What was the population declination over the same period of time?....60%?

i am happy to have my lifestyle chosen for me

Public smoking ban cut heart attacks by 60%

I guarantee this will turn out to be bogus or that the reason the heart attacks decreased is because people were no longer going outside into the cold for a smoke between October and the end of December. Sixty percent sounds like a lot. But it was just a drop from under seven per month to under four per month. These numbers are so small that the fluctuation could have been entirely by chance; something along the lines of cancer clusters that are random but look as though they have a common cause because the occur in the same locale.

I would like to see the official study, I'd be willing to bet that it's quite flawed, just from using my common sense.
Besides, it still is against the law to ban smoking in private resturants, like what the so-called Republican Mayor of Dallas, Laura Miller, has done here. It's not right to make decisions for the private business owner. They should be able to decide it for themselves.

I wonder what the rates historically have been for the 6-months it was effect (June - Dec) as opposeed to the other six months. I know in Pennsylvania, where I grew up, the heart attack rate always went up when people had to shovel snow and split firewood, as opposed to other times of year.

Is this a joke because it sure the hell ain't science.

Not even close.

The findings were reported at a meeting of the American College of Cardiology in Chicago.

As what?

"Anomalies in American medical science for which there is insufficient data to reach any conclusion?"

Or was this in the the "Studies That Seek Funding" section of the ACC's classified ads?

Absurd.

And I dislike smoking, can't fathom why anyone would want to roll up some dead leaves into a piece of paper, put it in their face, set it on fire, and suck the smoke into their lungs. Aberrent behavior if I've ever seen it.

BUT... do I think that occasional exposure to "second hand smoke" will cause me any ill effects? No. Unpleasant? Yeah, mildly. But good Lord, get a grip.

The Montana stats? Simple -- too small a sample to be statistically significant.

Well, all the smokers left town.

They also compared records for the period of the smoking ban with records from four years earlier.

During an average six month period, the number of heart attack hospital admissions for people living or working in Helena is just under seven per month.

This could be from sloppy writing but there is a certain incongruity in those two sentences.

"Public smoking ban cut heart attacks by 60%!"

In related news, the Ministry of Agriculture reports a 3% gain in yield!

In another victory, iron production exceeded all targets, with spontaneous demonstrations of support for Our Leader breaking out across the land...

The only issue that matters is whether second hand smoke is a health hazard. If not, and the smoke is merely irritating, then there is no logical reason why cheap perfume and public farting couldn't be banned.

Of course, suicides and homicides doubled during this time.

A ban on cars would reduce traffic fatalities.

You rocket scientist addicts have certainly convinced me. This is bad science because addicts tell us it is. We can rely on the tobacco companies to make sure we get the gospel truth.

For six months, the heart attack number has gone from 7 to 3. That's 24 folks who haven't had one and haven't died. See, if we raise the tax on a pack by a buck, keeping these smokers alive could mean, what, 3 packs a day, about $1000 per year per not yet dead smoker.

We need much better science where the numbers come out the way we want them to!

So, Tacis, you advocate the government taking whatever measures it pleases as long as it can demonstrate a health benefit?

Public smoking ban cut heart attacks by 60%...

...among people who would have a conniption if they saw anyone light up.

Regards, Ivan

(A non-smoker, but not without a sense of humour)