SMOKING BANS

WHEELING - A new study suggests heart attack hospitalizations have decreased 41 percent in a Colorado city because of a smoking ban there.

The rate of hospitalized cases dropped 41 percent three years after the ban of workplace smoking in Pueblo took effect. There was no such drop in two neighboring areas, and researchers believe it's a clear sign the ban was responsible.

The study suggests that secondhand smoke may be a terrible and under-recognized cause of heart attack deaths in this country, said one of its authors, Terry Pechacek of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

At least eight earlier studies have linked smoking bans to decreased heart attacks, but none ran as long as three years. Some critics had questioned whether a ban could have such an immediate impact, and suggested other factors could have driven the declines.

Dr. Edward Chiu, a cardiologist at Wheeling Hospital, said he had not yet read the study, but found its results to be interesting and intriguing.

"Smoking has always been a factor when considering risk factors for coronary artery disease and heart attack," Chiu said.

He noted he did not know of any studies related to the impact of Ohio County's smoking ban on people's health. Though most patients, he said, quit smoking when they begin having heart problems, others do not.

"A lot of people think, 'It's not going to happen to me,'" he said.

Chiu said it would be interesting to discover how many people have quit smoking because of Ohio County's smoking ban, imposed in 2005 by the Wheeling-Ohio County Board of Health.

Ohio County's ban makes exceptions for video gambling parlors, bars with video gambling rooms and video gambling areas at Wheeling Island Hotel-Casino-Racetrack.

The Colorado study looked at heart attack hospitalizations for three years following the July 1, 2003, enactment of Pueblo's ban and found declines as great or greater than what was seen in the other research.

"This study is very dramatic," said Dr. Michael Thun, an American Cancer Society researcher.

"This is now the ninth study, so it is clear that smoke-free laws are one of the most effective and cost-effective ways to reduce heart attacks," said Thun, who was not involved in the CDC study released Thursday.

Marshall County's smoking ban began in July 2002, but it includes exceptions for bars, said Ronda Francis, administrator at the Marshall County Health Department.

"Something similar happened in Washington state. The smoking ban regulation was rescinded and (heart attack hospitalizations) shot up again," Francis said in comparing results of the Pueblo study.

Francis said she did not know of a similar study in Marshall County. But since smoking still is allowed in bars there, the results of such a study may not show an accurate picture of heart attack numbers, she noted.

When Marshall County's ban first began, Francis said a couple people told her the law helped them quit smoking.

"But they already wanted to stop," Francis added. "They were not allowed to smoke in their workplace anymore. I haven't heard of anyone recently."

Smoking bans are designed not only to cut smoking rates but also to reduce secondhand tobacco smoke. It is a widely recognized cause of lung cancer, but its effect on heart disease can be more immediate. It not only damages the lining of blood vessels, but also increases the kind of blood clotting that leads to heart attacks. Reducing exposure to smoke can quickly cut the risk of clotting, some experts said.

"You remove the final one or two links in the chain" of events leading to a heart attack, Thun said.

Secondhand smoke causes an estimated 46,000 heart disease deaths and about 3,000 lung cancer deaths among nonsmokers each year, according to statistics cited by the CDC.

In the new study, researchers reviewed hospital admissions for heart attacks in Pueblo. Patients were classified by ZIP codes. They then looked at the same data for two nearby areas that did not have bans - the area of Pueblo County outside the city and for El Paso County.

In Pueblo, the rate of heart attacks dropped from 257 per 100,000 people before the ban to 152 per 100,000 in the three years afterward. There were no significant changes in the two other areas.

The study assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban, but did not try to measure that. The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it's unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke.

"It's not just unhealthy for the smoker, but anyone breathing secondhand smoke as well," Francis said.

She noted in the past, people have attempted to argue that secondhand smoke doesn't hurt nonsmokers. They only think in terms of cancer, she said, and not the other life-threatening illnesses - such as heart attacks and asthma attacks - that secondhand smoke can cause.

Member Comments

View Comments: | 1-19 | Post a comment

WVJeep
01-04-09 3:01 PM »Report Abuse	I saw this on the AP also. It then ended with: The decline could have had more to do with a general decline in smoking in Pueblo County, from about 26 percent in 2002-2003 to less than 21 percent in 2004-2005. If there were stepped-up efforts to treat or prevent heart disease in the Pueblo area, that too could have played a role, said Dr. Michael Siegel, a professor of social and behavioral sciences at the Boston University School of Public Health. “I don’t think it’s as clear as they’re making it out to be,” Siegel said. Maybe more research before making deductions??
ConservativeKaty
01-03-09 10:36 PM »Report Abuse	Telling people what to do smacks of liberal socialism. In the Wheeling area with bad air caused by the coal-fired plants, the more smokers the better. With fewer smokers, the types of disease caused by bad air would be blamed on the coal-fired businesses -- not good for conservative investors in the businesses and in the coal they use. I hope this paper will write an editorial or series of editorials to give us good financially conservative guidance on this. Cost-benefit analysis to thwart health programs that could bite business needs to be demanded, at the very least.
popeye
01-03-09 8:00 PM »Report Abuse	Lets just all get stoned. :)
beach1
01-03-09 8:00 PM »Report Abuse	the american people are being politically correct brainwashed everyday and don't even realize it!
kmd0302
01-03-09 5:31 PM »Report Abuse	Do you realize the Health Dept. DOES NOT police businesses or bars, they receive a complaint from someone and they follow through on the complaint. So watch your back the guy sitting next to you can and will call
EllisWyatt
01-03-09 2:42 PM »Report Abuse	According to a 1997 study by Harvard economist Kip Viscusi, "smokers tend to die after they have contributed to Social Security and Medicare, but before they've collected all of their Social Security pension and Medicare benefits. As a result, there is a cost savings at the end of smokers' lives, and a cost increase earlier. But, on balance, the cost savings offsets the cost increase, so that smokers offer a net financial gain to the government…society saves almost $30 billion a year in Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits that would otherwise have had to be paid out, had smokers lived." Keep smoking. If enough people smoke and die young, we may not have as big a problem with Social Security & Medicare! In the meantime, government has no right to prohibit you from engaging in a LEGAL habit within the confines of your home or (as long as you advertise it) business.
EllisWyatt
01-03-09 2:36 PM »Report Abuse	#1: You have the right to participate in any LEGAL activity in your home or business. The Constitution says that citizens are to be secure in their "possessions & property". What this means is, if you own property, you have a right to smoke inside. #2: Smoke related deaths are overblown. A 98-year old smoker who dies of old age is counted as smoke related death. 42-year old smoker killed by a drunk driver? Smoke related death. Heart attack due to too many cheeseburgers? If you smoked, you are a smoke related death. #3: The tobacco industry paid $246 billion as a settlement for selling a legal, government subsidized product. 44 states received money. All but 1 state spent every dime on something other than smokers health/testing/cessation programs.
kmd0302
01-03-09 2:26 PM »Report Abuse	Truth Sekeker-I DO go to bars almost every weekend with my husband and friends, we dance drink spend money. It's the ALL MALE bars that I am talking about, NO n the gay bars but the one in Center Wheeling and the one by the river in South Wheeling, they are the complainers about how bad their business is. You don't know me at all Yep thought so. Not only does second hand smoke contibute to lung and breathing problems but cancer of the larnyx, yep I know a lot about that my Mother had cancer of the larnyx and died from it in 2004, smoker since she was 15 and YES cigarettes contibuted to it. What about office buildings going smoke free do you quit your job?????? Nope didn't think so.
GETACLUE
01-03-09 1:47 PM »Report Abuse	tacomeatman........I don't see why I have to be subjected to smelling and inhaling second hand smoke when I go to a public place such as an eating establishment or even a "private" business that is open to the public........ Dude, no one is making you go into any bar that allows smoking. If you don't like smoking then don't go there. If non smoking bars would be such a cash cow why didn't someone open one before the ban????
tacomeatman
01-03-09 12:54 PM »Report Abuse	I personally support smoking bans. I don't see why I have to be subjected to smelling and inhaling second hand smoke when I go to a public place such as an eating establishment or even a "private" business that is open to the public. There has never been a case in which a person has to smoke to stay alive. A smoking ban is not a way for the government to control how people live. It should be illegal to make and sell tobacco as it has been proven time and time again to cause a large variety of illnesses. Besides why should I pay taxes into medicare to take care of people that didn't want to take care of themselves. Get some willpower and quit. You won't die from quitting but you will certainly die if you don't.
sonofsaf
01-03-09 11:37 AM »Report Abuse	I want the smoking ban enforced inside the entire Wheeling Downs, but not because it's a health hazard. Wouldn't it be comical to go down there and see the smoking mongrel hoard in front of the main entrance? All of them outside the main entrance furiously huffing and puffing. There would certainly be some degree of interaction. Old ladies from Zanesville asking wannabe Island thugs for a light, toothless prostitutes bumming a smoke from Oglebay vacationers, zombified video gamblers complaining about the freezing cold weather as they lovingly embrace the cancer deathsticks How could any of this be a bad thing?
acousticportal
01-03-09 10:18 AM »Report Abuse	Of course! Any fool could tell you this. Thank you Dr. Mercer!
beautifulohio
01-03-09 10:18 AM »Report Abuse	I don't smoke but I am against smoking bans. This is just another way for big brother to tell you how to live. If we continue down this road, what will be next? Sure smoking is not healthy, but we can't live forever, no matter what you do you can't live forever. We live in a world of face lifts, botox and denying ourselves the indulgences of life, for what? You can't escape death and taxes. You only pass this way once, I say enjoy it. Of course my belief is no matter what you do, when it's your time God takes you home, with or without a healthy lifestyle. I don't believe in using drugs though or alcohol for that matter. Now t hat's something to look into, alcohol kills too, so when are we going to ban that????? Surely former President Grant would have yelled loudly in protest on that one, maybe even smoking too.
EllisWyatt
01-03-09 10:00 AM »Report Abuse	I don't agree with the smoking ban in private businesses. I am not a smoker and I have no financial interest in the issue. My argument is against big government. Without any law to back them up, city and county officials have decided that they are going to tell you that you cannot partake in a LEGAL activity within the confines of your own business. Here is what I say: put a sign on the door that says "Smoking Establishment". Tell all prospective employees that this is a Smoke environment. Fine parents who bring under 18 kids into the smoking establishment. Refuse free medical care to people who choose to smoke and cannot pay for their own care. Government has no right to keep you from participating in a LEGAL activity, which they subsidize and from which they have received hundreds of billions of dollars, in the privacy of your own business. If you believe that government has this right, then you agree that they also have a right to tell you that you cannot smoke at h
TruthSeeker
01-03-09 9:04 AM »Report Abuse	This is not a definitive study. There are all kinds of factors not taken into account. Perhaps people prone to heart disease merely moved away from Pueblo. kmd0302: Do you even go to bars? Do you contribute to bar owners' bottom lines? Yep, thought so...
SphinxRising58
01-03-09 8:52 AM »Report Abuse	Example: We all know that for the most part, people will work all day long, come home, eat & then veg out in front of the TV, kids & adults would rather spend all day on some video game than actually go outside for some exorcise & play, and when they do go out, most head for a fast food place, and then we wonder why so many heart attacks & strokes, not to mention cases of diabetes are plaguing us ?
SphinxRising58
01-03-09 8:48 AM »Report Abuse	OK, first of all, I am not going to say there is no medical link between smoking and other ailments, as overwhelming evidence exists that there is. On the other hand, heart attacks are not just caused by smoking or secondhand smoke, as there is heredity issues, life styles, & diet to be factored in as well, not to mention age, hence for any doctor to state that smoking or second hand alone causes any one heart attack is a opinion that cannot be backed up with medical evidence. As far as smoking bans are concerned, if the combined health institutions & so-called concerned government agencies departments was as concerned as they claimed they are, they would ban smoking in casinos as well, but we all know they will not bite the hand that feeds them so they are hypocrites spouting mostly political BS.
bapaball
01-03-09 5:37 AM »Report Abuse	The research doesn't lie and continues to geyt stronger that secondhand smoke is an accute illness causing killer, especially in concentrated areas like bars, casinos, and gaming centers who allow smoking! The 7 county health departments in WV who still allow smoking in all public places should be removed from their duties for "malpractice", and all clean air regulations should ban smoking in all public places!
kmd0302
01-03-09 12:32 AM »Report Abuse	Love the no smoking!!!!!! I listen to some of these bars who CRY because their business has suffered what a crock!!!!!! The poker machines are full constantly with money being pumped into them hand over fist, with a lot walking away without a winner. But these same bars ALLOW patrons to smoke at the bar because they think they are the almighty MAN and won't get caught.It's all about timing just watch and see. Some bars feel they are above the law and nothing can stop the,why can't you abide by the laws and all will be fair to everyone

You must first login before you can comment.

Existing Member Login
Not a Member?	Create a Member Account
*Your email address:		<--Email REQUIRED!
*Password:	Forgot Password?	<--Password REQUIRED!
	Remember my email address.