PDA

View Full Version : Smoking Ban Leads to Major Drop in Heart Attacks


America
01-05-2009, 04:52 PM
ATLANTA – A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is, government researchers said Wednesday. The study, the longest-running of its kind, showed the rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent in the three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it's a clear sign the ban was responsible.


The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors, Terry Pechacek of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.


At least eight earlier studies have linked smoking bans to decreased heart attacks, but none ran as long as three years. The new study looked at heart attack hospitalizations for three years following the July 1, 2003 enactment of Pueblo's ban, and found declines as great or greater than those in earlier research.


"This study is very dramatic," said Dr. Michael Thun, a researcher with the American Cancer Society.


"This is now the ninth study, so it is clear that smoke-free laws are one of the most effective and cost-effective to reduce heart attacks," said Thun, who was not involved in the CDC study released Thursday.


Smoking bans are designed not only to cut smoking rates but also to reduce secondhand tobacco smoke. It is a widely recognized cause of lung cancer, but its effect on heart disease can be more immediate. It not only damages the lining of blood vessels, but also increases the kind of blood clotting that leads to heart attacks. Reducing exposure to smoke can quickly cut the risk of clotting, some experts said.


"You remove the final one or two links in the chain" of events leading to a heart attack, Thun said.


Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths and about 3,000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers each year, according to statistics cited by the CDC.


In the new study, researchers reviewed hospital admissions for heart attacks in Pueblo. Patients were classified by ZIP codes. They then looked at the same data for two nearby areas that did not have bans — the area of Pueblo County outside the city and for El Paso County.


In Pueblo, the rate of heart attacks dropped from 257 per 100,000 people before the ban to 152 per 100,000 in the three years afterward. There were no significant changes in the two other areas.


"The need for protection from secondhand smoke in all workplaces and public places has never been clearer," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a prepared statement. He is president of the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization.


But the study had limitations: It assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban, but did not try to measure that. The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it's unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke.


One academic argued there's not enough evidence to conclude the smoking ban was the cause of Pueblo's heart attack decline.


The decline could have had more to do with a general decline in smoking in Pueblo County, from about 26 percent in 2002-2003 to less than 21 percent in 2004-2005. If there were stepped-up efforts to treat or prevent heart disease in the Pueblo area, that too could have played a role, said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.


"I don't think it's as clear as they're making it out to be," Siegel said.

Link:
http://www.newsmax.com/us/smoking_ban_heart_attacks/2008/12/31/166912.html

ROdger Right
01-05-2009, 05:01 PM
Sounds like a perfectly sound scientific method test.

Binky
01-05-2009, 06:47 PM
Well, I'm sure weight loss could help prevent heart attacks as well. Eating healthier, getting some exercise, not smoking, and laughing now and then all play a part in deterring a heart attack.

Hog Trash
01-05-2009, 07:30 PM
Isn't government control wonderful? My mommy and daddy didn't allow me to smoke and now the government don't allow me to smoke.

I feel so much safer knowing my nanny government has taken over my mommy and daddy's job of watching over me.

Maybe someday they will have complete control over my life and I'll be completely safe from everything...How wonderful.

Moby
01-05-2009, 07:35 PM
Isn't government control wonderful? My mommy and daddy didn't allow me to smoke and now the government don't allow me to smoke.

I feel so much safer knowing my nanny government has taken over my mommy and daddy's job of watching over me.

Maybe someday they will have complete control over my life and I'll be completely safe from everything...How wonderful.
I think the issue is that smoking is dangerous to people even when they're not smoking. So by smoking in public places you're putting other people at risk. Get it?

It like having speed limits. Really, why should the government control people from going 150 MPH? If it's there own like at risk then who cares? The problem is that it puts others at risk.

A smoking ban isn't about controlling some one's freedom. It's about not allowing someone to harm others.

Hog Trash
01-05-2009, 07:56 PM
I think the issue is that smoking is dangerous to people even when they're not smoking. So by smoking in public places you're putting other people at risk. Get it?

It like having speed limits. Really, why should the government control people from going 150 MPH? If it's there own like at risk then who cares? The problem is that it puts others at risk.

A smoking ban isn't about controlling some one's freedom. It's about not allowing someone to harm others.Bullshit...Smoking in a private business should be the sole decision of the owner.

This is America. Nobody is forced to go anywhere or work anywhere.

If there's a market for a non-smoking establishment, someone will open one.

I really don't want to discuss this again. Ive already explained this to your nanny loving government dumb ass before.

Cat slave
01-05-2009, 08:48 PM
Isn't government control wonderful? My mommy and daddy didn't allow me to smoke and now the government don't allow me to smoke.

I feel so much safer knowing my nanny government has taken over my mommy and daddy's job of watching over me.

Maybe someday they will have complete control over my life and I'll be completely safe from everything...How wonderful.

Guess that means we wont finally die. Ya think? They will save us from
the grim reaper.:lmao2:

Smurf-Herder
01-05-2009, 09:20 PM
The study is seriously flawed - considering the main message it's putting out:

"The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it's unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke."

Hog Trash
01-05-2009, 11:08 PM
The study is seriously flawed - considering the main message it's putting out:

"The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it's unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke."Absolutely. They use "convenient" statistics, much like Global Warming nuts. What ever best suits their agenda.

Liberal programs and statistics are the most unreliable in the world, because of their "end justifies the means" policy.

I don't smoke, but I don't want the government passing laws that deprive American business owners of their rights.

I have the free will to go where I choose and don't need or want the governments help to keep me safe.

Moby
01-06-2009, 06:44 PM
Bullshit...Smoking in a private business should be the sole decision of the owner.

This is America. Nobody is forced to go anywhere or work anywhere.

If there's a market for a non-smoking establishment, someone will open one.

I really don't want to discuss this again. Ive already explained this to your nanny loving government dumb ass before.
The owner generally hires employees and having dangerous working conditions is generally frowned on. It's one of the things that makes our work force a little different then places like the philippines.

Is going 60 MPH in a private parking lot at the mall OK? It's a private business.

You can bitch and moan all you want but your logic is way flawed and that's why you have to stoop to insults in your attempt to deflect away from your failed logic. When you can calm down and act like that "Free Thinker" you used to claim that you were, you'll better understand the subject at hand. Don't let your feelings and emotions keep you from thinking clearly.

You're allowed to smoke in private clubs so there's a way for businesses to get around it if they choose.

Hog Trash
01-06-2009, 07:14 PM
The owner generally hires employees and having dangerous working conditions is generally frowned on. Last I heard, The purpose of a business is to cater to paying customers and make money, not to cater to the employees. They are there for the sole purpose to serve the paying customers. If they don't smoke, there's no law requiring that they work there or that customers do business there. It's strictly 100% voluntary. Liberals seem to put the payed employee above the paying customer, seemingly forgetting the whole purpose of a business is to attract customers. Without the customer, the proprieter has no business and the employee has no job, einstein. This is why it is widely excepted that liberals are idiots.