Public smoking bans linked with rapid fall in preterm births and child hospital visits for asthma

[BornFromTheVoid]

The introduction of laws banning smoking in public places and workplaces in North America and Europe has been quickly followed by large drops in rates of preterm births and children attending hospital for asthma, according to the first systematic review and meta-analysis examining the effect of smoke-free legislation on child health, published in The Lancet.

The analysis of 11 studies done in North America and Europe, involving more than 2.5 million births, and nearly 250 000 asthma exacerbations, showed that rates of both preterm births and hospital attendance for asthma were reduced by 10% within a year of smoke-free laws coming into effect...

...Writing in a linked Comment, Sara Kalkhoran and Stanton Glantz from the University of California San Francisco in the USA point out that, “Medical expenses for asthma exceeded US$50 billion in the USA in 2007, and US$20 billion in Europe in 2006. If asthma emergency department visits and admissions to hospital decreased by even 10%, the savings in the USA and Europe together would be US$7 billion annually.â€

They conclude, “The cigarette companies, their allies, and the groups they sponsor have long used claims of economic harm, particularly to restaurants, bars, and casinos, to oppose smoke-free laws despite consistent evidence to the contrary. By contrast, the rapid economic benefits that smoke-free laws and other tobacco control policies bring in terms of reduced medical costs are real. Rarely can such a simple intervention improve health and reduce medical costs so swiftly and substantially.â€

 

More here http://www.alphagalileo.org/ViewItem.aspx?ItemId=140382&CultureCode=en

[knocker]

That's quite interesting and I'm not in anyway questioning the study but I am slightly puzzled. There have been numerous studies in recent years noting the increase in asthma and various reasons given for this such as increase in allergies and in particular aerosol pollutants mainly from road transport. And yet second hand smoking is obviously overriding these factors in specific areas. Pregnancy appears to be one such. If that definitely is the case then it's a strong argument for banning smoking in public places. And I'm a smoker

[R.P. McMurphy]

Good article OP. Hopefully one day they will Ban smoking full stop, it's revolting, and people stink.

Edited March 28, 2014 by R.P. McMurphy

[R.P. McMurphy]

Ban booze, fast cars, high fatty foods (lard?) planes and big pointy sticks

 

 

Then how do we de-stress from women ?

 

 

The beauty of being human is that we're free......And choice should play a pretty big part of that.

 

 

Sadly, we are far from being free... We are controlled.

 

 

Perhaps if more realised that none of us have a halo above our heads, then all the better for everyone.

 

Good point, perhaps.

[BornFromTheVoid]

Ban booze, fast cars, high fatty foods (lard?) planes and big pointy sticks

The beauty of being human is that we're free......And choice should play a pretty big part of that.

Perhaps if more realised that none of us have a halo above our heads, then all the better for everyone.

 

No drinking for under 18s or in public, speed limits, neglect through malnutrition, flying without a licence, weapons control laws.

 

Freedom not to suffer asthma attacks because somebody else has a needless addiction.

 

Indeed, nobody has a halo.

[R.P. McMurphy]

Controlled? Please how can that be. Less than ten paragraphs should suffice

 

Money is a control mechanism.

TV is a control mechanism.

Were all doomed I tell you, Dooooooooooooomed !

Seriously though, we are all controlled via our PTB.

[R.P. McMurphy]

Something like that lol

 

Powers that Be... Government etc.

[Dancerwithwings]

PTB? Pass the biscuits

Now don't be silly now!!... We all know it means "Pass The Buck" Or is it...."Please Text Back" lol!

Edited March 28, 2014 by Dancerwithwings

[BornFromTheVoid]

Laws are just words written on loose bits of paper some going back as far as the dark ages..What % of pollutants is made up of second hand tobacco smoke? And while any 'progress' is welcomed, there are (sadly) plenty of other alleged vices to spoil the fun.

Laws are what there are, some I agree with some I don't.Enough of a percentage to cause a 10% reduction in childhood hospital visits over asthma and preterm births, as well as billions/year in health savings. Everyone has their vices, but it's the ones that needlessly harm others that need dealing with first IMO.

[Methuselah]

At least the good news stories (such as this) can now be told without the need to allow that obnoxious organization being called FOREST to add its two pennyworth!

[Nick L]

At least the good news stories (such as this) can now be told without the need to allow that obnoxious organization being called FOREST to add its two pennyworth!

 

I have no problem with people smoking. In fact, I have no problem with people putting whatever they want into their bodies (and the government should keep their snouts out too, but as we are all to aware, they don't). But I do have a problem when it directly affects me, such as second hand smoke. The smoking ban was an excellent idea. I can enjoy going to a pub without stinking of an ashtray or having my asthma aggravated

[cheeky_monkey]

I have no problem with people smoking. In fact, I have no problem with people putting whatever they want into their bodies (and the government should keep their snouts out too, but as we are all to aware, they don't). But I do have a problem when it directly affects me, such as second hand smoke. The smoking ban was an excellent idea. I can enjoy going to a pub without stinking of an ashtray or having my asthma aggravated

im sure you are not old enough to remember those smoke filled clubs and pubs..but yes i hated having my clothes stink of smoke after a night out when i have never smoked myself. However if you were playing away it did mask the smell of cheap perfume..now that camouflage has gone

Edited March 28, 2014 by cheeky_monkey

[Thundery wintry showers]

I remember various discussions (both on this forum and in the "outside world") where I largely agreed with the smoking ban but suggested that there should have been more room for premises to apply to have designated smoking areas, and the usual response was a "straw man" argument that claimed that I disagreed with the ban entirely.

 

I don't like the "needlessly harm others" argument because of how it is misused elsewhere- any recreational activity that is associated with any risk at all can be categorised as a needless risk, and that's part of the reason why every source of fun is at risk of being banned because of the potential for a minority to abuse it.  To my mind, what matters is the degree of risk vs. the benefits that the activity gives (rather than whether or not people "need" to do it).  Hence my proposal about designated smoking areas, since I think that with "free-for-all" smoking in public areas, the risks outweigh the benefits (and the recent findings offer strong statistical support for that view), but when it is confined to designated smoking rooms then I'm not so sure.

[laserguy]

 But I do have a problem when it directly affects me, such as second hand smoke.

 

Which is exactly why barbeques should be banned with immediate effect - unless they have the bloody things in their own front rooms.

[BornFromTheVoid]

I don't like the "needlessly harm others" argument because of how it is misused elsewhere- any recreational activity that is associated with any risk at all can be categorised as a needless risk, and that's part of the reason why every source of fun is at risk of being banned because of the potential for a minority to abuse it.  To my mind, what matters is the degree of risk vs. the benefits that the activity gives (rather than whether or not people "need" to do it).  Hence my proposal about designated smoking areas, since I think that with "free-for-all" smoking in public areas, the risks outweigh the benefits (and the recent findings offer strong statistical support for that view), but when it is confined to designated smoking rooms then I'm not so sure.

I think the risk with many activities is a personal one, such as participating in extreme sports, recreational drug use, fast food consumption, etc. With smoking, very often the risk is spread to those around the smoker, and unlike other forms of pollution, such as industrial contaminants or exhaust fumes, there is no societal benefit to smoking. Hence, the "needlessly harm others" comment is, IMO, perfectly suited to this situation and not comparable to the other aforementioned ones.