Is the smoking ban good for us?

Has the smoking ban reduced heart attacks?

Tessa Mayes

3 November 2007

Enforced abstention may not lead to fewer heart attacks

It is not just the ban itself that angers smokers, however, nor the assumption by the government that it is a better guardian of our health than we are; the real fag end of all this is the way science has been misused by policy-makers, in the first place to impose the ban, and then to justify it.

Few would deny that smoking can be harmful to the health of smokers. After decades of research, scientists have shown that smoking causes most lung cancers. Smoking is also a risk factor in heart disease, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and asthma.

Even so, it does not follow that smokers should be prevented from sparking up in public places. The science is one thing; how society should respond to it is another. Arguments in support of public policy should take scientific evidence into account but not be dictated by it, as many scientists would agree.

Yet the opposite is happening, thanks to so-called ‘evidence-based’ public policy-making. Championed as long ago as 1999 in the government white paper ‘Modernising Government’, the evidence-based approach was supposed to offer a means of forming policies on the basis of a clear evaluation of evidence — and rational argument. But there’s been precious little rational argument. What has happened is that the science has been allowed to determine and justify policy: political debate has had to yield to science, to the point almost where scientists have become policy-makers. In practice, the evidence-based approach tends to stress the scientific evidence at the expense of political debate.

Sometimes, however, the scientific evidence itself is flawed, or wrongly interpreted. According to a recent Scottish study, for example, there has been a 17 per cent drop in hospital admissions for heart attacks since the March 2006 smoking ban was imposed in Scotland. Gill Pell, consultant in public health at Glasgow University, found that this compared to a 3 per cent annual decline during the previous decade.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 Next page

More articles from: Tessa Mayes | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Aileen

November 19th, 2007 10:16pm Report this comment

I felt i had to get my view over about the no smoking ban in england. I was quietly resigned to the fact that my right to have a smoke with my G & T on a Saturday had been taken away from me, that was until i went to Germany recently where they are dealing with it in a different if not more human way than that of our Government. They are partiioning off their premises into two. One part None Smoking the other part smoking. In the clubs a room is provided "INSIDE" for smokers to go and enjoy their drink and smoke in comfort. Germany are also thinking of overturning the ban and joining France and i think Greece. The hard working people of Britain who actually work hard for their poverty are having to go outside in all weathers to enjoy what is their god given right and surely it boils down to freedom of choice. I heard a fellow smoker on Saturday night when he was standing outside having a smoke say "the last English person to leave britain, please switch off the lights". Never a truer word was spoken. I say overturn the No Smoking Ban and lets all get back to normal.

Kate

January 24th, 2008 12:16pm Report this comment

Forgive me if I am being rude, but I do not believe that anyone has the 'right' to smoke in a public place as it endangers the health of others around you. In your own home or in a well-ventilated areas or special designated rooms, yes. But not when people are trying to sit down, relax with a drink or a meal and have to be faced by a cloud of foul-smelling smoke that is damaging to the health of everyone.

Ian

May 10th, 2008 9:12pm Report this comment

Kate, No I don't forgive you for being rude, since you haven't been listening to the argument - but that is typical of bigots in general and certainly of the more virulent of the smoker-haters.
Most smokers I know agree that if someone doesn't like the smell of smoke then they should not be forced to suffer it.
Smokers aren't suggesting that you should have to suffer, but we do reserve the right to smoke inside amongst like-minded friends provided the levels of residual smoke are kept below a level that is shown scientifically to be harmful to workers employed there.
Legislation is already available throught the Environment Agency whereby such things are controlled.
The sad fact is that smokers have been deprived of their enjoyment of smoking in a social context by those who just think it shouldn't be allowed - just because THEY don't like it.
Legislation should be brought in immediately to legalise properly ventilated smoking rooms, where smokers can choose to smoke in comfort and harmony with those around them - non-smokers can then steer well clear of such dens of iniquity...
Anything less reflects a purely authoritarian government - is that where we are really heading?

jon

May 12th, 2008 12:45pm Report this comment

Pubs and restaurants are private property. For a longtime before the ban there was no shortage of non-smoking restaurants. The only cafe chain which allowed smoking was Caffe Nero. There was a growing number of non-smoking pubs and, paradoxically, it was necessary for the anti-tobacco industry to get a complete ban before this number grew too large and a state of stable equilibrium, where the majority of people were happy, was reached. It is good that the article points out the lack of proper evidence for the harmful effects of passive smoking, and the almost fraudulent tactics of the anti-smoking industry; but, to my mind, this is not relevant. If a group of people wishes to get togther and engage in a harmful activity, it is nobody else's business. There should be smokers members' bars staffed by smoking members who have each endured an hour long lecture from ASH regarding the claimed dangers. The only argument left is that non-smokers would be discriminated against in the job market. Well really. Are we going to ban roofing because I'm scared of climbing a ladder?

Post comment