Study: Smoking ban cuts heart attacks

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Alistar7
thats one apsect of the anti-smoking crusade Idon't understand, if you want fresh air, YOU go outside.... far easier to fliter smoke in a building....

the bogus science detailing the effects of second hand smoke have been debunked thoroughly BTW, especially the contention it is even more harmfull than smoking.

The point of this article is the second hand smoke was doing something negative. Banning smoking reduced heart attack numbers for smokers and non-smokers alike. If you want to smoke, fine. Do it in your own car or house.

Well I'm allergic to certain perfumes, they do cause a serious health risk for me, so you can't wear them in public, ok?

perfumes are being increasingly banned...well at least in gyms and stuff!

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Alistar7
thats one apsect of the anti-smoking crusade Idon't understand, if you want fresh air, YOU go outside.... far easier to fliter smoke in a building....

the bogus science detailing the effects of second hand smoke have been debunked thoroughly BTW, especially the contention it is even more harmfull than smoking.

The point of this article is the second hand smoke was doing something negative. Banning smoking reduced heart attack numbers for smokers and non-smokers alike. If you want to smoke, fine. Do it in your own car or house.

Well I'm allergic to certain perfumes, they do cause a serious health risk for me, so you can't wear them in public, ok?

Smoking effects everyone, not just you. The comparison is not valid. If you're allergic to peanuts, you don't eat peanuts. If peanuts greatly increased *everyone'* chance of having heart attcks or lung disease and eating them directly effect everyone else, action would be taken.

 

METHODS: The questionnaire data of the population-based sample (n = 1,890)

Wow, you should be able to tell what the WHOLE population is doing based on that small little number.

Bottom line, in private clubs no one but the proprietor of the business has the right to say if its a smoking establishment or not.
If you believe that it's the govts. role to step in, and say how I can run my life/business, then you are a facist and should be living in China.

 

[StageLeft]

If peanuts greatly increased *everyone'* chance of having heart attcks or lung disease and eating them directly effect everyone else, action would be taken.

You're quite right - I hear that due to the increasing number of peanut allergies some schools have totally banned any peanut products :Q

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: LadyJessica

the bogus science detailing the effects of second hand smoke have been debunked thoroughly BTW, especially the contention it is even more harmfull than smoking.

Oh really? Any citations? Here's something from the journal Chest, September 2002:

OBJECTIVE: The effects of passive smoke exposure on respiratory health are still under debate. Therefore, we examined the risk of respiratory symptoms related to passive smoke exposure among German adults within the European Community Respiratory Health Survey. METHODS: The questionnaire data of the population-based sample (n = 1,890) were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression models were carried out for current asthma (asthma symptoms or medication), chronic bronchitis (cough with phlegm for > or = 3 months per year), and wheezing as dependent variables, and self-reported exposure to passive smoke at home and at the workplace as independent variables after adjusting for city, age, gender, active smoking, and socioeconomic status as well as occupational exposure to dusts and/or gases. RESULTS: The relative odds for chronic bronchitis were significantly higher in subjects reporting involuntary tobacco smoke exposure in the workplace (odds ratio [OR], 1.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16 to 3.11). Likewise, the adjusted OR for asthma was slightly elevated (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 0.99 to 2.32). The risk of chronic bronchitis (OR, 3.07; 95% CI, 1.56 to 6.06), asthma (OR, 2.06; 95% CI, 1.07 to 3.97), and wheezing (OR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.25 to 3.58) increased significantly with a daily exposure of > 8 h. CONCLUSION: The control of passive smoke exposure in the workplace might reduce the risk of respiratory symptoms independently of exposure to other airborne contaminants.

How does this prove second hand smoke is more dangerous than smoking itself? I don't doubt a connection between increased respitory illness and second hand smoke, but the original "science" used to validate this claim was summarily rejected due to bias. The study you used allows for the people to "report" their level of exposure, that is hardly concrete evidence. The study this thread is based on is largely based on speculation by those actively engaged in anti-smoking campaigns as well.

"The study found the smoking ban appeared to have its biggest effect on smokers. Their incidence of heart attacks dropped by three-quarters, compared with two-thirds for former smokers and one-half for nonsmokers."

notice the greatest benefit, therefore those who assumed the largets risk, are the smokers, not non smokers...

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

If peanuts greatly increased *everyone'* chance of having heart attcks or lung disease and eating them directly effect everyone else, action would be taken.

You're quite right - I hear that due to the increasing number of peanut allergies some schools have totally banned any peanut products :Q

Exactly, once again I think they should just BAN all cigs, go into the stores, clear the shelves.

 

[Alistar7]

Some bar and casino owners in Helena criticized the study's findings. Greg Straw, who runs the Montana Nugget Casino, said smokers continued to light up while the ban was in effect -- they just stayed at home or went to bars in neighboring towns.

Straw dismissed the idea that the ban was linked to a decline in heart attacks.

"I think that absolutely has nothing to do with the smoking ban," he said.

Laura Fix's family owns Fat Boy and Charlie's, a Helena bar and casino about a mile from the edge of town. Fix said the ban nearly crippled her business, but had little effect on her customers who smoke.

"They just went outside the city limits," she said.

maybe thats why the numbers dropped....

 

[edro]

Are they sure of the corellation? Could it also mean that new anti-heart attack medicines are more in use now? Or something like that......

 

Exactly, once again I think they should just BAN all cigs, go into the stores, clear the shelves.

Why, do you need the Government to tell you what to do?

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Exactly, once again I think they should just BAN all cigs, go into the stores, clear the shelves.

Why, do you need the Government to tell you what to do?

Nope but I do expect then to protect us from deadly products.

Once again, a cigarette is the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended WILL KILL YOU.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Some bar and casino owners in Helena criticized the study's findings. Greg Straw, who runs the Montana Nugget Casino, said smokers continued to light up while the ban was in effect -- they just stayed at home or went to bars in neighboring towns.

Straw dismissed the idea that the ban was linked to a decline in heart attacks.

"I think that absolutely has nothing to do with the smoking ban," he said.

Laura Fix's family owns Fat Boy and Charlie's, a Helena bar and casino about a mile from the edge of town. Fix said the ban nearly crippled her business, but had little effect on her customers who smoke.

"They just went outside the city limits," she said.

maybe thats why the numbers dropped....

On both accounts, the ammount of smoke which non-smokers had to endure was lessened. Maybe that's why the numbers dropped.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Exactly, once again I think they should just BAN all cigs, go into the stores, clear the shelves.

Why, do you need the Government to tell you what to do?

Exactly. Why make drunk driving a crime? If I want to drink and have a good time driving, why should government get involved? If you don't want to get hit by a drunk driver, stay home!

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Exactly, once again I think they should just BAN all cigs, go into the stores, clear the shelves.

Why, do you need the Government to tell you what to do?

Unfortunately a lot of people need the government to tell them what to do. Like a blind and idiotic child too many grown adults waddle through life oblivious to anything beyond the now, and that's where a more forward-thinking government entity has to come in and mother them 🙂

 

Nope but I do expect then to protect us from deadly products.

Once again, a cigarette is the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended WILL KILL YOU

So you do need them to tell you what to do. Why can't you just make your own educated choices?

Actaully, there have been MANY MANY FDA approved medicines that have killed people with their intended use.

While were on this banning frenzy, lets ban ALCOHOL.
Let's ban pornography too, because older people have heart attacks when they climax.
Wait, isn't there a lot of tainted meat out there, and substandard meat products that are unhealthy, BAN THEM.
Fast Food, KILLS WITH ITS INTENDED USE, let's ban it!!!!

Free Speech kills too, we should ban that, oh wait, we already DID!

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Some bar and casino owners in Helena criticized the study's findings. Greg Straw, who runs the Montana Nugget Casino, said smokers continued to light up while the ban was in effect -- they just stayed at home or went to bars in neighboring towns.

Straw dismissed the idea that the ban was linked to a decline in heart attacks.

"I think that absolutely has nothing to do with the smoking ban," he said.

Laura Fix's family owns Fat Boy and Charlie's, a Helena bar and casino about a mile from the edge of town. Fix said the ban nearly crippled her business, but had little effect on her customers who smoke.

"They just went outside the city limits," she said.

maybe thats why the numbers dropped....

On both accounts, the ammount of smoke which non-smokers had to endure was lessened. Maybe that's why the numbers dropped.

ok then explain how your reasoning doesnt match the facts from the study.

"The study found the smoking ban appeared to have its biggest effect on smokers. Their incidence of heart attacks dropped by three-quarters, compared with two-thirds for former smokers and one-half for nonsmokers."

Smokers had the biggest drop.

 

Unfortunately a lot of people need the government to tell them what to do. Like a blind and idiotic child too many grown adults waddle through life oblivious to anything beyond the now, and that's where a more forward-thinking government entity has to come in and mother them

Right on. I remember being 6 yrs old, and knowing smoking was unhealthy. I also knew overeating was bad, as well as too much sun.

Exactly. Why make drunk driving a crime? If I want to drink and have a good time driving, why should government get involved? If you don't want to get hit by a drunk driver, stay home!

Go to college, learn what a logical implecation is, then rethink what you just said. I understand it was sarcastic, but it shines with your personal philosophy.
Here, ill make one for you, since drunken drivers kill people, we should BAN ALCOHOL!!!

Half of you children arn't even old enough to get into bars, let alone express an opinion on how it affects your life.
People go to bars TO SMOKE AND DRINK. It's as simple as that.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Nope but I do expect then to protect us from deadly products.

Once again, a cigarette is the only product on the market that if used in the manner intended WILL KILL YOU

So you do need them to tell you what to do. Why can't you just make your own educated choices?

Actaully, there have been MANY MANY FDA approved medicines that have killed people with their intended use.

While were on this banning frenzy, lets ban ALCOHOL.
Let's ban pornography too, because older people have heart attacks when they climax.
Wait, isn't there a lot of tainted meat out there, and substandard meat products that are unhealthy, BAN THEM.
Fast Food, KILLS WITH ITS INTENDED USE, let's ban it!!!!

Free Speech kills too, we should ban that, oh wait, we already DID!

and what medicine did the FDA approve who sole intended use was GURANTEED to do nothing but kill you? what a joke. Cigarettes are not even governed by the FDA, it is a "natural" product..

Do you think the govt has a duty to protect its citizens? what about children? Studies have consistently shown if you dont start smoking by the age of 18, theres a 95% chance you NEVER will. Who do you think they market to anyway and why?

What the hell is wrong with you people anyway? How can you have a problem, with your govt removing a deadly product from the market, one that bleeds the public coffers dry?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Some bar and casino owners in Helena criticized the study's findings. Greg Straw, who runs the Montana Nugget Casino, said smokers continued to light up while the ban was in effect -- they just stayed at home or went to bars in neighboring towns.

Straw dismissed the idea that the ban was linked to a decline in heart attacks.

"I think that absolutely has nothing to do with the smoking ban," he said.

Laura Fix's family owns Fat Boy and Charlie's, a Helena bar and casino about a mile from the edge of town. Fix said the ban nearly crippled her business, but had little effect on her customers who smoke.

"They just went outside the city limits," she said.

maybe thats why the numbers dropped....

On both accounts, the ammount of smoke which non-smokers had to endure was lessened. Maybe that's why the numbers dropped.

ok then explain how your reasoning doesnt match the facts from the study.

"The study found the smoking ban appeared to have its biggest effect on smokers. Their incidence of heart attacks dropped by three-quarters, compared with two-thirds for former smokers and one-half for nonsmokers."

Smokers had the biggest drop.

I would hypothesize that if they were smoking primarily at home and not smoking in most resturants with other smokers, then they were exposed to far lower concentrations of smoke.

Edit: Speeling

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Some bar and casino owners in Helena criticized the study's findings. Greg Straw, who runs the Montana Nugget Casino, said smokers continued to light up while the ban was in effect -- they just stayed at home or went to bars in neighboring towns.

Straw dismissed the idea that the ban was linked to a decline in heart attacks.

"I think that absolutely has nothing to do with the smoking ban," he said.

Laura Fix's family owns Fat Boy and Charlie's, a Helena bar and casino about a mile from the edge of town. Fix said the ban nearly crippled her business, but had little effect on her customers who smoke.

"They just went outside the city limits," she said.

maybe thats why the numbers dropped....

On both accounts, the ammount of smoke which non-smokers had to endure was lessened. Maybe that's why the numbers dropped.

ok then explain how your reasoning doesnt match the facts from the study.

"The study found the smoking ban appeared to have its biggest effect on smokers. Their incidence of heart attacks dropped by three-quarters, compared with two-thirds for former smokers and one-half for nonsmokers."

Smokers had the biggest drop.

I would hypothesize that if they were smoking primarily at home and not smoking in most resturants with other smokers, then they were exposed to far lower concentrations of smoke.

Edit: Speeling

"On both accounts, the ammount of smoke which non-smokers had to endure was lessened. Maybe that's why the numbers dropped."

this was your original contention, feel free to change it as the facts require though. I would trust the business owners there who watched their business go into the next town so they could smoke with dinner are correct. Did the surrounding counties/ towns notice a rise in heart attacks??????

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: SammySon

Unfortunately a lot of people need the government to tell them what to do. Like a blind and idiotic child too many grown adults waddle through life oblivious to anything beyond the now, and that's where a more forward-thinking government entity has to come in and mother them

Right on. I remember being 6 yrs old, and knowing smoking was unhealthy. I also knew overeating was bad, as well as too much sun.

Exactly. Why make drunk driving a crime? If I want to drink and have a good time driving, why should government get involved? If you don't want to get hit by a drunk driver, stay home!

Go to college, learn what a logical implecation is, then rethink what you just said. I understand it was sarcastic, but it shines with your personal philosophy.
Here, ill make one for you, since drunken drivers kill people, we should BAN ALCOHOL!!!

Half of you children arn't even old enough to get into bars, let alone express an opinion on how it affects your life.
People go to bars TO SMOKE AND DRINK. It's as simple as that.

No, my personal philosophy is if you want to smoke, fine. Just don't do it around me. Personally, I don't mind smoking in bars as much as I do in resturants.

As for my example, it was 1. sarcastic, and 2. in response to the comments "if you don't like my smoking, stay home." If the act of drinking alcohol and not the behavior after the fact killed people who didn't drink, then banning alcohol would be a valid solution.

 

and what medicine did the FDA approve who sole intended use was GURANTEED to do nothing but kill you? what a joke. Cigarettes are not even governed by the FDA, it is a "natural" product..

Do you think the govt has a duty to protect its citizens? what about children? Studies have consistently shown if you dont start smoking by the age of 18, theres a 95% chance you NEVER will. Who do you think they market to anyway and why?

What the hell is wrong with you people anyway? How can you have a problem, with your govt removing a deadly product from the market, one that bleeds the public coffers dry?

Listen, smoking has been around LONG BEFORE the US government, it will be around LONG AFTER.
I quit smoking YEARS AGO, I guess I beat your pointless stats.
I'm a NON SMOKER standing up for SMOKERS RIGHTS. This goes FAR BEYOND what product is deadly and what is not, this is simple a battle of CIVIL RIGHTS!

I have REAL BIG problems with the govt telling me how to run my life. Obviously, you don't.

 

[Alistar7]

Originally posted by: SammySon

and what medicine did the FDA approve who sole intended use was GURANTEED to do nothing but kill you? what a joke. Cigarettes are not even governed by the FDA, it is a "natural" product..

Do you think the govt has a duty to protect its citizens? what about children? Studies have consistently shown if you dont start smoking by the age of 18, theres a 95% chance you NEVER will. Who do you think they market to anyway and why?

What the hell is wrong with you people anyway? How can you have a problem, with your govt removing a deadly product from the market, one that bleeds the public coffers dry?

Listen, smoking has been around LONG BEFORE the US government, it will be around LONG AFTER.
I quit smoking YEARS AGO, I guess I beat your pointless stats.
I'm a NON SMOKER standing up for SMOKERS RIGHTS. This goes FAR BEYOND what product is deadly and what is not, this is simple a battle of CIVIL RIGHTS!

I have REAL BIG problems with the govt telling me how to run my life. Obviously, you don't.

The goverment pulling an unsafe product from the market is harldy telling you how to live your life, it doing their job, like making other laws to protect you. You let the governemnt tell you how fast you can drive, what drugs you can use, what is or isnt a crime, but they cant touch cigs.

I dont see how you "beat" my "pointless" stat, it stated if you didnt start smoking by 18, 95% chance you never would. So you stopping beats that how?????? LOL

BTW when did you first start smoking?

 

[vi edit]

Listen, smoking has been around LONG BEFORE the US government, it will be around LONG AFTER.
I quit smoking YEARS AGO, I guess I beat your pointless stats.
I'm a NON SMOKER standing up for SMOKERS RIGHTS. This goes FAR BEYOND what product is deadly and what is not, this is simple a battle of CIVIL RIGHTS!

I have REAL BIG problems with the govt telling me how to run my life. Obviously, you don't.

Here's the thing though - smoking doesn't just affect the smoker. It affects everyone around them. In general drugs, alcohol, and fast food do not affect anyone else. DWI does affect other's, but it is HIGHLY illegal, so that's a somewhat mute argument.

As a nonsmoker, why should I have to go outside for fresh air when I'm not the one bringing in the smoke? When smokers smoke in their car, they roll the windows down. Why is that?

 

As for my example, it was 1. sarcastic, and 2. in response to the comments "if you don't like my smoking, stay home." If the act of drinking alcohol and not the behavior after the fact killed people who didn't drink, then banning alcohol would be a valid solution.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. See, drinking alcohol DOES KILL YOU. ITS POISON. Although, you probably partake in aclohol, so you overlook the evils.

Smoking should be 100% allowable in BARS. Restaurants are a different story. I live in NY, so up until recently, you could have a 100% closed off smoking area, with proper ventilation.

Wait, isn't Marijuana BANNED? There is a whole long LIST of people marijuana has killed right?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Alistar7

Originally posted by: BDawg

Originally posted by: Alistar7
Some bar and casino owners in Helena criticized the study's findings. Greg Straw, who runs the Montana Nugget Casino, said smokers continued to light up while the ban was in effect -- they just stayed at home or went to bars in neighboring towns.

Straw dismissed the idea that the ban was linked to a decline in heart attacks.

"I think that absolutely has nothing to do with the smoking ban," he said.

Laura Fix's family owns Fat Boy and Charlie's, a Helena bar and casino about a mile from the edge of town. Fix said the ban nearly crippled her business, but had little effect on her customers who smoke.

"They just went outside the city limits," she said.

maybe thats why the numbers dropped....

On both accounts, the ammount of smoke which non-smokers had to endure was lessened. Maybe that's why the numbers dropped.

ok then explain how your reasoning doesnt match the facts from the study.

"The study found the smoking ban appeared to have its biggest effect on smokers. Their incidence of heart attacks dropped by three-quarters, compared with two-thirds for former smokers and one-half for nonsmokers."

Smokers had the biggest drop.

I would hypothesize that if they were smoking primarily at home and not smoking in most resturants with other smokers, then they were exposed to far lower concentrations of smoke.

Edit: Speeling

"On both accounts, the ammount of smoke which non-smokers had to endure was lessened. Maybe that's why the numbers dropped."

this was your original contention, feel free to change it as the facts require though. I would trust the business owners there who watched their business go into the next town so they could smoke with dinner are correct. Did the surrounding counties/ towns notice a rise in heart attacks??????

I don't think I changed the facts. I would wager that while some smokers went elsewhere or stayed at home, some went out and did not smoke. Therefore, the ammount of smoke the smokers (who were smoking in resturants) and non-smokers (who endured the smoke) were exposed to lessened. The non-smokers likely didn't go out of town for resturants/bars.

Only a percentage of smokers stayed at home. Only a percentage of smokers went out of town. As a whole the ammount of smoke which people were subjected to lessened.

Did the heart attacks in surrounding counties increase? Possibly. Would the ammount of heart attacks in Helena have dropped even further if the smokers stopped smoking all together?