NEW STUDY FINDINGS INDICATE HEALTH BENEFITS OF SMOKING BAN
August 21st, 2008
A new study from Scotland indicates public bans on smoking improve health by reducing exposure to secondhand smoke. A March 2006 ban on smoking in all enclosed public places, introduced in Scotland, resulted in a reduction in hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome. The Glasgow study is the first large-scale examination of how smoking bans might benefit both smokers and nonsmokers.
Study researchers found that during the 10 months following the ban, the number of admissions fell from 3,235 to 2,684. There was a 19 percent reduction among former smokers and a 14 percent reduction in admissions among smokers. Among people who had never smoked, there was a 21 percent reduction. The new study was published in the July 31 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Previous studies have indicated that smoking bans in public places reduced hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome, but the previous research did not define whether the reduction in admissions accounted for nonsmokers, smokers or both.
The current study found that nonsmokers accounted for 67 percent of the reduction in heart disease admissions, according to Jill Pell, the University of Glasgow professor who led the study. Rate decreases in admissions from the recent study are comparable to reduction rates from previous research.
However, the recent study differed from previous research in data reportage methods. The Glasgow researchers took blood and saliva samples from patients during hospital admissions. Samples were examined to identify a molecule, cotinine, which is produced during nicotine metabolism.
Cotinine found in samples indicated whether patients could be classified as smokers or nonsmokers instead of determining classification by patient self-reportage. Higher levels of cotinine were found in nonsmokers with heart disease, but levels decreased following the ban, indicating that exposure to secondhand smoke was reduced.
In recent years, support for smoking bans at the state and local level has increased. The majority of the U.S. population is protected by some form of smoking ban in either workplaces or public areas. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, comprehensive bans comparable to those enacted in Scotland in 2006 are present in 14 states.
One of the most common addiction-related uses for acupuncture is smoking cessation. Acupuncture reduces the symptoms of withdrawal including the jitters, irritability and restlessness that people commonly experience. Acupuncture reduces nicotine cravings and helps to detoxify the body of nicotine.
For information about acupuncture for smoking cessation call Dr. Richard Browne, Acupuncture Physician, at (305) 595-9500. Aug 2.
One Response to “NEW STUDY FINDINGS INDICATE HEALTH BENEFITS OF SMOKING BAN”
1Tom Laprade
August 24th, 2008 @ 5:02 pm
Government power the real health hazard
The bandwagon of local smoking bans now steamrolling across the nation -
from sea to sea- has nothing to do with protecting people from the supposed
threat of “second-hand” smoke.
Indeed, the bans themselves are symptoms of a far more grievous threat; a
cancer that has been spreading for decades and has now metastasized
throughout the body politic, spreading even to the tiniest organs of local
government. This cancer is the only real hazard involved - the cancer of
unlimited government power.
The issue is not whether second-hand smoke is a real danger or a phantom
menace, as a study published recently in the British Medical Journal
indicates. The issue is: if it were harmful, what would be the proper
reaction? Should anti-tobacco activists satisfy themselves with educating
people about the potential danger and allowing them to make
their own decisions, or should they seize the power of government and force
people to make the “right” decision?
Supporters of local tobacco bans have made their choice. Rather than
attempting to protect people from an unwanted intrusion on their health, the
tobacco bans are the unwanted intrusion.
Loudly billed as measures that only affect “public places,” they have
actually targeted private places: restaurants, bars, nightclubs, shops, and
offices - places whose owners are free to set anti-smoking rules or whose
customers are free to go elsewhere if they don’t like the smoke. Some local
bans even harass smokers in places where their effect on others is obviously
negligible, such as outdoor public parks.
The decision to smoke, or to avoid “second-hand” smoke, is a question to be
answered by each individual based on his own values and his own assessment
of the risks. This is the same kind of decision free people make regarding
every aspect of their lives: how much to spend or invest, whom to befriend
or sleep with, whether to go to college or get a job, whether to get married
or divorced, and so on.
All of these decisions involve risks; some have demonstrably harmful
consequences; most are controversial and invite disapproval from the
neighbours. But the individual must be free to make these decisions. He must
be free, because his life belongs to him, not to his neighbours, and only
his own judgment can guide him through it.
Yet when it comes to smoking, this freedom is under attack. Cigarette
smokers are a numerical minority, practicing a habit considered annoying and
unpleasant to the majority. So the majority has simply commandeered the
power of government and used it to dictate their behaviour.
That is why these bans are far more threatening than the prospect of
inhaling a few stray whiffs of tobacco while waiting for a table at your
favourite restaurant. The anti-tobacco crusaders point in exaggerated alarm
at those wisps of smoke while they unleash the systematic and unlimited
intrusion of government into our lives.
We do not elect officials to control and manipulate our behaviour.
Leave a Reply