Subscriber login | Subscribe/register now | Subscription help

Possible evidence of the public health benefits of smoke-free laws

Posted Friday, January 2, 2009, at 11:21 AM

Here's some good news for advocates of restricting smoking in public places: a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has found that smoke-free laws may cut hospitalizations for heart attacks.

Seems like a no-brainer, right? By now the health effects of second-hand smoke are pretty well documented.

The CDC study is based on a small sample — the town of Pueblo, Colo. — but the numbers are pretty dramatic. The Peublo law is pretty simple, and much like the one enacted last year in Illinois. You can't smoke indoors in a public place, or within 20 feet of a public place.

There will surely be more research, and I'd wager more similar results uncovered.

As for the business side of things, a new study says that Illinois bars and restaurants saw increased business in the six months after the ban took effect, while casino revenue dipped significantly.

So, with this knowledge in hand, do you support smoking restrictions? Do you think they hurt business?

My point of view is the same as the local status quo — let the business owner decide whether he or she wants a smoke-free place. Those who want a smokeless environment can go to those places where smoking is prohibited. Smokers don't have to go to smoke-free restaurants and bars if they don't want, but they can if they choose (just without smoking).

Comments
Showing comments in chronological order
[Show most recent comments first]

I personally think this is great news!

-- Posted by Megalomania on Fri, Jan 2, 2009, at 5:16 PM

I agree that this is a great study. It's more leverage to push for a Missouri-wide ban on smoking in public places. I always hear smokers, and even some non-smokers, complain that that sort of legislation is taking away a freedom and should not be allowed. In my opinion, that's really just ridiculous. Smoking in public places being legal is similar to drinking and driving being legal. They both provide the capacity for harm and even death in some cases. And if drinking and driving WERE legal and they decided to ban it today, I'm sure plenty of people would be saying the same thing about the government taking away another freedom.

It's not a protected freedom if it causes harm to others and provides no benefit to anyone.

-- Posted by Gock on Fri, Jan 2, 2009, at 6:02 PM

Gock, you are correct. Like I've heard some many others say about "voting" it isn't a right, it's a priviledge. The same can be said of smoking.

-- Posted by Megalomania on Sat, Jan 3, 2009, at 8:59 AM

If I own a buisness, through investment of my own time and money, I do not need the government telling me what legal activities me and my patrons may participate in.

The public, as in any free society, may choose to, or choose not to patronize my buisness.

All these smoking bans are a futile attempt at defying the law of natural selection.

-- Posted by Lumpy on Sun, Jan 4, 2009, at 3:03 PM

To Gock:

There's a big hole in the comparison to drinking and driving � everyone pays taxes for roads, and we all have to use them to get where we're going. We're not compelled to go to a restaurant, nor do we support their operations with taxes.

-- Posted by Matt Sanders on Mon, Jan 5, 2009, at 12:11 PM

BULL- I have been smoking for 48 years - my dad smoked over a pack a day and died of an aneurism(probably not spelled right) my mother never smoked and had a quadruple by pass - both my grandparents died of emphysima(spelling again) and never smoked.

I agree it stinks and I do not smoke in my house or car and do not smoke around those who don't. I sit in non smoking when I go to a restaurant and choose a non smoking hotel room because it doesn't stink ( no I do not smoke in that room) BUT I enjoy smoking and I do not believe half the bull crap the medical and nutritional entities tell us,the doctor couldn't even tell me if the high cholesterol or the smoking caused my heart problem and said my lungs were really healthy - go figure

-- Posted by Sundog on Tue, Feb 17, 2009, at 1:56 AM

Extra Edition

Matt Sanders

- Recent posts
- Archives
- Blog RSS feed

- Comments RSS feed

- Send email to Matt Sanders
- Login

Matt Sanders, former arts and entertainment editor and reporter and online editor for the Southeast Missourian, was appointed managing editor of the newspaper in 2012. In his blog Extra Edition, Matt seeks to carry on a conversation with readers about current local and state news topics. You can also talk with Matt on Twitter at http://twitter.com/mattksanders and on Facebook at http://facebook.com/semissourian.

Hot topics

Hodges attacks Congress, Jason Smith
(

7 ~ 1:01 PM, May 10)

More on the lieutenant governor vacancy scenario
(0 ~ 10:37 AM, Jan 4)

How Missouri's delegation voted on fiscal cliff
(4 ~ 5:26 AM, Jan 4)

Lichtenegger in line with Wallingford on contraception, vehicle sales tax
(4 ~ 4:37 AM, Jan 1)

Jetton gets into journalism
(2 ~ 7:57 PM, Dec 14)