It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Data From Seven States Show No Connection Between Smoking Bans and Heart Attack Rates

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Data From Seven States Show No Connection Between Smoking Bans and Heart Attack Rates


reason.com

A few weeks ago, I noted a study of 74 U.S. cities with smoking bans that contradicted the widely repeated claim that such laws lead to immediate, dramatic reductions in heart attacks. A study recently reported in the Journal of Community Health likewise finds no such changes in six states with smoking bans:
(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
reason.com
www.odh.ohio.gov
tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com
tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com




posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:38 AM
link   
I find myself questioning why any publisher would feel the need to use misinformation or disinformation to support the idea that smoking should be banned in public places. But for some reason the Ohio Department of Health has done just that.


Similarly, notes tobacco policy blogger Michael Siegel, data from Ohio, where a statewide smoking ban took effect in 2007, show the following declines in hospital discharges for myocardial infarction:

2005-2006 (baseline): -4.7%
2006-2007 (first year of implementation): -2.7%
2007-2008 (second year of implementation): -2.2%
2008-2009 (third year of implementation): -6.3%
Average annual decline post-implementation: -3.6%

In other words, Siegel writes, "the rate of decline in heart attack discharges in Ohio was greater prior to the smoking ban than it was in the first three years after the smoking ban," which "clearly does not support the conclusion that the smoking ban resulted in a large and immediate decline in heart attack discharges."


Understand, this analyst supports the smoking ban, but calls into question the notion of publishing incorrect assessments to support the position:


The Ohio Department of Health nevertheless concludes (PDF) that there was "a sharp decline in heart attack rates immediately following implementation of the law." In fact, it says, there was "a significant change in age‐adjusted rates of AMI discharges within one month [!] after the enactment of the Smoke‐Free Workplace Act." Siegel (who supports smoking bans but opposes unscientific arguments in favor of them) analyzes the statistical trickery behind those conclusions...


I have included the relevant links for your convenience...

And if you can... let me know why you think authorities would think such duplicity is necessary....


reason.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 11:56 AM
link   
The same people who keep fluoridating the water supplies,
promoting Aspartame & HFCS,
suppressing cancer treatments & cures,
suppressing advanced technology,
vaccinating infants with mercury filled concoctions,
killed 1 million plus "insurgents" overseas post 911,
arrest people for exercising their free speech,
promote low level radiation via cell phones/devices to kids,
classifying top secret 1000s of things per year,
bombard us 24/7 with mindless dumbed down TV,
bleeding us dry with taxes & higher costs of energy usage.... are telling us they don't want us to smoke cigarettes anymore, for our own good.

Well, I know what I'm going to "keep doing" regularly. All of the above will kill me before cigarettes do.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:17 PM
link   
They can rely on has many studies has they want trying to prove cigarettes are "not that bad" but it changes nothing. Cigarettes are bad for you and to smoke around other, you pollute them too. That's not counting waste from cigarette packaging and burnt cigarettes everywhere.

I know it's painfully hard to stop smoking and the best thing is to never try it.
Why would you want to burden yourself of another need on top of eating and sleeping?

They should of banned tobacco long before hemp.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Don't need any data to come to this conclusion.

Did anyone really suspect any controls on where people can smoke, would affect how many people smoke? I mean seriously... How many smokers quit because they now have to wait until they leave a restaurant before lighting up? Without doing a bunch of research... the official number is zero. Without affecting the number of people smoking, why on earth would anyone think that it "may affect the number of people with smoking related health problems"? Why are some of the smartest people also some of the most ignorant?

It's troubling to me that resources get devoted to this type of research, studies, data compilations, etc... All to tell us something any Labrador retriever was born with instinctual knowledge of.

"In another study, an amazing 100% of respondents reported that placing their hand on a hot stove burner, caused the sensation physical pain.."



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by User8911
 


No one is saying that tobacco is "not that bad."

But someone is saying that it's worse for you than they can prove..

I know it's tempting to turn it around. But this is about a government agency (among others) who apparently are so keen on making their point that they seem to think lying about it is justified.... do you agree?
edit on 14-9-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 12:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by User8911
They can rely on has many studies has they want trying to prove cigarettes are "not that bad" but it changes nothing. Cigarettes are bad for you and to smoke around other, you pollute them too. That's not counting waste from cigarette packaging and burnt cigarettes everywhere.

I know it's painfully hard to stop smoking and the best thing is to never try it.
Why would you want to burden yourself of another need on top of eating and sleeping?

They should of banned tobacco long before hemp.


I'm an ex-smoker that 100% supports smokers' rights. If a person did not want to be around smoke, they could simply not eat there. There were always plenty of non-smoking establishments to choose from in any town.

I bet if they banned McDonald's, we'd see a much more dramatic decrease of heart failures and general medical costs. Oh, that's right... the government subsidizes the beef industry instead of punishing it. Brilliant, eh?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Who cares!! I can now enjoy eating a meal that I paid for in a restaurant that is free from the stench of cigarettes once only separated by an invisible wall between the smoking and non smoking sections. My food actually tastes much better now without Aunt Edna's cigarette burning in my face or stray ashes being blown about by those ceiling fans.

The ban has not hurt the restaurants and bars in my part of Ohio. Actually, these establishments got creative and have built some of the best outdoor eating areas I have ever seen. Double bonus!! Many of these places never even had patios to begin with. Cheers to them!!



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


Again I return to the quandary... why make a claim contrary to fact?

Is there some point in pride at being able to state with the authority of government behind you that something is statistically proven when it is not? That some dramatic result has been achieved when in fact, the opposite is true?

No one is defending any position here, just trying to gauge why the lies are acceptable... and what purpose they serve.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   
This seems like a moot argument. Correlation does not equal causation, particularly in these types of studies. There is absolutely no controlling for the associated factors that come with living in a different city, in a different part of the country.

Arguing against smoking bans only makes sense if your making a constitutional argument, the freedom to do...

One need only point to the Interheart studies to show that Cigarette smoking, in any capacity, is a detriment to public health. Any argument to the contrary would have to be exceedingly comprehensive.

htt p://www.lancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736 (06)69249-0/abstract

Essentially, Cigarette smoking [and blood lipid levels] are the two highest determinants in a persons risk of having an acute myocardial infarction (heart attack).

www.medscape.com...



Role of Smoking

INTERHEART showed that smoking 1-5 cigarettes daily increases the risk of an AMI by 40%. This could cancel the beneficial effects of secondary prevention, such as aspirin, which reduces risk by 20%; it could also eliminate as much as 75% of the benefit of taking a statin. The risk increased with the amount of tobacco smoked per day (OR 9.2 in those who smoke > 40 cigarettes per day). All forms of tobacco, including filtered and nonfiltered cigarettes, pipes and cigars, and chewing tobacco, are harmful. Dr. Yusuf strongly advocates, in congruence with the official position of the ESC, that global policies for tobacco control should be implemented


Smoking is definitely not good for your health, but there's only be so much government should do to limit when and where we should smoke. Personally, i miss the days when we could smoke in a bar (here in canada, anyways).
edit on 14-9-2011 by SPACEYstranger because: couldnt get that link to work....



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by jibeho
 


Really? Is that all that matters here? I would have thought that somewhere in our arsenal of thinkers someone other than myself would have been equally flummoxed by the idea that we can just say that something is so, and when the contradictory proof surfaces, we can state what we wanted the results to be and have everyone celebrate... but I guess that doesn't matter to many of you.... well, at least I tried to address factual truth... but frankly I never thought I would get this populist resistance because it wasn't what 'enlightened' people wanted to hear....

"Since it frees me from the offense let them lie about it", eh?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by SPACEYstranger
 


Like many, you seem to think this is an argument.

It is not.

The statistical models to not correlate at all with the Ohio Department of Health's reported conclusion... It is not about smoking not being bad for you, it is about saying that there was a marked decrease in heart disease manifestations when in fact there was an increase and then attributing that NONEXISTENT decrease with the implementation of a smoking ban...

I am perplexed by the resistance to the given data which is the State's own data set (plus more recent samples.)

edit on 14-9-2011 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Plenty of junk science theories floating about. Just pick a topic. There is no doubt about the ill effects of second hand smoke on people. Just ask my father in law. He's developed emphysema as a result of living with his chain smoking wife for 40 years. She still appears to be fit as fiddle and see's no problem because she leaves the kitchen window open for fresh air. Furthermore, my daughter who is prone to asthma attacks does not have to worry about cigarette smoke as a factor any longer.

I get your point. But I'll take the positive outcomes from this legislation any day. These types of reports change from month to month anyway.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by jibeho

....

But I'll take the positive outcomes from this legislation any day. These types of reports change from month to month anyway.



Now THAT is something I can't argue with at all!


Hopefully people will realize that commons sense and respect for others, not government regulations, will make this a better place to live. Then there will by no need for expedient lies and quasi-truths.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by User8911
 


No one is saying that tobacco is "not that bad."

But someone is saying that it's worse for you than they can prove..

I know it's tempting to turn it around. But this is about a government agency (among others) who apparently are so keen on making their point that they seem to think lying about it is justified.... do you agree?


I agree that trying to prove tobacco is bad with a study like doesn't make him a good journalist at all. He really misses the point, then again, why do a study on something like that, of course in the long run it's good for peoples health.



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Unit541
How many smokers quit because they now have to wait until they leave a restaurant before lighting up? Without doing a bunch of research... the official number is zero. Without affecting the number of people smoking, why on earth would anyone think that it "may affect the number of people with smoking related health problems"? Why are some of the smartest people also some of the most ignorant?


Sorry to end your quote on the word ignorant, but have you heard about non-smokers?

I have worked in bars and restaurants while people could smoke and since people can't, let me tell you, I love this law. Much easier to keep clean, to smell good and I don't have this clogged up feeling my throat after work anymore!

edit on 14-9-2011 by User8911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Yes perfect sit out and eat on the patio,there you can breath in the exhaust fumes of cars and trucks,the fallout from factorys,this makes sense,how come you can smoke a cigarette and be fine,suck on an exhaust pipe then see what happens,how freaking stupid



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:30 PM
link   
Why would anyone assume that because a state bans smoking in restaurants or bars that it would lead to any decrease in smoking? Smokers are going to smoke just as much, just not in the same locations they previously did.

This is like saying that heart attack rates from smoking decreased because smoking is not allowed in movie theaters. I think most smokers scoff at the idea that a temporary hiatus in smoking for the duration of a meal (or movie or drinks...) will lead them to cut back on smoking. Most smokers I know make up for that lost smoking time with a vengeance.

They should do a study on the adverse health risks of having to run outside into the parking lot every time you want a puff during the winter months?



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:38 PM
link   
I don't understand why you would expect a significant change in long term illnesses from such a short term study - the data only goes back to 2005 - it often takes 20-30-40 years for smoking to have the sort of impact on heart health they are measuring.

From the study abstract:


The AMI mortality rate among persons age 45 + years (deaths per 100,000 persons, age-standardized to the 2000 US population) in the 3 years before adoption of the smoke-free ordinance (the expected rate) was compared with the rate observed in the first full year after the ban (the target year) in six US states.


So they ban smoking in public places, or whatever...and then find that has no appreciable effect in the year after it is put in place?

Well whoop-de-freakin'-do! That's like complaining that your aeroplane takes 5 hours to cross the USA, or brushing your teeth doesn't remove all your fillings!

Looks like tobacco industry fudging of statistics to me.

come back in 15 years and lets talk about it then!
edit on 14-9-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 14 2011 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
Why would anyone assume that because a state bans smoking in restaurants or bars that it would lead to any decrease in smoking? Smokers are going to smoke just as much, just not in the same locations they previously did.


So what you're saying then is nonsmokers don't get heart attacks from secondary smoke (or if they do it's statistically insignificant). Guess it's just the smell they don't like.




top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join