Ohio Proves YOUR VOTE does not matter - Page 4 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Baraka_Guru · 04-13-2010, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I would like to see 1 case where they proved a non smoker died from lung cancer due to working in a bar that allowed smoking. Or where a non smoker suffered serious health issues from working in a bar.

This might shed some light on this issue:

Quote:

Toronto smoking ban leads to decline in hospitalizations
André Picard Public Health Reporter

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Apr. 12, 2010 8:58PM EDT Last updated on Tuesday, Apr. 13, 2010 4:11AM EDT

A ban on smoking in restaurants is being credited for a precipitous drop in hospital admissions for cardiovascular and respiratory problems.

The findings, published in Tuesday’s edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, are based on data from the City of Toronto.

The research shows that, in the three-year period after anti-smoking bylaws were implemented in restaurants, hospitalizations for heart conditions fell 39 per cent and for respiratory conditions 32 per cent. The number of heart attacks also declined 17 per cent.

“Healthy public policy has to be based on evidence and studies like this one validate the use of legislation,” said one of the study's authors, Dr. Alisa Naiman, a fellow at the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences.

She stressed, however, that new rules were not solely responsible for the dramatic health dividends that came about.

The study is based on an analysis of hospital admission data for the 10-year period between 1996 and 2006 that spans a period before and after a smoking ban was implemented in Toronto. Researchers also looked at data from two other jurisdictions where there were no smoking bylaws – Halton in suburban Toronto and Thunder Bay in Northern Ontario – for comparative purposes.

The City of Toronto introduced controls on public smoking in three distinct phases: In 1999, it required all workplaces to be smoke-free; in 2001, smoking was banned in all restaurants and; in 2004, the ban was extended to bars.

The research shows that during the first phase, hospitalization rates barely changed, likely because most workplaces were already smoke-free.

But when the ban on smoking in restaurants was introduced, the number of hospitalizations for cardiovascular and respiratory conditions dropped, almost overnight.

When smoking was banned in bars, the drop in hospitalizations was, again, modest.

“I think this reflects the fact that a lot more people go to restaurants than bars,” Dr. Naiman said.

While hospital admissions dropped sharply after no-smoking rules took effect in Toronto restaurants, the rate of admissions for heart attacks jumped by almost 15 per cent in Halton and Thunder Bay, while hospital admissions fell a more modest 3.4 per cent for cardiovascular conditions and 13.5 per cent for respiratory conditions.

Dr. Naiman said this shows the impact of legislation but also serves as a reminder that during the period studied, 1996 to 2006, there were other important policy changes. Those include increases in tobacco taxes, new advertising rules for tobacco products, graphic warnings added to cigarette packages and increased awareness about the dangers of smoking, and second-hand smoke in particular, not to mention non-legislative changes such as improvements in the treatment and management of chronic health conditions like asthma and angina.

“Legislation is just one part of the puzzle, but it’s an important part,” Dr. Naiman said.

Dr. Richard Stanwick, chief medical health officer for the Vancouver Island Health Authority, said the impact of smoking bans is seen not only in the statistics but on the ground.

Shortly after Victoria introduced a smoking ban in restaurants in 1999, he said, “there was a reduced need for cardiologists – we actually needed one less.”

Dr. Stanwick said there is a lot of other anecdotal evidence of the benefits of restricting smoking, but ultimately it is a quality-of-life issue. “Smoking and second-hand smoke cripples and disables people, often in their key productive years,” he said.

Dr. Stanwick believes legislation should be expanded and the next frontier is banning smoking in cars where children are present, and in parks and on playgrounds.

In a commentary also published in today’s edition of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Dr. Alan Maryon-Davis of the department of primary care and public health sciences at King’s College in London, said the new research “adds to the growing body of evidence that legislation banning smoking can save lives, and that it begins to do so quickly.”

At the same time, he said, anti-smoking legislation raises the wider issue of how far government should go in using enforcement to improve public health.

“What is the optimal balance between laissez-faire-ism and nanny-state-ism when it comes to promoting health and preventing ill health?”

He said the role of health professionals should extend beyond treating the consequences of unhealthy behaviours such as smoking to advocate for prevention and legislation, but only where it is backed by sound evidence.

About six million Canadians are regular smokers, just over 21 per cent of the adult population.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...19/?cmpid=rss1

silent_jay · 04-13-2010, 07:58 AM

Pan was shown proof pages ago Baraka, all he needed to do was look up one name, or follow the links I have posted numerous times in this thread, had he looked up Heather Crowe, or went to these links and there's the proof, pan doesn't want proof though, then he can't rant and rave and huff and puff, and make accusations and make up his own 'facts'. So once more.
heathercrowecampaign
Heather Crowe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
heathercrowecampaign

Baraka_Guru · 04-13-2010, 08:36 AM

Well, perhaps he wasn't satisfied with one case.

Here I've just posted data referring to a few years with a ban in place and numbers to the order of "per 1,000" amongst a population of one of the largest metropolises in North America.

pan6467 · 04-13-2010, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

This might shed some light on this issue:
Toronto smoking ban leads to decline in hospitalizations - The Globe and Mail

Thank you for the info. I think you'd see those results from the decrease in smokers alone though but those are good numbers. I just dont believe secondhand smoke is the SOLE cause of disease in a person. Can it contribute to a medical problem? Yes, but cause, no, I don't believe that in a bar/restaurant atmosphere. Now, if you spouse or someone you are around every day with, in small confined spaces with such as cars, bedrooms, etc. I can see the argument and it may truly affect someone's health, especially children.

---------- Post added at 12:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:44 PM ----------

Quote:

Originally Posted by silent_jay

Pan was shown proof pages ago Baraka, all he needed to do was look up one name, or follow the links I have posted numerous times in this thread, had he looked up Heather Crowe, or went to these links and there's the proof, pan doesn't want proof though, then he can't rant and rave and huff and puff, and make accusations and make up his own 'facts'. So once more.
heathercrowecampaign
Heather Crowe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
heathercrowecampaign

First, "I don't set out to personally attack pan"... sound familiar?

Second, for the most part you are on my ignore list and I really pay no attention to you except when you post things like this.

Baraka_Guru · 04-13-2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Thank you for the info. I think you'd see those results from the decrease in smokers alone though but those are good numbers. I just dont believe secondhand smoke is the SOLE cause of disease in a person. Can it contribute to a medical problem? Yes, but cause, no, I don't believe that in a bar/restaurant atmosphere. Now, if you spouse or someone you are around every day with, in small confined spaces with such as cars, bedrooms, etc. I can see the argument and it may truly affect someone's health, especially children.

Pan, for things such as angina and heart attacks, I'm sure it's smokers who are most effected. However, when it comes to things such as bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma, you might be surprised at the effect secondhand smoke has in these.

For example, are you aware of how asthma attacks can be triggered? Though I'm sure it would take longer exposures to secondhand smoke to contract something like bronchitis and pneumonia. Also consider how secondhand smoke is a serious contributing factor that only makes things worse. Very few things can be considered a sole cause of disease.

pan6467 · 04-13-2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Pan, for things such as angina and heart attacks, I'm sure it's smokers who are most effected. However, when it comes to things such as bronchitis, pneumonia, and asthma, you might be surprised at the effect secondhand smoke has in these.

For example, are you aware of how asthma attacks can be triggered? Though I'm sure it would take longer exposures to secondhand smoke to contract something like bronchitis and pneumonia. Also consider how secondhand smoke is a serious contributing factor that only makes things worse. Very few things can be considered a sole cause of disease.

I can agree with this to a degree. But when you look at history (the 50's, 60's and 70's) people weren't saying much at all about secondhand smoke. Some could argue that it was there just no studies done... for kids I honestly believe it may even cause asthma and chronic bronchial problems. But in a ventilated bar setting... unless everyone is smoking and you are working there every single day for 10+ hours... I don't see it as a serious issue. There are far worse things such as fried foods, high red meat consumption, no exercise, etc. in life than that secondhand smoke.

As for the repeal of the law, there hasn't been much said or done so perhaps, it has died. Which would be great. Hopefully with the political apathy in the state right now the politicians would see it as political suicide to try to overturn the people's vote through legislation.

rahl · 04-13-2010, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

But in a ventilated bar setting.

What does this mean? Are the bars in your area more ventilated than the rest of the country? Bars have no more or less ventilation than any other establishment that cooks food. If you happen to patron a bar that doesn't serve food then the ventilation isn't any different than any other building.

silent_jay · 04-13-2010, 06:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

First, "I don't set out to personally attack pan"... sound familiar?

Second, for the most part you are on my ignore list and I really pay no attention to you except when you post things like this.

First, that was a personal attack? I figured it was an observation on your posting habits here, ask for something, get shown it, ignore it, rant, rave, huff, puff, move on but hey, whatever lets you play the victim again, as you always do. If it's personal pan, report it, there's a fancy button on the forum for that, but then that wouldn't allow you to play the victim and make it look like poor little pan is always being picked on by big mean Jay, oh poor pan.

Second, interesting you asked for proof, I posted it, yet no response about it from you. Rather you tell me I'm on your ignore list for the most part(yay me), and totally ignore anything else in my post, quite typical of you really, ignore proof to play the victim.

Quote:

Can it contribute to a medical problem? Yes, but cause, no, I don't believe that in a bar/restaurant atmosphere.

I'll post this again, maybe you'll actually read it, rather than say I'm attacking you, I mean you've asked for proof, said you don't believe it can cause it, yet here it is, the proof you wanted yet ignore, surely pan you can at least respond to this, I mean, you asked for it, what 2 pages ago?

Quote:

In 2002, Heather's doctors told her she had inoperable lung cancer. They told her that her cancer resulted from her working for many years in smoke-filled bars and restaurants.

Because she became ill as a result of workplace exposure, Heather filed a claim with the Ontario Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) for 'worker's compensation.'

WSIB accepted Heather's claim for compensation. They agreed with her doctors that her cancer was caused by second hand smoke at work.

After learning she had cancer from second hand smoke at work, Heather planned for a better future for other workers. She travelled across Canada, promoting changes to municipal, provincial and federal law to better protect workers from second-hand smoke. She allowed her story to be told in government advertisements and news stories.

You can read about her campaigns in "Heather's work".

Heather died at 8:00 p.m. on May 22, 2006.

Care to respond pan, or are we going to keep going the usual way of things?

pan6467 · 04-13-2010, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rahl

What does this mean? Are the bars in your area more ventilated than the rest of the country? Bars have no more or less ventilation than any other establishment that cooks food. If you happen to patron a bar that doesn't serve food then the ventilation isn't any different than any other building.

As I stated in the part you didn't quote... such as a bedroom or a car. Your home and especially those 2 areas usually do not have the ventilation as a public place. Since this is about bars and restaurants I didn't think I really needed to elaborate like this. And here in Canton YES, smoking areas were more ventilated than non smoking, by law.

dc_dux · 04-13-2010, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

As I stated in the part you didn't quote... such as a bedroom or a car. Your home and especially those 2 areas usually do not have the ventilation as a public place. Since this is about bars and restaurants I didn't think I really needed to elaborate like this. And here in Canton YES, smoking areas were more ventilated than non smoking, by law.

There is no safe level of exposure to second hand smoke.

Quote:

What is a safe level of secondhand smoke?

There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces. Separating smokers from nonsmokers, cleaning the air, and ventilating buildings cannot completely eliminate secondhand smoke exposure.

Secondhand Smoke: Questions and Answers - National Cancer Institute

The adverse impact of second hand smoke cant be rationalized away with claims of marginally "better ventilation."

silent_jay · 04-13-2010, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Well, perhaps he wasn't satisfied with one case.

Here I've just posted data referring to a few years with a ban in place and numbers to the order of "per 1,000" amongst a population of one of the largest metropolises in North America.

That was my thinking, but he did ask for one case where a non smoker died from lung cancer due to working i na bar that allowed smoking.

Quote:

I would like to see 1 case where they proved a non smoker died from lung cancer due to working in a bar that allowed smoking. Or where a non smoker suffered serious health issues from working in a bar.

I mean, this quote pretty much provesd what he asked for, yet still denial on pans part.

Quote:

In 2002, Heather's doctors told her she had inoperable lung cancer. They told her that her cancer resulted from her working for many years in smoke-filled bars and restaurants.

Because she became ill as a result of workplace exposure, Heather filed a claim with the Ontario Workers Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) for 'worker's compensation.'

WSIB accepted Heather's claim for compensation. They agreed with her doctors that her cancer was caused by second hand smoke at work.

I mean, that seems to be the proof asked for, he wanted one case, I showed him one case, you showed him many more examples, should be enough proof between the two posts lol.

04-13-2010, 08:36 AM	#123 (permalink)
Baraka_Guru warrior bodhisattva Super Moderator Location: East-central Canada	Well, perhaps he wasn't satisfied with one case. Here I've just posted data referring to a few years with a ban in place and numbers to the order of "per 1,000" amongst a population of one of the largest metropolises in North America. __________________ Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing? —Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön Humankind cannot bear very much reality. —From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

04-13-2010, 07:58 AM	#122 (permalink)
silent_jay Her Jay Location: Ontario for now....	Pan was shown proof pages ago Baraka, all he needed to do was look up one name, or follow the links I have posted numerous times in this thread, had he looked up Heather Crowe, or went to these links and there's the proof, pan doesn't want proof though, then he can't rant and rave and huff and puff, and make accusations and make up his own 'facts'. So once more. heathercrowecampaign Heather Crowe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia heathercrowecampaign