Posted on 05/09/2006 9:22:14 PM PDT by LouAvul
Eliminating the threat of secondhand smoke would prevent more than 228,000 new cases of heart disease and 119,000 heart-related deaths over the next 25 years, according to a new study.
Using a model to estimate the impact of eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke on heart disease, researchers found stopping secondhand smoke would quickly reduce the number of heart-related deaths. This effect would increase over time, adding up to hundreds of thousands of preventable heart attacks and other problems.
National surveys suggest that 4 percent to 17 percent of the nonsmoking population (depending on age and sex) are exposed to secondhand smoke at home, work, or at play.
Estimating the Impact of Secondhand Smoke
Researchers say current estimates show that average daily exposure to secondhand smoke among exposed individuals is equivalent to smoking one cigarette per day; that conveys about one-third of the additional risk of heart disease associated with smoking a pack a day.
Based on those estimates, researchers calculated the effects of eliminating exposure to secondhand smoke in 2005 over the next 25 years in the U.S.
Their results show that:
--New cases of heart disease would be reduced by 9,300 in the first year, adding up to 228,300 cases prevented by 2030.
--The number of heart attacks reported would be reduced by 8,100 in the first year and increase to 13,500 per year by 2030, resulting in a total reduction of 292,500 heart attacks over the 25-year period.
--Total heart disease-related deaths would drop by 2,200 in the first year after eliminating secondhand smoke and rise to 6,400 prevented deaths per year by 2030.
The results of the study were presented this week at an American Heart Association meeting in Washington, D.C.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
That's the one. Sorta like your freedom to be somewhere else.
...and not breathing would reduce the chance of inhaling any airborne dust, mold spores and viruses.
If the owner of a bar doesn't mind people smoking therein, why should that be a concern of yours?
Because it's a business open to the public, that's why. For the same reason I want that business to be compliant with fire and health codes.
It's not the same, and that's why we see more regulation of smoking.
Though of course you know that'll never happen. Cigarette companies only make about 15 to 25 cents a pack... but states make a buck to a buck fifty or more per pack. They can't afford to ban them. They don't even really want usage to go down. They'd panic.
So don't buy in that store. The nanny state continued...
Where oh where is America, land of the free and home of the brave?
WHO Study on the Rush 24/7 stack of stuff says that there is no illness from second hand smoke. Uncomfortable and smelly but no direct harm.
WHO Study on the Rush 24/7 stack of stuff says that there is no illness from second hand smoke. Uncomfortable and smelly but no direct harm.
BS ALERT! BS ALERT!
Are you a smoker?
Gee, I'm sorry. I posted x2. How did that happen? Geesh!
yeah... like here in WA where they banned smoking in bars recently. Bars are going under all over.
The best sign was on the outside of a struggling bar somewhere north of Seattle: "Nonsmokers: Where ARE you?"
It's not about people that didn't want to be around smoke. They aren't going to such places even now that they're nonsmoking. It's merely about controlling the habits of others of which they smugly disapprove. It's about control.
Its not a "scare" in the sense Y2K or Global Warming is a scare. Its just that other Conservatives dont want to inhale that nasty gunk when they're eating. And they shouldn't have to. Hope the police start ticketing them for it. Maybe then they'll think twice.
Most of the bars around me are non-smoking and business is great. Location seems to be the biggest predictor of success for a bar, just like other businesses.
If the bar owner wants to put up a sign saying "Moonman62 is not welcome here", can he not do so? If the bar owner does so, what would it matter to you whether he allows smoking?
If the owner of a business does want you to be there, you have no right to stay. Consequently, you have no right to demand that the owner of a business conduct his operations to your liking. If you wanted to argue that a business that allows smoking should post a sign on the door indicating the existence of possibly-harmful fumes inside, I might give you that. But nobody forces anyone to go into a smoky bar who doesn't want to.
Tell you what... let's have one bar in town for people that want to smoke, and we can have another whole bar for smug power freaks... then we can both be happy. What say?
You need to form your own state, like Smoketana.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.