Science

Debunked? New Data Suggests Smoking Bans Do Not Reduce Heart Attacks in Some States

In 2009, two large studies stated that cities enacting smoking bans saw a drop in heart attack rates — and fast. CNN reported at the time that the studies found American, Canadian, and European cities saw average of 17 percent fewer heart attacks in the first year after the smoking ban.

New Research Shows Smoking Bans and Heart Attack Rates Not Related

Reason blogger Jacob Sullum has followed two more recent studies and other data that debunk this theory completely in some states. A few weeks ago, he reported a study of 74 U.S. cities as finding that smoking bans did not lead to dramatic reductions in heart attack rates.

Now, he continues with data from seven other states don’t support a connection between the bans and lowering heart attacks. One study, in the Journal of Community Health, found that California, Utah, South Dakota, Florida and New York did not fit the bill of previous studies. These states either were significantly different from the expected decline or the rate actually increased. The study reported:

Smoke-free ordinances provide a healthy indoor environment, but their implementation in six states had little or no immediate measurable effect on [acute myocardial infarction] AMI mortality.

Additionally, Sullum points out that tobacco policy blogger Michael Siegel found similarly contradicting data in Ohio, which has had a ban since 2007.  Siegel wrote:

. . .the rate of decline in heart attack discharges in Ohio was greater prior to the smoking ban than it was in the first three years after the smoking ban.

Sullum included this Ohio data from Seigel:

  • 2006-2007 (baseline): -4.7%
  • 2006-2007 (first year of implementation): -2.7%
  • 2007-2008 (second year of implementation): -2.2%
  • 2008-2009 (third year of implementation): -6.3%
  • Average annual decline post-implementation: -3.6%

He continues:

The Ohio Department of Health nevertheless concludes (PDF) that there was “a sharp decline in heart attack rates immediately following implementation of the law.” In fact, it says, there was “a significant change in age‐adjusted rates of AMI discharges within one month [!] after the enactment of the Smoke‐Free Workplace Act.” Siegel (who supports smoking bans but opposes unscientific arguments in favor of them) analyzes the statistical trickery behind those conclusions here and here. [...]

Ban boosters focus on the few places that fit the story they want to tell, ignoring the broader picture. This blatant cherry picking has been blessed by the National Academy of Sciences, whose Institute of Medicine issued a 2009 report endorsing the biologically implausible notion that smoking bans have a noticeable impact on heart attack rates within a year or two.

Back in 2009, CNN reported, the studies widely claiming the connection between smoking bans and lowering heart attack rates were printed in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association and Journal of the American College of Cardiology:

The new research suggests that a nationwide ban on smoking in public and workplaces could prevent 100,000 to 225,000 heart attacks each year in the U.S., says one study author, Dr. David Meyers,of the University of Kansas School of Medicine.

According to the National Institute of Health, smoking can increase a person’s risk for coronary heart disease, which can lead to heart attacks.

[H/T Fark]

Comments (59)

1 2
  • HowardSternIsABigot
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:51pm

    This is why liberal elites like to accuse republicans of being antiscience. One politicalscience fraud after another is exposed and goes belly up like cockroaches after Raid. Isnt it about time we took science away from the politicians, they cant conttrol themselves. Especially Psychology. Pols have rewritten psychiatry in a complete antireality way. up is down with those nitwits.

    Report Post »  
  • chicago76
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:48pm

    Smoking stinks. No doubt about that. It is hard to defend other than as a libertarian right. That is good enough for me though. Leave it to the private business owner to decide. Where does it end this idea of not letting people do legal things on their own property. It is a monster that can eat away at everything you have or own.

    Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 8:14pm

      stress causes heart attacks.
      smoking relives stress…

      let me ask this too… what does smoking have to do with the heart?

      shouldn’t they be saying there is less “Second hand smoke deaths” as a result of the ban? because the only thing the smoking ban is going to do is relieve (in a dark scary voice) “Second hand smoke”… LOL what a joke…

      Report Post »  
    • independentvoteril
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 9:58pm

      here’s the thing.. IF second hand smoke KILLED than most likely MOST of us would NOT be here.. same goes for cribs where the sides go down.. trans-fat..lead paint.. on and on and on.. HOWEVER the GOVERNMENT has decided it’s bad for us.. WHY .. well they are paid well by the LOBBYISTS to tell us that.. and WE as a POPULACE have allowed them to erode our rights one at a time. it is NOT the smoke that causes any problems it’s the CHEMICALS they add.. which BTW the FDA was suppose to STOP but instead decided to put pictures on the packages instead.. like that will work.. cigarette cases are making a BIG comeback..Since banning cigarettes what else have they banned? (for your own good) see to those that were NOT smokers WHEN they came for the smokers I said nothing.. cause I wasn’t a smoker.. When they came for the toys in McDonalds I said nothing cause I have no kids and don’t need the toys.. When they came for the overweight people I said NOTHING cause I wasn’t overweight.. GET IT?? What is it YOU like? WHO will defend YOUR right to it?? Personally in our family we have saved thousands .. we grow.. can.. and cook our foods at home where we can enjoy an occasional greasy donuts or a nice RARE steak..burger.. and top it off with a smoke.. and we enjoy the company better.. the state LOSES $$ in taxes.. and we LOVE IT..

      Report Post » independentvoteril  
    • KYWATCHDOG
      Posted on September 16, 2011 at 12:29pm

      chicago76
      Yep, I agree smoking does stink but, so does passing gas. Let’s see the power mongers try to regulate them.

      Report Post »  
  • Rational Man
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:43pm

    Ya, well, I don’t care! At least I don’t have to breath smoke!
    I dip snuff, but I don’t spit on the floor or in their drinking glass………………

    Report Post » Rational Man  
  • chicago76
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:40pm

    It never was about protecting people. It always was about “I don’t like you smoking so I will make laws against you smoking around me.”

    Report Post »  
    • Partygirl
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 11:32pm

      It never was about any ones health. It was about taxes. Of course there was no reduction in heart problems and I can believe no other illness either. Heart problems are inherited. People are so brain washed. I actually was looking at a house one time. The owners said they were sad because their dog died of lung cancer. They actually said and we don’t even smoke! It is about the nanny state. We don’t want you to smoke, or do this or that and so they make a law against it. They don’t ban it, think prohibition. They just tax it! I agree second hand smoke does not kill. True we would all be dead. My entire family smoked and they lived into their 80‘s and 90’s and died of things that had nothing to do with smoking. I am so sick of the propagranda, the lies and the nanny state. Where is our freedom? They love to turn one group against the other through fear and lies. I took statistics in college and you can prove or disprove anything you want if you are paid enough. My professor actually told me how to do it. Sickening!

      Report Post »  
  • Jennifer_D
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:09pm

    These statistics are sketchy at best. Did they take into account other factors that may impact someone’s odds of having a heart attack? I am not a smoker, but I think banning cigarettes is unfair. If you are going to ban cigarette smoking you should also ban alcohol as alcohol consumption in public places poses more of a risk to people than smoking does. You can get away from cigarette smoke, a cigarette smoker can quit smoking and reduce their risks if they choose to, but you can’t get away from a drunk driver.

    Report Post » Jennifer_D  
    • mjs6029
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:19pm

      I agree the statistics are what the researcher wants to make of them. I agree that alcohol is far more dangerous. How many people smoking in cars have killed someone while driving? How many people die every year from people drinking and driving. Alcohol will never be banned because the people that make the laws all drink. If they all smoked, smoking bans would have never see the light of day.

      Report Post »  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:45pm

      I don’t agree with smoking bans either. I think things like this get handled on their own by private businesses. Most places of business haven‘t allowed smoking there since the mid ’70s, long before anybody even considered a smoking ban. These bans are really aimed specifically at bars and resturaunts because those are really the only places that still allowed smoking in their establishments. If the patrons of those places preferred a smoke free environment then they would eventually be forced to provide it because nobody would come to their place of business if they didn’t.

      Having said that however, comparing this issue to drunk driving is a little silly. Driving drunk IS already banned. And somebody consuming alcohol responsibly and not driving drunk has ever affected anyone but the person consuming it.

      Report Post »  
    • jb.kibs
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 8:33pm

      smoking ban exists because of weak willed people who can’t quit smoking but want to…

      i’ve quit smoking cold turkey 3 times.
      the first time for a year, after 2 years of smoking, the next was for a year after starting back up again and smoking for a few years, then the last was for 2 years, and now i smoke again. i like to smoke. i’ve tried both, and i choose smoking.

      i think Billy Joel said it best when he said…
      i don’t care what you say anymore, this is MY life. Go ahead with your OWN life, LEAVE ME ALONE.

      Report Post »  
  • mjs6029
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:58pm

    Okay don‘t hate me but I’ve been smoking for over 40 years and I‘m treated like I’ve got Leprosy by non-smokers. Now the fun part, I’m the only one who smokes where I work (outside of course) and I’m the only one who never gets sick. No colds, no flu (don’t get the shot either), no migraines, nothing. I‘m not over weight and don’t have heart problems or diabetes. Everyone else I work with is always whining about some ailment and taking sick leave but not me and I’m the one they treat like I have a disease.

    Remember kids, if we do away with global warming the heart attack rate will drop world wide! Oh what that’s 2nd had smoke. My bad.

    Report Post »  
  • AmeriCat
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:37pm

    Finally…someone is looking at the data…the REAL data!

    The mortality statistics regarding exposure to 2nd hand smoke
    have been completely misrepresented!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What to do when statisticians warp their data
    and scientists pick and choose what they believe.

    Not all are that way…but enough have jumped
    to create the illusion of 5 arctic trees and 4 (really 3) polar bears

    reflect global warming and the hockey-stick goofball curve!
    Similarly, all this 2nd-hand smoke “data” has created unnecessary regulations
    because the REAL DATA…the TRUTH has been ignored.

    In time….in time….the truth will emerge. Hope America is around by then.

    Report Post »  
  • FNTM
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:35pm

    Nice to see that this report did not pass the ‘smell’ test.

    Report Post » FNTM  
  • COFemale
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:34pm

    The ban had nothing to do with preventing heart attacks, where in the hell did they get this idea. The ban was to prevent those who don’t smoke breathing in second hand smoke in confines spaces to help prevent lung cancer. I am allergic to cigarette smoke; my sinus swell up and blocks my breathing. I also develop an instant cough from breathing in the smoke.

    For the record: My mother smoke like a freight train, she is dead now. She dropped dead of a heart attack in the middle of the night getting back into bed.

    Report Post » COFemale  
    • Carol Ingian
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:07pm

      Sorry about your Mom.
      Cigarettes totally pollute peoples health. My own Mom smokes a lot, and had to have stints put in because of smoking. The doctor explained to us after surgery, that he could tell she was a smoker, because of where the plaque had built up in her body.
      Smokers are very hard to convince that what they are doing is harming themselves.
      I am also allergic, as is my son. Can’t be around it. At least the ban allows us fewer places to be exposed to smoke.

      Report Post »  
    • Rowgue
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:26pm

      It has nothing to do with preventing lung cancer either. What it‘s really about is preventing people that don’t smoke from having to be in smoke filled environments. Pretending it’s anything other than that is disengenuous at best.

      Report Post »  
  • Grace1798
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:25pm

    I live in PA and yea, I did have a heart attack. MY dad smoked around me all my life and I also have damage from years and years of bronchitis. BTW, I never smoked, exercised all my life with weights and I have always avoided high fat and sugar because of the constant infection of bronchitis. Don‘t tell me it doesn’t harm people, I know personally that it does.

    Report Post » Grace1798  
    • Carlinpa
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:39pm

      bronchitis is responsible for the hacking cough and phlegm production that sometimes accompany an upper respiratory infection In most cases the infection is _>viralbacteria<_.

      Report Post »  
  • bhscpa
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:23pm

    Stop Smoking: It starts as a healthy suggestion from reasonable people. Then liberals get involved. Then their desire to control the behavior of people they disagree with takes over and you end up with California.

    Report Post »  
  • conservativewoman
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:57pm

    I challenge anyone to show me where second-hand smoke is harmful.
    Liberals like Rob Reiner (Meathead) led the charge on banning smoking. It caused a lot of restaurants and bars to lose millions of dollars.

    Report Post » conservativewoman  
    • COFemale
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:40pm

      That isn’t entirely true. Bars and Restaurants here in Colorado have actually seen an increase in business because of the smoking ban inside restaurant/bars. At first they thought their would be an impact, but because patrons can go outside to smoke they continued to frequent the establishments. The increase in patronage was due to non-smokers being allowed to enjoy themselves at dinner, lunch or out without friends. I can’t tell you how stinky my clothes were from cigarette smoke after going out. Smokers don‘t understand because they can’t smell the stench.

      If a smoker can’t go without a cigarette for one hour or so, then they have a real addition problem.

      Report Post » COFemale  
  • mjhoman
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:54pm

    While smoking is bad for anyone’s health, these studies are all biased to fit which side is talking about them. We have the same thing with commercials on corn sweetners and eggs. Those who sell or market the products always find nothing wrong, while those who either do not like it or have a problem with it find exatcly the opposite. It matters little to whether it’s a smoking ban, or global warming, the truth is bent to fit their agenda. Funny how they never pick on chemical treated water with flouride in the city, the chemical sprayed vegetables, the false labeling of food product that say on the front 100% of something, then on the back you find it’s 100% of the 10%. Or using words like unbrominated on wheat products that is a process to speed up the aging of the yeast that may cause cancer. Then getting everyone on the health food kick with sugar free (chemicals), and fat free substitutes that cause various health concerns. Almost everything you care to really look at today is a deception or lie in some way. Fake chemical sugars are not found in nature, nor is the process used to take out fats from foods. It you want healthy, don’t fall for the gimmicks. Smoking is not a healthy thing, but then neither is eating a diet high in fats, or full of sugar. Moderation is the key. To be the safeest, listen to both sides than the truth is somewhere between.

    Report Post »  
    • OUTRIDER WRITER
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:00pm

      @MJHOMAN
      You have made some good points.

      The conclusion drawn by these “large studies” is an excellent example of selective data collection and analysis. Any time data are presented–for or against what you want to believe–examine the means of the data collection, who prepared the analyses, who wrote the reports, and especially examine the cited list of source material.
      —
      Don’t stop there.
      —
      Compare the source list (the references at the back of a report or embedded in a report’s sentence or by use of footnotes) against similar reports. You will be amazed at the selected sources used to “authenticate” the research. Many researchers just source each other’s data/reports and it seems as though each is presenting new results!!!
      —
      Also compare the methods section and inner text against the report’s summary or conclusion. OFTEN, they bear no resemblance to each other.
      —
      Nutshell: Data is tricky, and don’t take it at face value even if presented by a top TV host or commentator. Beck is, perhaps, the closest to presenting the most factual sourced material. He continuously cautions his audience to verify stated opinions, polls, and data.
      —
      TO BE INFORMED IS TO RESEARCH THE RESEARCH.

      Report Post »  
  • sizzler2220
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:33pm

    Del Mar, California: One cannot smoke on the sidewalks, streets, or beach. Unless you are on top of somebody smoking on the beach, you are not going to inhale second hand smoke. Liberal, nanny state and cities.

    Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:03pm

      Smokers should be able to smoke anywhere outside. California and any other state is taking this way too far when they ban outside areas. I do object to smokers being allowed to smoke in confined spaces only because I am allergic to cigarette smoke. My mom smoked all my life and I was sick all the time when I was smaller; many doctors today attribute this to cigarette smoke. When I am away from smoke and smokers, I am rarely sick.

      Report Post » COFemale  
  • platitude
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:26pm

    what about lung cancer?

    Report Post » platitude  
  • freeweever
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:21pm

    There are creators and there are destroyers, these people are destroyers, they regulate all things created to justify their existence because they are jealous of those with abilities that they do not have, of many one is to create or invent. Ironically politicians, clergy, teachers and professors all fall into the category of those who couldn’t cut it in the real private sector world so they fell back on protected tenure jobs.There is nothing wrong with these jobs but they aren’t private in many ways. Such as protected public sector and union jobs that don’t reward achievement just fill spots to increase their numbers in place of achievement, or the postal service, period enough said there. They are the Oppositionalist who’s only stance is to oppose others who achieve and create that which they cant.

    Report Post » freeweever  
  • momof5children
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:20pm

    if smoking were as bad as the government claims, then all of us raised in the 50‘s and 60’s should be dead or at the very least on respirators!!! we were around second hand smoke growing up, and most of us smoke or did ( as in my case ) . i‘m 58 and i’m still here healthy as horse.
    i really wish the cdc and the government would stop trying to save us from ourselves!!!!

    Report Post »  
    • FNTM
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:34pm

      Momof5children has a strong point. I too grew up with a dad who smoked in the house,in the car, 3 packs or better unfiltered cigarettes a day. It or the fact that he was alcholic killed him by 65 (I am 66 now). I smoked generally a pack a day most of my life giving it up 2-3 years ago. Not an alcholic either. I am way too healthy. I agree that smoking isn’t the best thing in the world for you to do (I quite, remember?) but the way the critics run around you would think they are acting like chickens with their heads off. Laughable.

      Report Post » FNTM  
    • COFemale
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:26pm

      Get back to us after you turn 70 assuming you live that long and let us know if you are still healthy as a horse.

      There is no doubt smoking effects people different ways; some die young, some die later in life. However, seeing what my mother went through the last 20 years of her life, would make a grown man cry, not to mention a woman. She was constantly having to do breathing treatments, she had to travel with oxygen tanks, and she always prayed that she would go soon. She spent her last years in a nursing home with my dad, who also smoked. He had several heart attacks until the last one required a triple by-pass. The surgery also induced a stroke. He was never the same since that day. My mom was 79 and my dad 81. Had they not smoked, I might have had them longer. My grandmother never smoked and she was 93 when she passed.

      Report Post » COFemale  
  • alina.bolero
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:00pm

    I never believed that second hand smoke caused health problems. It should be the choice of the business owner whether or not they want to allow smoking. I also don’t believe pipe and cigar smoking causes major health problems, as long as you don’t inhale it into your lungs.

    I just get tired of arguing the point.

    … and no, I don’t smoke. … never have.

    Report Post » alina.bolero  
    • JRook
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:10pm

      Actually in a close space second hand smoke is much worse as it is not filtered at all. Having said that it is clear the anti-smoking laws and campaigns have gotten out of control and infringe upon individual freedom to choose. As I have said before when smoking laws and regulations are more restrictive than those on guns you know there is an imbalance in one or both cases.

      Report Post »  
    • old white guy
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:15pm

      there are several studies debunking the second hand smoke crap but that will not change the non smoking nazis opinion. unfortunately the stress caused by having to put up with the bs about everything from ,global warming to second hand smoke to fat food, is killing people.

      Report Post »  
    • riverdog1
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:15pm

      ciggarets are the number 1 cause of heart and vascular disease that you can control. a couple of years of people not smoking in bars and restaurants will not effect heart attack rates, the same smokers still smoke, and it takes years to affect the vascular system. stupid article. the blaze doing its propaganda again.

      Report Post »  
    • qpwillie
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:44pm

      When it became obvious that smokers were no more prone to so-called “smoking related” ailments, they had to come up with something so they just said “Well, they’re being affected by those other people smoking.”.

      Report Post » qpwillie  
    • Therightsofbilly
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 3:18pm

      @jrook

      How clever of you to work gun control in to a story that has nothing to do with it.

      I smell a bonus.

      Report Post » Therightsofbilly  
  • Libertarian B 4 Libertarians Were Cool
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:32pm

    Famous Pipe smokers age of death:
    Bertrand Russell 98
    Douglas MacArthur 84
    J.R.R. Tolkien 81

    Famous Cigar smokers age of death:
    George Burns 100
    W. Clement Stone 100
    Milton Berle 93

    These guys all smoked a ton…. Cigarettes, well different story altogether!

    Report Post » Libertarian B 4 Libertarians Were Cool  
  • Stoic one
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:31pm

    I am a smoker and I am NOT STUPID (except for smoking). This is a step by step progression towards the outlawing of all tobacco products.

    Report Post » Stoic one  
    • stinkybisquit
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 2:15pm

      Too much tax money generated. I don’t think it will be banned, unless they legalize marijuana. Or find a taxable product which everyone uses, such as toilet paper, under the guise of saving landfills or trees.

      Report Post »  
    • OUTRIDER WRITER
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:51pm

      @STOIC ONE
      Well, at least you are honest. On two accounts.

      Report Post »  
  • tamalezebra
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:31pm

    When will the non-smokers take responsibility for their own health issues. If a restaurant or bar allows smoking, don’t go in there. Go to a non-smoking bar or restaurant. It’s really very simple. It’s hard to give someone the bird with a cigarette in one hand and a cocktail in the other.

    Report Post »  
    • loriann12
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:37pm

      I don’t smoke. I go to restuarants that allow smoking. I don’t b!tch about it, I just sit in the non-smoking section. If you’re that bad about smoking, don’t drive behind someone who smokes, because I can smell it. The smokers are the new group to pick on.

      Report Post »  
    • COFemale
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:14pm

      So why do you feel the compulsion to smoke in a restaurant or bar. If you can’t survive without a cigarette for one hour or less or go outside, then perhaps you should address your addiction problem.
      Cigarette smoking is an addiction problem; why do restaurants need to support your bad habit.

      Also if a restaurant wants my business then it also needs to accomodate non-smokers. The separate area’s did not cut it, because smoker’s smoke drifted into my supposed smoke free area.

      Report Post » COFemale  
  • AlansTigg
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:05pm

    that’s because not allowing people to smokes makes them very stressed and they have heart attacks over it

    Report Post » AlansTigg  
  • 11:11
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:04pm

    makes me want to have a smoke

    Report Post » 11:11  
  • mattwakulik
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 1:04pm

    well just because you ban smoking in certain spots just means that the smokers will go somewhere else to smoke! and there is so little second hand smoke dangers to begin with as well. so i totally believe that the number would not drop!

    Report Post » mattwakulik  
  • DanWesson455
    Posted on September 14, 2011 at 12:52pm

    Statistics and lies. Who is smart enough to tell one from the other.

    Report Post » DanWesson455  
    • OUTRIDER WRITER
      Posted on September 14, 2011 at 4:56pm

      @DANWESSON455
      Agree.
      Please read my comment made just a little earlier than yours (it’s a score or more UP the page).

      Report Post »  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love