[Drango]

the degree of heart attack reduction in those communities varied widely, from 6 percent to 47 percent, every study showed a decline in heart attacks after a ban was imposed.

“It increased the risk of coronary heart disease by about 25 to 30 percent, a pretty significant increase,”

More evidence that people will ignore 'cause they believe their science is better and more informed. But this is another report that can't be ignored.

[Halfmanhalfamazing]

What about third hand smoke?

And fourth hand smoke?

[microgood]

Since this study was funded by the Federal Government, it is political by nature. Hard to know if it is true or not. The Federal Government usually specifies the results it wants as a precondition to getting the money.

[SouthTexas]

There is also “scientific” proof of man-made global warming.

Didn’t you know that colder temps proved the earth is getting warmer?

[Snoopers-868th]

Have you seen the study that by just seeing a fat person causes the person viewing the fat person to gain weight leading to numerous health problems?

I am so sick of this crap! They got their way what more do they want. Why don’t the just outlaw smoking altogether. S.P.I.T.

[samtheman]

For the report, commissioned by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the scientific panel did not conduct its own study. It instead extensively examined the published and unpublished data...

Second hand studies.

How many studies were included in the "extensive examination of the published and unpublished data"?

How many studies were left out? How thoroughly were studies vetted for the rigorousness of their methodology?

How much did the motivation of the "scientific panel" enter into it's evaluation of the second hand studies?

In other words, did they go in looking for validation for their belief in the need for nanny-state regulations against smoking?

[danielmryan]

Question: if this effect were so obvious and immediate, then why wasn't it noticed in the 1980s and '90s when smoking bans first came into effect?

[Gabz]

These “reports” have long been debunked. Mostly by medical and science experts in the anti smoking industry.

[danielmryan]

Another question: Why wasn't this effect noticed much earlier, from suspiciously high heart-attack rates amongst employees of bars and other places where smokers frequented? Note than a smoking ban isn't needed to spot it in this environment.

[danielmryan]

A third question: given that the relevant data has been available for decades, but the effect was not noticed until very recently, shouldn't a confirmatory study be done on people from those time periods? Such as the aforementioned employees of bars, etc., and places where many people smoked before smoking bans existed? Shouldn't there be a differential in heart-attack sufferers in all of those environments relative to ones where smoking was light or nonexistent?

[danielmryan]

A final question: can scaring people, such as by inculcating exaggerated scare stories, increase their risk of having a heart attack?

[samtheman]

Everything about this “study” reeks of the same kind of biased “science” that “proves” Global Warming... oops... I mean Climate Change. (Gore forgive me.)

[timm22]

Let's say the research methods were sound and this study is true. The Feds' scientists have proven once again that smoking is bad for your health.

That still doesn't justify the draconian smoking bans that have been imposed across America. If smoking is dangerous to one's health, then health-minded people can simply choose not to visit privately-owned places where smoking is allowed. No government intrusion is necessary to solve this "problem".

As people who value liberty, shouldn't we reject government intrusion when it isn't necessary?

[ForGod'sSake]