Re: smoking and the pub
 

Yes I know, try re-reading my first sentence. ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Hardly what you claimed earlier but still nicely misses my point.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

How does it miss your point? You are asking how effective the ban will be in reducing the dangers of passive smoking, Russ is saying that as the only place really encounters passive smoking is at work so if it were banned there, he would not be a passive smoker.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

OK, to address your point: in the absence of a ban, how would you propose to conduct a study of sufficient scale and rigour to demonstrate convincingly the type of effect a ban would have?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

We have pilot studies in other areas such as longer opening hours for licensed premises that can be conducted in whole towns or areas for a set period of time to assess the changes. How can a ban be introduced without this kind of evidence?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

SlackDad are you asking for a study on reactions to a ban and effects on the hospitality industry, or definitive results on the dangers of passive smoking on people who go to a smoky pub a few times a week?

Re: smoking and the pub
 

The general statistical correlation between smoking (including passive smoking) and diseases such as lung cancer, heart disease and athsma is very well understood and, in my view (and the view of the medical fraternity), is already more than adequate to justify a ban.

I think the comparison with pub opening hours is bogus. Such trials are designed to assess behavioural changes and can therefore operate effectively over a period of months. A pilot study banning smoking would require something like 50 years to be effective. This is plainly silly, and as we already have ample evidence that doing nothing will result in more needless death, the time for decisive action is clearly now.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

It's exactly what I claimed earlier - here:

And what I posted above:

So you see, it's exactly what I claimed earlier.

To be honest mate, I think just about everyone is missing your point...

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Nicely avoided my point about the actual effect that this ban will have on the health of people who actually spend in time pubs etc. where smoking is allowed, and the negative effects of secondary smoke. I suggest that any effect will be quite minimal.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

I haven't avoided it at all. I just didn't give you the answer you were looking for. ;)

To spell it out:

It is not possible to state with certainty the precise actual effect without actually implementing the ban (a point I suggest you avoided, with an IMO invalid comparison with pilot pub opening hours). However the general evidence for the harm done by tobacco smoke provides more than sufficient evidence to proceed on the grounds that doing something must be better than doing nothing.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Ah I see, even though there is no actual evidence do it anyway, to then see whether we were right all along. We're right, don't care what you say, and who cares about evidence because it may take alot of time to implement. A bit like Blair and his WMD's ;)

Re: smoking and the pub
 

:banghead:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

No grounds to claim it will be minimal, and any such study would take 50 years to complete as Chris T has said. We already know that passive smoking is dangerous, is there any need to quantify exactly how much we will be reducing the dangers by banning it in public places? Any reduction is good.

Re: smoking and the pub
 

Is that to get you prepared for Tesco, Russ?

:p:

Re: smoking and the pub
 

There is actual evidence. The statistics for people who die as a result of smoke each year have been posted in this thread multiple times. It is no giant leap of faith to conclude that if you separate the smoke from the people, then fewer people will be affected by the smoke.

The precise effect, of course, cannot be measured without actually implementing the ban. However the statistics are sufficiently compelling to justify doing it anyway.

Incidentally, Bush and Blair invaded Iraq based on intelligence which, at the time, appeared to justify what they were doing. It quickly became clear that their intel was a pile of dingo's kidneys and therefore their justification was removed (they then found other 'justification' but that's another subject). Are you suggesting that the 'intelligence' that there is a fatal correlation between tobacco smoke and ill health is similarly flawed?