It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
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:
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."
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...
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.
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
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.