now than they were before - how do YOU square that circle.

Either your argument is redundant or false.

No property firms are now buying pubs in order to turn them into flats. None. Nada. Zilch. Yet pubs are still closing and still you use it to support your argument. Incredulous.

These "non food places" as you label them, probably what I would call "traditional" pubs were still in business 18 months ago and now are going to the wall. As I said on another thread a while back, phone fleurets or one of the other pub estate agents and see what is happening to the industry. Anything outside the city centre is now off limits for any type of funding or financial support. Smoking Ban killed the pubs as many said it would do. Now the naysayers are simply making excuses.

[ianrobo1]

All I can say rigno is that personally I know of no smoker who has stopped going. We were talking about this at the villa game ad I just think it was one facotr which for some pubs wwas enough to tip them

but also many trad pubs were also very outdated in what they offerred, the old punters were literally dying out and they could never replace them

[Risso]

The smoking ban's great, I've noticed I'll have a quick pint after work far more often than I used to, and chances are it'll be a proper old boozer that serves decent beer rather than a wine bar as well. Can't see anything to complain about at all tbh.

[red5]

Single biggest factor after the 90's drink-driving push is the cheap booze/everyone selling it scenario tbh.

10 years ago no-one in their right mind would have expected a Petrol station of all things to sell booze.....

And we are about to see yet another campaign to stop pubs doing drinks promotions, but you can buy premium strength beers for less than a soft drink from a supermarket as a loss leader........hmmm..

[Condimentalist]

Politics aside, as a smoker I don't actually mind the smoking ban. Although I think the effects of passive smoking are over-stated, it is still a health concern. And actually it's quite nice to be able to wear the same clothes the next day if needs be. Plus the smoking area at clubs etc tends to be one of the most social parts of the event (and better for chatting up girls).

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

The smoking ban came in Holland in July, it's not really working as planned. You can still smoke in a lot of pubs after 12.00 at night and the law says you can smoke in coffe shops as long as it's pure weed which is non enforceable unless the police start taking spliffs apart. There has been a massive drop in people going out especially here in a seaside town, it is very noticeable.

[Nath182]

I dont really mind the smoking ban, I thought it would be the end of my social life but it hasnt really effected me that much. I just dont smoke as much which is great! And I tend not to stink of fags as much.

[The_Rev]

Seems the smoking ban has had a bigger benefit on public health than first expected.

The BBC"]

Smoking ban heart gains 'massive'

Bans on smoking in public places have had a bigger impact on preventing heart attacks than ever expected, data shows.

Smoking bans cut the number of heart attacks in Europe and North America by up to a third, two studies report.

This "heart gain" is far greater than both originally anticipated and the 10% figure recently quoted by England's Department of Health.

The studies appear in two leading journals - Circulation and the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Heart attacks in the UK alone affect an estimated 275,000 people and kill 146,000 each year.

Big impact

Earlier this month it was announced that heart attack rates fell by about 10% in England in the year after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced in July 2007 - which is more than originally anticipated.

But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year.

Second-hand smoke is thought to increase the chances of a heart attack by making the blood more prone to clotting, reducing levels of beneficial "good" cholesterol, and raising the risk of dangerous heart rhythms.

Dr James Lightwood, of the University of California at San Francisco, led the Circulation study that pooled together 13 separate analyses.

His team found that heart attack rates across Europe and North America started to drop immediately following implementation of anti-smoking laws, reaching 17% after one year, then continuing to decline over time, with a 36% drop three years after enacting the restrictions.

Dr Lightwood said: "While we obviously won't bring heart attack rates to zero, these findings give us evidence that in the short-to-medium-term, smoking bans will prevent a lot of heart attacks.

"This study adds to the already strong evidence that second-hand smoke causes heart attacks, and that passing 100% smoke-free laws in all workplaces and public places is something we can do to protect the public."

Ellen Mason, of the British Heart Foundation, said: "These studies add to the growing evidence that a ban on smoking in public places seems to have a positive impact on heart attack rates, which is clearly good news for our nation's heart health.

"The statistics also show how quickly the benefits can be felt after a smoking ban is implemented and indicate how dangerous second-hand smoke can be to the heart.

"If you are a smoker, the single biggest thing you can do to avoid a heart attack is to give up, which could also protect the heart health of friends and family."

Latest figures show at least 70,000 lives have been saved by NHS Stop Smoking Services in the 10 years since they were established in England.

[snowychap]

His team found that heart attack rates across Europe and North America started to drop immediately following implementation of anti-smoking laws, reaching 17% after one year, then continuing to decline over time, with a 36% drop three years after enacting the restrictions.

That seems rather coincidental. Wasn't 17% the claimed percentage that heart attacks reduced by in Scotland in the year after the smoking ban was introduced?

The facts in the way of a good story

It looked like a vindication of the smoking ban in Scotland - in little more than a year, the heart attack rate had been cut by almost a fifth. But look at official figures, says Michael Blastland, and it just doesn't stack up.

It was dramatic research that made headlines everywhere. A 17% fall in the number of heart attacks in the year since Scotland stubbed out smoking in public places.

Startling - if true.

Few questioned the research when it was revealed two months ago. Politicians trumpeted the numbers as vindication of a policy introduced a year earlier than in England. Journalists obediently followed suit.

The most arresting finding was that heart attacks among non-smokers had apparently fallen even faster than smokers, suggesting that passive smoking was often to blame.

Then a week ago, with rather less fanfare, routine statistics on hospital activity were published by the official source for health data in Scotland, as they are every year, this time including the time since the ban.

These show a fall in heart attacks for the year from March 2006 - not of 17%, but less than half as much at about 8%.

What's more, taking out the recent trend, this is halved again. Heart attacks have been falling steadily for some years now. The percentage falls in the three years before the ban were 5.1%, 4.7% and 5.7%. So the fall since is still bigger than the trend would lead us to expect, but bigger only by about three or four percentage points - an improvement, but retreating fast from the magnitude of 17.

The latest release also makes clear that even an 8% fall in heart attacks is not unprecedented. There was another, larger drop between 1999 and 2000 of about 11% (see chart).

This seems to demonstrate significant variability around the trend, suggesting that last year's 8% drop might even be the result of chance. It is conceivable, although perhaps unlikely, that the smoking ban had no effect at all. The figures could be a result of no more than the ordinary ups and downs of statistical variation from one year to the next.

There have been several other initiatives designed to reduce heart attacks in Scotland recently, and any or all might also have played a part.

If we look at all heart attacks, rather than just emergency admissions, the fall last year according to the official data was slightly smaller again - about 7% - against falls in the past three years on this measure typically of about 4%.

Rise and fall

Scotland's deputy chief medical officer, Peter Donnelly, said at the time of the study in September: "One of the most important findings is the reduction in heart attacks. We believe that the smoking ban was a large contributory factor to this drop."

Scotland's ban came into force 20 months ago

It is not clear on what evidence he could now make such a claim. Any claims of causation now look premature. Even the latest figures are provisional and subject to revision.

Such claims are, in fact, positively damaging. What is unquestionably a good news story - the consistent and impressive decline in heart attacks in Scotland over many years - has become overshadowed by squabbles about the smoking ban.

Worse, the true reasons for this success may be overlooked if too much credit is attributed to the ban on unreliable evidence.

So why such a discrepancy between the two numbers?

The first study was presented at a conference in Edinburgh two months ago by a research group called StopIt (Study Of Public Place Intervention on Tobacco Exposure).

The latest statistics come from ISD Scotland, part of the NHS responsible for health data. Dr Colin Fishbacker, an ISD official, says the two studies used data from different sources. "We wouldn't expect the sources to agree exactly. The routine data we publish is based on the discharge summary sent to the GP and medical records for coding. The StopIt study was a specific research exercise."

Numbers game

There are other factors that may might help explain the discrepancy. The first study, unlike the routine data, was a sample, not a total for all Scotland. And although the sample included nine Scottish hospitals with about two-thirds of heart attack admissions, patients did not have to take part.

There is also a suggestion that the StopIt study compared 10 months before the ban in March 2006, with 10 months after. So the two periods might have spanned different parts of the year. It paid particular attention to distinguishing between smokers and non-smokers, and this may have affected the way the study was carried out.

But because the data on which the StopIt study was based has never been published, and nor has the study itself, it is impossible to say exactly how it was done. Attempts to obtain it or to talk to the lead researcher have gone unanswered.

Once the number was out, politicians were certainly not about to exercise any scientifically-minded reservations about its reliability. The story became political as much as medical.

None of this rules out the possibility that the ban is having an effect. Such a conclusion would be as reckless as declaring that the ban explains everything. But how much effect it's having - if any - no-one knows.

As for the flurry of excitable headlines, what appeared to be hard medical evidence now looks more like over-hasty and over-confident research, coupled with wishful political thinking and uncritical journalism. Whether the same will happen now attention has shifted to the effect of the bans in England and Wales remains to be seen.

Michael Blastland is the author, with Andrew Dilnot, of The Tiger that Isn't - Seeing Through a World of Numbers.

[mjmooney]

The smoking ban came in Holland in July, it's not really working as planned. You can still smoke in a lot of pubs after 12.00 at night and the law says you can smoke in coffe shops as long as it's pure weed which is non enforceable unless the police start taking spliffs apart. There has been a massive drop in people going out especially here in a seaside town, it is very noticeable.

That's fantastic! You can smoke a spliff as long as it doesn't contain any traces of tobacco - in which case you're busted.

The world turned upside-down, indeed.

[DanishVillan]

I say ban the fashion industry next. Just look at all these teenage second-hand victims, with their eating disorders etc...

BAN IT!!

Yeah, I think its a shit law

[savolover]

"But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year."

Impossible, Bollocks, Sack of sh1te. To say that heart attacks have reduced by 26% in one year is absolute codswollop. Te government really don't do themselves any good by publishing such obvious lies.

[mjmooney]

I say ban the fashion industry next. Just look at all these teenage second-hand victims, with their eating disorders etc...

BAN IT!!

Gets my vote.

[LondonLax]

The smoking ban came in Holland in July, it's not really working as planned. You can still smoke in a lot of pubs after 12.00 at night and the law says you can smoke in coffe shops as long as it's pure weed which is non enforceable unless the police start taking spliffs apart. There has been a massive drop in people going out especially here in a seaside town, it is very noticeable.

That's fantastic! You can smoke a spliff as long as it doesn't contain any traces of tobacco - in which case you're busted.

The world turned upside-down, indeed.

I believe they were going to mix the weed with tea leaves or other leaves to mellow it but tobacco is banned by the EU law.

It is quite amusing but a unique case I suppose.

[djdabush]

"But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year."

Impossible, Bollocks, Sack of sh1te. To say that heart attacks have reduced by 26% in one year is absolute codswollop. Te government really don't do themselves any good by publishing such obvious lies.

Indeed and they do such a good job of covering it up by publishing it in two American journals too.

[savolover]

"But the latest work, based on the results of numerous different studies collectively involving millions of people, indicated that smoking bans have reduced heart attack rates by as much as 26% per year."

Impossible, Bollocks, Sack of sh1te. To say that heart attacks have reduced by 26% in one year is absolute codswollop. Te government really don't do themselves any good by publishing such obvious lies.

Indeed and they do such a good job of covering it up by publishing it in two American journals too.

you think that's true then? a 26% drop in heart attacks last year?