Join Together
Stay Informed

Sign up for news & alerts

Already signed up?
Login here

take action
For every $1 states spend dollar sign on substance misuse and addiction, 94 cents go to shovel up the consequences instead of for treatment and prevention. TELL YOUR LEGISLATORS

What Can I Do?



Continuing Education
Free online courses for addiction counselors LEARN ONLINE

Get Help
Need alcohol or drug help for yourself or someone else? GET HELP

 

Multiple Studies Demonstrate Heart Benefits of Smoking Bans
September 25, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
Research Summary

A new review of 13 U.S. and international studies finds that banning public smoking can reduce the rate of heart attacks by more than one-third, Reuters reported Sept. 21.

Researcher James Lightwood of the University of California at San Francisco and colleagues said that the studies show that heart-attack rates fell an average of 17 percent in the year after smoking bans were imposed in the U.S., Canada and Europe, and up to 36 percent within three years.

"This study adds to the already strong evidence that secondhand smoke causes heart attacks, and that passing 100-percent smoke-free laws in all workplaces and public places is something we can do to protect the public," said Lightwood.

David Goff of Wake Forest University School of Medicine added, "At a time of great concern over the financial sustainability of our healthcare system, smoke-free laws represent an inexpensive approach to reducing heart attacks, and, probably, other cardiovascular conditions."

The findings appear online in the journal Circulation.

This article summarizes an external report or press release on research published in a scientific journal. When available, links to the sources are provided above.

COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

Posted by Bill Godshall on 28 Sep 09 12:10 PM EDT
As one who has campaigned for smokefree policies/laws since 1986, I consider this study to be junk science because it only considered a few jurisdictions where rates of heart attacks (or heart attack deaths) declined following implementation of a smokefree law, while ignoring the hundreds of jurisdictions where rates of heart attacks (or heart attack deaths) didn't decline following implementation of a smokefree law. A recent study http://www.nber.org/tmp/53834-w14790.pdf of far more jurisdictions that enacted smokefree laws didn't find reductions in heart attacks (or heart attack deaths) in most jurisdicitions. Besides, 80%-85% of the workplaces (in the studies evaluated by Lightwood/Glantz) already had smokefree policies before the laws (that banned smoking in bars) were even enacted. There is plenty of sound scientific evidence justifying the enactment of smokefree indoor policies/laws without resorting to junk science like this study.

Posted by virgilk on 28 Sep 09 01:23 PM EDT
This is nothing less than a version of three previous studies. The Miracle of Helena Montana being the most well known. All three have been shown to be fraudulent. I don't doubt that this is the same. Just a researcher looking for more funding that pays well for no real work. With smoking at its lowest percentage of population ever and Heart Disease on the increase there is no verifiable reason to believe smoking or SHS is the reason. The facts do not back this studies finding.

Posted by Diane on 29 Sep 09 02:19 PM EDT
Mr. Goodshall, I always appreciate your comments. You state that "80-85% of workplaces already had smokefree policies before the laws were enacted", thereby possibly diluting any effect the new laws might have on heart attacks and heart attack deaths. Is it possible that if the studies went back farther to before the changes in workplace policies went into effect, that we would be able to see a resulting significant difference in heart attacks or heart attack deaths?

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Submissions are held for review and approval.
Please read the guidelines before posting.

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

Guidelines for comments