Cigarette ban leads to fewer heart attacks

[NormanH]

As some one who really welcomed the ban on smoking in bars I am predisposed to accept that it has brought  health benefits.

On the other hand I really don't see how studies such as those quoted in this article can be sure of such a direct line of cause and effect.

Isn't this reporting just an example of the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy, which assumes that because some thing comes after something else in a time period tha first caused the second, whereas in fact in merely preceded it..?

[Pierre ZFP]

Yes I think you are absolutely right. the whole article seems to be based on anecdotal evidence rather that actual statistics.

Having said that, my Dad died at age 45 of a single heart attack and he was a smoker . Guess who never is/will be.

Of course smokers are incredibly good for a country's economy. Not only do the contribute taxes in buying fags but they don't claim much pension as they die young!!

This statistic confirmed by the Dutch government study and the Boss of BAT.

[Quillan]

I don't believe smoking causes any of these problems. What I believe is that if you are already predisposed to to lung cancer, heart disease etc then smoking can increase the likelihood of you actually getting them. My m-i-l died of lung cancer, the same type that is associated with smoking (small cell or something), she gave up smoking 29 years prior to being diagnosed. My grandmother died of old age (99 years and 7 months), she smoked 60 untipped cigarettes per day, she started smoking at 14 years. There are loads of people in my village that smoke and they are in their 70's. I can't see a logical pattern to it all personally. If its really, really, that bad and kills people how come people are not queuing up to sue the tobacco companies and win, how come they have not been bankrupted by such action and why will no government just ban them full stop? And the same goes for booze as well.

[Pierre ZFP]

Spot on Quillan.  The thing is that all these articles seem to be written by people with no idea of statistics and statistical analysis.

The issue here is I think the difference between 'cause' and 'causagen'

If smoking caused cancer for example then anyone who ever puffed on a fag would get it. Because it's a causagen it is pointing to and increased probability that you will suffer problems if you smoke borne out by the fact that regular smokers on average die a lot younger than their no-smoking counterparts.

[Quillan]

Well my mothers side of the family (who didn't smoke incidentally) have hereditary heart problems and all use anti statins. I smoke and also used them. Where do I fit in to all this then as clearly the anti statins reduce my risk of heart attacks yet I smoke.

As far as smoking bans are concerned I like the Spanish approach. Half the bars and restro's allow smoking the other half ban it. Its a two way thing, if a smoker wants to go to a non smoking restro then he can't smoke there. If a none smoker wants to go to a restro that permits smoking then its up to them. What I don't like is blanket banning, its unfair, un-democtratic and another restriction on peoples freedom of choice. What I think is fair is a law that allows restros and bars to choose to be one or the other and that there are equal amounts of both in a towns, villages etc.

Personally I would like to see a ban on farting in restros, can we enforce this? Nothing worse than enjoying a nice meal and somebody lets a 'quiet but deadly' out. [;-)]