Smoking bans in public places - how are they doing?

Matthew

quote:

---

But the point (and I'm not qualified to say if he is correct or not) is that statistically that number is not significant.

---

I'm not qualified either, and let's face it, nobody is qualified in everything but we still have to make some kind of judgement based on the information to hand.

From ~50,000,000 in the UK 16% / 17% equates to 8m-8.5 million people. That's a lot of people and is high enough to make it worthwhile some action being taken.

Do you believe 16% or 17% is high?

quote:

---

We could call them crematoria.

---

Good idea. All part of trying to educate people about the dangers of smoking. If people need this in 2004.

You mean like UK Green Energy powered by French Nuclear & Coal stations, in 2004 too.

Fritz Von Nobleedinchoice

I don't know anything about anything to do with 'green'.

"From ~50,000,000 in the UK 16% / 17% equates to 8m-8.5 million people"

The figure 16% does not mean that passive smoking causes 16% of the population to get lung cancer. Rather it means that of every 100 cases of lung cancer an extra 16% might be caused by passive smoking.

In the UK there are 38,000 cases of lung cancer every year -- so if the the figure is accurate that would be something like 6200 cases caused by passive smoking. The percentage risk of getting lung cancer from passive smoking suggested by these figures is therefore about 0.01% out of a population of some 60m.

Of course 6200 cases of lung cancer is still 6200 cases of lung cancer so 16% is still potentially a figure that might make a public smoking ban justifiable on health grounds. However, the point (or at least the point of the linked website) is that the 16% is not statistically significant. That is not saying that an extra 16% of deaths is not significant its saying that the 16% figure is equally likely to be caused by experimental error or bias. The real figure might be zero.

In other words, if the linked website is to be beleived the published reports do not show a link between passive smoking and lung cancer.

Matthew

tell that to Roy Castle.

TN

It seems to me that the only research trying to cast doubt on the passive smoking link is that funded by the tobacco industry, that well known bunch of public spirited philanthropists.

If you believe that employees in offices have a right to work in a smoke-free environment, then why is it unacceptable to some on this thread that workers in pubs, bars and clubs are not afforded this same protection? Is it because its "a risk of the job" ?!. If its because there is no health risk then I assume you'd all welcome the return of smoking in your nice comfy offices.

Simon

I think it is that if you are a non-smoker living with a smoker then your chances of lung cancer are raised by 16% compared to non-smokers not exposed to tobacco smoke.

The 95% CI on that figure was from 0.94 to 1.44. So the study could have shown that living with a smoker protects you against lung cancer. The WHO study in fact showed that being a child of smokers reduced your chances of lung cancer, provided you remained a non-smoker. This was a statistically significant result that gets glossed over (for obvious reasons...)

http://www.cancerlineuk.net/lung-cancer/incidence/index.asp has a slightly different figure to Matthew's, but pertinently suggests that 90% of lung cancer is smoking related. So the numbers that can be associated with passive smoking are going to be in the region of 16% of 10% of total lung cancer.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
But the point (and I'm not qualified to say if he is correct or not) is that statistically that number is not significant. In otherwords it might be 16% or it might be 0% -- in short the study did not show that passive smoking caused cancer.

---

Whether or not the study showed that that passive smoking causes cancer, we know that smoking causes cancer. Therefore it is utterly stupid to assume, without proof, that passive smoking does not cause cancer. And, of course, if this result (as claimed by the person Matthew quoted) really did not show that passive smoking causes cancer then by the same token it did not show that it does not cause cancer.

On the other hand, assuming the 16% figure is correct, what does one say to a smoke-addled individual who claims it is a "small" risk?

First , different people are known to have very different susceptibilities to carcinogens - including cigarette smoke. In fact, I seem to remember reading that one country has a eugenics programme to kill unborn children with a particular known genetic susceptibility to cigarette smoke. [Hmmm... sounds more like a product of my crazed imagination]. What if, say, an unknown 5% of the population were not 16% more likely to get lung cancer as a result of passive smoking but 50% or 200%. I wonder how public smokers would feel about that?

Similarly, different carcinogens can act synergistically, so even if the increased risk from passive smoking alone is 16% the combined risk of passive smoking and some environmental carcinogen with a similar additional risk could be far greater than might be expected. The fact that environmental factors exist is irrelevant - they are mostly beyond our control, and where they are not they deserve as much attention as passive smoking.

quote:

---

It seems to me that the only research trying to cast doubt on the passive smoking link is that funded by the tobacco industry, that well known bunch of public spirited philanthropists.

---

We're looking at a World Health Organisation report, which would presumably be funded by the UN. Which research are you referring to?

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
tell that to Roy Castle.

---

Tell what to Roy Castle?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
The WHO study in fact showed that being a child of smokers reduced your chances of lung cancer, provided you remained a non-smoker.

---

I find it very difficult to believe such a result could be explained by a causal relationship.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Trevor Newall:
tell that to Roy Castle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tell what to Roy Castle?

---

You need dedication...

You know sometimes I get the impression that people don't actually read the posts before replying.,

Anyway, before anyone gets the impression that I am some kind of apologist for the smoking lobby just becuase I asked questions of the evidence raised by the above links perhaps I should state my position:

-- If there is (and there might well be) convincing evidence of serious health risks then a public ban is a no-brainer.

-- If there isn't then my natural instinct is to allow the "market" to decide rather than to legislate for a ban.

-- It seems likely to me that given the sharply declining number of smokers that the natural trend is towards more and more non-smoking places and a de facto ban.

-- I think it's much more important to stop young people starting to smoke than to worry about the arguably margnial effects of passive smoking. I would be in favour of an immediate and complete ban on all advertising and sponsorship by tobacco companies. (If this were to lead to the end of Snooker and Formula 1 then this would only be a bonus in my view).

-- Smokers should generally be much more sensitive to their effects on non-smokers as it's not excatly difficult to understand how and why most people find smoking in thier presence prfoundly unpeasant. FWIW I took every care to avoid affecting non-smokers when I was a smoker and would never, for example, smoke in a restaraunt even if if was allowed.

-- Sanctimonious non-smokers should be more aware of how they encourage and reinforce smokers intransigence and anti-social behaivour by their constant preaching. Smoking is an essentially an unpleasant and humiliating pastime based on addiction and the natural reaction to this is for smokers to pretend they like it and adopt a "it's my right to choose" attitude which leads them to blow smoke in people's faces and the like. Getting all preachy makes this effect much worse.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by Steven Toy:

At a lovely country pub in a village near me it was interesting to note that the non-smoking part was completely empty while the there was standing room only in the area reserved for smokers.

Regards,

Steve.

---

A non smoking 'part' is completely useless. You need a non smoking room.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mick Parry:
Even if you dismiss the health issues, smokers stink and they make everyone elses clothes stink and that is unaccepatable.

---

So, by that rationale - I can say all car drivers are making me SICK by ingesting their toxic fumes, but it's perfectly acceptable for you all to drive. Smoking is nowhere near as bad *outdoors* IMHO. And yeah, cars DO make your clothes stink if you have to walk everywhere.

Plus, when did a smoker ever make you wait to cross a road when it's pissing down?

As for staff sueing due to smoking related illness - do me a favour. They KNOW the risks. Does a member of bank staff sue the bank if the bank gets held up? No - well, at least, I hope not! They know the risk when they take the job and they accept it.

If you're too thick to do anything other than bar work of course, that's hardly my problem; deal with the smoke or clean toilets or something. I was born with the physical inability to drive but I have to put up with all the fumes, environmental devistation and agro that driving causes. If a person is born with limited intellect, ah diddums. Deal with it. If you can't get work anywhere other than a pub it's hardly my problem is it?

Note: I'm not stating that bar staff are all thick. I know many are students etc, but if you're trapped in that job you can always get something different if you don't like smoke.

I reckon the idea that fag companies cough up (he he) for smoking area improvements in pubs (high-rate air circulation etc) is a good plan. I hate the smell of stale smoke as much as a non smoker does - it's quite frankly rank. That's why I won't smoke in my own house. Some pubs are better than others wrt sorting the air out in the smokey areas.

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

Jeremy,

"Whether or not the study showed that that passive smoking causes cancer, we know that smoking causes cancer. Therefore it is utterly stupid to assume, without proof, that passive smoking does not cause cancer"

We know smoking causes cancer on the basis of epidemilogical studies. The linked website (and again I stress that I am not qualified to say if it is correct and Joe's wife who is says he is a "wanker iwth an agenda") says that two major NGO studies should no evidence for a link. So if those studies and their interpretation by the website are correct you would actually be stupid to believe that passive smoking does cause cancer.

Which is my point in a nutshell. is this guy right or is he talking nonsense. I am quite prepared to beleive Joe's wife (since I know Joe would never marry a poorly trained scientist ) but it's worth discussing and I would like to someone to eplxain why he is wrong.

"Tell what to Roy Castle?"

He died of lung cancer from playing in jazz bands at a time when everyone smoked and therefore is presumed to be a victim of passive smoking.

Paul said "The WHO study in fact showed that being a child of smokers reduced your chances of lung cancer, provided you remained a non-smoker"

Jeremy said "I find it very difficult to believe such a result could be explained by a causal relationship."

Maybe children of smokers, from growing up in an environment where they are exposed to a concerned about serious health risks ofr thsir parents, are more cogniscant of health issues in general and take better care of themselves in terms of diet, excercise, etc.

Matthew

quote:

---

Originally posted by BrianD:

quote:

---

We could call them crematoria.

---

Good idea. All part of trying to educate people about the dangers of smoking. If people need this in 2004.

---

Too many of the girls I know (<25) smoke. Putting pictures of diseased lungs on the packets doesn't work. They should put a pucture on the packet of Dot Cotton with the tag line, 'Smoking causes this'



Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by domfjbrown:
They know the risk when they take the job and they accept it.

---

So lets remove all those annoying and costly safety rules that industry has. I mean, people know the risk when working at a nuclear power station, so dump all that wasteful lead cladding.

Somepeople have no choice where they have to work.

Employers have a responsibility to their staffs health.

Regards

Stephen

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Maybe children of smokers, from growing up in an environment where they are exposed to a concerned about serious health risks ofr thsir parents, are more cogniscant of health issues in general and take better care of themselves in terms of diet, excercise, etc.

---

Hactually, according to a Reader's Digest article of at least 8 years ago, they reckoned that parents who smoke inadvertently conditioned their children to smoke, as the child would associate smoke with security from a VERY early age, and thus when older would potentially turn to smoking due to this odd conditioning.

Smoking in front of kids and in restaurants is plain and simple minging. Smoking in a pub where only adults are allowed is fair game, since no-one (in the main) is trying to eat, and all have the freedom of choice to go to that pub, a non-smoking one, or stay in.

Roy Castle might have died from lung cancer, but in the day, as said, EVERYONE smoked. Now, any bar staff and entertainers have much less risk attached due to the much lower percentage of smokers.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matthew Robinson:
Too many of the girls I know (<25) smoke. Putting pictures of diseased lungs on the packets doesn't work. They should put a pucture on the packet of Dot Cotton with the tag line, 'Smoking causes this'

---

Since an awful lot of women in general, and teenagers in particular, are vacuous bimbos who are so obsessed with vanity and monetary greed, this tactic would almost certainly work Mind you, Dot's not young; not ALL smokers die young...

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

quote:

---

The figure 16% does not mean that passive smoking causes 16% of the population to get lung cancer. Rather it means that of every 100 cases of lung cancer an extra 16% might be caused by passive smoking.

In the UK there are 38,000 cases of lung cancer every year -- so if the the figure is accurate that would be something like 6200 cases caused by passive smoking. The percentage risk of getting lung cancer from passive smoking suggested by these figures is therefore about 0.01% out of a population of some 60m.

---

Thanks Matthew. I get it now. 116 instead of 100. Still enough to justify doing something about it imo.

[This message was edited by BrianD on THURSDAY 26 February 2004 at 12:00.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
So lets remove all those annoying and costly safety rules that industry has. I mean, people know the risk when working at a nuclear power station, so dump all that wasteful lead cladding.

Somepeople have no choice where they have to work.

Employers have a responsibility to their staffs health.

---

I hope that last sentence is really true, so in five years when I've had a nervous breakdown from all the noise pollution, PC problems and stress in my job, I'll be able to sue. Yippee!

You always have a choice on where to work. If you don't, you're not either looking hard enough or pushing yourself hard enough. Homer Simpson managed to move from the power plant for at least one episode, and he's the laziest person ever.

You need all the safety cladding in a nuke station because of the surrounding environment.

I'm WILLING TO BET MY LIFE that you've a higher risk of cancer from microwave ovens, mobile phones and all your naim kit's RFI emission than you are from passively inhaling ~10% of a pub's occupants' second hand smoke once a week...

__________________________
Make your choice, adventurous Stranger;
Strike the bell and bide the danger
Or wonder, till it drives you mad,
What would have followed if you had.

You have to factor in what some have been on about from the start. Smoking is very unpleasant for those who don't smoke. Segregation and consideration is what's required imo. We need properly separated smoking rooms (not areas) for smokers and they need to be more considerate of the effect their habit has on others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by domfjbrown:
[You always have a choice on where to work. If you don't, you're not either looking hard enough or pushing yourself hard enough.

---

With respect, that statement comes from someone who is obviously well educated and has all their faculties intact. Some people have no choice where they work. Students have little choice where work to earn enough to live during a degree.

AND IT'S OFF TOPIC!!!!



Regards

Stephen