Search This Blog

Tuesday, 21 January 2014

Smoking bans are for quitters - not for SHS then?

Here is a new report put out by scientists from Maastricht University (CAPHRI), Maastricht, The Netherlands Alliance Smokefree Holland (ASH), The Hague, The Netherlands University of California, San Diego, California, USA

Do smokers support smoke-free laws to help themselves quit smoking? Findings from a longitudinal study

Background
A growing number of smokers support smoke-free laws. The theory of self-control provides one possible explanation for why smokers support laws that would restrict their own behaviour: the laws could serve as a self-control device for smokers who are trying to quit.

Objective To test the hypothesis that support for smoke-free laws predicts smoking cessation.

Methods We used longitudinal data (1999–2000) from a US national sample of adult smokers (n=6415) from the Current Population Survey, Tobacco Use Supplements. At baseline, smokers were asked whether they made a quit attempt in the past year. They were also asked whether they thought smoking should not be allowed in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges. At 1-year follow-up, smokers were asked whether they had quit smoking.

Findings Smokers who supported smoke-free laws were more likely to have made a recent quit attempt. At 1-year follow-up, those who supported smoke-free laws in 4–6 venues were more likely to have quit smoking (14.8%) than smokers who supported smoke-free laws in 1–3 venues (10.6%) or smokers who supported smoke-free laws in none of the venues (8.0%). These differences were statistically significant in multivariate analyses controlling for demographics.

Conclusions Support for smoke-free laws among smokers correlates with past quit attempts and predicts future quitting. These findings are consistent with the hypothesis that some smokers support smoke-free laws because the laws could help them quit smoking.


So there it is - the justification for keeping bans in place is for QUITTING smoking - this is just so we don't get the wrong idea that any bans were put in place to PROTECT WORKERS from Second Hand Smoke in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges.

Bans in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges is a far cry from the bans that exist now. Its SO OLD FASHIONED! This study used longitudinal data (1999–2000) - not sure what that actually means? But here we find a new justification for never reviewing smoking bans. The bans are there for the quitters!

Now if we actually re-assessed the bans and Tobacco Control was made, like the Tobacco Corporations are having to, admit they lied and twisted science to promote their agenda, we could take a new view of how the bans have altered their grip since "in hospitals, indoor sporting events, indoor shopping malls, indoor work areas, restaurants, or bars and cocktail lounges." and have constricted now to mean everywhere.

"Do smokers support smoke-free laws to help themselves quit smoking? Findings from a longitudinal study" seems so frightfully old fashioned - but, be aware it will be used to justify Tobacco Control ideology.

Vaping has hit the dust now too. I am sure there will be a study sometime to show that vaping bans are justified because they help nicotine quitters to quit nicotine.

But of course vaping, if it overtakes smoking tobacco as is predicted, could be a quitters best friend. Persecuting vapers would make lots of nice work for the future of Tobacco Control which might even change its name to Nicotine Control. However, nicotine is being shown in a new light nowadays - a benevolent light, and "Nicotine Control" as a new name for Tobacco Control would look very silly indeed.

Electronic Cigarettes should be removed from The Tobacco Control Directive. So please support the EFVI