Opposing Views: RESEARCH:Smoking Bans Work -- Can Cut Heart Attacks 36%

Smoking Bans Work -- Can Cut Heart Attacks 36%

By Opposing Views Editorial Staff , To Protect and Serve Opposing Views - September 23, 2009

Comments(7) | (0)

Cities and state all over the country are passing smoking bans, virtually eliminating smoking in most indoor public places. While smokers are annoyed that they have to go outside to satisfy their nicotine addiction, a new study says the rest of the population is benefiting. It says smoking bans can reduce heart attacks by up to 36%.

A team from the University of California-San Francisco pooled data from 13 studies of smoking bans in communities in the U.S., Canada, and Europe. Researcher James Lightwood said the prior studies were inconsistent in their findings. But there was one consistent fact: "A well-designed smoking restriction law can significantly reduce heart attacks in the community and has a beneficial impact on public health," he told Reuters.

The research found heart attack rates fall immediately after smoking bans are put in place, dropping by 17 percent in the first year and by as much as 36 percent after three years. Lightwood wrote:

"This study adds to the already strong evidence that secondhand smoke causes heart attacks, and that passing 100 percent smoke-free laws in all workplaces and public places is something we can do to protect the public."

According to the Centers for Disease Control, long-term exposure to secondhand smoke can raise heart disease rates in adult nonsmokers by 25 percent to 30 percent. And the CDC and American Heart Association say secondhand smoke kills an estimated 46,000 Americans every year from heart disease alone.

Of course, there are those who claim second hand smoke is not as dangerous as it is being portrayed. One such smokers rights group is called C.L.A.S.H. (Citizens Lobbying Against Smoker Harassment). It claims reports like these are "junk science," and that news accounts of the studies are biased. C.L.A.S.H. writes on its website:

"Whether it is a reporter with no concept of what it is they are actually reporting, simply relaying the study du jour, or a health organization or researcher submitting a report, none of what they say can be taken at face value. News reports are manipulated and then hyped, as are practically all of the studies on secondhand smoke. Smokers or non-smokers who want to see accurate scientific data on the issue of tobacco smoke are not going to get it from the media, politicians or public health officials."

The National Cancer Institute begs to differ. It says on its website:

"There is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke. Studies have shown that even low levels of secondhand smoke exposure can be harmful. The only way to fully protect nonsmokers from secondhand smoke exposure is to completely eliminate smoking in indoor spaces."

Regarding Article

RESEARCH:Smoking Bans Work -- Can Cut Heart Attacks 36%

Glad to see this

As the evidence mounts demonstrating how the smoking habits of some affect all of us, and how smoking is not a "victimless" behavior affecting only the smoker, it should be easier and easier to restrict the areas where it is permitted.

I am so sickened when I see people smoking in their car with a baby or child in the back seat. How reckless and irresponsible, with all we now know about the risks of second-hand smoke, for people to do this to their little ones. And of course, children of smokers are still exposed to second-hand smoke full time at home (as I was when I was a young child). There is no excuse.

- Babaroni September 23, 2009 12:53PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Elijah
  
  I am just as shocked and appalled at the people who put newborns and young children in cars everyday and transport them on freeways and hiways, ignoring the stats and published studies on Carcegins and polluted air in cars from Truck, car and exhaust "passive air". Worse in a enclosed car than outside the car etc. I have several friends now dianosed with COPD and EMphasema, who have never smoked or lived with smoker, but who drove trucks all their lives in the 60's in smog polluted California. Yet the doctors and everyone right away blame the passive smoke from cigerettes? Come on,people, this study begs the question of previous studies that tell smokers that you can reverse the effects (heart diease?) of smoking after so many years of non smoking or stopping. So, how did the heart attacks stop immediately after these laws? What about the millions of dollars spent on health , fitness and non smoking. Exactly when do the stats come out on how effective they have been, and how did long term advertising and increased fitness by those who paid attention, affect this sudden drop in heart attacks?
  
  Lets outlaw cars and trucks and trade, and see how long it takes for the asthma rates to go down. Studies show gay and bi sexual sex cost insurance and companies millions in lost productivity and health insurance costs. Do we advertise stop sex camps like fat camps, no smoking clinics etc? No, for that matter the whole sexual revolution created big increases in STD's and AIDS along with increased illegal drug use . How much the cost on healthcare? Lets blame the Supremes for de regulating state laws aganst different sex acts and promoting abortion , aids and std's. Come on, sometimes whats not published or said is more important than what is said or published.
  
  - Leslie September 23, 2009 2:20PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (1)
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Rabid Smoker's-Rights
    
    Rabid Smoker's-Rights people who cannot seem to see past their own addiction to care one fig about those near and dear to them really disturb me.
    
    - Babaroni September 23, 2009 5:53PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0)
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Elijah
      
      Yeh, me to. All those "rabid Smoker's Rights" guys should just get in line behind the rabid GAy Marriage, rabid abortion , rabid animal, rabid environmental, rabid leftist, rabid anti Christian, rabid community organizers, rights groups and maybe go back to the original constitution that gave rights to all individuals to choose their own life style and boundaries, without using children and discrimination as a manipulative maneuver.
      
      I said nothing to indicate a disregard for children or those near and dear to me, nor whether I was a Smoker-Rights person. Just commenting on the article and studies that get published and somehow prioritized, without interpretation with other studies and whole cloth knowledge. Do you even see or know the number of people who drive with their kids while on prescription narcotics , illegal narcotics, alcohol or are you for those legal Marijuana smoking clubs?
      ARe you for all the new light bulbs with mercury in them, if you have children in the house? Have you perhaps bought them yourself, rationalizing your children will never break one? Should I call you a rabid environmentalist? Some people discuss, some attack, most just try and learn and compile all the facts into a coherent lifestyle and morality that isnt to hipocritical. No offense was meant by the privious post, but people who stereotype and generalize really "disturb" me.
      
      - Leslie September 23, 2009 6:37PM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0)
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Difference is...
        
        The difference is, smokers who insist upon smoking in closed rooms and cars with other people are harming others besides themselves.
        
        I never defended those who drive while taking drugs , those who drive while drinking, never even defended air pollution . You just felt the need to toss all that crap in as a distraction technique to draw attention away from the actual POINT of this research, which is that second-hand smoke kills people.
        
        That sounds like a serious smoker's-rights agenda to me. If the shoe doesn't fit, then perhaps you should reconsider your distraction techniques.
        
        - Babaroni September 23, 2009 7:22PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0)
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Smoking Bans Reduce Heart Attacks: Lying By Omission

The article omits an important piece of critical analysis about the 2 studies (which published their results showing that after a ban on indoor smoking , heart attack rates drop). The data used in both studies was aggregated from several other smaller studies - but in reaching their conclusion, they've cherrypicked data which show positive effects as a result of a smoking ban. An unbiased study would be one which analyzed the data on a national level, and the results of one such study was published a few months ago. Essentially, averaging the locales in which heart attack rates went up with those that went down equaled zero - meaning that a ban on indoor smoking has no effect on heart attack rates.

A full detailed analysis of the situation can be found here: http://3healthymonkeys.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/smoking-bans-reduce-heart-attacks-lying-by-omission /

- The 3 Monkeys Guide to Health September 24, 2009 7:15PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
What the ???

The problem with this meta analysis is that they didn't compare it to three years before a smoking ban went into effect. There is no baseline or control group, to come up with such a conclusion is illogical.

OSHA certainly does not agree with the American Cancer Society because they have never issued regulations because ETS indoors does not exceed thier permisable levels of exposure during a eight hour period of time i.e. Jenkins Study.

For such an important issue the research is very questionable indeed.

- kstwk September 24, 2009 11:52PM

Reply to this Recommend (0)

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.