Posted By Edward Shyer
In another thread it has been suggested that there has been a massive reduction in the admittance to hospital from heart related problems due to the ban on smoking.

It is not the lack of smoking in enclosed premises that has been the contributor but the fact that all smokers now have to go outside for the ciggy. All this extra exercise is actually contributing to a fitter public and is the true cause of the reduction of heart related problem.

Regards

Ted

as a footnote if people do not like sitting outside at tables with ashtrays there is a simple answer! Don't sit there?

Posted By Edward Shyer


Extract
"It provides evidence that the legislation is improving the health of everyone in Scotland - including smokers.
"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."
Smoking is smoking

If we are to believe that “Smoking Kills” then the at risk group who are smokers will continue to smoke - therefore not reducing risk of heart attack.

However as we are told exercise is good for you and reduces the risk of heart attack then it is more feasible that by having to walk outside to smoke this is forming an exercise pattern and it is this that is reducing hospital admissions.

Can you provide evidence to prove me wrong? Let’s examine all angles

Regards

Ted

Posted By Edward Shyer
No it is NOT Friday How come that once someone introduces a different angle to so called study surveys that people do not agree with they are either shot down in flames or accused of being trivial.

Lets look at my thoughts on this subject:

a smoker walks outside to have a smoke they take one minute to get out, they have the ciggy and take one minute to get back to the bar that they would have been continuously sitting at had it not been for the smoking ban.

walking time = 2mins the average smoker will smoke about ten cigs during a drinking session this equates to 20 minutes of walking. 20 minutes of walking in my book constitutes exercise.

show me proof that this is NOT a contributory factor to the reduction in hospital admissions.

Slightly off track but if the Titanic was unsinkable (as was the claim at the time it was built) why did it carry lifeboats

Regards
Ted

Posted By Bob Thompson CMIOSH
I dont smoke but had to walk to the kebab shop lat night does this count?

Bob

Posted By Rob T
As the moderators as usual,like to block anything that offers an alternative to the "non-smoking point of view" and locked a previous thread on the subject - I thought I would once again provide a note and some questions that specifically pertain to this thread here. This is exactly lifted from that previous thread but I would like someone to answer -

"Just a quickie on the figures from Scotland which made me laugh out loud! The report said that there had been a significant drop in children going to hospital with lung problems since the ban started! Tell me then 1. how did a smoking ban in pubs etc manage to help with this when children aren't allowed in pubs (smokey or otherwise) and 2. it has been declared that about 30% of drinkers are now smoking in their own homes instead of the pub - which will obviously mean that kids are getting more exposure to tobacco smoke! To my mind that absolutely guarantees that passive smoking is obviously good for children - doesn't it?? As said before - all those statistics are complete rubbish and if no-one questions them then they will be taken as fact by sheep. can anyone explain those figures in these terms then"?

Well you can't actually say this isn't following this thread can you?

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Ted

If it takes a smoker 1 minute to walk a few meters to an exit its probably too late for them anyway.

I can see where you are coming from but to call it exercise, I don't think so.

A friend of mine who used to smoke between 60 to 80 cigs a day was told by a doctor after having his second heart attack at the age of 44, we will all die one day. The Doctor then added if you carry on smoking your day will probably come a bit sooner and your death will probably be a bit more painful than a non smoker.

He does not smoke anymore, he goes cycling with his kids, takes his kids and dog for long walks and to quote him, he says he has never felt better, the best thing he ever did was to give up smoking.

As this is a HEALTH and safety site I think we should spend our time promoting good health and ways to achieve it, not arguing the toss about smoking.

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Ted

In your original posting you stated the following;


It is not the lack of smoking in enclosed premises that has been the contributor but the fact that all smokers now have to go outside for the ciggy. All this extra exercise is actually contributing to a fitter public and is the true cause of the reduction of heart related problem.

If this is what you really believe no wonder we get a bad press. Even if you are not a H&S Advisor/Manager etc the fact that it is on this website reflects badly on us all.

When I first read this I thought you were taking the ****, now I'm not so sure.

Steve

Posted By Edward Shyer
Steve,

I also stated
“In another thread it has been suggested that there has been a massive reduction in the admittance to hospital from heart related problems due to the ban on smoking.”
And
“My thread is about a study that has taken place stating that there has been a reduction in heart related problems as a direct result of the smoking ban. This is something that I dispute as being the only contributing factor and have stated so in my thread.”

I do indeed still stand by my belief after having read the report and this is why I am questioning the findings. Is this not the role of an H&S practitioner (not saying that I am one) that if they are not happy with anything that is presented then to question it

You stated

“If this is what you really believe no wonder we get a bad press. Even if you are not a H&S Advisor/Manager etc the fact that it is on this website reflects badly on us all.”
If that by having such a lively debate by examining all aspects and possibilities of the original said study, then surely this is not bad press, this is showing that good open debate is actually trying to achieve a thoughtful and thorough outcome.

Obviously you must be more knowledgeable than myself in these matters. Could you please enlighten me as to how my comments are reflecting badly on us all.

Regards
Ted

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Ted

I don't have a problem with you questioning the findings of the report and the evidence it was based on. But to suggest its because the smokers are getting fitter due to the fact that they have to do a bit of walking to have their ciggy reduces the risk of heart problems. Me don't think so.

How does it reflect badly on us?

This is an Occupational Safety and Health forumn, where people from all walks of life come to discuss or find out information relating to health and safety.

Now the argument you put forward for the reduction in hospital admissions for heart related problems, well lets just say its not a very sensible one in my opinion.

Now I know you didn't say you were a health and safety professional, but imagine someone from outside the profession looking at this website and reads your posting. Next thing you know he/she is in the pub chatting to their friends and says "I read this on a health and safety website the other day walking outside to have your ciggy actually makes you fitter and will reduce the risk of heart problems."

Next thing you know you've made myth of the month on the HSE website or even worse the daily mail.

That's how it reflects on us.

Posted By Edward Shyer
Steve,

Obviously this is something you feel passionately about and so do I

You say:

“But to suggest its because the smokers are getting fitter due to the fact that they have to do a bit of walking to have their ciggy reduces the risk of heart problems. Me don't think so.”

My response:

Exercise = activity requiring physical effort

Any activity requiring physical activity can only be good for the body. It is a known fact that office workers who take micro breaks by standing and walking around their chair a distance of only a few feet then continuing to work at regular intervals actually reduce the onset of work related upper limb disorders (WRULDs)

You say:

“This is an Occupational Safety and Health forum, where people from all walks of life come to discuss or find out information relating to health and safety”.

My response:

Messages posted on the forums do not constitute advice and do not reflect the values of IOSH. Postings made by forum users should not be relied upon in making or refraining from making any decision.

People have their own opinions and make their own minds up as to agree or disagree?

You say:

“Now I know you didn't say you were a health and safety professional, but imagine someone from outside the profession looking at this website and reads your posting. Next thing you know he/she is in the pub chatting to their friends and says "I read this on a health and safety website the other day walking outside to have your ciggy actually makes you fitter and will reduce the risk of heart problems."

My response:

How can you make this statement as it appears you assume what people will think and anyone in the profession knows all too well what the true meaning of assume is

You say:

Next thing you know you've made myth of the month on the HSE website or even worse the daily mail.

My response:

The HSE do not enforce the Smoke free Scotland Regulations so why should I make myth of the month. With regards the Daily Mail I cannot comment as I have never read such a rag.
Having however read through previous threads I can understand how you are passionate about the smoking issues around the ban and that by promoting the outcome of the report will only enhance your smoking cessation programme you mentioned in another thread and hope this it is a success but please do not belittle other opinions.

Regards
Ted the none smoker

Posted By Pete48
Steve, I didn't say I agreed with anything except Ted's right to challenge others views. Taking a contentious position is a valid base for a discussion: sometimes all types of professional people forget that.
And using an extreme or easily understood metaphor to illustrate is well trusted?

If I were asked to give personal advice, I would, based on my professional judgement, advise against smoking for health reasons but that doesn't mean I have to accept all and every finding that supports that view, does it?

Posted By J Knight
What interests me is the response of the pro-smokers on this thread; a couple of surveys have produced two items which contradict their ideas about the effects of passive smoking, and their response is to say 'this can't be true, the figures must be wrong or inappropriately attributed'. But surely a more constructive approach would be to accept the figures and investigate to explain or positively refute the attribution? In the light of current knowledge there might well be no grounds to expect a significant drop in A&E admissions so soon after a limited ban on smoking, but since this has clearly happened, and since smoking is a known risk factor in CHD (probably the main risk factor, even), its surely not impossible that we have a real cause and effect here. Shouldn't the response be, 'on the one hand, these figures look absurd, but on the other hand we may be wrong about the link between second-hand smoke and CHD?'. You ask me, the Jury is still out, but there will be some kind of verdict, and the smoking bans are already producing evidence of one sort or another,

John

Posted By Rob T
Why is it that no-one has come back about the kids bit of the stats? Is it that it proves these figures are a complete nonsense? Not one comment, nope nerry a one, absolutely nothing -not even you John?

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Ted

I couldn't agree more. Most surveys will be biast one way or another. All the smokers will be rubbishing their claims and most of the anti smokers will have smug grins on their faces.

I'm an ex smoker and can only speak from my own experience. From the age of 14 up until I was 23 I smoked. During that time I played football Saturdays, Sundays and then there was training 2 - 3 nights a week. For the last couple of years I smoked I used to cough up horrible green mucus on a daily basis and towards the end of each match I was struggling to keep up even though I was still young and quite fit.

Within a couple of weeks of giving up I stopped coughing up green mucus and after about a month was keeping up no problem.

If people want to carry on smoking I don't have a problem with it. If they want to give up and they ask for my help I will offer it to them.

All the different organisations can bang the drum all they like, but if a smoker does not want to give up they won't.

Whilst running the smoking cessation programme all the volunteers were measured for carbon monoxide. Within a couple of weeks all their readings had dropped dramitically. Over half of the volunteers continue to be smoke free and if you ask them how they feel they will tell you they feel a lot better.

Now the 17% drop in admissions may not all be down to the ban on smoking but I bet it will have contributed and if you've ever been a smoker you will know what I'm talking about.

Steve

Posted By Steve Cartwright
Watched a film last night on SKY Movies it was called "THANK YOU FOR SMOKING". Its based on the American tabacco industry and how they used to use SPIN and BRIBES to get round all the health issues.

Quite a good storyline and nice little twist at the end with regards to the tabacco industries own research labs.

Reminds me of the Asbestos Industry 40 to 50 years ago.

Its on SKY Movies every night this week for those who are interested.