It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Smoke-free restaurants may be keeping Torontonians out of hospital: Study

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:15 PM

Smoke-free restaurants may be keeping Torontonians out of hospital: Study

TORONTO - A ban on smoking in Toronto restaurants may be paying big health dividends, a new study suggests.

Rates of hospitalizations for heart attacks as well as heart and respiratory disease conditions plummeted after the city's ban on smoking in restaurants came into effect, according to the study, published Monday in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

There was a 17.4 per cent drop in heart attack hospitalization rates and a 39 per cent decline in hospital admissions for cardiovascular conditions overall.
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Breaking News Forum Submission Guidelines – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 12/4/2010 by Mirthful Me]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:15 PM
This study is full of maybe's and could be's linking a smoking ban in Toronto Ontario that started in 1991 to decreased hospital rates of admission for heart and respiratory disease conditions.

The study supposedly gathered hospital admission rates for these two diseases from January 1996 to March 2006.

Toronto's restaurant smoking ban came into effect in June 2001 but the bar smoking ban did not come into effect until July 2006.

The study found that there was a 17.4 % decrease in admission rates for heart attacks and an overall decrease in admission rates of 39 % for cardiac diseases in general.

Further, the study also found a decrease in hospital admissions of 33 % for respiratory conditions (asthma, copd, pneumonia.

Hooray for the smoking ban - Right? Read on to discover how you are once again being lied to by public health.

Tired of Control Freaks
(visit the link for the full news article)

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:17 PM
Good post.

Nine out of ten times they come out with something like this is just before the announce their intention to further restrict smoking somewhere - likely parks this time.

[edit on 12-4-2010 by leo123]

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 04:35 PM
First I will point out to the reader that decrease in the rate of hospital admissions for these diseases is not the same as saying there was a decrease in the incidence rate of the diseases itself. It simply means that patients are not being admitted to hospitals as much as they were before.

I do not think I need to point out that hospitals now avoid admitting patients as much as possible in ways that were not in practice in the 1990s. That fact alone makes the conclusions of this study VERY suspect.

Why would the lead authors simply not gather the statistics for the actual disease rates instead of whether or not the patient was actually submitted to the hospital.

For Cardiac Disease:

Please note the following link from the heart and stroke foundation:

Now this link provides information on the actual incidence of the disease:

Decline of cardiovascular disease Cardiovascular diseases are defined as diseases and injuries of the cardiovascular system: the heart, the blood vessels of the heart and the system of blood vessels (veins and arteries) throughout the body and within the brain. Stroke is the result of a blood flow problem in the brain. It is considered a form of cardiovascular disease. Over the past 40 years the rates of heart disease and stroke have steadily declined.

The rate has declined:
* 25% over the past 10 years
* 50% over the past 20 years
* 70% between 1956 and 2002

Since there were no smoking bans in the 50s, 60s and 70s, it is clear that the anti-smoking crusaders and public health are attempting to ascribe the decrease in cardiac disease that started in the 1950s and continue at the same rate to the current smoking bans.

Further, in regards to respiratory disease:

Figure 18 and the text explaining the figure clearly show that the declines in hospital admission rates for asthma started in 1987, continued until at least 2001 (pre-smoking ban).

How does the author of this study determine if the decline in hospital admission rates for asthma is due to the smoking ban or just a continuation of a trend that started in 1987?

More lies upon lies from PUBLIC HEATH and ANTI-SMOKING CRUSADERS!

Tired of Control Freaks.

Please turn to page 42 of the report

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:04 PM
Perhaps the smokers are now dining, and having their heart attacks, in cities and towns that still allow smoking in restaurants?

In other words, the problem merely shifted to another location?

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:06 PM
Friend of mine is coughing from all the smoking she is doing.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:07 PM
On a side note I took a week long vacation to Toronto (what? Toronto is cool..) with a couple friends of mine. We where there the week of the smoking ban. I was able to smoke in a bar for all but the last day. Just a bit of looking back I thought I might post.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:11 PM

The Smoking ban for all restaurants and bars in Ontario was enact in July 2006 - prior to that most towns had some kind of ban but it was individual. The one in Toronto did not include facilities with separately ventilated smoking rooms.


posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:14 PM
As a former waiter, I can tell you that the smoke bans are really not for the people there, but for the people working there. Working in a smoke free environment is a lot better than working on a smoking one. Plus it cuts down on restaurant costs: burned tables, ash trays (they get broken/lost/stolen), clean up, etc. I know that my restaurant went smoke free, as well as other in the complex, and had no issue with business.

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 05:36 PM
I flew on one of the last flights that allowed smoking on board. December 29, 1989 Chartered flight from Knoxville, TN to Dallas, TX. On the return trip, smoking was banned as it was January 2, 1990.

Now back pre-ban, we didn't have incidents of Middle Eastern Terrorists crashing planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon nor random fields. But post-ban, well it happened. So there must be a direct correlation between being not able to smoke on a plane and incidents like 9/11.

Wonder if they will publish that study?

posted on Apr, 12 2010 @ 06:27 PM

While it may be your anecdotal evidence that the smoking ban DID NOT affect the hospitality industry, please allow me to provide you with direct evidence to the contrary.

it would be expected of a smoking ban that smokers will continue to eat in restaurants for the simple reason that eating is a necessity. However, the real story is what happened in liquor sales:

In Ontario - liquor is sold by the government through the liquor control board. As previously mentioned - the ban was enacted in July 2006.

Referring the Ministry of Finances watch what happens before the ban and after to liquor control board sales.

2005 -1,147 million
2006 - 1,197 million
2007 - 1,307 million
2008 - 1,374 million (interim)
2009 - 1,410 million (planned)

Do you think anybody in the hospitality sector missed liquor sales in the total of 263 million dollars? (Remember alcohol that sells in the liquor store for $30 bucks is worth about $130 dollars in a bar - so 263 million = roughly 1,062 million) Think of all those lost tips!

Same trend shows for the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Commission (In Canada - all casinos provide revenue directly to the government).

2005 - 2,027 million
2006 - 1,945 million
2007 - 1,857 million
2008 - 1,895 million (interim)
2009 - 1,966 million (planned)

Now those 2008 and 2009 numbers look very fishy to me in consideration of the recession that occurred. But I think you get the general idea. There was no recession to affect these numbers in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

While there may still be a hospitality industry in Ontario - it is certainly not growing and thriving without liquor sales.

So tell me - there are many many people who work in very very dirty jobs including sewage treatment, minors etc and most of them earn less than a good waiter once tips are included - and you think its emptying ashtrays is "too dirty" for waiters?

You all deserve to lose your tips!

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 09:38 AM
Oh, I thought we were talking about waiting in general here. I know that in America there are no state run liquor stores (besides Utah I believe), so I can't back it with facts from there.

Regardless, I don't see why we need to drag in the sewage workers. Personally, I chose to wait tables at a non-smoking restraunt, made good wages, and didn't see any difference between what I made and what a waiter at a smoking establishment made.

Plus, my store was non-smoking before any law or ban. We chose that, not the government. And we sold plenty of booze.

posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 06:58 PM

That is wonderful! It proves my point exactly. The facility you worked at CHOSE to cater to non-smokers and you CHOSE to work there.

There was no law that forced the owner of your facility to cater to smokers was there?

There are many facilities that would like to CHOOSE to cater to smokers and many waiters who would like to CHOOSE to work in facilities that allow smoking.

But the law won't let them. And the money aspect is huge. What industry can afford loses of over 1 billion in a province with only 12 million people?


posted on Apr, 14 2010 @ 07:12 PM
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks

I've had bar tenders tell me smoking bans hurt their sales. After the smoking bans, smokers stepped outside the bar to smoke rather than staying inside the bar. Smokers who spend time outside the bar are not inside buying drinks.

new topics

top topics


log in