Yes, I was thinking about smokers smoking less, rather than bar-goers being exposed to less smoke. I hadn’t thought of the later.
Heart disease is extremely expensive. A coworker’s dad died very slowly of emphysema and that was incredibly expensive, too. Stroke is expensive.
I don’t think your statement is correct.
I cant speak for any jurisdiction outside the country , but Molson Breweries has been tracking beer stats/sales for quite a while and they did at one point release data on bar sales tracking areas that had banned smoking in bars.
I’ll look it up.
Declan
From the linked PDF, it tracks three area’s Toronto , Durham region, and Thunderbay.
It does not give the political demarcation for Toronto, so I have no idea if they also used Missisaugua, Vaughn, Markam etc. Durham, I can’t think of any major population center thats above 100k. It probably has the same land mass as the GTA , but thats about it.
T’bay is about 23 hours north of Toronto, close to the manitoba border.
And, unless there is a section I did not read, that was the extent of their survey.
What I would have expected was Vancouver/Victoria in BC, Edmonton/Calgary in Alberta, Saskatoon/? and so forth right across the country and yet they picked three disimilar locations.
Declan
I was not upset by the study in itself, that was simply confusing too me. The question was posted to me as to why I thought that emacknight had made the city a poor place to be.
You might also note in my reply that I had stated I had no idea what the scene today is like, only that it was not my toronto, so that would suggest that time has moved on from then and I was not the best judge of what Toronto’s social scene might be like.
I would like to bring this to your attention though, simply as an afterthought instead of making it a post in itself.
I’l leave aside the fact that the good folks who compiled the study are making as much a political statement as much as they are making medical statements, right now its neither here nor there.
The question is why now
It shows trends in three diverse areas that have nothing really in common, except for being in the same province, when for the most part , most major metropolitan areas in Canada have smoke bans for the past ten years, even leaving aside the fact that Calgary was forced to go non smoking only two years ago, you could have omitted that city and had a wealth of cities to choose from and still might have gotten the same results.
I don’t read the other two papers so I cant speak for them, but for the last several days, the Toronto Sun has had major articles on smoking again, for no apparent reason, ie, your war has supposedly been won.
It may be something to think about, that your “smoke free” enviroment may be coming up for a realignment of thought.
Declan
Hardly, I have not bought retail smokes in two years, mine come from various indian reservations.
Declan
A quick search shows me that contraband tobacco sales constitute ~25% of Canadian tobacco sales. I didn’t realize it was so large. That said, unless a smoking ban affects the ratio of legal to illegal* tobacco sales, a decrease in smoking will be reflected by a decrease in “retail smokes”.
*I’m not actually sure of the legality.
Maybe if it’s true that there was a spate of restaurant and bar closures, that the ban caused people to drink less and eat healthier 
Smoking definitely causes emphysema & contributes to cardiac problems, which can have long & tortuous courses. Then there’s head & neck cancer–some people survive but they often don’t go out much anymore.
However, lung cancer is the disease most connected to smoking. A doctor I know is fond of recounting what he was told the day they began studying that disease–that it isn’t that bad “for society”:
-
Lung cancer tends to strike after the most productive years.
-
The course of the illness is usually short.
-
Then, there are all those pensions that don’t need to be paid.
(This was in Sweden.) I’ve already lost some friends who probably would have had many more good years without the damn ciggies…
Part of the problem the study faced was finding “control” cities without anti-smoking legislation. Second problem was that they would want to keep all the comparison cities in the same province: same medical system, same taxation, same governmental influences.
To try and compare Toronto and Calgary would have opened up the world’s largest can of worms and quite literally people would have stopped reading at that point and started yammering about the differences between Toronto and Calgary.
Trying to compare cities in different provinces would require controlling for changes in the medical system between provinces*. Then controlling for different rates of taxation, provincial anti-smoking campaigns, education, funding for the medical system, and so on and so on. Most importantly the anti-smoking legislation in Ontario was done (or not done) by individual cities, not the province as a whole.
With that said, it’s readily apparent to me that this team of rouge scientists need to get off their soap box and keep studying. Start looking at all cities that have had anti-smoking legislation implemented and show how their methodology compares. It needs to be done for every city in Canada.
*for dopers in the US, note that the provinces control their own health care, not the federal government woot for state’s rights.
Must…resist…obvious…response.
(“Rouge scientists?”)
Better diagnostic techniques lead to an increase in cases, not a reduction.
The Wikipedia article on the effects of the smoking bans in the US and Europe is quite extensive.
6
Our smoking ban in restaurants is fairly young but my doctor has already said its reduced my risk of another heart attack. I smoke just as much as always (and he knows that) but now I’m eating more at home or the cigar club and not the usual overly-rich-and-fatty restaurant meals I had come to love and enjoy while they slowly killed me.
On the other hand, one of the restaurant owners I used to frequent had a major coronary after his business tanked as a result of the ban. So there could be two sides/causes and effects to the actual clinical results.
-
If you are right about the economics, why aren’t casinos rushing to go non-smoking rather than looking to extending their smoking areas?
-
Have you or Mr Claybaugh looked at the impact along the PA/Ohio border where both states share bans but Ohio’s is a little more draconian in respect to bars? Our “smoking” bars in places like Sharon, Girard and Erie often have more Ohio plates than PA. However you rarely see PA plates across the Ohio border at their smoke-free joints.
Don’t get me wrong; smoking is bad - m’kay? But if “antis” aren’t going to make it illegal (or at least admit that this is the goal they are working towards) then stop blowing their version of smoke up my ass with these stupid non-bans.
Apparently all the creativity and joie de vivre have vanished along with the clouds of indoor cigarette smoke. :dubious:
They’re making a public health statement. A focus on public health necessarily involves getting public officials, including lawmakers involved where necessary. The implication that “political” involvement means something more, is paranoid and foolish.
Ooo, there must be some nasty subterranean plot going on to keep people healthy!
There are still people, albeit an every-shrinking minority, who long for the good old days when they could puff away in indoor venues and think they can browbeat the great majority into letting them get away with it again.
Studies of the type mentioned in the OP serve as excellent reminders of why we’ve instituted public smoking bans.
I could say the same thing you do about cigarettes about gay sex, sex in general, motorcycles, cars, jobs, Democrats, Republicans, fast food, prescribed drugs and suntanning. I can’t quite bring myself to pick one as the “evil above all evils” as you do. Personally I just came to terms with the fact that many of my friends (most tobacco free in tobacco free workplaces) will die way before what I consider “their time”.
Tell me how to change that fact and I’ll be impressed.
Close but no electronic cigar. What we long for is the day when a businessman had some control over his own future and property. Or when that future was at least controlled by his customers and local community. But to have it decided by people who will probably never cross his doorstep? Silly me, that just doesn’t sound quite like a really great idea.
Why we’ve instituted the bans is because we can; and something in the average person just loves telling his/her neighbor what is and is not allowed.
I suggest a time machine to take you back to those thrilling days of yesteryear (to be on the safe side, better set the dial for pre-Teddy Roosevelt days, circa 1900 or earlier). You’d be able to run restaurants, slaughterhouses, coal mines, textile mills and all sorts of businesses with minimal to no concern for the health and well-being of customers and employees.
When did I use the phrase “evil above all evils”?
Personally, I’m glad that restaurants & bars in Houston are now smoke free–just because I find clearer air more pleasant. The good ones have no problem staying open.