Advertisement

Archive for Thursday, September 16, 2010

Research shows benefits of smoking bans on kids

September 16, 2010

Advertisement

— New research shows that smoking bans spare many children with asthma from being hospitalized, a finding that suggests smoke-free laws have even greater health benefits than previously believed.

Other studies have charted the decline in adult heart attack rates after smoking bans were adopted. The new study, conducted in Scotland, looked at asthma-related hospitalizations of kids, which fell 13 percent a year after smoking was barred in 2006 from workplaces and public buildings, including bars and restaurants.

Earlier U.S. studies, in Arizona and Kentucky, reached similar conclusions. But this was the largest study of its kind — and offered the strongest case that smoking bans can bring immediate health improvements for many people. The study appears in today’s New England Journal of Medicine.

Smoking bans have become increasingly common in the United States, where 35 states and the District of Columbia have laws that bar smoking in workplaces or restaurants and bars, or both. And more than 3,100 cities and towns have their own restrictions, according to the American Nonsmokers’ Rights Foundation.

Comments

MichaelJMcFadden 3 years, 7 months ago

SMartin, I think you were trying to quote part of me and respond but you left out the response part!

LOL!

  • MJM
0

smartin1955 3 years, 7 months ago

It's certainly not unreasonable to ban smoking from public buildings where children are often present. Is anyone fighting against this? I thought the conflict was largely over such things as full service restaurants (where children would only be present in the company of their parents and only if their parents knew they had no asthma problems), bars, and strip clubs. There's a very great distinction between the two types of environments.

If Little Johnny Dumpling is routinely popping into the local strip clubs after school to spend his lunch money on lap-dances, I'd say Kansas has larger problems facing it than a smoking ban. And if he's not doing so then using the "childhood asthma" argument as an excuse for pushing such bans is as inexcusable as so many of the rest of the misrepresentations supported by antismoking activists and professionals.

Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

0

MichaelJMcFadden 3 years, 7 months ago

It's certainly not unreasonable to ban smoking from public buildings where children are often present. Is anyone fighting against this? I thought the conflict was largely over such things as full service restaurants (where children would only be present in the company of their parents and only if their parents knew they had no asthma problems), bars, and strip clubs. There's a very great distinction between the two types of environments.

If Little Johnny Dumpling is routinely popping into the local strip clubs after school to spend his lunch money on lap-dances, I'd say Kansas has larger problems facing it than a smoking ban. And if he's not doing so then using the "childhood asthma" argument as an excuse for pushing such bans is as inexcusable as so many of the rest of the misrepresentations supported by antismoking activists and professionals.

Michael J. McFadden Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"

0

harleyrider1978 3 years, 7 months ago

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure from parental smoking and the onset of childhood asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and acute respiratory symptoms including cough, wheeze, chest tightness, and difficulty breathing among persons with asthma.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and chronic respiratory symptoms.

The evidence is suggestive but not sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and a worsening of asthma control.

And finally.....

The evidence is sufficient to infer a causal relationship between secondhand smoke exposure and odor annoyance.

Source: http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondh..

0

harleyrider1978 3 years, 7 months ago

Another garbage junk study by Dr. Jill Pell,just like her junk heart attack fraud study...... Heres the breakdown and note the ban started in 2006 the numbers are basically identical with a few ups and downs,there was no drop there was an increase and then some drop then an increase again.......junk science pure and simple! 2000: 2391/366 = 6.53 per day

2001: 2142/365 = 5.87 per day

2002: 2034/365 = 5.57 per day

2003: 1803/365 = 4.94 per day

2004: 2621/366 = 7.16 per day

2005: 2103/365 = 5.76 per day

2006: 2633/365 = 7.21 per day

2007: 2056/365 = 5.63 per day

2008: 2235/366 = 6.11 per day

2009: 1397/304 = 4.59 per day

http://velvetgloveironfist.blogspot.com/

0

smartin1955 3 years, 7 months ago

When the State and the grant sponges start working to ban the seling of nicotine, I will finally believe this crap. Until then, all this money trying to "prove" that second hand smoke causes anything is simply a marketing scheme. The "war" on tobacco is rather like the "war" in Vietnam, NO ONE wants to win it. But it sho nuff gets the money into the hands of corporations and grant sponges!

0

smartin1955 3 years, 7 months ago

I understand why the paper is spouting the progaganda of the social engineering crowd. There is a fortune in ad dollars from the pro ban groups, and then add the revenue to the paper for the nicotine replacement products. We are accustomed to seeing the outrageous bull "studies" that are trotted out and then printed verbatim in the media due to this revenue. When the "KU Study" was corrected, amazingly, that was not shown in the paper. It showed NO decline in heart attacks compared to areas without bans. The simple truth is that the company (Johnson and Johnson) that markets nicotine replacement products is funding every study that is produced. Much of this nonscience is from telephone polls. They call it "science"? Google the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, with every supposed non profit, and every "research" school that produces this malarky, and you will find the WHY of smoking bans. RWJF holds over 43,000,000 shares of J&J stock. J&J market Nicoderm, Nicorette, Nicotrol, and Nicoderm CQ. You will note that these products are sold over the counter, and are not required by the FDA to tell their side effects in their advertising. One third of the FDA Advisory Board is made up of former and present employees of RWJF. RWJF also finances Tobacco Free Kansas and the Kansas Quitline, which is located in Houston, and will, within one minute of your call, start telling you to go and buy the products of J&J for your "addiction". Tobacco Free Kansas is a joke. The LAST thing that any of these lobbyists want is for Kansas to be "tobacco free"! And that includes this newspaper! The State does not want people to stop buying tobacco! The Feds do not want people to stop buying tobacco. The anti tobacco people do not want us to stop buying tobacco, as that would end the grants from RWJF. They simply want to ostracize and demonize people onto the nicotine replacement products of J&J. FOLLOW THE MONEY, boys and girls. J&J sales were $64,000,000,000 last year. What's a paltry half a billion to buy off politicos and newspapers and City Councils? Even the CDC gets funding from RWJF, so they too, keep pumping out this non science.

0

Richard Heckler 3 years, 7 months ago

Just like Heroin smoking is an addiction. How can that in and of itself not create health issues?

All understand no one ever believes addiction can happen to them.

0

kansasmutt 3 years, 7 months ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.