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

 

Secondhand Smoke a Killer, Institute of Medicine Report Says
October 20, 2009

Share Share Email
Email
Print
Print
SubscribeSubscribe
Research Summary

There is compelling evidence that secondhand smoke can trigger heart attacks, according to a new report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM), and people with heart conditions are urged to avoid exposure to tobacco smoke, the Associated Press reported Oct. 15.

The report, requested by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), said there is no safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke, and that people with cardiovascular disease could risk heart attack with less than an hour's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke, which restricts blood vessels and increases clotting.

"If you have heart disease, you really need to stay away from secondhand smoke. It's an immediate threat to your life," said researcher Neal Benowitz of the University of California at San Francisco.

Benowitz added that everyone, in fact, should avoid secondhand smoke, since many people who have heart disease are not aware of the problem if they have never had a heart attack. "Even if you think you're perfectly healthy, secondhand smoke could be a potential threat to you," he said.

"The evidence is clear," said CDC head Thomas Frieden. "Smoke-free laws don't hurt business ... but they prevent heart attacks in nonsmokers."

Researchers found "clear and consistent" evidence that smoking bans cut the rate of heart attacks, according to statistician Stephen Feinberg of Carnegie Mellon University, a member of the IOM committee that compiled the report.

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 smoky bear on 21 Oct 09 09:13 AM EDT
Perhaps all nicotine and nicotine related products that are not home grown for personal use should be banned to stop the frauds. Too many people and pharmas profit and get rich from banning nicotine products while banning the product (what a joke) so banning all forms of nicotine would be good to stop the frauds. Even the evil non medically trained scientist who pump out fraudulent reports and crooked lawyers would be rendered more worthless than already is. States should be fined heavily for any nicotine or product containing nicotine commercially available for sale. Lets get a nicotine ban going!!

Posted by Lisa on 21 Oct 09 09:14 AM EDT
Lies, Lies Lies!! Where are you getting the proof? There is absolutely no proof to this and it is all propaganda! And to say it doesn't hurt businesses?! I know of over 300 businesses in Colorado alone that the smoking ban shut down! How about other states also. There is no proof period to these statements and I know is personally. This is a money making machine and on top of it this has created hatred towards smokers and have blamed them for every sickness under the sun. The big Pharmas and government make a fortune off this lie and one day the truth will come out!

Posted by Barry McMillen, MA, LADC, CTAS on 21 Oct 09 10:22 AM EDT
Interesting isn't it, that human life and suffering come second to profit? Perhaps when the foregoing responders bow down the their god of profit the tobacco companies will reward them. Yes, there is proof and yes, if any business relies on a deadly product for success deserves to be put down in the face of causing even one death.

Posted by Tammy on 21 Oct 09 10:36 AM EDT
In my community, the businesses have acknowledged NO difference in business, increase or decrease, as a result of our smokefree laws.

Posted by ClearTheAir on 21 Oct 09 11:12 AM EDT
Careful Lisa, this report is no more propaganda than your post. Where is the proof for your alegations! There is bound to be exceptions and limitations to the results (always is) but the report is not making any wild claims about secondhand smoke. The report supports what many of us in the public health field already know. Secondhand smoke is not healthy for the smoker or bystanders, PERIOD! It is true (in California) that smoking bans did not hurt businesses. In fact, it stimulated business for some! I don't see this report as fueling hatred or blaming smokers no more than violence between the drug cartels is blammed on the cannabis addicit. This is a cultural problem that can't be dealt with one indivdual at a time! Personal antidotes are less helpful then scientific observations and interventions to curb this problem.

Posted by Gina King on 21 Oct 09 12:10 PM EDT
To Smoky Bear: Nicotine is not the culprit, it's the tobacco smoke. Nicotine is relatively safe, addictive, yes, but safe. Burning tobacco causes hundreds of carcinogens to be put into the air. That is the reason for the smoking bans.

Posted by Bill Godshall on 21 Oct 09 12:52 PM EDT
While I've advocated for the enactment and implementation of smokefree indoor policies and laws since 1986, I'm shocked that the IOM quite unscientifically considered only several studies that found a heart attack decline, while refusing to consider any finding very little or no heart attack reductions. For example http://www.nber.org/tmp/53834-w14790.pdf Fellow smokefree policy advocate Mike Siegel http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspot.com/ has cited many other studies and data that dispell the notion that banning smoking in bars sharply reduces heart attacks. The IOM also failed to consider that 80%-90% of workplaces in those same jurisdications (where heart attacks declined after smoking was banned in bars) had already been smokefree before the bar ban was enacted). According to the IOM, the implementation of hundreds of thousands of smokefree workplace policies I've successfully advocated during the past two decades did nothing to reduce heart attack rates, but that banning smoking in bars (which account for about 2%-3% of workplaces) somehow sharply reduces heart attacks (among folks who don't work or patronize bars). This IOM report is junk science.

Posted by preventionist on 21 Oct 09 01:22 PM EDT
First of all, Secondhand smoke is the 3rd leading cause of preventable death in America. We know that workers, especially waiters/waitresses have nearly 4 times the rate of lung cancer and twice the rate of heart disease as any other profession. We should do everything to protect our workers from exposure to secondhand smoke. It is good business practice to promote a smokefree environment as it protects our communities (everyone). We all have a right to breathe clean air, but we don't have a right to harm others. Businesses do not fail because of smoking bans, they were probably struggling before that and it is something to blame. Bans put all businesses on an equal playing field. Many studies have shown a decrease in heart attacks and strokes when smoking bans were initiated. The sciene is clear that there is no safe level of secondhand smoke.

Posted by smoky bear on 21 Oct 09 03:56 PM EDT
Ah Gina King, funny you defend nicotine. Nicotine must be banned from this earth, that includes all medicines, nicotine replacement, and vegetables containing nicotine. In no way should big pharma who funds anti smoking and the do gooder non profits (ACS) profit from destroying businesses, states won't get money and neither will the federal government. Nicotine has to go , 100% gone.

Posted by Voice of Reason on 21 Oct 09 05:36 PM EDT
Really, it is just simple common sense...all you smokers take a minute & think back to the very first time you took those first puffs of anything smoke-able, or even the first time you were around a good amount of secondhand smoke. Now, think about what reaction your body had to that smoke. No doubt about it, your body was trying to reject it, evidenced by many symptoms such as, but not limited to; coughing, sneezing, watery eyes, light headedness, possible upset stomach...general respiratory & bodily irritation. You CAN'T deny this! Now, ask any doctor or medical professional why the human body does that & they will tell you it is because you are introducing something that is not natural to, or good for, the human body! No, actually I take it back, you don't even have to ask a medical professional. If you are honest with yourself, you KNOW that it is just simply because it is not good for you, regardless if it is the tobacco smoke or the nicotine, it's bad for you & not natural to your body & your body is trying to tell you that! Your body would not react that way if it was good for you! Every human that tries smoking anything for the first several times, until the body adjusts to the foreign substance, reacts with similar rejection symptoms. TO BE CONTINUED…

Posted by Voice of Reason on 21 Oct 09 05:40 PM EDT
CONTINUED…Now, it would stand to reason that if your body is rejecting something like smoke/secondhand smoke, that with continued, long term use or exposure, it would cause other problems within the human body. So, what's the argument? When you first start smoking & even throughout continued use, evidenced by mucus build up & coughing, etc., your body is clearly telling you that smoke is bad for it & it doesn’t want it...you ignore it...YOU suffer consequences for it! That's your choice because it is your body, but it's NOT MY CHOICE! Therefore, the only way to make sure that your smoke is not harming or irritating me is.....smoking bans! If your business depends on something that is proven harmful to others by simple physiological nature, not to mention scientific testing, then shame on you for relying on that kind of business for your livelihood!

Posted by maxwood on 21 Oct 09 08:16 PM EDT
1. A distinction should be observed between sidestream smoke (SSS), escaping loose from site of burning, which contains five times as much carbon monoxide among other toxins, and true secondhand smoke (SHS) which has been inhaled and exhaled and contains fewer toxins because the smoker's body has removed them. 2. Nicotine addicts should be encouraged (even in non-smoking places) to use a vaporizer, an e-cigarette, or a miniature smoking utensil which eliminates SSS (replacing hot-burning overdose $igarettes which are the real problem).

Posted by Rebecca on 21 Oct 09 10:40 PM EDT
I think the following article does a great job of explaining the heart attack studies. http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7451/

Posted by marbee on 21 Oct 09 11:12 PM EDT
Preventionist, that's a crock and you know it. If the threat from smoke were real we'd certainly have a majority of firefighters, and meat-smokers, and wood heater's , and bar-b-quer's , and .... and the list goes on, dying! Get real people! How can anyone believe this second hand smoke propoganda? Those creating it could convince you the world is once again flat. How on earth did people survive to this point when they had to use fire to live! But hey, the anti-smoke freaks might just be dropping from heart attacks from paranoia!

Posted by Rebecca on 22 Oct 09 09:24 PM EDT
The 1998 WHO definitive 7-year study study of ETS (second-hand smoke) was quickly suppressed when the conclusions of the report were that there was no risk from second-hand smoke. In fact, the study found that children exposed to second-hand smoke were 22% LESS likely to develop lung cancer. One other conclusion was that there was a finding that a person would be 16% more likely to develop lung cancer after being exposed to second-hand smoke, however the finding was based on data that was 'not statistically significant'. In their press release, finally issued after being harassed by the press in Britain for weeks the headline was 'PASSIVE SMOKING DOES CAUSE LUNG CANCER, DO NOT LET THEM FOOL YOU', however, in the fourth paragraph, they admit that the 16% figure is not significant. They also insinuate that the report will be widely released after peer review, which it never was. Try to find it today - 11 years later. All the hysteria about ETS by the alarmists - just lies, to create laws.

Posted by Voice of Reason on 23 Oct 09 03:40 PM EDT
Come on Rebecca & Lisa, for every article you can produce that says smoke/secondhand smoke is not harmful to the human body, I could find 10 that says it is! Do you really need articles or reasearch to tell you what you really already know deep down? Just be honest with yourselves...you like/want to smoke & you just don't want to admit that it is harmful to yourselves as well as innocent bystanders. Because, if you admit that, then you have to see yourself for who you really are...someone who could care less what harmful things you do to yourself or others. So smoke...all you want...pollute the heck out of the one and only body you were given, but in doing that, be courteous to those who choose not to pollute their lungs & body with smoke. Smoke AWAY from others, especially children! Which is a whole other topic of concern. Do a little research on what kind of health issues adults who grew up with smoking parents have!

Posted by Rebecca on 23 Oct 09 09:23 PM EDT
Voice of Reason, I do enjoy smoking. I have raised 3 beautiful young men who have suffered no ill effects. I have suffered no ill effects. How do you explain the millions of baby boomers who grew up around grandparents and parents who smoked and are now living longer than ever? Perhaps you should expand your research beyond shs if you really want to help people.

Posted by Voice of Reason on 26 Oct 09 12:25 PM EDT
Rebecca, It's great for you that you enjoy your smoking and a true miricle that your 3 beautiful boys have not suffered any "ill effects" from your second hand somke...at least yet! I guess it all depends on what your defination of "ill effects" actually is. And again, it is a miricle that you personally... supposedly...have not suffered any "ill effects" from your years of smoking. However, I would love to see you keep up with a non-smoker in any kind of strenious physical excercise...and then see if you will still say that you have not suffered any "ill effects" from your smoking! It's a real shame that you can't just be honest with yourself and all of us readers out here...if for no other reason than for your 3 beautiful boys!

Posted by Voice of Reason on 26 Oct 09 02:12 PM EDT
Rebecca, as to your comment about the baby boomers (I happen to be a member of that group) living longer than ever. Well, once again, simple common sense...huge advancements in medicine and overall wellness techniques over the years combined with overall population growth that impact the number comparisons when you look at statistics. I am not trying to attack you, Rebecca, you have the right to smoke if you so choose and I highly respect living in a country where we can make those kind of choices, but to claim that smoking/secondhand smoke is not harmful in any way to your body or to innocent bystanders is just simple denial!

Posted by Carol on 26 Oct 09 03:07 PM EDT
Those people aren't scientists, they're a gated community of politically-connected charlatans. They performed no new studies, and merely uncritically regurgitated "published and unpublished data and testimony on the relationship between secondhand smoke and short-term and long-term heart problems." They ignored the CDC and other data on death rates which shows no discernable effect of smoking bans, and which furthermore reveals that the authors of the anti-smoking studies cynically cherry-picked their study periods and control populations. This data is freely accessible to the public, AND TO THE MEDIA, WHO UNQUESTIONINGLY PARROT THEIR FLAGRANT LIES AS TRUTH. Here are the details of those fraudulent studies. http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html

Posted by virgilk on 26 Oct 09 09:16 PM EDT
The Congressional Research Service is a branch of the Library of Congress and has all the resources of that esteemed institution at its disposal. It is highly respected, accepted by both Republicans and Democrats as fair and impartial, has no ties to tobacco, no regulatory or other agenda, and accepts no outside funding. But the CRS, at the request of the U.S. Congress, looked at the issue and concluded: “It is possible that very few or even no deaths can be attributed to ETS [environmental tobacco smoke].” Further, it stated that nonsmokers exposed to pack-a-day ETS every day for 40 years have “little or no risk of developing lung cancer”—much less dying from it. Note above is from post below. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=14557405&postID=2205762135125440162&page=1 Edmund Contoski

Posted by Carolyn on 15 Nov 09 05:13 PM EST
marbee, you must be kidding. Need i remind you that victims of fires often have to be hospitalized for injuries due to smoke inhalation, firefighters use masks and do whatever they can to avoid inhaling the stuff, and if you're barbecueing you'd be an idiot to stick your head into a cloud of smoke. Even if it doesn't kill you instantly it has to have a cumulative effect on your health. This is a no-brainer.

SUBMIT A COMMENT:

Note: Comments are now held for moderator approval. More info

Name:

Comment:
(limit 250
words)

Enter this word
(help):
Change

GUIDELINES: 
Please keep comments on-topic, courteous, clean, non-commercial, and within the word limit.
Read the complete guidelines