“Community smoking bans have an immediate and dramatic effect on reducing heart attacks, according to two new analyses of laws in the USA, Canada and Europe,” says a story that appeared in USA Today this week.
“Two separate analyses released Monday each found that heart attack rates fall 17 percent within a year after smoking bans take effect. One analysis, which included 13 studies, appears in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association. A second analysis, which considered 11 studies, appears in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.” The study goes on to say, “Cigarette smoke can trigger a heart attack in people with underlying heart disease by causing clots or spasms in the blood vessels, says David Goff, a spokesman for the American Heart Association who wasn't involved in either study.”
I have documented study after study of the positive effects on health of a smoking ban, and the numerous health problems it causes, such as heart disease, stroke, dementia, breast cancer and non-fatal diseases, such as asthma, inner ear infections, major depression and other afflictions in non-smokers, yet the Michigan Senate continues to sit on the workplace smoking ban.
So far 37 other states have a smoking ban in place, and even Third World countries ban indoor smoking. Yet, the Michigan Senate continues to sit on the workplace smoking ban. Despite the mounting evidence of the harmful effects of second smoke they refuse to carry out their Constitutional duty and protect the public health. They cling to the false notion that it will cut into bar owners profits, despite mounting evidence that it does not.
It’s time for the Senate to act and stop wasting time.
6 comments:
This clearly shows that smoking outdoors is a lot safer
At least to non-smokers.
Guru, the problem is that we have a cigarette smoker in the White House. What kind of message does it send to the country when the president himself insists on smoking?
I would say it sends a message that nicotine is a hard addiction to kick.
Any other questions?
I would also say that a workplace smoking ban is not about stopping anyone from the legal activity of smoking, but protecting the 80 percent of people who do not smoke from deadly secondhand smoke.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/
For another look at some of this data at least from another part of the world.
I've written to the two peer published studies asking for their data to support their contentions.
Correlation or coincidence is not the same as causality.
Post a Comment