Hard evidence that indoor smoking bans are benefiting the health of people are beginning to come in, and one of the first national smoking bans is showing positive results.
In just one year after Italy enacted a national smoking ban, researchers in Rome found an 11.2 percent reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74, according to a study in, “Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.”
Researchers in Rome compared the rate of acute coronary events from 2000 to 2004 to those occurring in 2005 after the ban was enforced, and they came up with the significant numbers. This was the first study in Europe to show the long-term health benefits of smoke free legislation in public places. Other European countries that are entirely smoke-free include England, Germany, Ireland, Scotland and France Coronary heart disease is a leading cause of death in Italy, and this study affirms smoking bans have a tremendous positive effect on public health.
“Smoking bans in all public and workplaces result in an important reduction of acute coronary events,” said Francesco Forastiere, M.D., Ph.D., co-author of the study and head of the Environmental and Occupational Epidemiology Unit, Department of Epidemiology, Rome E. Health Authority, Italy. “The smoking ban in Italy is working and having a real protective effect on population health.”
In Michigan, studies have primarily focused on the economic effects on bars and restaurants, such as the recent study by Public Sector Consultants that showed there is no drop in business and revenue after a smoking ban is enacted.
Although critics of smoking bans are ignoring the two reports by the U.S. Surgeon General that says there is no amount of secondhand smoke and it is killing thousands of people every year, policymakers are not. Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, said the report is what changed his mind when he voted for the ban last month.
The Senate is currently considering House Bill 5074 that bans smoking in workplaces, with the exception of non-Native American casinos, bingo-halls and so-called “cigar bars.”
12 comments:
One proven solution to eliminate secondhand smoke is commercially available in the form of electronic cigarettes, cigars and pipes (one brand name is Crown7):
* They contain no tobacco;
* They emit only a harmless vapor that simulates smoke yet satisfies the nicotine urges and cravings;
* They're not offensive and can be enjoyed anywhere smoking is prohibited;
* They can transform traditionally smoke-filled environments (i.e., casinos, bowling alleys, pool halls, bars and restaurants) into smoke-free environments that can be enjoyed by smokers and non-smokers alike; and, perhaps best of all,
* They leave none of the residue and odors that accompany traditional cigarettes on clothing and other surfaces.
Worth considering, don't you think?
Sure, but worth considering for what? I don’t see the point in replacing one addiction for another. All you are doing is changing how the drug is supplied. Wouldn’t it be a way to quit smoking, much like nicotine gum or patches? But I guess that form delivery doesn’t harm the health of bystanders.
In just one year after Italy enacted a national smoking ban, researchers in Rome found an 11.2 percent reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74, according to a study in, “Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.”
----------------------------------
If this is true, then my original comment on this on one of your other rants on this stands. Make tobacco illegal.
If you're so concerned about protecting people from themselves, make tobacco illegal. Anything less than that is just interference in peoples lives. It's illegal to drive without a seatbelt. It's illegal to ride a motorcycle without a helmet, so make it illegal to use tobacco.
Either you believe your assertions or you don't. If you do, then for once, the liberals should stand up and say that smoking is illegal. If you can't do that, then you're all about controlling people and nothing more.
I know, you can call it prohition (again).
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Talk about jumping to conclusions with no facts. First, it is true or I would not have written it. I have never written something that I knew to be untrue, and rarely have I written anything that has been proven to be untrue. Second, nothing I post can be considered a “rant.”
I believe in freedom, and people should have the choice to do what they want in the privacy of their own home as long as it does not harm anyone else. Secondhand smoke is a public health issue. Making tobacco illegal will never work for a number of reasons, so why spend precious time and resources on a lost cause? If you think tobacco is funneling big money to groups like the Michigan Restaurant Association now just wait if a total ban was proposed. The key is education, and people will quit on their own once they see the dangers. Only 21 percent of Michigan residents smoke now. I can recall the days when everyone I knew smoked, including me, and it was rare to find a non-smoker. The reverse is true today.
What gives you the right to say what I or any other liberal should do? Protecting the health of innocent children and adults has nothing to do with “controlling people.”
As for Prohibition, it was the people who control your party, the so-called “religious right” that really got the prohibition movement started, but it quickly gained bipartisan support.
It is not up to you or any other person, liberal or Conservative, to protect the children other than your own. It is up to the parents of those children. That should explain "controlling" to you. But, of course, I know that you don't believe that.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Like everything else you write, that last little gem makes no sense. If we went by your twisted logic, there would be no vaccinations, no child rape laws, no child abuse laws or countless other protections. Is that controlling? I don’t think so, but I know that you don't believe that.
Vaccinations are a parents choice. For instance, I didn't get my kids chicken pox vaccinations. There was no proof that it was necessary nor that they worked 100% of the time.
There are many studies showing that vaccinations have killed children and now they are finding that these vaccinations are linked to Autism.
Rape is a crime at any age. Again, using my own children as an example, if I discovered that one of my children were raped, I would press charges. It's a crime.
No less than 30 teachers were caught, tried and convicted in the past three years of sexually abusing (the liberals term for rape when it comes to being done by teachers). Those 30 that I mention are just the female teachers. I have no idea how many male teachers have been convicted over the same time frame.
If someone is having a cigarette around my children, I expect it to be a well ventilated room or out of doors. That's my choice, my responsibility. So far, we still have freedoms here where the responsibility of the care and safety of the children is up to the parents. There is not one government official, nor any other American that can nor ever will care for my children more than their mother and myself. It is the height of arrogance for anyone to think that they can care for my children more than me.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
You’re wrong on vaccinations, but that’s another story. The bottom line is this is a public health issue. People should be allowed to breathe clean air that contains no carcinogens while in any indoor public place. By the way, this is by no means a “liberal” issue or about “controlling” anyone. If you want to pollute your lungs, have at it, but what gives you the right to pollute mine?
I have kids. I'm not wrong on vaccinations. One of my kids got a hep C vaccination which is a series of three. The first one made her very sick. The second made her even sicker, so I wouldn't get the third one. When my youngest was born, I told them she wasn't to have any of them. They gave her the first one "automatically" on the day she was born. When I found out I was livid. She's not had any others of the series.
When the three were put into government schools, after years of homeschooling them, I signed a waiver for the couple of vaccinations that I refused for them to have.
As for polluting other people's air, you don't own the air. If you don't want to breathe a smokers exhaust, then stay away from them. By doing so, YOU then control YOUR life. So much simpler than having mommy government do for you what you can do yourself.
Brett
conservativelifestyle.blogspot.com
Vaccinations are a parent’s choice unless there is an epidemic, and the choice is then between school and the vaccination. The fact is vaccinations are safe. “Government schools?” Do mean public schools that educate kids regardless of how much money their parents make, their skin color, their religion or their physical or mental condition?
Wait, I have to stay away from the person who threatens my health with his dirty habit? That makes no sense. They should stay away from me. I’m not harming anyone’s health. Smokers are the minority. Why are we allowing a few people to harm other people’s health? This is a public health issue, and a government function is to protect the public health. Why is it that tomatoes are being recalled because of a health hazed, but somehow it’s OK to harm consumer's health with secondhand smoke?
Women who have never smoked in their lives and are married to smoking husbands face the risk of developing serious heart ailments. Second hand smoking can be disastrous to these women who are married to smokers. Among all the heart diseases, second hand smoking increases the risk of stroke also in these women. http://www.chantixhome.com
Thank you for your input. With facts like you provide we will get the indoor smoking ban enacted her in Michigan.
Post a Comment