Effects upon health Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to<unk> s. A 2009 report by the Institute of Medicine concluded that<unk> s reduced the risk of coronary heart disease and heart attacks, but the report's authors were unable to identify the magnitude of this reduction. Also in 2009, a systematic review and meta-analysis found that<unk> s on smoking in public places were associated with a significant reduction of incidence of heart attacks. The lead author of this meta-analysis, David Meyers, said that this review suggested that a nationwide<unk>  on smoking in public places could prevent between 100,000 and 225,000 heart attacks in the United States each year. A 2012 meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was associated with a lower rate of hospitalizations for cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases, and that "More comprehensive laws were associated with larger changes in risk." The senior author of this meta-analysis, Stanton Glantz, told USA Today that, with respect to exemptions for certain facilities from<unk> s, "The politicians who put those exemptions in are condemning people to be put into the emergency room." A 2013 review found that<unk> s were associated with "significant reduction in acute MI myocardial infarction risk", but noted that "studies with smaller population in the United States usually reported larger reductions, while larger studies reported relatively modest reductions". A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was associated with approximately 10% reductions in preterm births and hospital attendance for asthma, but not with a decrease in low birth weight. A 2016 Cochrane review found that since the previous version of that review was published in 2010, the evidence that<unk> s improved health outcomes had become more robust, especially with respect to acute coronary syndrome admissions. However, other studies came to the conclusion that<unk> s have little or no short-term effect on myocardial infarction rates and other diseases. A 2010 study from the US used huge nationally representative databases to compare smoking-restricted areas with control areas and found no associations between<unk> s and short-term declines in heart attack rates. The authors have also analyzed smaller studies using subsamples and revealed that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a<unk>  are as common as the large decreases. Effects upon tobacco consumption<unk> s are generally acknowledged to reduce rates of smoking; smoke-free workplaces reduce smoking rates among workers, and restrictions upon smoking in public places reduce general smoking rates through a combination of stigmatisation and reduction in the social cues for smoking. The World Health Organization considers<unk> s to have an influence on reducing demand for tobacco by producing an environment where smoking becomes increasingly more difficult and to help shift social norms away from the acceptance of smoking in everyday life. Along with tax measures, cessation measures, and education,<unk> s are viewed by public health experts as an important element in reducing smoking rates and promoting positive health outcomes. When effectively implemented, they are seen as an important element of policy to support behaviour change in favour of a healthy lifestyle. However, reports in the popular press after<unk> s have been enacted often present conflicting accounts as regards perceptions of effectiveness. One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after their<unk> s were implemented. In contrast, another report states that in Ireland, cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after implementation of the<unk> . In the UK, cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the nationwide<unk> , compared with July 2006. A 1992 document from Phillip Morris summarised the tobacco industry's concern about the effects of<unk> s: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly effects tobacco industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%–15% less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average." In the United States, the CDC reported a levelling-off of smoking rates in recent years despite a large number of ever more comprehensive<unk> s and large tax increases. It has also been suggested that a "backstop" of hardcore smokers has been reached: those unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation. The<unk>  in New York City was credited with the reduction in adult smoking rates at nearly twice the rate as in the rest of the country, "and life expectancy has climbed three years in a decade". In Sweden, use of snus, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since that nation's<unk> . Smoking restrictions may make it easier for smokers to quit. A survey suggests 22% of UK smokers may have considered quitting in response to that nation's<unk> . Restaurant smoking restrictions may help to stop young people from becoming habitual smokers. A study of Massachusetts youths, found that those in towns with<unk> s were 35 percent less likely to be habitual smokers. Economic impact Smoking is forbidden on some streets in Japan. Smokers utilise smoking lounges, such as this one in Tokyo. Many studies have been published in the health industry literature on the economic effect of<unk> s. The majority of these government and academic studies have found that there is no negative economic impact associated with smoking restrictions and many have found that there may be a positive effect on local businesses. A 2003 review of 97 such studies of the economic effects of a<unk>  on the hospitality industry found that the "best-designed" studies concluded that<unk> s did not harm businesses. Similarly, a 2014 meta-analysis found no significant gains or losses in revenue in restaurants and bars affected by<unk> s. In addition, such laws may reduce health care costs, improve work productivity, and lower the overall cost of labour in the community thus protected, making that workforce more attractive for employers. Studies funded by the bar and restaurant associations have sometimes claimed that<unk> s have a negative effect on restaurant and bar profits. Such associations have also criticised studies which found that such legislation had no impact. Many bar and restaurant associations have relationships with the tobacco industry and are sponsored by them. Australia A government survey in Sydney found that the proportion of the population attending pubs and clubs rose after smoking was<unk> ned inside them. However, a ClubsNSW report in August 2008 blamed the<unk>  for New South Wales clubs suffering their worst fall in income ever, amounting to a decline of $385 million. Income for clubs was down 11% in New South Wales. Sydney CBD club income fell 21.7% and western Sydney clubs lost 15.5%. Germany Some smoking restrictions were introduced in German hotels, restaurants, and bars in 2008 and early 2009. The restaurant industry has claimed that some businesses in the states which restricted smoking in late 2007 (Lower Saxony, Baden-Württemberg, and Hessen) experienced reduced profits. The German Hotel and Restaurant Association (DEHOGA) claimed that the<unk>  deterred people from going out for a drink or meal, stating that 15% of establishments that adopted a<unk>  in 2007 saw turnover fall by around 50%. However, a study by the University of Hamburg (Ahlfeldt and Maennig 2010) finds negative impacts on revenues, if any, only in the very short run. In the medium and long run, a recovery of revenues took place. These results suggest either, that the consumption in bars and restaurants is not affected by<unk> s in the long run, or, that negative revenue impacts by smokers are compensated by increasing revenues through non-smokers. Ireland The Republic of Ireland was the first country to introduce fully smoke-free workplaces (March 2004). The Irish workplace smoke-free law was introduced with the intention of protecting workers from secondhand smoke and to discourage smoking in a nation with a high percentage of smokers. In Ireland, the main opposition to the<unk>  came from publicans. Many pubs introduced "outdoor" arrangements (generally heated areas with shelters). It was speculated by opponents that the smoke-free workplaces law would increase the amount of drinking and smoking in the home, but recent studies showed this was not the case. Ireland's Office of Tobacco Control website indicates that "an evaluation of the official hospitality sector data shows there has been no adverse economic effect from the introduction of this measure (the March 2004 national<unk>  in bars, restaurants, etc), despite claims that the smoke-free law was a significant contributing factor to the closure of hundreds of small rural pubs, with almost 440 fewer licences renewed in 2006 than in 2005." United Kingdom<unk> s were enacted in Scotland on 26 March 2006, in Wales on 2 April 2007, in Northern Ireland on 30 April 2007, and in England on 1 July 2007. The legislation was cited as an example of good regulation which has had a favourable impact on the UK economy by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and a review of the impact of smoke-free legislation carried out for the Department
Smoking ban
Smell training
Regulation of electronic cigarettes
Reverse smoking
Meal replacement
Anti-aging supplements
Food fortification
Career counseling