Its nice to know that you have had a life where you could always choose not just the job you wanted but the location of that job too. I for one have not had that choice, and just to make ends meet I have HAD (yes had) to work in a smoky environment to make ends meet, and before you get on your high horse at the time there was no option! I am luckily not in that situation any more but I know that there are many people who are.

You seem to think a ban on smoking in public places includes a ban on smoking outside. Do you know of anywhere that this has happened. Any places I have been with a smoking ban have allowed smoking out of doors, just not in enclosed public places, and this seems to suit people just fine. I have nothing against people smoking where the smoke is dissipated and I do not have to inhale it. Like I have said I don't mind if you smoke I don't want to be forced to if I am in an enclosed space with a smoker.

Sorry the rest of your arguments just don't hold that much water with me. You bring up riding bikes, being overweight, sneezing etc. None of this is the same. Smoking poses a very clear and present health risk to non-smokers due to passive smoking. It is not always possible to avoid being in enclosed public places where people might smoke. If the smokers want to smoke they are within their rights to go outside and take a drag of lung cancer, they don't have to do it in an enclosed area where they are effecting everyone around them.

And finally I agree with you that at least in Zurich it appears that more then 30% of people smoke, to be honest I would have thought it to be in the region of 60%, but they are the figures that the article quoted. In the absence of any other figures that's what I presented.

People have no idea how much effort it's taken to watch this rubbish and not post!

So prove your theory sue me for passive smoking and endangering your health, as those who have bothered to research the subject know passive smoking evidence is unfounded statistical garbage and media hype.

No one world wide I know of has won a law suit for damage caused by passive smoking

Try me with the lawsuit and then the whole lot would come crashing down for the anti smoking groups and their only argument. Not that there is one as that would require conclusive proof of science and not respun statistics getting progressively more bent.

Yes it annoying, no there is not the health impact you read in the tabloids. For the smoker yes, the secondary much more murky!

I've posted masses on this subject and it's a shame yet another person has fell in a trap.

A ban is as such a complete ban on tobacco products,

A so called UK ban is isolating a section of society by a legal choice they make. That's fundamentally wrong, what's next in the meddling? Think about this carefully before jumping on the bandwagon.

The best solution is physically seperated areas to stop smoke floating into non-smoking areas and better air conditioning.

Or to make a ban a true ban! (Not that you're willing to pick up the tax loses eh..)

I can't wait for the summer, hopefully the smoking "ban" will be in before then and the anti-smoking establishment can go whistle when I'm polluting the nice warm sunny areas outside bars..

BTW the WHO document quoted earlier in SHS article on Swissinfo is flawed and several people with high up health jobs around the world have asked for feedback on the method used to obtain significance in the statistics and got nothing. <sigh>

I never said anyone had, but there is a strong chance that the day will come. What I claimed is that the use of any other known carcinogen in public would lead to potential civil and/or criminal cases.

• Mortality attributable to passive smoking in Spain 2002.
• Stroke mortality and morbidity attributable to passive smoking in Germany.
• Passive smoking-health consequences and effects of exposure prevention.
• Passive smoking and lung cancer in Japanese non-smoking women: a prospective study.
• Health impacts of exposure to second hand smoke amongst a highly exposed workforce: survey of London casino workers.
• Environmental tobacco smoke: respiratory and other health effects.
• Risk of spontaneous abortion in women with childhood exposure to parental cigarette smoke.

On another note:

• Smoking bans: Influence on smoking prevalence.

Has the tobacco industry been above board or had any influence on the media?

• Tobacco industry efforts undermining evidence linking secondhand smoke with cardiovascular disease.

Tobacco control and legal issues. Now I know why all flights are non smoking!

• The role of litigation in tobacco control.
• Legal risks to employers who allow smoking in the workplace.

I could continue, in fact the evidence appears overwhelming, and before you jump on the band wagon and say my search was biased. I also searched for articles which showed no effect of passive smoking. Do you know how many I found?

By the way, all those articles come from peer reviewed medical journals. They are not tabloid media publications. Now tell me there is no clinically significant risk from passive smoking.

Google is your friend

Granted it's not the finest site in the world but the Australian story checks out.

I got bored after reading the 6th one to be honest I've read over 200 hundred of these now.

1. METHODS: Prevalence of ETS exposure among never smokers was gathered from three region based health interview surveys. (What surveys? How was this gathered what were the questions, how were the statistics applied)

2.The relative risk for stroke and passive smoking was derived by means of a meta-analysis from available cohort studies (founded on someones elses dodgy work no doubt)

3. This article summarises the current evidence (Erm peer review then do some work please this is not science nor accurate)

4. This one I might read in more depth looks good, probably the first one I've not read in 2yrs, saying that it depends on how they've gathered the stats.

5. CONCLUSION: Our research supports the need for comprehensive smoke-free legislation around the world, covering all indoor workplaces including casinos. (This is not a unbiased conclusion, scientist don't do bias...Hmm and carried out in the most polluted envirnoment in europe..London)

6. (adjusted odds ratio = 1.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.0, 3.0). (oh dear figure manipulation this is just desperate now. You don't adjust fugures period it gives incorrect results

Read my previous posts I've done this topic to death now. (Good eh) I've also explained in depth why many of the studies are flawed..

I think you miss the difference between clinical and statistical relevance for one thing and if this research is so dodgy then show me an article that meets your high standards which shows that passive smoking does not provide any health problems. Hell even show me a dodgy one.

You might say each of the article has their flaws, but the sheer volume of them all together!!! You can argue anything with statistics, but sorry for me its cut and dry. I only gave an example of the articles available there are literally thousands.

Read one of my previous posts on other threads, I've proved this. Don't insult my intelligence I haven't insulted yours, we could say you gave a wikipedia answer but then again that would be unkind.

The ones with true relevance are not peer reviews/meta analysis and use real source evidence, most don't even bother to hide the fact they are working off someone elses back. Most don't consider that their sources could be flawed. Time after time these have been hit in the BMJ by true experts questioning findings.

I spent years researching this whilst doing my chemistry degree for entertainment (yes I know,) most papers wouldn't even get past my professor for being lazy and full of BS and I have no idea why these are finding their way to the market, perhaps it's a cool thing to research without doing any work.

Both sides have fudged figures, but the true scientists/experts don't use peer reviews, or bend stats to find conclusions they've already written. A lot is given away in the language of the snippet text.

This is not "high standard" this is fundamental science taught in 1st year uni. Unbiased accurate science.

The best analogy I can give you is chinese whispers. There's one or 2 gems but it's just finding them.

I'm more annoyed with the fact the real science that needs to be done is being avoided. I would agree there is evidence floating around but with no where near the statistical chances that some scientific papers quote. The media then jumps on this and away we go, everyone's going to drop down dead from SHS.

Think about it, it's not a question of exposure but one of concentration/dose? Does it make sense with the stats being quoted? I don't think so, something is not right here.

I'm really trying to stay down the middle here as a scientist, (honestly) but at the moment this is not science and that annoys me as someone who makes their living from it.

Why is everyone not dropping dead if there's 63,000 people in the UK dieing from SHS exposure, where are these people? Okay lets call it 10000, where are these people?

(This was one gem from a blatantly dodgy study I read many years ago)

You yourself point towards a dose response. It stands to reason that someone who is subjected to SHS from one person smoking for an hour a week is in a different risk category to someone who is permanently living/working in an environment where many people are regularly smoking around them.

The fact that no two humans are alike and we have responders and non-responders to most physiological stimuli. Its also known that some people have a predisposition to some types of cancers. Unfortunately the screening for a lot of these leaves a lot to be desired. This goes some way to explain a possible mechanism why not everyone exposed to passive smoke suffers. However if this theory was true we still have no way to say that you are at risk and you are not. When we lack this and figures show even a tendency towards increased risk of health problems that is enough for me.

I take my health very seriously. It is the most important thing that I possess and it is what allows me to do all the things that I love most in life. I don't want someone else causing me health problems. Everyone is entitled to decide to accept the risk of smoking for themselves, but I don't believe that someone should be allowed to put me at risk because they accept the risk themselves.

I know you think the evidence is not conclusive. But can you really hand on heart say there is absolutely no risk?

Believe me when I say I am not being patronising or insulting your intelligence here, but if you are aware of papers that show there is no risk of passive smoking I would genuinely be interested in seeing them.

I too have done quite a bit of looking into this as a sports & exercise scientist I have wondered in the past about the effects of smoking and passive smoking on lung function, but that is a different issue.

Another fact is that people naturally get lung cancer without exposure to smoke, but why is this never deducted statistically from studies?

I have more worries about pollution from car exhausts, and that also carries a risk, but then again what do you deem unacceptable risks? Every persons interpretation of risk is different. Specifically with smoking smokers have been targetted by a media frenzy of mis-information.

We're talking small risks here in both cases, but I'd rather take my chances with cigarette smoke than pm10's in diesel fumes or other nice organic compounds spewed out of car exhausts.

We've become obsessed by percentages/health and I think in some ways overkill has come into play, yes we have rights to reduce risk of course, but likewise I cannot avoid a SUV coming down the street.

I'd also say that with car pollution you're more likely to get a bigger dose of toxins on a daily basis in a city over your lifetime than visiting a pub for a few hours on a Saturday night. We don't see govt's harping on about this and why?

Then again that's speculation and until someone does science to prove this then, well I remain living my life accepting these small risks.

Smoking is something that annoys a lot of people and the reasons given for bans are wrong.

It's easy to manipulate the majority into agreeing, imagine banning SUV's? Same principle.

I suggest in your trawl be very careful of anything with stats (check them for "adjustments", peer reviews and meta analysis are also open to abuse.)

They are out there and the japanese one looks interesting.

Eire,
I am just somewhat curious about the remark you made concerning the ban in Ireland:
"I stated that this is the basis for the smoking ban in Ireland, and on that I am NOT wrong. The ban went through on the health and safety at work act and has been very successful. I have even heard many smokers saying they now prefer the smoke free bars."
My family come from the west of Ireland and I have a lot of family there. They tell me a completely different story. For example they were never asked if they were agreeable or not. They have no voice as no newspapers report on it except for a few ASH headlines. The smokers and non smokers are very much against it as it has destroyed a great deal of the social life in rural areas. The people in these areas are pretty angry about the whole thing as a lot of jobs have been lost which they can badly afford. I am quite aware that the politicians repeatedly say how successful it has been and you suggest this as well. The most successful thing about it is the enormous growth of black market tobacco. Also smoking is not declining according to OTC figures. BTW, almost all pubs in my local area allow smoking after 9 pm as a matter of survival. Success? Hardly!.

Why would the smoking ban bring an "enormous growth of black market tobacco"?? - People still can't smoke in bars, restaurants etc, wherever and however they obtain their tobacco.

Don't you think it is a sad society that depends on a pernicious killer like tobacco for social cohesion and without its fix 'a great deal of social life is destroyed'?

This is what I have heard, read, and personally observed.
I have heard this argument over and over from rural publicans in the West of Ireland. They come out with exactly the same thing every year when the Gardai crack down on drunk driving. I have personally been in many rural west of Ireland pubs, when I go home I spend most of my time on the west coast in Co.Clare, Galway, Mayo and to a lesser extent Kerry and Cork. I have also been living in Ireland for nearly two years on and off since the ban came in. There have been reports in both The Examiner and The Irish Times on the smoking ban. The general consensus in these papers and among my friends and family is that the ban is successful. The rural pubs you talk about are pubs where maybe 10 locals go got a few pints of a night, I have been in some of these pubs and people generally still go outside the front door for their cigarette. I have only seen total flouting of the ban on a couple of occasions. What is far more likely to cause the loss of rural social life as you put it is the crackdown on drink driving. This is discussed regularly in Dail Eireann (Irish Parliament), just because people have to walk to the door to smoke does not kill social life. Go to any of the Irish towns or cities and you will experience this first hand. The people in the Rural areas tend to be more set in their ways but in what I have experienced it has not caused the wholesale problems you describe.

I have not experienced this anger on a large scale. Yes there are a few people that make a lot of noise. But in actually going to the bars in both Rural and Urban areas of Ireland the general consensus is not bad. Many people prefer smoke free pubs, and in general (maybe a small few are) people are not staying away from pubs because they can't smoke.



This is totally off topic, tobacco products are not banned in Ireland, people can go into a shop and buy cigarettes just like they used to. Most pubs even still have vending machines, so I do not see how this can have any effect on black market tobacco production! Illegal smoking yes, illegal production no!!! If anything is encouraging black market tobacco production it is the high taxation on cigarettes in Ireland. A pack of 20 is about twice the price it is here in Switzerland AFAIK, but this is a totally separate issue to the smoking ban.

I will repeat my point. The smoking ban has been implemented under the health and safety at work act in Ireland, and has been successful to date. Yes, pubs are looking at other solutions for smokers, rather then having them out the front door, I have heard of a couple of pubs in West Cork where they have a sort of smoking room, a wire mesh instead of exterior walls, and a roof to keep the rain off. The cities just tend to have people crowding out the door for their cigarettes.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news_dig...71195000&ty=nd

Unclear from this article when the ban in Geneva will go into effect (dogs or smoking) but it looks like there is another smoke-free canton on the way.

Now if they would just ban dangerous smoking dogs we'd be onto something.

To bring this thread back on-topic, I just returned this evening from a weekend in Graubunden and soooooooooooo enjoyed the 100% smoke-free restaurants and bars. So much so, in fact, that I might spend another weekend there soon.

HM