smoking and the pub

[Pia]

Originally Posted by Shaun

doesn't bother me that some of my tax money goes into the pot and is shared with Wales and Scotland.

Even if Wales get free prescriptions and we don't?

Anyway......moving on

[Shaun]

Originally Posted by Pia

Even if Wales get free prescriptions and we don't?

Anyway......moving on

It would be nice here too but my understanding is it cut costs be giving free prescriptions there not here.

The grass is always greener and all that.

[pedantic]

I had a feeling something like this would happen eventually.

A former British heavyweight boxer was shot when he asked customers at a club to stop smoking.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by broxiebear1

i cant wait till we are independant here in scotland im fed up with being told what i can and can not do .

Err. I assume you do realise that the Scottish smoking ban was introduced by the Scottish Parliament and not Westminster so an independent Scotland would still have the smoking ban (and quite probably be worse off outwith the UK)

Oh and forgetting the small fact that the majority of Scots support the ban.

Aside from those points your arguments are spot on.

A study has shown a 17% drop in heart attack hospital admissions amongst smokers since the ban was introduced in Scotland. Amongst non-smokers, the figures are even more impressive - a 20% drop.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/...st/6986554.stm

[Xaccers]

Which suggests it's not smoking related but down to something else.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which suggests it's not smoking related but down to something else.

One of the researchers on the news up here was saying that cigarette smoke, especially the stuff coming off the tip of lit cigarettes, has a dramatic effect on blood vessels surrounding the heart which is one reason they think the drop has been quite dramatic.

That and the smokers now have to walk to get their pies not sit eating them in the pub .

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which suggests it's not smoking related but down to something else.

The experts at Aberdeen University disagree with you. As do the senior public health officials in NHS Scotland.

[Xaccers]

It would mean that passive smoking accounted for a higher chance of heart attacks than actively smoking.

So smoking 20 a day would increase your risk of heart attack by less than someone passive smoking.
Is it seriously being suggested that if you took 100 smokers and 100 non-smokers, and didn't introduce the smoking ban, 17 of the smokers would have smoking related heart attacks, while 20 of the non-smokers would have smoking related heart attacks???

That would mean that if you live with a smoker who won't go outside for a fag, you're better off smoking too as there'll be less chance of having a heart attack.

The smoke at the tip of the cigarette is inhailed in greater quantities by the smoker than anyone else.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

It would mean that passive smoking accounted for a higher chance of heart attacks than actively smoking.

So smoking 20 a day would increase your risk of heart attack by less than someone passive smoking.
Is it seriously being suggested that if you took 100 smokers and 100 non-smokers, and didn't introduce the smoking ban, 17 of the smokers would have smoking related heart attacks, while 20 of the non-smokers would have smoking related heart attacks???

That would mean that if you live with a smoker who won't go outside for a fag, you're better off smoking too as there'll be less chance of having a heart attack.

The smoke at the tip of the cigarette is inhailed in greater quantities by the smoker than anyone else.

but what you gotta remember is then both subjects will be passively smoking off the other

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by zinglebarb

but what you gotta remember is then both subjects will be passively smoking off the other

Yes, but according to the data, take 100 smokers who passively smoke off themselves and others, and 100 non-smokers who only passively smoke off others, and 3 more non-smokers will die from smoking related heart attacks than smokers.

Come on this sort of thing was bound to happen so that all concerned could say "we told you it was right to ban smoking". Smokers actively and passively smoke so to say more non smokers died from smoking related illness is a complete load of bs.

[Xaccers]

How does one tell the difference between a heartattack caused by passive smoking and a heartattack caused by other reasons, both in non-smokers?

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

How does one tell the difference between a heartattack caused by passive smoking and a heartattack caused by other reasons, both in non-smokers?

I suspect the smoke leaves detectable deposits in the arteries around the heart.