Scottish smoking ban seen to cut heart attacks

Reuters put a pic of a hot girl smoking a cigarette in this article. You know why? Because smoking is still COOL.

Cash wrote:

Reuters put a pic of a hot girl smoking a cigarette in this article. You know why? Because smoking is still COOL.

Only a dip would say smoking is cool, don't be a dip.

Under the Scotish ban, women smokers and nonsmokers ended up benefiting the most.

Did you know "The United States does not have national smoking restrictions. Limits are placed by individual states or municipalities?"

Cash, we posted at the same time but I seem to reply to you. Now that is COOL.

It's a LIE.
http://www.velvetgloveironfist.com/index.php...

Interesting results from this study

- John Briner

Sounds like proof that second hand and side stream tobacco smoke kill people, imagine that.

just candid wrote:

Sounds like proof that second hand and side stream tobacco smoke kill people, imagine that.

The article makes it sound that way. But without seeing the actual numbers, and how they arrived at their conclusion, it strikes me as "post hoc, ergo propter hoc"

It also points out that the ban is changing what society thinks of as normal. Does this validate "freedom"s claim that smoking bans are a form of social engineering? Hmmm.

BTW, to Cash: The girl has pretty features that are obscured by the smoke in the picture. I was rather disappointed. At first I thought she was wearing clown makeup, the smoke makes her look so pallid. Just sayin'.

Babes don't smoke.

(Now if you give me another lemon, I will make another lemonade. The first one was not deserved. Thanks anyway for thinking of me.)

Reson wrote:

<quoted text>
Only a dip would say smoking is cool, don't be a dip.

Wrong, idiots and fools have also uttered such nonsense.

Even though We don't quite believe this Scottish Blarney ...

here's some other Going's on too 195+ pages of almost 4,000 Comments

Canada Apr 14, 2008

New ads roll out Monday condemning smoking in cars with kids

- The Ontario Medical Association and the Heart and Stroke Foundation are teaming up to raise awareness about the dangers of smoking in cars where children are present.

A series of radio and print ads encouraging parents to butt out while driving with kids is set to kick off Monday.

OMA president Janice Willett applauded Ontario for tabling legislation to ban the practice, but says many parents still don't understand just how bad it is.

Studies suggest second-hand smoke in a vehicle can be 60 times more toxic than second-hand smoke in a house...

http://www.topix.net/forum/world/canada/TNJ6A...

Prophet Mohammed used to create smoke by burning others houses and religious places. So Mohammed is a criminal.

The quote was:
"Scotland's 2006 ban on smoking in public places cut the heart attack rate by 17 percent within one year, with non-smokers benefiting most, researchers reported on Wednesday."

So sorry, but I'm not buy that, not =EVEN= for an attosecond.

OLD SAYING IN SCIENCE: Correlation does not equal causation.

How —in the name of all that is good and proper— does one proceed to declare that a cause has had an effect in the mere span of a year?

How many factors may be attributed to 'heart attacks?'

THINK about that.

Are WE supposed to believe that cessation of smoking is the sine qua non of the cause of heart attack reductions?

Further there was no credible research done which would have made the connection in such a short span of time, if only that the researchers could NOT have had access to each and every person in that country (Scotland).

That article is mere BS, and anybody buying into it is —in my estimation— a bloody fool.

truthist wrote:

...Did you know "The United States does not have national smoking restrictions. Limits are placed by individual states or municipalities?"

We should fix that.

The Truth Hurts wrote:

<quoted text>
We should fix that.

Not going to happen. It would kill all of the smoking bans fast. For one thing it would get the fast track to the Supreme court. Plus the federal government has the resources to look into the science behind the ban and would see very quickly that it is bogus. As a matter of fact they have looked into it.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95...

Maybe it reduces heart attacks for people who voluntarily chose to put their own health at risk.

If you voluntarily go somewhere that you know allows smoking you are voluntarily choosing to expose yourself to 2nd-hand smoke and the health risks.

If you voluntarily choose to smoke you are voluntarily choosing to accept the health risks from smoking.

Does it reduce heart attacks for people who were smart enough to choose to avoid places that had 2nd hand smoke? No.

The argument can made that the first 2 groups cost money to pay for the healthcare, but that can be covered by taxing restaurants that allow smoking to pay for the higher health costs rather than by banning it.

raraavis critter wrote:

<quoted text> Wrong, idiots and fools have also uttered such nonsense.

Which one are you, an idiotic fool or a foolish idiot? LOL

TTIN wrote:

Maybe it reduces heart attacks for people who voluntarily chose to put their own health at risk.
If you voluntarily go somewhere that you know allows smoking you are voluntarily choosing to expose yourself to 2nd-hand smoke and the health risks.
If you voluntarily choose to smoke you are voluntarily choosing to accept the health risks from smoking.
Does it reduce heart attacks for people who were smart enough to choose to avoid places that had 2nd hand smoke? No.
The argument can made that the first 2 groups cost money to pay for the healthcare, but that can be covered by taxing restaurants that allow smoking to pay for the higher health costs rather than by banning it.

Just ban all tobacco products & be done with it. You want to smoke, move to Cuba.

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Not going to happen. It would kill all of the smoking bans fast. For one thing it would get the fast track to the Supreme court. Plus the federal government has the resources to look into the science behind the ban and would see very quickly that it is bogus. As a matter of fact they have looked into it.
http://www.forces.org/evidence/files/crs11-95...

Perhaps a national smoking ban IS the way to go. Not one of the anti smoker candidates wants one. National smoking bans impede state's rights and would be un Constitutional. They would also weaken laws in states like CA and NY. As you say, there would be Congressional hearings on the subject, and antis definitely would not want their "science" exposed to that. It may, additionally, be an excellent way to expose ASH and Glantz for the frauds they are. Perhaps a national ban is a great idea....for those opposed to smoking bans.

....notice the article never spelled out what the law entailed? "Public smoking' involves what? No smoking in parks, or down sidewalks, or in soccer stadiums, or just in official buildings?

And the knee-jerk reaction is "Lets just ban ALL smoking"....No sense in letting States' Rights get in the way, or common sense.....not to mention we already house 25% of the imprisoned criminals while having only 5% of the population. Lets pay for MORE incarcerated people - especially those hideous, disgusting, dangerously abhorrent, law-breaking malcontented SMOKERS!

....Better yet, lets just ban all the hideous, disgusting, dangerously abhorrent, law-breaking malcontented people we see. That'll thin out the breeding stock a good mite!

....I'm glad we had this talk - I feel MUCH better......