Bans don't help smokers quit, researchers say

mokers have become accustomed to stepping outside at bars and restaurants. But has the change in rules governing enclosed public places inspired enough of them to smoke less behind their own closed doors or maybe even quit altogether?
These questions were posed in research recently published in Nicotine & Tobacco Research, in which a team that included Sylvia Kairouz of Concordia University found no significant change in home habits in the aftermath of a ban. But the measures could have an impact in more complex ways.
"What distinguishes people who restrict smoking at home is the presence of a non-smoker," says Kairouz, an associate professor in Concordia's Department of Sociology and Anthropology. "The social network seems to be more of a factor than the law."
With advance knowledge of a smoking ban in Quebec, Canada that took effect in May 2006, researchers were able to collect data from a representative cross-section of the population a month ahead of time. They then followed up a year and a half later.
Naturally, growing awareness of the health impact of secondhand smoke contributed to the stricter laws, although a number of those who kept puffing at home claimed to be trying to reduce nicotine exposure to others, even if those strategies for quitting are generally futile.
"The popular belief is that opening windows or doors to blow out smoke makes it OK, when that's not the case," Kairouz says. "People might be sensitive to the issues, but there was a lack of information about how the effects of second-hand smoke are transmitted."
Greater inspiration to kick the habit likely comes from having friends or family who set an example by giving up cigarettes themselves. But trends over the past decade suggest a much broader range of factors have reduced the number of nicotine addicts beyond simply forcing smokers to huddle outdoors more often.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/03/150303131108.htm

SMOKING 'BANS' aren't there to primarily save the smokers from their own filthy habits...

THEY ARE usually put in place to protect the non-smoking majority from unasked-for assaults from those selfish smokers ~ and in the process provide a much healthier and safer environment, and less damage to the local environment (including 'built' as well as natural environ's..).

Lone Wolf wrote:

SMOKING 'BANS' aren't there to primarily save the smokers from their own filthy habits...

THEY ARE usually put in place to protect the non-smoking majority from unasked-for assaults from those selfish smokers ~ and in the process provide a much healthier and safer environment, and less damage to the local environment (including 'built' as well as natural environ's..).    

Agreed, but it is interesting to also understand what works best to help people quit as it is an addiction .

Best way to give up smoking, have an Heart Attack, I did and have never smoked since!