A lot of smoke

One goes already being an old dog, so when I have seen today in the TD1 that The nicotinism kills 1.500 persons less a year from the approval of the law Antitobacco I have said: I do not believe it.
This is the version of The Sixth one:

The mortality for nicotinism has diminished in 1.500 persons a year in Spain from smoking 2005, most debits. Almost the half there are a direct consequence of the approval of the law antitobacco.

And this is what they say that they have told them in the press conference:

"We are sure that the law has helped to reduce the mortality, although the tobacco consumption was already going down before this regulation was approved, for what we think that approximately 900 deaths would have been avoided the same way and approximately 600 there are a direct result of the legislation of 2005", has said in press conference one of the coordinators of the group of work on nicotinism of the SEE, Manel Nebot.
Another coordinator, Esteve Fernández, has added that this information is "conservative" because "they are based only on the deaths by infarction of myocardium and cancer of lung, when there are many other illnesses associated with the tobacco".

My friend Wonka, who has paid attention to the topic for years, has saved to me the task of doing investigations: read his entry newly published in the one that counts like the study presented today he does not say anything about that (there are four paginitas dedicated to the impact on the health).
What he says, in short, is that "alomojó", if the law will accelerate the tendency before to the descent in the consumption of tobacco (thing that the proper study says that it has not happened); and if a few hypothetical reductions were happening in the exhibition in the work, they would save themselves, in 2010, 1.500 deaths, of which more than 1.300 would be for the reduction in the consumption (that would be an effect only indirectly of the law), and less than 200 turned out from the minor exhibition to the environmental smoke of the tobacco in the places of work, which is what supposedly more was chasing the law.
Namely that if the law had had a few effects that we are already knowing that it has not had, would have saved 1.500 deaths. A main piece of the scientific argumentation, which these people have owed of presenting in a sufficiently confused way so that now all the means tell it to us like a fact. And that immediately will turn into a statistical mutant who will be used in the next discussion rounds on the matter, skylight.
Anyway, one more piece of the long chain of false reports that many people believe that it is legal to spread for a good cause.