Smoking Bans Credited with Lower Rates of Heart Attack

cigarettesI was living in California when the smoking ban went into effect there.  Smokers and barroom patrons were very upset about the law’s passage.  I recall, as a musician playing in many bars and clubs, the friction caused by this switch.  But folks got over it.  Then I moved back to New York and remember being incredulous that folks still smoked in the bars there, until the Empire State passed its own ban.  Then the wailing among bar goers began again.  And again, in time, folks got over it.  It seems all the friction was worth it in the end.  Follow me over the fold for the latest. According to a report by Reuters:

One team found smoking bans in the United States, Canada and Europe had an immediate effect that increased over time, cutting heart attacks by 17 percent after the first year and as much as 36 percent after three years, they reported in the journal Circulation.

A second team found such bans reduced the annual heart attack rate by 26 percent. Their report in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology estimates a nationwide ban in the United States could prevent as many as 154,000 heart attacks each year.

Both research teams said the findings support the adoption of widespread bans on smoking in enclosed public places to prevent heart attacks and improve public health.

Public smoking bans seem to be tremendously effective in reducing heart attack and, theoretically, might also help to prevent lung cancer and emphysema, diseases that develop much more slowly than heart attacks,” said Dr. David Meyers of the University of Kansas School of Medicine, who led the study in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

“Even breathing in low doses of cigarette smoke can increase one’s risk of heart attack,” he said.

Smoking bans have been enacted in countries all over the world. In the United States, 32 states ban smoking in public places and workplaces, and many cities and other localities do, too.

Sometimes I guess, the best medicine is difficult to swallow, but once we take it as a society, we all feel the positive health effects.

12 Responses to “Smoking Bans Credited with Lower Rates of Heart Attack”

  1. I think banning cigarettes everywhere is the best thing that ever happened! If people decide to smoke it should not have to effect everyone else especially our children. As a population we have to be trained on how to effectively use things and techniques. The faster we understand this the more accepting we will be on proper guidance. I think back to when our parents smoked their cigarettes in another room with us home but those carcinogens stick to the walls; they cause asthma, allergies, and other problems in the long run.

  2. Donna Atkins

    I agree Magaly about how it affects children – cannot imagine how awful it must be to be a child living in a home with smokers, just tragic. Also, it boggles my mind that people continue to smoke while they are pregnant!

  3. When I lived in Florida the no smoking ban was made into law. I can remember going into the bars and hearing people complain and say that they were going to refuse to go there anymore because they couldn’t smoke. As a smoker, it didn’t bother me not to smoke when in the bar. Actually, I prefered it better. You don’t have that smell on you when you leave. As a smoker, I couldn’t stand that smell so I can only imagine what non-smokers must have went through! It did help me to quit smoking though. When I moved to Ohio the ban had not taken effet yet. I had a hard time going into places, especially restaurants, and smelling all of that smoke. Within a year the ban took effect and again I had to hear everyone complain. I currently live in Illinois and they have the no smoking law. Seems this law is following me all over the country!

  4. Smoking ban is happening everywhere now. Even states like North Carolina. To me if people want to smoke, then that is their own business, but I refer them to smoke in their own homes. The government is really taking a big lead on this. For example, they have raised taxes several times on cigarettes. To me they are watching out for the people’s health.

  5. I agree with the smoking bans. Since I have never smoked why should I put up with second hand smoke and deal with the health risks. My father used to smoke in the same room with me and my brothers and one of my brothers suffered from severs asthma then. Back then, society didn’t give much thought of the harmful effects of cigarette smoke. I remember television ads with movie stars smoking cigarettes in the 60’s . Now it’s limited in movies and television shows. I think we are doing more for awareness for our future generations of children. Smoking is bad for you!!

  6. Stormie Grogan

    As a smoker and Mom… I do agree with the smoking ban. I feel it is my choice to smoke but would rather it not affect other people’s choice! I futher believe that just as it is my choice to smoke it is other people’s choice not to smoke. Smoking is harmful to everyone regardless of where when you choose to do it. Even when you make excuses like.. we smoke outside away from others… you are not away from animals and plants…my mom used to say that it didn’t affect us as kids.. again not true. Although we smoke in a small room away from the kids you can still smell it on them! My poor kittens must also feel the affects of my habit on their lungs… Why though can I not quit? It seems to me that if I am sooo disgusted by my own smoking that I could quit… but I have tried many times using many methods and still no results!

  7. I think that banning the smoking in all public places is the best thing that has ever taken place. I do not smoke and I don’t think that myself or my kids should have to in hale someone else habit. My husband however does smoke, but he does not do it in front of our kids or myself. It is just a big waste of money. This is just want I think though.

  8. Latoya Johnson

    As a smoker I was one of the people who complained about the ban, but I’ve gotten used to it. I understand it’s a matter of public health, but what’s to stop it from becoming a matter of persecution of smokers? I am far from a conspiracy junkie, but no harmful substance is gone after like cigarettes. (yes I do realize they’re harmful for your and other peoples health). In addition to the ban on smoking in public places, I am constantly running across places with signs saying no smoking within a certain feet of the building. Smokers are becoming an endangered species; we’re being pushed out of the public and priced out of our vice. Now some people might say this is a good thing, but what happens when and if they just ban smoking altogether? The health of some people may improve but what do they go after next? Do we really want to end up like the characters in the movie “Demolition Man” where everything the government considered bad for you was banned?

  9. @ Latoya: Whats wrong with banning smoking alltogether? Its a dangerous substance not only to smokers, but second hand smoke is extremely dangerous, imagine pregnant women smoking, or parents smoking infront of their children, giving them astma, or other disorders. People only because their ignorance led them to start at a young age, no one in their right mind would begin to smoke in adulthood.

    How do you think tobacco would be treated was it discoverd today?

    I agree, tobacco is a gone after substance, but with good reason. Its a dangerous substance! Imagine all the people who say marijuana is alot less dangerous than smoking, and that it should be legalized, and what if it is, what’s next? Cocaine, heroin? No!

    Tobacco is dangerous substance, causing addiction, financial loss and health deprevation, and should be treated as such!

    I was a smoker myself, but have now quit, I’ve done alot of reading on the subject, and started a blog about it, to warn and spread knowledge, your all welcome visitors: Stop smoking Cold Turkey

  10. Several valid points here and as a swede spending lots of time in the US I can conclude that the sentiments and worries are very similar in both countrys from smokers and non-smokers alike. ‘Even though “Public health” is a viable reason to crack down hard on smoking it’s a fine line to where it becomes execessively big brother like. My main point is that recruiting new smokers must be fought with all means and also there’s alot one should do in less developed countries where the tobacco companies have moved much of their business.

  11. It’s almost like non-smokers are out to get the “dirty smokers” as though they are there to make everyone else’s lives miserable. A little compassion wouldn’t go astray.

    Although I quit smoking, non-smokers have NO idea how difficult it can be.

Leave a Reply