Analyses: Heart attack rates fall 17% after smoking bans enacted

[onehandle]

Source: USA Today

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.

Two separate analyses released Monday each found that heart attack rates fall 17% 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.

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.

Given that there are about 920,000 heart attacks every year, the studies suggests that public smoking bans could prevent more than 150,000 of these, according to the Cardiology paper.

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-09-21-smoking-bans_N.htm

[Robb]

1. I'd be surprised if there is causation.

I will read the study, but I can't imagine a methodology that could single out the smoking bans as the cause of decreased heart attack rates. Especially given how long it takes for the onset of heart disease related to smoking (hint: I'm no doctor, but it's longer than a year).

[joshcryer]

8. It's about second hand smoke causing people with an underlying condition to have a heart attack.

It's plausible. But I wonder if something stressful, like, say, gridlock in certain areas could have a similar effect.

[roguevalley]

12. this is good news.

[virgogal]

2. Does that mean that these non smokers won't die or that they'll just

die of something else?

(Sarcasm off)

[Lorien]

3. Here come the smokers

they'll say "I call bullshit" or "There is no correlation or causation" or "but cars kill more people so let's ban them too!" Smoking kills. It's a fact proven by science, and the only people among us who don't believe in scientific facts are generally religious fundamentalists. Smoking can not only kill you, it empties your wallet and transfers your money to GOP candidates. There is no upside to it.

[sam sarrha]

5. that is when you tell them it's called 'DENIAL'.. and shut the fuck up.. junkie.!

[Robb]

10. Actually just the scientists, so keep your sanctimony to yourself.

Next you'll be comparing me to a holocaust denier, because I'd like to actually read a study? :D

Given how flawed these "look, health has improved in a single year!" studies have been shown to be in the last five years, I wouldn't take this at face value, either. It's a statistical analysis of a long-term problem over a short term. And no, before you jump to it, I don't smoke.

[sam sarrha]

4. Surgeon General said there is NO acceptable level of exposure to tobacco.. apparently it's true

[Zoeisright]

7. +1

[Gulftrout]

6. Lesson from Patrick Swayze

Smoker down give you pacreatic cancer.

[Quantess]

9. Good news.

[One_Life_To_Give]

11. Rates of Smokers vs Non would be interesting

It would be interesting to verify if it is the rates of Heart Attacks among Smokers that causes the shift. Or does it have some benefit to others as well. And if so can we quantify/qualify what types of exposure and risk are associated.

[jpak]

13. see... see... See... This is what Nanny State laws get you! Glen Beck is not amused

Only a 17-26% drop in heart attacks.

Who are they trying to kid anyway.

:puke:














:evilgrin:

[hayu_lol]

14. In answer to one poster on this thread...

Smoking pays for children's health care through high taxes. That money does not go to GOP candidates.

Would like to see a breakdown by age in deaths prevented.