smoking and the pub

Originally Posted by orangebird

The 1 in 3 figure is not specific to smoking related cancer though, is it?

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

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Russ D

No exposure (which would be the result of a ban) to smoke = no passive smoking for non-smokers.

If there's any research on earth which defies that then I will show my butt in Tesco's windows.

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

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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

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.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Something which I am not denying but I would like to see research around exposure times etc. for the type of effect that this ban will have. That is my point.

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?

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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?

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?

[clarie]

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?

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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?

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.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Hardly what you claimed earlier

It's exactly what I claimed earlier - here:

Originally Posted by me

Logic dictates that if my exposure to passive smoking is removed (by way of a ban or whatever) then that will make a HUGE difference to my chances of contracting an illness from it.

And what I posted above:

Originally Posted by me

No exposure (which would be the result of a ban) to smoke = no passive smoking for non-smokers.

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

Originally Posted by SlackDad

but still nicely misses my point.

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

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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.

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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.

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.

[SlackDad]

Originally Posted by Chris T

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.

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

[Russ]

[clarie]

Originally Posted by SlackDad

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.

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.

[Nugget]

Originally Posted by Russ D

Is that to get you prepared for Tesco, Russ?

Originally Posted by SlackDad

Ah I see, even though there is no actual evidence do it anyway, to then see whether we were right all along. A bit like Blair and his WMD's

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?