Scientific Claims

Comments on their scientific claims

The Claim: Smoking Bans lower the amount of hospital admissions for hearts attacks (AMIs)

The Truth:

Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Department of Community Health Sciences, Boston University School of Public Health thoroughly analyzed a series of anti-smoking studies that have spread like bad weed over the last few of years in unsuccessful attempts to prove that smoking bans have immediate effects in reducing heart attacks. The conclusions of these studies were extremely important to the anti-tobacco industry because they would have supported their no safe level of tobacco smoke mantra and the benefits of smoking bans. Each and every study failed miserably to support the conclusion that smoking bans lower the number of heart attacks, yet they are continuously used as a propaganda tool to convince politicians, judges and the public that economic losses and social havoc the bans have caused anywhere they were implemented are all worth it

• Prominent Tobacco Control Researcher Cautions CDC that Helena Study Should Not Be Used to Conclude that Smoking Bans Immediately Reduce Heart Attacks

• CDC: Pueblo Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Attacks by 41%, Due Mostly to Decreased Secondhand Smoke Exposure; But Conclusions are Biased and Invalid

• More Shoddy Science: First Helena, Then Pueblo, Now Saskatoon

• New Study Concludes that Bowling Green Smoking Ban Reduced Heart Disease Admissions by 47%; Unfortunately, Science is Weak and Conclusions Unjustified

• Piedmont Italy Study Becomes the Latest in a String of Junk Science Papers on Effects of Smoking Bans on Heart Attack Admissions

• French Heart Attack Conclusions are Based on One Data Point; Stroke Admissions Increased After Smoke-Free Bar Law; Shoddy Science Exposed

• News Article Invokes Smoking Ban as Major Cause of 49% Decline in Heart Attack Admissions in North Cumbria; Junk Science on this Issue Running Rampant

• Official Data Show No Effect of England's Smoking Ban on Heart Attack Admissions During First Nine Months

• Study Attributes Fall in Cardiovascular Admissions in Toronto to Smoking Ban and Decrease in Secondhand Smoke Exposure, But Methods are Faulty

The Claim: Smoking Bans lower the amount of smokers in a country

The Truth:

While it is true that reasonable public health campaigns against smoking did well in lowering the number of smokers, they stopped being effective the day they became a ruthless war against smokers themselves. Very few people like to be bullied and shamed into compliance for the betterment of the collective we and this is exactly what public health has been doing to smokers in the last decade through smoking bans and other extreme campaigns and policies. The unintended, albeit predictable, consequences are that smoking rates have been more or less stagnating and even increasing [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] in most countries ever since public health went from respectfully educating the people to brow-beating them into complying with its dictates.

The Claim: Smoking Bans cause no damage to the hospitality industry

The Truth: