Is There Enough Evidence to Support Banning Smoking More Widely?

Although smoking has decreased considerably across North America, there are still too many groups of huddled smokers outside businesses, governmental offices, and the like.  Some cities have banned smoking in restaurants, but this is not enough for some militants.  The rights of the individual have to be set against those of the public, with documentation of the ill-health effects of second-hand smoke as the evidence for action.  A new study from Canada, posted in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, claims support for further anti-smoking legislation. 

The researchers studied the rates of hospital admissions for selected cardiovascular and respiratory conditions in Toronto after the implementation of smoking bans.  The cardiovascular conditions were heart attack, angina, and stroke, and the respiratory conditions were asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and pneumonia or bronchitis.  The time frame was from January 1996 to March 2006, representing 3 years before the first phase of a smoking ban and 2 years after the last phase was implemented.  Data were also collected from two other cities in Ontario.

The rates of hospital admissions for cardiovascular diseases fell by 39% and those for respiratory diseases by 33% during the period of the ban on restaurant smoking.  For heart attacks alone, the decrease was 17%.  There were no consistent reductions in rates after smoking bans affecting other settings.  And no significant reductions were reported in the two ‘control’ cities where no smoking bans were introduced.               

The authors of this study believe their findings will ‘lend legitimacy to efforts to further reduce public exposure to tobacco smoke’.  However, one expert argues that the results do not support this conclusion – he points out that the findings in the two comparative Ontarian cities are extremely similar to those for Toronto.  This will definitely require further clarification.  It’s clear that there must be good grounds before government can use enforcement to help achieve better heath.  Personal liberty questions cannot be ignored, no matter how much one is convinced of the evils of smoking . . .

Comments

[Niel Roger]

hey nice post.
plz make 2nd paragraph more descriptive.
It would be much more better.
Well done..........