People who live in communities that ban smoking in public places--such as bars, restaurants, and government buildings--have fewer heart attacks, according to two new research studies recently reported by the National Institutes of Health.
In the communities researchers studied, the rate of heart attacks fell dramatically within one year after the smoking ban was put in place (17 percent in one study and 25 percent in the other), and dropped about 36 percent after three years, leading one researcher to estimate that a nationwide ban on smoking in public places in the United States would result in more than 154,000 fewer heart attacks annually.
Researchers also predicted that smoking bans eventually would reduce the incidence of stroke, emphysema, lung cancer, and various respiratory disorders. (My colleague Robert Longley provides more details about this story at About.com: US Government Info.)
While some of the decrease in heart attacks may be due to people who have quit smoking because of the bans, most of the health improvements are the direct result of people breathing less secondhand smoke.
According to the researchers, exposure to secondhand smoke increases the risk for heart attacks by 30 percent while smoking doubles the danger, so smoking bans that eliminate secondhand smoke in public places can make a significant contribution to public health. (One important factor the researchers didn't attempt to trace is the long-term health benefits to children, who are even more vulnerable than adults to the effects of secondhand smoke.)
The negative health effects of secondhand smoke were debated long after the hazards of smoking had been confirmed and plastered on every package of cigarettes sold in the United States, but in 2006 the U.S. Surgeon General issued a strong warning about the dangers of secondhand smoke.
"The health effects of secondhand smoke exposure are more pervasive than we previously thought," said then-U.S. Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona, who noted that even brief exposure to secondhand smoke could have immediate and serious consequences. "The scientific evidence is now indisputable: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance. It is a serious health hazard that can lead to disease and premature death in children and nonsmoking adults."
Also Read:
Comments
I’m against smoking, but I’m even more against social engineering by way of fascist legislation.
-It should be noted that there have been several studies in the US and Europe stating similar results, but conclusions are extrapolated from incomplete data on short term studies where yr to yr variance is high.
-They artifactually obtain their desired level of significance by statistical sleight of hand to avoid the more proper conclusion that smoking habits have been trending down anyways over the past several decades and new trends are not really impacted much by the legislation.
-None of the studies actaully measure air pollution levels.
-None of the studies, particularly important in the small population studies, measure the rate of emmigration in order to avoid the laws, as a factor in lowering the MI rate.
-There are several studies showing increases in undesired consequences from smoking bans: more drunk driving deaths as drinking smokers drive longer distances to enjoy their habits.
Smokers can enjoy their habit or addiction if they want. Just don”t do it indoors where it has been proven many times over to have very adverse effects on the health of others. The over 80 percent who don’t smoke should have their rights respected too. Smokers can easily take their smoke outdoors and harm nobody but themselves. That’s the way it’s being done in the vast majority of the USA and the world already. It works just fine and nobody’s “rights” are being violated by doing so.
Mr. West: Did you read the actual article(s)? At least two of the studies upon which the claim has been based (Helena and Pueblo) have been discredited. In NONE of all of the cited studies has there been a simultaneous “control group”. I can’t believe how or why so many journalists have uncritically accepted the findings of such research.
Good point, Tom.
And Pete, the studies that “prove” second-hand smoke is deleterious to others are also seriously flawed.
-More importantly, there’s a bigger principle at stake here: social engineering by the “in group.” Maybe they can justify smoking bans with some shoddy science, but, if allowed to do that today, what about when they want to outlaw paisley shirts or aftershave with a fragrance they don’t like? The “nose of the camel” problem.
-Smoking is irritating to many, but the smokers should simpley be more considerate to others and avoid smoking in certain situations. Do we need laws to outlaw rudeness or require politeness? OTOH- places like saloons, where smoking is traditional, should be avoided by those who would take offence.
-Pete, are you old enough to remember The Iron Curtain?
I always like quantitizing problems in the manner of Fermi:plausable ball park answers based on known or roughly estimated numbers.
Second hand smoke problem: a smoker usually developes heart disease or smoking related cancer after about 40 pack-years of exposure. In smoking, he exposes himself to “X” amount of toxin diluted by 1.5 L of air per inhalation(plus he’s breathing his own second-hand -smoke).
A non-smoking bar maid, say, working 8 hrs per day, 50 weeks per year and breathing second-hand smoke diluted in, let’s say a 10cu ft space for each smoker (about 2,500 L), would have to work roughly 1,000 yrs to expose herself to the same amount of toxin as the smoker over his 40 years.
I learned something new.
This weeks NEJM has a review article of cancer & DNA. They mention a study that shows a certain chemical in tobacco smoke causes a specific mutation in a cancer suppressor gene in vitro. That same mutation is seen in lung tumor cells of smokers but not in lung tumor cells of non-smokers.
You make the call on second hand smoke.