Smoking Ban Leads To Major Drop In Heart Attacks

ATLANTA — A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is, government researchers said Wednesday. The study, the longest-running of its kind, showed the rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent in the three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo, Colo., took effect. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it's a clear sign the ban was responsible.

The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors, Terry Pechacek of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At least eight earlier studies have linked smoking bans to decreased heart attacks, but none ran as long as three years. The new study looked at heart attack hospitalizations for three years following the July 1, 2003 enactment of Pueblo's ban, and found declines as great or greater than those in earlier research.

"This study is very dramatic," said Dr. Michael Thun, a researcher with the American Cancer Society.

"This is now the ninth study, so it is clear that smoke-free laws are one of the most effective and cost-effective to reduce heart attacks," said Thun, who was not involved in the CDC study released Thursday.

Smoking bans are designed not only to cut smoking rates but also to reduce secondhand tobacco smoke. It is a widely recognized cause of lung cancer, but its effect on heart disease can be more immediate. It not only damages the lining of blood vessels, but also increases the kind of blood clotting that leads to heart attacks. Reducing exposure to smoke can quickly cut the risk of clotting, some experts said.

"You remove the final one or two links in the chain" of events leading to a heart attack, Thun said.

Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths and about 3,000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers each year, according to statistics cited by the CDC.

Story continues below

advertisement

In the new study, researchers reviewed hospital admissions for heart attacks in Pueblo. Patients were classified by ZIP codes. They then looked at the same data for two nearby areas that did not have bans _ the area of Pueblo County outside the city and for El Paso County.

In Pueblo, the rate of heart attacks dropped from 257 per 100,000 people before the ban to 152 per 100,000 in the three years afterward. There were no significant changes in the two other areas.

"The need for protection from secondhand smoke in all workplaces and public places has never been clearer," said Matthew Myers of the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, in a prepared statement. He is president of the Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization.

But the study had limitations: It assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban, but did not try to measure that. The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it's unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke.

One academic argued there's not enough evidence to conclude the smoking ban was the cause of Pueblo's heart attack decline.

The decline could have had more to do with a general decline in smoking in Pueblo County, from about 26 percent in 2002-2003 to less than 21 percent in 2004-2005. If there were stepped-up efforts to treat or prevent heart disease in the Pueblo area, that too could have played a role, said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health.

"I don't think it's as clear as they're making it out to be," Siegel said.

___

On the Net:

CDC publication: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr

Comments

[hamchunk]

Though a smoking ban caused a decrease in heart attacks, it also caused a marked increase in beating the crap out of annoying, holier-than-thou health freaks.

[evekendall]

REPORT: "The researchers also DID NOT SORT OUT which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it's unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke."

[Yet they continue throughout the article to refer only to the effects of second hand smoke without showing any proof.]

REPORT: "A smoking ban in one Colorado city led to a dramatic drop in heart attack hospitalizations within three years, a sign of just how serious a health threat secondhand smoke is. . . The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors..."

RESPONSE: No, the study does NOT suggest "that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country" because you admitted yourself that you did not measure rates of improvements in smokers vs. non-smokers. It could be that the smokers, after quitting, received all the benefit and non-smokers were not affected at all, but since your study is so shoddy you couldn't possibly arrive at those conclusions!

I am not a smoker, but I do have scientific training. This is a totally bogus report if they did not measure smokers vs. non-smokers.

[cayuse]

I absolutedly do not want to incourage smoking. But I absolutely do not think anyone has the right to push their values or create laws for their personal beleifs or to get rich of and on others.

When there are no smokers and people still die of heart attacks. Since this is how you die if you do not get a desease. Unless living beautifully and pushing you way on others, you can live for ever?

Now if you said everyone should over come their bad habit and live with good habits. I would say, you are intelligent, compassionate instead of ignorant.

300 hundred horses tied together can out run a Porche with 300 horse power. Almost like trying to stop smoking while other are inhaling US BOMBS

[NoPCZone]

In a related study by the same group, it was determined that second hand smoke was responsible for the Lindburgh Kidnapping, the Kennedy Assassinations (both), the Assassinations of Malcolm X & MLK, Global Warming, The War in Iraq, 9-11, Hurricane Katrina and the 2000 Bush v Gore Decision.

Figures do not lie but liars figure. There has been more bad science, half baked truth, poor science, etc related to this issue than room allows posting. The end does not justify the means in this no more than the faked up pseudo-science of Creationism/ Intelligent Design. This is another poorly designed study cooked up to sooth the nerves of the behavior nazis and justify the Anti-Smoking Taliban.

If you smoke or don't fine. Be respectful of each other and treat each other respectfully. If you are a non-smoker and see a smoker 50 feet outside a building entrance, be thankful and leave them alone. If you are a smoker and are inconsiderate of others- you should be fined or arrested.

People are going to smoke, just like some people are going to drink. deal with it.

[sweetwhine]

Thank you. Smokers are made to feel ashamed. When "they" start paying your rent, your kids education and bills, then they can tell you what to do. Till then, Hush!!

[evekendall]

And the big elephant in the room that the anti-smoking crowd NEVER addresses in their statistics:

Radon is the number two cause of lung cancer deaths in this country. It comes up through the ground into your house and can cause lung cancer in non-smokers.

Do a search on "radon" if you're interested in more info.

[Roseberry]

There has to be a proper scientific study to conclusively prove that secondhand smoke truly causes 46,000 deaths each year. And those are "estimated" deaths, at least that's admitted. So far, there has not been one proper scientific study as to whether secondhand smoke is dangerous. To do a correct study, you need a positive control group, then you need a way to somehow mete out the hazardous smoke to the nonsmokers in just the exact amount to each person. Then you have to measure it and document its effects.
So far, nobody's done a study like that. Yet the figure of 46,000 has been proudly held up in the air like a godforsaken trophy through the years, and nobody has ever questioned it. Yet it's completely impossible to prove. What really gets me is, the MSM just keeps lapping up the fake "facts" given to them by the antismoking groups. Never questions them at all. For one minute, would you please THINK about this stuff before you publish it?

[NoPCZone]

They are not going to do a proper study because they are afraid of the results. It is widely known that the original EPA study that was used to start the pushing of smokers outside and ever farther away was bad science and had the numbers cooked. Nothing like 'political' science, eh?

I do not dispute that smoking is bad for people and that non-smokers should be respected by smokers. I also think non-smokers need to get a life regarding any additional restrictions on those still smoking.

[cayuse]

I agree in context and form. Only think worse than the bad habit of smoking though is those pushing their ways on others. "statistics do not lie, but liars do statistics"

As Christ said:

"Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye but fail to notice the beam in your own eye?"

[CarolAST]

It's all a lie. I'm just putting the finishing touches on my new graph, using data downloaded from the CDC, which depicts how the death rates from acute myocardial infarction actually ROSE during the year after the smoking ban. Notice that those anti-smoker frauds only claimed that the rates of HOSPITALIZATION for AMI declined, and realize that they could create a false impression of a decline merely by being too free with admissions (and raking in extra money for it) beforehand, and then magically reduce the admission rate by tightening up the policy.

The current version is my picture (if they approve it). Pueblo County is in red. Neighboring El Paso County (with no smoking ban) is in blue. 2004, the year after the ban began in 2003, is the second from the right. So much for instant health benefits!

Actually, when this rerun came in, I was just putitng the finishing touches on my new graph, using data downloaded from the Scottish NHS, showing how the admissions from acute coronary syndrome increased a couple of months after their study period ended. So it will be a double treat.

[CarolAST]

They're now posted at:

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

[mergina]

They ban smoking everywhere BUT IN APARTMENT BUILDINGS, where non-smokers are still subjected to the sickeningly putrid second hand smoke permeated their living environments from those diseased minds that feel they have the right to spew thousands of CARCINOGENIC TOXINS into our lives because they hate themselves enough to SMOKE.

[getoffthecross]

You are absolutely right about all of that (exhale), and you can still bite my nicotine-stained ass.

[HoneyBQuick]

hahaha! AMEN.

[sweetwhine]

You really need to Hush! Estupida!

[walleymr]

While correlation isn't causation, this isn't THAT surprising.

[pokemon]

I read a few of the posts.. you people are crazy, do you really need a "proper" study to tell you smoking is bad for your health and increases the risk of health related problems for those breathing second hand smoke?

Appears a few people were taking a smoke break when God was passing out common sense.

[getoffthecross]

God has nothing to do with it. Our bodies are not temples (temples will be around for generations if properly cared for...you don't smoke and I do, but we'll BOTH be dead in 100 years). And you'd be surprised at how many people you wouldn't want to be around if they weren't allowed to smoke.

I choose to smoke. You choose to be self righteous. Seems fair to me.

[cayuse]

I too smoke and think it is my bad habit not some one else's right to say what I should do if I am not distroy their Body Beautiful

But the expression of "your body is a temple" is a yogic concept that by pefecting your body you make way for the purpose of life, to transcend the ego self to Cosmic Consciousness.

Leaving a body beautify has little purpose if the end is met. This time or next

[HoneyBQuick]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall in your life for a couple of hours. Image the number of things I could find wrong with YOUR health.

Let's start with: How much do you weigh?

[pokemon]

Well duh.

[wm1066]

Smoking works great for calming your nerves for about an hour then it wears off and you get anxious again so you have another cig and then your calm for another hour.... etc.... and when you quit you don't realize you have to find a better way to calm down, so maybe you eat or get stomach problems. Quiting takes finding a way to deal with the problems that smoking helped you deal with..kinda...People think its about dealing with an addiction when its more about dealing with your emotions

[OhioVoterAlso]

Just as ulcers were eventually proved to be caused by bacteria rather than stress/personality, so one day we will find the true causes of heart disease. The so-called 'Pueblo study' is not in any way science. Unfortunately, very little real research is being done, since the CDC has decided that smoking is the root of all evil.

[CyndiN]

Read the actual scientific study: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5751a1.htm. The effects of secondhand cigarette smoke on heart disease are well-established.

They say: "In addition to the previous study conducted in the city of Pueblo, eight other published studies have reported that smoke-free laws were associated with rapid, sizeable reductions in hospitalizations for AMI [acute myocardial infarction]. The current study adds to the previous evidence by documenting this effect in a relatively large population and by demonstrating that the effect was sustained over an extended period. A meta-analysis of seven of the previous eight studies and one unpublished study yielded a pooled estimate of a 19% (CI = 14%--24%) reduction in AMI hospitalization rates after implementation of smoke-free laws." Sounds pretty scientifically rigorous to me.

No scientific study is proof. That's not how science works. You add up evidence over time and reach conclusions. Some conclusions are so strong you can't really argue against them (though there's always someone who will, like with evolution). The dangers of secondhand smoke to your heart are solid conclusions and those for the dangers of actively smoking are even stronger.

The media usually seeks out someone to refute the information presented. Doesn't matter how good or bad it is. They want to show there are "two sides" even in cases where there is no reason to do so.

Cigarette smoke is far from the only cause of heart disease, but it's a big one.

[Ariadne]

I don't care if its true or not, I still enjoy being able to breathe smoke-free air.

[getoffthecross]

Because THAT was at risk.

[swiss-ski]

BS! Another crock of SH** news story. Heart disease is on the rise mainly because of the tainted food the FDA allows in this country, the fast food garbage, and the poor eating and exercise habits of the general population.

[pokemon]

yeah, smoking has NOTHING to do with poor circulatory conditions!!!!