Smoking ban and heart attacks

A new study has shown that the smoking ban has helped reduce the number of heart attacks suffered by people in England and saved the NHS over 8 million pounds.

The study, which was carried out by researchers from the University of Bath, has reported that there were 1,200 fewer hospital admissions for heart attacks in England in the year after July 2007 - when the smoking ban came in. The researchers suggest that this may be due to the general population being exposed to less second-hand smoke since the legislation came in.

The study looked at whether there was a difference between the number of people admitted to hospital with a heart attack in the five years before the smoking ban began in England compared to the 15 months afterwards and was the largest, most comprehensive study to date on the effects of smoke-free legislation anywhere in the world.

Separate research by the London Health Observatory carried out on the basis of these figures suggested a saving to the NHS of £8.4m in the first year after the ban on smoking in public indoor spaces was introduced in England.
A similar kind of study was done in New York. According to this study, heart attack rates have dropped by 8 percent following the Clean Indoor Air Act of 2003 that prohibits smoking in bars, restaurants and other public places. The report, issued by the state Health Department, found that hospitals admitted 3,813 fewer patients for heart attacks in 2004 than would be expected in New York without the indoor smoking ban. Studies elsewhere have reached similar conclusions. In one case, the rate of admissions for heart attacks returned to normal after the ban was lifted.

Similar results were obtained in Scotland. Following the introduction of smoke-free legislation the health of individuals has improved significantly and the heart attack rates have dropped dramatically. Hospital admissions for heart attacks have dropped by 17 percent after the legislation was introduced in Scotland.

The number of acute coronary events such as heart attacks in adults also dropped significantly after a smoking ban in public places in Italy. Researchers in Rome compared acute coronary events in the city for five years preceding a public smoking ban with those occurring one year after the ban. They found an 11.2 percent reduction of acute coronary events in persons 35 to 64 years and a 7.9 percent reduction in those ages 65 to 74.

As a result of smoking in public places, passive smokers or non-smokers are the ones that are mostly affected as they tend to inhale all the dangerous chemicals released due to tobacco burning. Most of these chemicals have been reported to cause cancer and heart attacks. Physiological effects of tobacco smoke on cardiovascular functions include stiffening aorta, platelet activation resulting in damaged artery lining, disturbed heart rhythm and vasoconstriction. Smoking also causes development of plaques inside blood vessels leading to heart attacks. The smoking ban has reduced the exposure to smoke in the general population.

So there we have it. Yet more evidence that the ban on smoking in public places is good for all of our people.

How can anyone still oppose it?

The Smoking Ban

On 1 July 2007 one of the very few decent pieces of legislation introduced by the Labour government, the ban on smoking in public places and workplaces, came into effect.

Previous legislation was to have a non smoking area but this didn't work very well as the smoke simply difted over.

What a pleasure it has been to sit in the canteen at work and eat my lunch without being surrounded by clouds of smoke.

What a joy it is to go to a pub for a drink and a meal and not have to breathe in the fumes from other people's cigarettes nor to have to go home with my clothes stinking of them.

My mum has smoked ever since I can remember, and still does, and I always hated the smell of fags (that's British slang for cigarettes for any Americans reading this). I still remember my first driving lesson. I got into the car and the first thing the instructor said to me was "Do you smoke?". He could smell cigarettes on my clothes.

Cigarette smoke contains over 4,000 different chemicals. At least 50 are known carcinogens (cause cancer in humans) and many are poisonous. Smoking causes heart disease, cancers of the lung, larynx, oral cavity and esophagus, chronic bronchitis, emphysema and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

Smoking is also a contributory factor for the development of cancers of the bladder, pancreas, and kidney. Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma.

So it's a surprise to me that the ban still seems to be so controversial. Why would anybody object to a law that stops people being forced to breathe in these chemicals?

I've read about landlords of pubs being fined and imprisoned for ignoring the law, the most recent I read on the Derby Patriot. True, lots of pubs are closing down but is it really the smoking ban that is to blame?

I think that is much too simplistic. People's lifestyles have changed. The days of the men leaving work and heading straight for the pub while the wife sits at home are long gone. If you want a drink you can buy it much cheaper from supermarkets and the fact is that there were simply too many pubs in this country, a legacy of days gone by when the pub was the only place for socialising.

One idea I've heard put forward is to have smoking and non smoking pubs. Sounds okay until it's examined in more detail.

When a group of people go out the liklihood is that at least one of them will be a smoker. Naturally the smoker will want to go to the smoking pub and his or her friends will go along to keep them happy. Thus starving the non smoking pub of customers.

It also doesn't take into account that pubs are also workplaces. Why should the bar staff in the smoking pub have to breathe in all their customers smoke?

They could choose not to work in the smoking pub but that would restrict their employment opportunities.

I really don't see why stepping into the fresh air for 10 minutes while they smoke is such a problem.

Nationalists believe in a healthy body and a healthy nation and should support the smoking ban.

I look forward to the day when nobody wants to put cancer causing toxins into their bodies through smoking and totally support ASH.