Where the hell do they get these stats from...

Now I'm an adult, and I know smoking is bad for me, and I do believe that banning stuff will make us a bit healthier.

but 20% in 16 months...:WTF:

All stuff like this does IMO, as with global warming, is discredit the scientific community.


-----------------------------------------------
Scots smoke ban 'improved health'

Heart attack hospital admissions were compared
The Scottish smoking ban has led to a significant advance in public health, the most detailed scientific study of the measure so far has suggested.
Comparisons at nine hospitals revealed that there was a 17% year-on-year drop in heart attack admissions since the ban was introduced in March 2006.

It said the quality of air in pubs is now equivalent to that found outdoors.

Exposure to second-hand smoke north of the border is down by 40% among adults and children, the study added.
Scotland's deputy chief medical officer, Professor Peter Donnelly, said this was proof that the ban has produced major health gains.
The primary aim of smoking bans is to protect non smokers from the effects of passive smoking
Professor Jill Pell
But Scottish publicans claim that many of the benefits could have been achieved without a ban and complain that bar sales have declined because of it.
Professor Jill Pell, who headed the research team which made the findings, said: "The primary aim of smoking bans is to protect non smokers from the effects of passive smoking.
"Previous studies have not been able to confirm whether or not that has been achieved. What we were able to show is that among people who are non-smokers there was a 20% reduction in heart attack admissions.
"This confirms that the legislation has been effective in helping non-smokers."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/6986554.stm

meanwhile, in the REAL world.

Instead of smoking being for old fools like me they've made it a trendy statement of rebellion for young folk.I can't believe it's gone up, I thought we were pitied fools...

--------------------------------------------------------
Cigarette sales up 5% despite smoking ban

Eva Langlands
SALES of cigarettes in Scotland have increased since the ban on smoking in public places was introduced earlier this year, confounding predictions by politicians and health experts.
Despite expectations that there would be a drop in the number of smokers and in the amount of tobacco being smoked, Scots are now buying 61,000 more packets of cigarettes every week than before the ban was introduced.
The trend — which reflects the experiences of other countries that have banned smoking in public — is believed to be partly driven by people smoking more at home.
Other countries also saw a rise in the number of young people smoking because the habit came to be seen more as an act of rebellion.
This month a study by Dundee University said that bar workers had experienced health benefits. However, if people are smoking more at home since the ban, children who live with smokers may be suffering instead. Every year more than 17,000 children under the age of five are admitted to hospital in Britain suffering from illnesses related to passive smoking in the home.
A separate study at Edinburgh University is looking at the impact of the ban on children. Public health experts said that the new figures were a cause for concern.
“It’s extremely plausible that more people may be smoking at home after the ban,” said Phil Hanlon, professor of public health at Glasgow University.
“If that’s the case, it’s very worrying. The evidence is accruing to support the fact that smoking at home damages the health of others in the home.”
The figures, provided by the Scottish Grocers Federation, show a rise of almost 5% in sales of cigarettes from shops. The Scottish Licensed Trade Association (SLTA) said cigarette machine sales in pubs and clubs remained unchanged.
Scots spent on average £6.3m a week on cigarettes before the ban, according to the survey. After a slight dip, sales increased to reach higher levels than before the ban at £6.6m — or 1.3m packets — on average a week. Spain and Ireland have seen similar effects.
“Many members were concerned that the ban would see a drop in cigarette sales, which make up 20% of business at convenience stores. But that certainly hasn’t happened,” said John Drummond, chief executive of the Scottish Grocers’ Federation.
Paul Waterson, chief executive of the SLTA, added: “These figures appear to confirm what we predicted all along; that the ban would not lead to a decline in sales of cigarettes. The government and anti-smoking campaigners insisted it would. Now they are backpeddling and saying it was only ever about protecting people from passive smoking. It is quite clear that it has not delivered what they said it would.”
The ban has been hailed a success by the Scottish executive. When it was introduced Andy Kerr, the health minister, predicted: “As well as protecting people from the harmful effects of second-hand smoke it will help many people to give up smoking. Evidence from Ireland proves this.”
However in Ireland cigarette sales are now higher than before the ban, which was introduced in March 2004.
Maureen Moore, the chief executive of Ash Scotland — the anti-smoking lobby group — called on the Scottish executive to find new ways to cut smoking levels. More than 25% of the adult population — one million people — in Scotland smoke.
“Any increase in sales of cigarettes is bad news for public health,” said Moore. “If cigarette sales are genuinely on the increase then the government needs to raise the price of tobacco further and consider new ways in which to target smokers with better smoking cessation choices.”
Chris Ogden of the Tobacco Manufacturers’ Association said the figures showed there is a core of smokers who will smoke no matter what, adding: “Like in Ireland, Scottish smokers have adjusted to the ban. It’s a matter of personal choice.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/newspapers/sunday_times/scotland/article601421.ece

Where the hell do they get these stats from... ?

I believe the smoke police make up the numbers.

The secound hand smoke thing appears to me to be a farce. My mom soon will be 95 and her father was a heavy smoker my dad (who died at 92) smoked heavily for 20 years. I have been quit for only 8. So mom has been subjected to almost as much 2nd hand smoke as a bartender.
Not to pleasant to be seated next to a smoker at a bar, so I would guess that some people just came up with this.