Yuck! You just got home from meeting up with friends at a
neighborhood bar, and your hair, your coat—everything—smells like cigarette
smoke! And you’re not even a smoker!
While anti-smoking legislation may be the norm in some areas
(for example, Massachusetts has banned smoking inside bars, restaurants, and other
workplaces since 2004), many states and cities still allow smoking in public
places (such as, yes, that neighborhood bar). Because there is no federal standard,
states are free to enact their own laws—which means that regulations vary state
to state and even city to city. Overall, only 28 states have fully banned
smoking in enclosed public places (and even these have exceptions). That leaves
a lot of areas where you may still be subject to second-hand smoke!
Luckily for you, a recent study may provide law-makers with
more reason to put anti-smoking legislation in place.
Researchers at the University of California, San Francisco,
recently published an analysis of 43 different studies assessing the health
impacts of anti-smoking legislation. Researchers categorized legislation by
comprehensiveness, leading to three categories: 1) ban in workplaces only, 2)
ban in workplaces and restaurants, 3) ban in workplaces, restaurants, and bars.
They then looked at various cardiovascular diseases (like heart attack, chest
pain), strokes, and breathing-related problems (such as asthma and lung
infections). They then compared hospital admissions for each disease before and
after the legislation was put in place.
Overall, the researchers showed that the most comprehensive
laws were associated with a significant reduction in the number of hospital
admissions for almost all of the diseases studied. For these types of laws, the
researchers found a 15% reduction in hospital admissions for heart
attacks. Some of the studies in this analysis also showed substantial reductions
in healthcare costs after legislation was put in place.
So, what does this mean for you? And your dry-cleaning
bills, as you try to get rid of that cigarette-smoke smell?
Well, although this particular study cannot make any claims
regarding the effect of anti-smoking legislation on individual health, it may
help to push law-makers at state and local levels to enact anti-smoking
legislation based on the fact that these laws do appear to reduce hospital
admissions and healthcare costs.
You can help by supporting anti-smoking legislation in your
own area, patronizing bars and restaurants that have smoking bans, or even suggesting
a ban on indoors smoking at your workplace, if one doesn't exist already.
It’s also a good idea to reduce your exposure to second-hand
smoke in general: according to the Surgeon General, “there is no safe level” of
tobacco smoke. Even second-hand smoke is a carcinogen, and can increase your
risk of heart disease.
So, next time, suggest meeting at that bar that doesn’t
allow smoking. Your heart and lungs—and your clothes—will thank you!
Tan, Crystal E. and Stanton A. Glantz. "Association Between Smoke-Free Legislation and Hospitalizations for Cardiac, Cerebrovascular, and Respiratory Diseases : A Meta-Analysis." Circulation. 2012;126:2177-2183.
Rachel M. Burke is a PhD student at Emory University. She enjoys running, cooking, and crossword puzzles, and hates the smell of cigarette smoke in her hair.
This is a very interesting post. I like that you not only discussed the findings of the study, but also made suggestions on what people can do to avoid second-hand smoke. Great job.
ReplyDeleteExcellent explanation of the study findings, what it means in terms of both public health and economic costs, and what people can do about it. I have no idea what that logo in the "Smoke free zone" sign is supposed to be (maybe a fish eating its own tail?)...
ReplyDeleteRachel, this is a very interesting post clearly explaining new evidence on benefits of the smoking ban. The way it is written makes it very relevant to people who do not smoke and want to avoid second-hand smoke. I would also suggest addressing people who do smoke so they also have more appreciation of anti-tobacco legislation. Overall, great job!
ReplyDeleteHi Rachel,
ReplyDeleteI really liked your post. Your title did a great job of hooking me in- who doesn't like the cigarette smell on their clothes after coming back from a bar? I also thought you explained the findings of the article really well. Very nice!
Nick
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHi Rachel,
ReplyDeleteGreat to know that these laws have been demonstrated to be effective! I remember going out to celebrate (in a smoke free bar) in Minneapolis during my MPH program. : )
I think you do a good job overall explaining the important parts of the study, but some of the ultimate findings get a little confusing (between the different types of laws and the different possibilities for outcomes). One thing you could do to make it clearer would be to bullet point the findings. You could also make a little diagram that leads from "Most restrictive laws" to "fewer hospital admissions for xxxxxx diseases."
Last, I would recommend concluding your post with something like, "So the next time you're in a smoke free bar, raise a glass in honor of....." I think that might make the connection back to the important role of health policy.
Nice work!
Looks good, Rachel. Your blog post is an easy read for a lay audience.
ReplyDeleteJust like you I really appreciate the anti-smoking legislation.
Nice post! It is very challenging to promote actions to the general public when the situation cannot be controlled by their own power - for example policy and legislation targeting issues like smoking and air pollution, because of the difficulty of making a difference with one's own efforts. But this post did a nice job makes the readers feel obligated to and engaged in the issue.
ReplyDelete