Smoking ban leads to major drop in heart attacks in Colorado city

[FaxMachine1234]

Hmm.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081231/...king_ban_heart

[moore2me]

Here's another possibility:

The heart attacks rates dropped because smokers left Pueblo after the city banned them from smoking. They took their families too. If they wanted to keep their jobs in Pueblo, they probably moved nearby (the cities used for comparison in the study).

Here's another example. I pass a law saying only kids with IQs of over 135 can be go to my school. That forces all the kids with lower IQ to go to nearby schools, but not my schools anymore. Low and behold just a few short years, the average SAT scores of my school disrict are significantly elevated.

[FaxMachine1234]

Well, I'm sure all the people who were having secondhand-smoke being blown in their faces didn't mind either way.

[GWARrior]

Originally Posted by Ekim

Well, I'm sure all the people who were having secondhand-smoke being blown in their faces didn't mind either way.

Yea because every smoker I know, just stands there and blows smoke in a non-smoker's face. Actually, we've made it into a game.

[Santaclear]

Perhaps all the people who were gonna drop off and have heart attacks dropped off already, so they weren't part of the statistics.

[FaxMachine1234]

Originally Posted by GWARrior

Yea because every smoker I know, just stands there and blows smoke in a non-smoker's face. Actually, we've made it into a game.

Well, if you've called the game off, I'd appreciate it if you told all the people on my campus; apparently they think they have a chance to get to the play-offs this year.

[moore2me]

I too am offended by cigarette smoke, especially secondhand cigarette smoke. I think the smoking bans in workplaces and public buildings are a good thing. The point I was trying to make was too often these "scientific" studies are released too early, wihout considering the other factors that could have affected the results. The same thing is true of many of the studies on obesity that are flying around the news these days.

We really have too look at these things with a more critical eye. Not just take everything at face value. It would be wonderful if heart attacks could be reduced so effectively, so quickly, but I am skeptical. More research is needed.

[FaxMachine1234]

Originally Posted by moore2me

I too am offended by cigarette smoke, especially secondhand cigarette smoke. I think the smoking bans in workplaces and public buildings are a good thing. The point I was trying to make was too often these "scientific" studies are released too early, wihout considering the other factors that could have affected the results. The same thing is true of many of the studies on obesity that are flying around the news these days.

We really have too look at these things with a more critical eye. Not just take everything at face value. It would be wonderful if heart attacks could be reduced so effectively, so quickly, but I am skeptical. More research is needed.

Well, I'm just not so sure that these things weren't done with a critical eye originally. Do you really think the researchers wouldn't have noticed if the people who left the town after the ban was put in place was in exact proportion to the percentage drops in heart attacks? That's pretty elementary stuff, and these people have been working on this study for awhile.

[fffff]

Originally Posted by moore2me

Here's another possibility:

The heart attacks rates dropped because smokers left Pueblo after the city banned them from smoking. They took their families too. If they wanted to keep their jobs in Pueblo, they probably moved nearby (the cities used for comparison in the study).

ummmmm... wow.

You're suggesting that people packed up there belongs, sold their homes, got new homes slightly further away, had their children transfer to different schools, unpacked, et cetera so that they could smoke in public again? Incredible. I mean, I know people who their love their ciggarettes, but I don't think I've ever met anyone that hellbent on smoking in the Wendy's parking lot.

I will never for the life of me understand why anybody smokes. It's expensive, makes your teeth/skin look like shit, and smells awful. And those are just the immediate consequences.

[No-No-Badkitty]

Considering how many people are offended by "fat" people, and our blatent disreguard to health, and our threat on America and it's health system, and our burden we put on tax payers...yadda yadda yadda yadda...I think we should be VERY careful cheerleading the ban of lifestyles that we do not agree with.
Cause you know what...fat people will be next.

[fffff]

Originally Posted by No-No-Badkitty

Considering how many people are offended by "fat" people, and our blatent disreguard to health, and our threat on America and it's health system, and our burden we put on tax payers...yadda yadda yadda yadda...I think we should be VERY careful cheerleading the ban of lifestyles that we do not agree with.
Cause you know what...fat people will be next.

That just doesn't make sense. I'm not arguing that there isn't any fat discrimination - but I'd like to think people could find the difference between second hand smoke and second hand fat person.

Unless there's some kind of way to effectively ban people from being fat in public that I'm unaware of.

[FaxMachine1234]

Originally Posted by No-No-Badkitty

Considering how many people are offended by "fat" people, and our blatent disreguard to health, and our threat on America and it's health system, and our burden we put on tax payers...yadda yadda yadda yadda...I think we should be VERY careful cheerleading the ban of lifestyles that we do not agree with.
Cause you know what...fat people will be next.

Well, it's certainly not to the benefit of the size acceptance movement to be comparing obesity to smoking, which has proven detrimental health effects, but I can't stop you.

[No-No-Badkitty]

Firstly, I am not comparing size acceptance to smoking. You are missing the point. I am comparing the public perceptions.
Second. Yes it (the comparison) does make sense if you will put aside your personal feelings and examine the facts.

There are, whether we want to admit it or not, thousands and thousand and thousands of scientific journal publications that point to the "health crisis" of being fat. It doesn't matter that there are those of us who prove them wrong. It only matters that the data is there. You can argue all you want about how it was comprises, how it was analyzed, and who benefits from the anti-fat movement etc....the fact remains the data is there and the media has brainwashed the American people into believing the evils of "fat".

Do not think for a moment that fat people cannot and will not be targeted. Because to the majority of the American people we are a health issue. You may not like it, I make not like it, but if you doubt it then you are not paying attention to society.

Unlike religion, sexual orientation, etc, being fat is seen as a self inflicted health threat. That those of us who are fat, not only choose to be fat, but we choose to put the people around us at risk.

How you ask? Look at all the studies about obese mothers having obese babies. Do not think for a moment that there is not a special interest group waiting for the right time to push that parents who have fat children are being abusive, neglectful, and unhealthy. It's already happening in small doses and it will continue to get worse.

I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't have permiscuious sex, all of which are in fact health threatening choices that other people choose to make. I say let them make those choices. It is their right, I have no more a place to enforce my lifestyle choices on them as they do me.

I guess what amazes me most is how easily people give up their rights in favor of the government deciding what's right and what's wrong. I understand the need for laws but I do not get this bureaucratic diaper changing that people blatently allow. The public has gotten to the point where we want the gov't to decide what we watch on TV, what we read, what we put into our bodies, what we do with our bodies??? That's not being free, that's being owned and I'm not a puppy thank you very much. I am a free thinking, free enterprise individual capable of making my own choice however wrong or right they are.

If people want to smoke, let them. And let businesses decide wether or not they will cater to them. If they don't want smokers then they don't have to let them in. If they do then that's their choice and people who don't want to be around it don't have to go.

[FaxMachine1234]

I don't care if people kill themselves with cigarettes; it's the second-hand smoke that's the problem. Then you're making somebody else ill with your disgusting habit.

[1300 Class]

Originally Posted by No-No-Badkitty

*snip*

Awsome post. No two ways about it.

[No-No-Badkitty]

Originally Posted by Ekim

I don't care if people kill themselves with cigarettes; it's the second-hand smoke that's the problem. Then you're making somebody else ill with your disgusting habit.

Then provide designated areas for smoking and those who don't want to be around it, don't go in those areas.

However, in the grand list of "dangerous things to inhale" second hand smoke probably isn't even in the top ten. I've found that more often than not, if you can't see it or smell it, folks don't consider it a threat. There are a lot more dangerous chemicals/radiation, etc that you inhale on a daily basis, ingest with your foods, put on your body, and drink in your water.

[mergirl]

Originally Posted by fffff

That just doesn't make sense. I'm not arguing that there isn't any fat discrimination - but I'd like to think people could find the difference between second hand smoke and second hand fat person.

Unless there's some kind of way to effectively ban people from being fat in public that I'm unaware of.

Well you could make all the streets more narrow.. hmm, hope the government arnt listening. m2m is right to question the statistics. Studying psychology, you come across all sorts of falsified information that is presented as "real stats". First of all i think 3 years is too early to conduct research of any significance. Secondly 41% seems a rediculously high number!!! Also, you have to look at who is paying for these stats and research. A lot of the time when the government passes a contentious ban they try to back it up with misleading stats.. just off the top of my head they could have just given a new name to those suffering from heart attacks 59% of the time in that area. it just smells a little fishy. Perhaps if the study was over 20 years and the drop in heart attacks was at about 10% i might just have believed it.

[LisaInNC]

What I have always found hilarious is, nonsmokers who insist on hanging out where the smokers are and then bitching about it. Like restaurants, nonsmokers will ask for first available and then bitch and moan about smoke when they get seated in the smoking section. I have always tried to be respectful of nonsmokers (asking before I light up, fanning my smoke so it doesnt go in their face, apologizing if it does accidently, etc.) but I draw the damned line when a nonsmoker gets in MY CAR and asks me to put my cigarette out. Yes, I have had this happen and yes I reminded them that it was MY CAR and if they didnt like smoke then they should have driven themselves.

Seriously, nonsmokers...we realize our smoking is a nasty habit and yes there are some smokers who dont give a damn if their smoke is bothering you, but PLEASE stop making us out to be monsters who are out to kill you.

Did it ever occur to anyone that the smoking ban was incidental, and that the real reason there was a drop in heart attacks was because everyone LOST WEIGHT?

[fat hiker]

Originally Posted by Ekim

Well, I'm just not so sure that these things weren't done with a critical eye originally. Do you really think the researchers wouldn't have noticed if the people who left the town after the ban was put in place was in exact proportion to the percentage drops in heart attacks? That's pretty elementary stuff, and these people have been working on this study for awhile.

Exactly. The CDC's science is pretty solid, and if you ever read their actual studies, as opposed to just reading Yahoo news reports about their studies, you'd find they use good statistical methods to weed out the other variables - it's not that hard to do, as long as you have some numbers on what other changes are happening.

[FaxMachine1234]

Originally Posted by LisaInNC

Did it ever occur to anyone that the smoking ban was incidental, and that the real reason there was a drop in heart attacks was because everyone LOST WEIGHT?

Wait, people lose weight when they quit smoking? I thought it was quite the opposite.

[LisaInNC]

Originally Posted by Ekim

Wait, people lose weight when they quit smoking? I thought it was quite the opposite.

The article never mentioned anyone quitting. There could have been a huge rebellion and everyone smoked more in their own homes and lost weight. Hence the drop in heart attacks.

[FaxMachine1234]

Originally Posted by LisaInNC

The article never mentioned anyone quitting. There could have been a huge rebellion and everyone smoked more in their own homes and lost weight. Hence the drop in heart attacks.

Well no offense, but I could also say the results came about because all the adults in the town were replaced by children, and then the local delinquents taught a lot of the new kid population to take up smoking, but there were still 41% less heart attacks over the next three years because all the children were new to the habit. The article didn't say anything about that either, so it must be true.

[LisaInNC]

Originally Posted by Ekim

Well no offense, but I could also say the results came about because all the adults in the town were replaced by children, and then the local delinquents taught a lot of the new kid population to take up smoking, but there were still 41% less heart attacks over the next three years because all the children were new to the habit. The article didn't say anything about that either, so it must be true.

Now you are just being silly.

[fffff]

Originally Posted by LisaInNC

The article never mentioned anyone quitting. There could have been a huge rebellion and everyone smoked more in their own homes and lost weight. Hence the drop in heart attacks.

ummm... that doesn't make sense.
Greatly increasing the amount that you smoke greatly increases your risk of heart disease. There is no health benefit to losing weight if you're doing it by smoking more.

In fact it's healthier to quit smoking and gain weight than to smoke and lose.

[LisaInNC]

Originally Posted by fffff

ummm... that doesn't make sense.
Greatly increasing the amount that you smoke greatly increases your risk of heart disease. There is no health benefit to losing weight if you're doing it by smoking more.

In fact it's healthier to quit smoking and gain weight than to smoke and lose.

Im sorry...what medical school did you graduate from again?