E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSBy Genevra Pittman
Reuters
Heart attacks dropped by one-third in one county in Minnesota after two smoke-free workplace ordinances went into place, a new study shows.
The lead researcher on the work said that decline was likely due to less secondhand smoke exposure in restaurants and bars, as smoke can trigger heart problems due to its effects on arteries and blood clotting.
But another tobacco expert questioned whether the drop in heart attacks could be clearly attributed to the two ordinances, which banned smoking in restaurants starting in 2002 and then in all workplaces, including bars, in 2007.
Researchers from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota found that in the 18 months before the first ordinance was enacted, the rate of heart attacks in Olmsted County was 151 for every 100,000 people. By the 18 months following the second ordinance, that fell to 101 per 100,000 people.
Dr. Richard Hurt said a few other studies, including one from Montana, have also suggested smoke-free workplace laws could impact heart attack rates.
But, he told Reuters Health, "There have been lingering doubts among some people about whether or not this was a real finding. We think we have produced the most definitive results that anyone can produce related to smoke-free laws and heart attacks."
Hurt, who led the research, said other predictors of heart attacks - including cholesterol levels, blood pressure and diabetes and obesity rates - all held steady or increased in Olmsted County over the study period.
"The only thing that really changed here was the smoke-free workplace laws," he said.
About 3,600 municipalities have laws on the books that restrict where people may smoke, according to the American Nonsmokers Rights Foundation, with more than 1,000 including a smoke-free provision of some kind.
According to Hurt, the findings also make sense biologically. Exposure to secondhand smoke can cause immediate changes in the lining of the aorta, and can make blood platelets stickier - so they're more likely to form a dangerous clot.
The study is in line with the Institute of Medicine, which advises the U.S. government and said in a 2009 statement that, "data consistently demonstrates that secondhand-smoke exposure increases the risk of coronary heart disease and heart attacks and that smoking bans reduce this risk."
Hurt's results are published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
He and his colleagues tried to account for general changes in heart attack rates that might have happened regardless of smoke-free laws. They found heart attacks had been declining even in the years before the ordinances - but fell much faster once they were put in place.
But that analysis wasn't convincing enough for Dr. Michael Siegel, a tobacco control researcher from the Boston University School of Public Health.
"The main problem with this study is that there's no control group or comparison group. This is a look only at what happened before and after an ordinance went into effect in one particular county," Siegel, who wasn't involved in the research, told Reuters Health.
"We have no idea whether heart attacks may also have gone down in other counties in Minnesota that didn't have this smoke-free law. Without knowing that, I don't see how you can make the conclusion that this (decline) was due to the law."
Siegel said there is more-convincing evidence that smoke-free workplace laws can help protect against asthma attacks and other lung problems.
"We don't need to prove that they actually decrease heart attacks over a short period of time," he said. "There's lots of reasons to support (these laws)."
Leave a Comment:
Smokers kill people. Guns kill people. We cannot control guns any more but we can control smoking and save lives. Tobacco kills more people in one year than all the deaths in the two world wars. Tobacco companies will always come up with some sophistry to say that tobacco does not kill, but this is sophistry.
Yet obesity kills more than all of those... but we don't see a 5 dollar tax on a big mac. What's wrong with this picture?
My father died of brain tumors but it was reported as lung cancer because he smoked. Doctor/Coroner changed the cause after I threatened to sue for false reporting.
Alcoholic deaths are reported as pancreatic cancer to save the families embarrassment.
Nothing like sitting next to a 500 pounder on a plane wheezing their way to the cemetary.
I think all three of you are correct.
Some studies find that heart attacks increase after smoking bans. The first study to examine the relationship between smoking bans and heart attack admissions and mortality trends in the entire nation, using national data from the Nationwide Inpatient Survey (NIS), found
Link to Dr. Siegel's blog on the subject:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2010/12/new-study-of-national-heart-attack.html
It’s amazing how hard people will fight to justify their personal self destruction. At the same time they fight just as hard to deny their effect on people around them. I remember when I was growing up, I had to wad through clouds of smoke and mounds of cigarette butts and people kept trying to tell me they were only hurting themselves.
It seems like selfishness has become the new fashion statement for conservative politics. “I will defend my personal rights and I don’t care how many people’s rights I have to crush to do it”, is the new campaign slogan of the conservative right.
TransCalifornia - A Big Mac is food, not great food, but food, meaning nutrition, which your body needs.
A cigarette is a carcinogen-laden drug delivery device. There is nothing in a cigarette that the human body actually needs, and much that it should never be exposed to.
You do see the difference?
WRONG. The body does NOT need a big mac... make a healthier choice or STFU about smoking. Don't complain with a mouth full of alcohol either....
There is something in burning tobacco that the human body needs. One good thing in them is vitamin B3 (nicotinic acid).
Smoking cigarettes lowers the risk for Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, alcerative colitis, obesity, etc. Pharmaceutical industries are currently researching the benefits of tobacco derivatives for some of these disorders.
Some people should smoke and some people shouldn't, and they know who they are.
Vitamin B3: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/vitamin-b3-000335.htm
Nice try, TransCalifornia. I guess that reading-comprehension is not your strong point.
I did not say the human body needs a Big Mac. I said that some of the ingredients are necessities. A Big Mac contains protein, carbohydrates, fats, iron (which is found in red meat), all of which the human body needs.
By contrast, cigarette smoke contains carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, Cyanogen, Isoprene, Acetaldehyde, Acetone, Acrolein, Acetonitrile, benzene, and, of course nicotine.
http://www.erowid.org/plants/cannabis/cannabis_info3.shtml
So tell me, my loud-mouthed ignoramus, which of the above ingredients are even useful to the human body, let alone a necessity?
I can't cite a study, but there does seem to be a strong, inverse relationship between a person's propensity to say STFU, and their intelligence.
kayci, your link speaks only of the importance of vitamin B3. There is no reference in it to cigarettes, tobacco, or smoking, at all. Nicotine, the active ingredient in tobacco smoke, and niacin, otherwise known as vitamin B3 are two similar, yet different substances. Nicotine is an stimulant with various affects on the human body, both good and bad. B3 is necessary for the body's proper functioning.
I can find no reference that niacin is a common, or even a trace component of cigarette smoke.
As to your other claims, please post a link to a study showing that cigarette smoking lowers the risk of Alzheimer's or of ulerative colitis.
The only people who should smoke are those who do not ingest enough, tar, benzine and carbon monoxide from other sources.
Wow, how anybody with two or more grey cells still firing between the ears can defend cigarette smoking is inexplicable.
i don't agree with kayci in the least regarding cigarette smoke except for the fact that it does help ulcerative colitis....
Dr Michael Siegel has addressed this study specifically here:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/2012/10/new-study-concludes-that-smoking-ban.html
Well; this loud mouth ignoramus will continue to eat healthy; and NOT point any fingers, I WILL however continue to point out the follie of your line of logic.
Eat yourself to the grave; but don't drag me with you.
Have a nice day.
A person who, by her own words, has seen enough hate and bigotry, yet runs around telling others to STFU.
Way to stay in character, TransCali.
If you spout it; I'll call you on it. so.....
Don't spout it....
Eliminating driving may reduce auto accident deaths. Eliminating death reporting may greatly reduce death statistics.
Exactly! I am soooo tired of money being spent on the stupidest research and study projects. It's a proven fact that smoking causes heart disease. It's a fact that people with heart disease have heart attacks. Therefore, smoking causes heart attacks. So it's pretty much accepted that not smoking (whether from choice or laws) reduces heart attacks. Who the heck needs a study done to figure this out?????????
The study was to confirm that the law banning smoking in the workplace, etc was working and effective. Remember there are people who oppose such laws, so the people who want the law are making sure it's proven that the law is necessary. Nothing wrong with doing this study to confirm something. It's not like 100% of people agree on the dangers of smoking and secondhand smoke. I'm actually surprised you would make your comment relative to this particular article/study.
Tobacco use is nicotine addiction - but the 7,000 chemicals in tobacco - placed in it by the tobacco companies to make it more addictive, cause disease and death. There are over 75 carcinogenic chemicals intentionally included in tobacco.
More people die from tobacco use than alcohol, AIDS, motor vehicle accidents, homicides, suicides and illegal drug use combined. And about 11% of the 430,000 who die from tobacco use are from exposure to secondhand smoke. Persons with mental illness and other drug addictions use tobacco 3-4 times more than the general population and they die most often from tobacco related diseases than from disease related to their other health issues - that includes alcoholism. Check it out at the CDC website. Tobacco is the only legal substance that, when used as directed, kills people.
If 3 or 4 jumbo jets crashed EACH DAY killing everyone on board, the public would be outraged and screaming at the airline industry. Yet we tolerate the tobacco industry doing this very thing - intentionally.
Oh please. Obesity is a far larger problem. Alcohol is also a more prominent problem. So you want to what, outlaw cigarettes? Well about the time we outlaw brownies, choc cake, rolls and alcohol then we can talk about it. The best part is I don't even smoke.
You're pretty good at swallowing government propaganda. 7000 chemicals in tobacco? Wow, that is really some amazing plant! Name 3 of the chemicals.
Benzene, acetaldehyde, formaldehyde, hydrogen cyanide...enjoy.
Of course you are right Rod, there is 4000 chemicals in cigarrettes, not 7000. Touche.
But my health isn't affected sitting next to an obsese person who is eating. Not so sitting nect to a stinking smoker.
And as someone else correctly noted, food is necessary for the body. Yes, certain foods can harm you when you eat too much of them... the same can't be said for cigarettes. The body has no need for them at all.
Lets not forget all of you "other" smokers. There is no reason you all should get a walk on the anti-smoker lobby's harrassment. Where are the studies that would show all of the damage you do not only to your fellow man but also to the environment. I'm talking about everyone who drives a combustion engine vehicle. I step outside of my door and immediately I get subjected to the exhaust fumes of cars and buses. Those gases are a hell of a lot more deadly and poisonous than tobacco smoke. Where are the "scientific" studies dedicated to showing the relationship of breathing exhaust fumes to getting cancer or other diseases. I bet non-smokers are more likely to get cancer and other health problems as a result of breathing car exhaust than as a result of "second-hand smoke". How about that 1st hand smoke being pumped into your lungs through your car's AC/heater straight from the exhaust pipe of the car in front of you. How is it that a major factor such as that is not accounted for? Where is the megatax on gasoline and vehicles that pollute? I'm talking a megatax like that imposed on tobacco, where the taxation adds up to AT LEAST 3 or 4 times the value of the product. I'm sure I can whip up a study that'll show the improvement of the general health in any place that bans/regulates vehicle use.
There is additive free organic tobacco.......& I wouldn't trust half of the crap that comes from CDC.
Just sayin.....
Do you also not believe in vaccines? Or the moon landing?
The Tuskegee Syphilis Study, the 1940 STD testing we did in Guatemala....the fact that they spent $32,000,000 on an ad campaign and not cancer research.......google cdc & their unethical practices.
Moon landing? Really.
The 15 leading causes of death in 2011 (Table B) were as follows:
1 Diseases of heart
2 Malignant neoplasms
3 Chronic lower respiratory diseases
4 Cerebrovascular diseases
5 Accidents (unintentional injuries)
6 Alzheimer’s disease
7 Diabetes mellitus
8 Influenza and pneumonia
9 Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome and nephrosis
10 Intentional self-harm (suicide)
11 Septicemia
12 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis
13 Essential hypertension and hypertensive renal disease
14 Parkinson’s disease
15 Pneumonitis due to solids and liquids
#1 - diseases of the heart......well that's very vague. & not all diseases of the heart are smoking related. Especially when you throw in things like genetics, diet, exercise, etc.
#2 - malignant neoplasms or cancer.........that's also very vague......we all know there are many different types of cancer and not all, actually most are not smoking related.
Do you see where I'm going with this? Please, don't get me wrong....smoking is unhealthy, I will never say it's not. But these studies that take nothing else into consideration, or omit other possible causes is very misleading. There are by far LESS people smoking today then when I was growing up.......& you expect me to believe that second hand smoke is still the reason for the continuing rise of these these diseases?
Conspiracy theories are conspiracy theories.
Someone made that claim?
Propaganda is propaganda honey........
I do not smoke, let's get that out of the way. The world would be a better place without tobacco. It would also be a better place without alcohol. Of the two Alcohol a much worse evil, but that would be a no no. My guess is J Lynne probably drinks socially. But don't mess with the alcohol.
Except you don't get drunk sitting next to someone who is having a drink.
And you cannot immediately die from smoking too many cigarettes. Alcohol poisoning is a severe reality for people who do not know when to quit.
And you can smoke a cigarette prior to driving, can even smoke while driving. Try that with alcohol.
So becasue it isn't immediate it is less of a problem. At least if someone is drinking next to me I'm not forced to inhale toxic chemicals. And before you say, 'its your choice to sit there', it is also the smokers choice to force their toxins on the non-smoker, they can move somewhere else for their chemicals. It says more about the ignorance of the smoker than it does the non-smoker.
The same can be said for many things, including smoking. But since the article is about secondhand smoke, this is irrelevant unless you can show how secondhand drinking effects someone sitting next to a drinker. Besides annoyance.
Point?
Thank you Dr. Siegel for calling out pseudoscience when you see it. I live near 'Mayoland' and laughed when I saw this 'study.'
There could be a thousands reasons for the decline, people increased their use of aspirin, more people are eating better, more people are exercising etc.
all of the sudden? Just when the smoking ban went into effect? Occam is rolling in his grave...
I don't smoke ...and if nicotine is sooo addictive , then where are all the 2nd hand smoke addicts? people who need to just "hangout" for a hit in the smoking area?...just asking
Second hand smoke isn't high enough in nicotine, since it is mostly exhaled smoke after the nicotine has been absorbed. It is still high in many other hazardous chemicals, though. Any large amount of particulates in the air can trigger different kinds of attacks on weakened individuals, but other than second hand smoke, very high amounts of dangerous particulates like this are rare and can often be avoided.
I do not smoke and please, there is a study that could prove the moon was pink, i am sure. You don't want to be around the smoke, MOVE. No one forces you to sit there.
But its the smoker who is forcing them to breathe the toxic chemicals. Its amazing the excuses people come up with to justify this stuff. Its the responsibility of the smoker to make sure their addiction and chemicals don't harm others. Unless the non-smoker sits next to the already smoking person, your argument is nonsense.
I'm pretty sure I have a right to breath air not polluted by your nasty habits...just sayin'
Air pollutants........second hand smoke should really be the least of your concerns.
epa.gov/oar/airpollutants.html
The six common air pollutants are.......
& the major source these pollutants come from:
epa.gov/air/emissions/basic.htm
*cough-cough-cough-bulls**t-cough-cough*
Junk science as usual. I can use the same reasoning to say that Mosquito's kill 99% of all humans on earth. Since the majority of all humans have been bitten by a mosquito sometime in their life and they eventually died it must be mosquito's that kill almost everyone on earth no matter what they "claim" the cause of death was. And of course they never bother to see if another enviromental factor could be at play. The simple shutdown of a coal burning power plant or other air quality controls implemented could have just as big if not more of an impact on the health of all that live in these area's.
Hopefully, the smoking ban will include marijuana! We now have some liberals who need mind altering drugs trying to legalize the smoking of the plant. We then will also be fighting drunk driving and drugged driving killing our kids. Maybe it would be better to just ban liberals from human existence.
So you don't think that people are already out driving and smoking marijuana. Do you live under a rock? So where are all the reports of marijuana induced traffic accidents?
Should Ban every thing expect bread and water. Will that make you nut jobs happy then.
I figured the reduction was due to nonsmokers not getting their blood pressure up while bitching and whining about it.
Nah, probably just becasue they aren't being forced to breathe in toxic chemicals by poeple with no will power. But hey, you can spout all the nonsense you want.
Hey, so can you Keithsn. Considering most smokers already avoid non-smokers. It's the non-smokers who tail/hang out with the smokers. At least around here... Only time I see second hand smoke is inside a building that allows it (clearly posted bars/concert venues). Yes, let me chase and pin down every non-smoker I see and blow every drag in their face... Yup, every smoker forces every non-smoker to second hand smoke...
If that were true second hand smoke would not be an issue.
Seriously, that's gonna be your reasoning. Good to know you are up on the habits of all non-smokers and who they asociate with.
Pretty sure noone said that, pretty good at the broad generalizations based on your own opinion tho.
My own experience, more like it. Much like your own experience gives you different opinions. I've yet to see anyone, and I mean ANYONE FORCED to second hand smoke. I live in the deep south, smoking areas are clearly defined, restaraunts are prohibited unless it is a "bar and grill" type restaraunt, where it is age restricted. All places of business must clearly post if they are a smoking establishment.
If I'm outside at working in the smoking area and a non-smokers comes up to me. Am I forcing him to second hand smoke? He approached me in the defined area and chooses to stay there. Is there a group having lunch at one of the smoker's picnic tables? Ok, I'll go to the other area and smoke/eat over there, no biggie. I'm in my regular bar and a non-smoker enters (clearly marked smoking establishment), is he being forced to enter? Does someone have a gun in his back forcing him into the bar? Chances are no, he/she's choosing to be there.
Second hand smoke is already a non-issue around here, mostly cause of the reasons listed above. Smoking is allowed in designated areas, age-restricted marked establishments, private property (including cars).
And I've seen your broad generalizations and opinionated bias thrown around here just as much as the next person.
Its seen everyday. People smoking outside of entrances to public buildings and the like. Those poeple who need to access those entrances are being forced to breathe it.
No of course not, and no one is making the claim that you are.
Now if only it was the same everywhere.
Really? Besides sarcastic responses to sarcastic postings, do tell?
I guess living in the south does have its advantages. Smoking within 20 feet of any entrance is illegal, and most businesses around here establish a perimeter of 20 yards or more for smoking. GA, TN, MS, AL are all fairly similar. And, not smoking IN the workplace is pretty common sense as well. You want a cigarette, you go outside. It's been that way for close to 20 years now. Maybe it's just where you live, maybe you have some very inconsiderate smokers there.
I know 4 years ago when I visited Detroit, I couldn't believe there were restaraunts (family restaraunts) that had smoking designated areas. Guess yanks have it backwards. I was seeing no smoking signs rather than smoking permitted signs, quite the inverse of nearly everywhere I've been in the south, and even TX.
I always laugh when the silly" ban fast food/ ban cars" tobacco apologetic's come out to try and use pseudologics and low iq comparisons to live in denial. Eating a big mac will not harm the person next to you. That is a personal choice, you suffer the consequences alone. Nobody plans a car accident or wishes one to happen Driving is essential for every day life unless the public transportation bucks up. Smoking on the other hand is a choice and is not essential. And guess what Smoking in a work place/public area harms anyone within a short distance of yourself. If smokers could smoke with a plastic bag wrapped around your head, then go for it!!!! I wish there were laws that prevented the treatment of people who resist any form of advice or intervention on smoking cessation especially those undergoing treatment for COPD, Cardiovascular diseases, transplants etc. Waste of time on the doctors part treating someone who wants to die anyway, and waste of precious resources that could have been spent on a more deserving patient
Regardless of whether it has impacted heart attacks, I know for a fact that my allergies, sinuses and headaches have been MUCH better since I can now go anywhere in a public building without having to smell smoke. Also, I don't come home with my clothes & hair smelling like an ashtray. Thank you Illinois!!
The problem with cigarettes is that it does not affect just the smoker it affects EVERONE around them. Studies have shown that parents who smoke outside then go inside and pick up their babies will transmit asthma and illness causing toxins to their kids through their clothes.
It is the EXTERNALITY of smoking that is the problem. Go sit in a closet and smoke if you want to...you are perfectly free to do that, but DO NOT expect me to put up with anyone blowing illness causing crap into the air I breathe.
Virginia is even cracking down on smoking in public. If smokers don't realize that they are going to have to hide to smoke they'd better wake up. Science and COMMON SENSE eventually prevails over the stubborn and blind.
"Go sit in a closet and smoke if you want to."...........when you go sit in your garage with your car running. Which is more harmful again?
Um, you cannot "transmit" asthma.
Second hand smoke can certainly aggravate and trigger episodes in asthma sufferers.
Going by that studies. I should have asthma. I Do Not.
Plus I would have been a child that got sick a lot. I Did Not.
My grandfather smoke for 80 years. The cause of his death was cause by smoking.
My grandmother didn't. She didn't die from anything that could be link to second hand smoke.
I do believe genetics plays a part in it. Certain types of heart disease can be due to genetics.
Just saying.
Bull@!$%#! If cigarettes cause's cancer then why did all of my family members who lived to be in their late 80's early 90's and smoked like chimneys till the day they died did NOT die of cancer? It is real simple people. Cancer is hereditary. You either have it or you don't! Now I am sure that if you have cancer then smoking probably is not good for you. I am sick and tired of the do gooders in the world and their smoke free bull@!$%#. Not to mention what all the tax money from cigarettes pays for. Never thought of that did ya do gooders? We smokers have to hide like criminals to enjoy a cigarette these days. Know what I say "If ya don't like it quit breathing"
You must be sick and tired of science too, since you seem to ignore it.
Actually Greg Williamson may have a point (and another source of a zillion dollar government funded study) - I feel there's quite likely to be a genetic factor in cancer. This is supported by all the medical questionnaires that ask if anyone in your family has had cancer (why ask if heredity doesn't play a part in the risk). So my question would be why hasn't anyone studied all of these people that do smoke for 40 or 50 or more years of their 80-90 year lives and not get cancer? Do some studies and see if we can't find the "anti-cancer" gene and work from there.
In most physical sciences a result must be reproducable to be considered based on a valid premise. So if smoking causes cancer - if you smoke 2 packs a day for 20 years you'll get cancer is the premise, then everyone who smokes 2 packs a day should get cancer after 20 years. They don't. I won't argue that smoking is not a contributing factor to both heart disease and cance, but I will argue that it not the only factor and heredity may be one.
As a smoker myself, I will say I wish I wasn't - it's expensive and I will be one of the first to admit that walking into a room filled with the smell of stale tobacco smoke is an ugly experience. But I've tried several times to quit both cold turkey and with the assistance of drugs like Chantix. The short term almost psychotic experiences I had with Chantix put a stop to that right away - it caused me to have serious anxiety attacks; the only ones I've ever had in my life - stopped Chantix, stopped the anxiety attacks.
Your reasoning is flawed. It is stupid to assume that everyone who smokes will get cancer. Sure, some people will smoke and not get cancer - your family members were simply lucky.
Oh BOO OO! Cry me a river.I have a better idea: Why don't you just hurry up and die?
OMG. Here we go. My grandmother lived to 92 smoking 2-3 packs per day since she was 19. She never got cancer but she had heart disease, diabetes, macular degeneration blindness and emphysema, all caused by smoking. The last 30 years of her life were not easy, cancer would have been a relief.
People who smoke are idiots. Pure idiots. It's going to catch up with you eventually...and until it does us NON smokers and our kids don't want to be exposed to your illness causing smoke.
"Why don't you just hurry up and die?"
"People who smoke are idiots. Pure idiots."
People like you who complain about everything are just as vile and nasty. Calling your grandmother an idiot? WOW! disgusting.
As I said before. Stay out of the smoking areas. I don't want to be exposed to raging liberals like you who know what's best for everyone. You have no common sense. You are one of those asses who sits in a smoking area then bitc*es about the smoke the one that gets offended when I tell them to push off then and take your nasty wine with you.
Common Sense Mom....
Most people that live into their 80's or 90's that don't smoke also have diabetes, macular degeneration, high blood pressure and some kind of heart disease.
It should be child endangerment to smoke in a car with kids. A pregnant female should have her baby taken away. I laugh at how much money people spend on smoking just to get off. People who smoke cannot smell, so they do not know how much it affects non-smokers. All I smell outside or deiving in my car is cigarette smoke. How come poor people say they have no money but always are smoking. If you smoke you should not be treated for a smoking illness.
Automobiles cause deaths, BAN Automobiles? Trains and Airplanea cause deaths, BAN trains and airplanes? Semi trucks cause death, BAN Semis? Obesity causes Death, BAN all Food? I see all of these laws that our fine politicians are passing and have passed to be infringing on the way America was built. Any laws pertaining to smoking eating Etc. are put in place to control all people in the United States. NO, I do not smoke, but I dont think that there should be a law that keeps me from doing it. Americans had better watch out, America is becoming worse than other countries that have Dictators.
False equivalencies are always funny. Yes banning cars is the same as banning cigarrettes. No wonder the hysterics get so high around this stuff when logic and reason fly out the window.
Don't know of any laws that keep you from smoking, there are just some places you can't smoke, same as there are some places it's illegal to take a crap.
Well put Brian. Just as you cannot legally drive your car through a crowded department store, you cannot light up your cigarette where there are others around you to involuntarily inhale your smoke.
But my biggest complaint about smokes is not the second hand cigarette smoke; I never have to deal with that in the office anymore [cheers]. My biggest complaint is the thoughtless, off-hand manner in which they discard their butts. Wherever they take that last drag, they flick it to the ground, where joins other discarded cigarettes. Sometimes the parking lot outside my building is lined with hundreds of these little souvenirs.
I don't care if these bans prevent heart attacks or not. I'm glad that smoking indoors is banned. Who needs to be wreathed in stinky cigarette smoke.
...and somehow the bars and restaurants have survived.
What a surprise!
we should ban banning . freedoms are being stripped away just so some retards can save others or their kids . screw you i say , next time i see a kid , im blowing smoke in their face . the civil war is coming ,guess who im fighting , stupid lazy parents that want everything for themselves so they don't have to raise their own damn brats
The voices in your head that tell you you're insane.
Here... have a cigarette. It'll calm you down.
The study is BS ! Reduces hear attacks because of a smoking ban... laughable.
Why don't you try actually backing up that statement, otherwise your addition to the conversation is what is laughable.
@anti: Did your study come up with different results, or are you just laughing out of your ass?
Smoking Bans Do Not Reduce Heart Attacks:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2011/08/08/smoking-bans-do-not-reduce-heart-attacks/
I just don't understand why anyone would willingly suck the soot and tar of burning carcinogens into their lungs. Blech. You might as well suck on the tailpipe of a city bus.
For years I was forced to walk through thick second-hand smoke to get into into the hospital where I worked. There was always a crowd of smokers at every door. No, I could not just sit somewhere else! I now have to walk through second-hand smoke to get to the pharmacy where I pick up my prescription that cannot be mailed. This smoke is delivered by the roof overhang covering a bus stop and several outdoor cafe businesses where smoking is allowed, under the roof/overhang. Sit somewhere else? Smoke travels a long distance, and hangs around in the environment even after the smoker is gone.
Just to add my 2 cents: Personally, as agreed by many here, smoking provides no good. It causes stresses on the lungs and heart, causes premature skin aging, as well as other cancers that can be harmful to both the smoker as well as those having to breath in the disgusting fumes. It makes the smoker's breath worse, soils their clothes and hands.
Those who claim it provides stress relief should do some soul searching and go take a walk instead. I would rather be surrounded by a bunch of gum chewers (disgusting in some cases) than choking on second-hand smoke.
It always strikes me as funny and ironic (and somewhat sad) when COMMON SENSE makes it's way into legislation and the headlines. OF COURSE smoking laws are going to cut down on illness and disease. OF COURSE THEY ARE.
THIS IS EXACTLY why we have to shove common sense laws and regulations down people's throats...because most people are DUMB. Real dumb and real stubborn.
Same thing will happen with emissions laws and regulations... "Oh look! Air quality is better, asthma rates are down and super storms are back to regular storms now!"
You mouth-breathing "freedom" freaks can shove your cigarettes and coal right up your.... I'm voting to regulate the hell out of you bunch of stubborn ignorant mouth-breathing idiots.
Because you are obviously so much smarter than everyone else and know without a doubt what's best for everyone. You're the kind of "progressive" who was responsible for prohibition, criminalization of recreational drugs, criminalization of prostitution and any number of other things you think people shouldn't be doing.
So, I guess you picked up on the fact that I have no respect what so ever for people dumb enough to pick up a cigarette? I guess you picked up on the fact that I think I am better than you because I DO NOT smoke? Yea, you are right. I do think those things.
If you are stupid enough to make the decision to smoke in this day and age then you are too stupid to vote in my opinion.
Why should I let your need for "FREEDOM" ruin my health and my children's health? Go sit in a closet and smoke yourself silly you idiot.
Judge others much? We probably will never be friends.
Yea, I have a thing against smelly people with yellow teeth. LOL.
Brian- I judge because I have watched most of my family systematically and slowly kill themselves and spend absurd amounts of money on cigarettes for 40+ years (and they watched THEIR grandparents and parents do the same and didn't learn the lesson). I love them but I don't respect their decisions.
I don't judge out of ignorance, I judge from a broken heart with lots and lots of experience on this matter.
I grew up in house where both parents had chain smoking 3 pack a day habits. Nothing quite as disgusting as wiping butts off of dinner plates and rinsing butts out of half empty coffee cups when you're doing the dishes. Never smoked myself but I'm sure not as judgmental as you about it. I respect each person's right to make their own decisions about things like that. Doesn't matter if I agree with it or not.
Hey mama, you can shove your sense of what is right for everyone right up the ole Hershey highway. I am tired of your ilk trying to regulate everyone's life. Move to a commune with people of your mindset if you can't manage in society. BTW- do you drink ever? I absolutely HATE people who sip wine or cocktails. Lets tax the crap out of it. Alcohol has been proven to be bad for your liver, pancreas, other people on the road and your family in general.
Mom -
How are you going to judge your children when you find that half pack of smokes in their school backpack and they tell you they're just keeping it for a friend? How about when they come home from college and decide they're adult enough to not hide their smoking from you. Maybe, since you're so open about your disgust, they'll just quit coming to visit.
Brian, I'm amazed how many children of anti-smokers smoke! All of them that I know, and they hide it from their parents even at over 40 years of age.
If you smoke, you are dumb. And you know it.
If you expect us non-smokers to breathe in your toxins you are just plain selfish. And you know it.
MOM if you do not want to breathe in second hand smoke stay out of the smoking area. And if you want the rest of us to watch you reason with your little monsters in public say at a store, movie or restaurant you are just plain selfish and you know it. See how that works?????
Avoid us smokers then... we do our best to avoid non-smokers, but when they enter a designated area or establishment... all bets are off.
Around here, any establishment that allows smoking has to be clearly labeled and restricted to 21 and over. See something like that? Don't enter. It's one of our last vestiges to enjoy our vice.
Common Sense Mom... It's people like you that have kept me smoking for 42 years.
Common Sense Mom comes from a long line of "idiots"......she said so herself.
"I have watched most of my family systematically and slowly kill themselves and spend absurd amounts of money on cigarettes for 40+ years (and they watched THEIR grandparents and parents do the same and didn't learn the lesson)"
"If you smoke, you are dumb."
"I have a thing against smelly people with yellow teeth"
"I have no respect what so ever for people dumb enough to pick up a cigarette"
"bunch of stubborn ignorant mouth-breathing idiots"
You catch my drift.........."idiot"