C-NetNews.com – September 25, 2009 1:18 PM PDT
It’s all over the news. A major analysis published this week of more than a dozen studies in North America, Italy, Scotland, and Ireland designed to determine the effect of smoking bans on heart attack rates shows a 17 percent reduction in heart attacks in places where bans were in effect for one year. That rate more than doubles to 36 percent in places where bans have been in effect for three years.
The impact of smoking bans is “bigger than expected,” the BBC reports. The bans are “potent weapons in the battle to prevent heart attacks,” claims The Wall Street Journal. Communities that ban smoking get a “big payoff,” according to CNN. In the days since the report first came out, scores of articles have added to the chorus that smoking bans significantly reduce heart attacks.
Maybe… maybe not, RTFA. A lot of people are now switching to electronic cigarettes… all of the nicotine but none of the other toxins.
I’m not gonna RTFA. Facts are facts. You either understand the world thru facts, or you apply some offsetting higher value in spite of the facts.
Don’t like the facts? Fudge a study that shows no benefit. Then you will have some facts on your side, but you will be a fudge packer.
Your choice.
Seriously—won’t even cut and past the sentence you find that calls the study into question? Put “Snipe Hunt Alert” at the lead of your post.
Yah but you are missing the obvious. First smokers pay a lot of taxes. Then the sooner you die the less social security you draw and you are still going to die. At most you can delay death a few years but that just increases the amount of money you draw while decreasing the amount you pay in.
Is that what the government really wants?
We cant chill out if we aint got no Pot.
Maine 5000-8000 marijuana plants found, Largest bust in Maine’s history of Prohibition. 3 clips from local tv stations.
http://healthymaintenance.blogspot.com/2009/09/law-enforcement-fly-over-nets-over-1000.html
Sure is hard to refute the findings when they won’t let you look at the full text of the study without first paying them money to sign up.
Lol, Electronic and none of the toxins. Just what do you think Propylene glycol is. You know the vehicle that carries the nicotine in those new fangled cigs. John C. is a chemist and he failed to see the irony in azzholes smokin antifreeze. That is all.
Yes Electronic cigarettes contain nicotine (the dosage is easily be controlled by the user), but are by any definition much less harmful than smoking tobacco cigarettes.
http://e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/
http://vapersforum.com/
‘Vaping’ is an excellent alternative to smoking.
Maybe… maybe not, RTFA. A lot of people are now switching to electronic cigarettes… all of the nicotine but none of the other toxins.
Hop, I’m not sure exactly what an electronic cigarette is. Does it still spew smoke to create second-hand smokers? My understanding of the health benefits of smoking bans is that they reduce the ill effects on second hand smokers. They’re not going to do much for a smoker who still pours smoke down his/her lungs. No?
Electronic cigarettes generate a vapor with nicotine and various flavors in it. It doesn’t hang around like smoke.
Ah the no smoking extremists love these studies. Tell them next they need to ban processed oils, all fried foods, and you will reduce heart attacks in smokers 84%. That means they can still smoke their cigarettes, and heart attacks will still be reduced 84%. The data is there. No not on TV, what are you waiting for, get Washington to ban what’s really causing heart attacks, butter, cheese, eggs, olive oil, vegetable oil, lard, hamburgers, potato chips, Doritos, french fries, tacos with meat, all of these need to be banned. No not George Washington, he would roll over in his grave if he saw what is going on.
#9 – speak,
You’re missing the point. When you smoke next to me, I smoke. When you eat butter, I do not get the cholesterol.
It’s all about freedom, freedom not to inhale your smoke, freedom not to die of a heart attack because you smoke, freedom not to get cancer because you smoke, freedom not to get emphysema because you smoke.
Get it now?
It’s not all about you.
I thought is was lung cancer, throat cancer, and emphysema that killed smokers.
The legislation pushed smokers outside where they stood in the sun making vitamin d. Vitamin d protects against heart attacks by reducing blood pressure (some think statins act to increase vitamin d not reduce cholesterol). It is the going outside that is important rather than being cooped up in an office. The none smokers should take the same breaks.
“A lot of people are now switching to electronic cigarettes… all of the nicotine but none of the other toxins.”
I’ve been seeing Web-Ads for these things. But I don’t know that “a lot of people” are switching over to using them. They’ve got to cost more than conventional smokes. So “a lot of people” probably just means a bunch of Yuppies are switching.
Electronic Cigs are simply a drug dispensing device, via inhaled vapor. A nicotine pellet or capsule is heated to release the drug. And that’s what it is, a controlled substance. So how did that get approved past the FDA, and by the Agriculture Dept., as a suitable replacement for tobacco? Once more, our government bows to the demands of big corporations. And subverts the nation’s laws to suit them. These eCigs are not a tobacco product. And so they shouldn’t enjoy any such “Grandfathered” business blanket approval. If people (the world over) are giving up smoking because its a health hazard. It shouldn’t be made slightly less hazardous, by simply eliminating the tar component.
Again! Isn’t it amazing how our Government can so quickly come to the aid of the Tobacco industry, to preserve their longevity. But can’t so easily come up with Health Care reform. To preserve the health and longevity of it citizens. What a lot of difference, a few billion dollars in Tobacco money makes, eh?
#5
You may be confusing ethylene glycol with Propylene glycol.
Propylene glycol isn’t toxic. It IS used in many foods and other products that you probably use or consume without realizing it.
#7
E-cigs do not make smoke, they make vapor just like a ‘smoke’ machine does by heating Propylene glycol or vegetable glycerine with added flavorings and a small amount of nicotine. Both substances are generally safe for consumption (you can look up the MSDS)
The vapor dissipates quickly just like a ‘smoke’ machine vapor. One of the product reviewers ‘vapes’ with his beloved bird on his shoulder and the bird is fine… birds are highly sensitive and can not tolerate smoke, but the vapor does no apparent harm to the bird.
#13
Very ignorant and uninformed, you should do a bit of research before making such comments.
Many of the ads you see on the internet are rip-offs. Smokers who would like to learn more should check the forums posted by #6 for truthful information and honest less expensive sources.
The use of e-cigs is actually much less expensive than smoking and they are hated by big tobacco because of the potential loss of profit$.
Smokers should be allowed to smoke, as long as not one single whiff of their smoke is around me. My right to not be bothered by their choice to smoke trumps their choice to smoke. That means “Take it somewhere else” and even outside isn’t necessarily far enough if I still have to put up with it.
Stupid self destructive people will always be around… if you have people that do Meth, Crack, Heroin… why are we even arguing about morons that use ‘electronic cigarettes’. Call all those people what they are: self-destructive morons… and keep those idiots far away from me.
Beware the subtle changes in reporting criteria.
Back in the days of ’55 Saves Lives,’ the government quietly decreed and implemented a change to the reporting criteria for highway fatalities, all tied to the bait (or blackmail) of federal highway funds.
Prior to the change, if an individual died as a direct result of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle crash within the first week of the incident, that individual was reported as a highway fatality.
The directed change was that if an individual did not expire at the scene, and actually made it alive to the hospital, he or she could no longer be reported as a highway fatality. Of course, the numbers went down, giving credence (however false) to the claim that ’55 Saves Lives.’
It should come as no surprise that our government lies to us all the time.
I’m just sayin’…
Ok I really need to make this comment for all of the misinformed idiots that seem to think that vapourising tobacoo is less harmful that smoking it. NO! Smoking tobacco is the least harmful way to use it as the combustion kills most of the nicotine before it enters your mouth.
“all of the nicotine but none of the other toxins.”
Nicotine is one of the most toxic naturally occuring substances known to man. You are either a retard or in need of making your sarcasm more obvious.
If you vapourised the nicotine in one 10-pack of smokes, it would be enough poison to kill your whole family.
Vapourising is only less harmful than smoking when you aren’t smokimg something toxic, and therefore not relying on the combustion to water down the toxicity of the substance that you are smoking. For example cannabis. Cannabis is completely non-toxic, so vapourising it is a harmless way to use it as you introduce zero toxins to your body.
I predict a study will emmerge at some point in the near future showing that these “e cigarettes” kill people faster and more oftern in proportion to smoked cigarettes.
Tbh you’d have to be a moron to use tobacoo or nicotine full stop.
YOU WILL DIE, JUST STOP THAT SHIT.
These studies clearly show that smoking outdoors is much healthier.
>the health benefits of smoking bans is that they reduce the ill effects on second hand smokers.
There is not much health benefit for second-hand smokers. Mainly they no longer get the smell of smoke, and perhaps some psychological benefits beyond that.
When the EPA reviewed health effects of second-hand smoke almost twenty years ago, they had to redefine statistically-significant to get any negative health effect for second-hand smoke.
#19 – MikeN,
But, there are dozens of studies showing the ill effects of second hand smoke. Are you a conspiracy theorist?
How about simple logic. Cigarette smoke is bad for you when it comes in through a filter designed to remove some of the worst toxins. Why would it be better when it doesn’t go through the filter?
http://tinyurl.com/c2lf6