An email from my Aunt Marcia (I have no idea when she is quoting and when she is using her own words, so I will just give you the entire email):
"Heart Attack Rates Still Fall 3 Years After Indoor Smoking Bans
Myocardial infarction rates continue to fall 3 years after indoor smoking bans are implemented, according to a study in MMWR [Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report].
The CDC notes that nine studies have shown quick drops in hospitalizations for myocardial infarctions after laws go into effect prohibiting smoking at work and in public places, but the report is the first to show this reduction continues for several years.
The study examined the rate of hospitalization for myocardial infarction in Pueblo, Colorado, after a smoke-free ordinance took effect in 2003. Rates dropped 27% in the first 18 months and an additional 19% in the next 18 months.
'These findings provide support for considering smoke-free policies an important component of interventions to prevent heart disease morbidity and mortality,' the CDC concluded."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
That is interesting and obviously really good news, although I still don't think I agree with universal smoking bans, like the one in all restaurants in NYC. Smoke-free establishments and sections are fine but out-and-out banning an otherwise legal action rubs me the wrong way.
ReplyDeleteDon't agree with universal bans against something that is technically legal? Yes, I agree with that, but I still have trouble accepting the second hand- and third hand- smoke can affect MY health. Don't I have the right to protect myself?
ReplyDeleteAgain, I think this speaks to Bart's hypocrisy posting...
Yeah, but I'm quickly changing my view on this sort of thing. It's still a gray area, but smokers' but a huge burden on the health care system, and since the law treats smoking as an addiction, it's very difficult to charge smokers more for coverage. So their smoking increases my healthcare costs.
ReplyDeleteNow, I suppose you could argue that smokers don't necessarily ask for me to subsidize their health costs, but I do nonetheless.
(One recent study I read said that smoking costs America $82B in productivity and $75B in healthcare each year, amounting to over $3000 annually per smoker.)
Carly - you absolutely do have that right, but that's why I think there should be plenty of "smoke-free" establishments, no smoking sections, etc. I think of it a little like censorship - if you don't like pornography (or violent movies, or whatever), change the channel. Don't patronize the establishments that allow smoking, but don't punish those would like to. People who drive SVUs (and really, cars in general) pollute the air and endanger your health, but driving won't be banned anytime soon.
ReplyDeleteChris - this is a good point, but I think it's sort of the necessary evil of having any government-funded healthcare. People who eat junk food (or drink soda, as Paterson clearly knows) get diabetes and cost us a bunch of money, so do alcoholics, etc. But I don't want anyone making choices about what I put into my body for me, even if that person would make better, healthier choices than I would. It's certainly an issue, but I guess paying for others' flaws is the price I pay (that was a poorly-chosen phrase, but whatever) for having the freedom to have flaws of my own and the ability to take advantage of government health care.
I agree with Chris that once a legal decision begins to impose massive negative spillover effects on those around them it becomes both justifiable and necessary to create regulations/rules/laws/guidelines that will ensure that only those creating the costs are paying for them. In the same way that a person who buys a sports car has to pay higher insurance premiums because of the increased risks associated with that type of car (while his purchase of that car does not affect the premiums of other insured clients at the same firm) a person who chooses to smoke should be forced to bear all (or as much as possible) of the burden for financing the cleanup costs of that decision (i.e. by paying current health insurance premiums to offset the impacts and costs of increased potential future medical expenses).
ReplyDeleteBasically once your legal decision begins to have a large (ambiguous, I know, but that is a debate for another time) negative impact on other actors you open yourself to legislation that can be justified morally and legally.
(The other example I was considering using, just in case I was too disjointed when I made my points above: cars in and of themselves are not dangerous, but they are still regulated by traffic laws, inspection requirements, and insurance requirements (and hopefully soon some form of payment for fossil fuel use) because normal use of a car creates negative externalities and risks that those around the car have not explicitly agreed to bear. Licensing, inspection, and insurance rules are all designed to make those who create risks bear the results of those risks more completely. The same should be true of smoking, as the decision to smoke, even if only in the privacy of your own home, unfairly imposes significant costs on the rest of the population. I think that the results of these studies clearly show that the bans on smoking had the intended effect: they limited the impact of a private decision on the public.)