Results Seen in Fewer Coronary Events Including Heart Attacks
In 2005, efforts to reduce secondhand smoke exposure in Appleton restaurants and bars resulted in legislation that banned smoking in these facilities. Certainly, these laws have been fruitful in terms of improving health.
Multitudes of studies show the significant benefit of smoke-free laws not only in terms of protecting the lungs, but also the heart. While the long-term impact of these laws on lung cancer isn’t yet fully known, some short-term research by the American Cancer Society shows people living in areas with comprehensive smoke-free laws are about 8 percent less likely to be diagnosed with lung cancer.
The more immediate benefit has been a reduction of acute coronary events. Communities with smoke-free laws in place see significantly fewer emergency room visits for heart attacks and strokes. One U.S. study showed that smoke-free workplace laws reduced hospital admissions for heart attacks by more than 20 percent.
A secondary benefit has been a reduction in asthma attacks and emergency visits related to COPD. Implementation of smoke-free laws at indoor workplaces in Scotland, for example, reduced emergency room visits by children with asthma by more than 18 percent.
More recent efforts focus on eliminating secondhand smoke in public housing. When smoking is restricted in public housing, not only do the number of smokers reduce over time, but occupants see less risk of complications of asthma and COPD. This applies all occupants of the public housing complexes, not just the smokers.
Those efforts to enact smoke-free laws in Appleton, which I was a part of, initially met with resistance. I thought the issue was extremely straightforward – plenty of evidence shows that secondhand smoke is detrimental, causing heart attacks as well as exacerbating asthma and COPD. It was evident that the impact on workers and visitors to these places of business had the potential to suffer these effects. A large percentage of the population, however, felt very strongly that businesses should have the opportunity to decide their own policies.
During the first vote, 53 percent of people were in favor of smoke-free laws, meaning 47 percent of voters believed the rights of business superseded the public health impact. That vocal minority forced two more votes, with about the same outcome. The fear was that businesses would lose patrons because they couldn’t smoke. But within a few months, people realized no businesses closed because of the impact of smoke-free laws.
A 2013 study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention examining the impact of smoke-free laws in 216 cities and counties in nine states showed these laws did not adversely impact restaurants or bars and, in fact, increased employment at restaurants in one state.
Now, we take it for granted that there is no smoking in local places of business, and the impact on health has been a positive one.
Other efforts have helped as well. Increased taxation of cigarettes and bans on tobacco marketing directed at children and teenagers have resulted in fewer new smokers. Changes in packaging, which include additional warnings, also have helped discourage young people from taking up smoking to begin with. Continuing to reach out to children and teenagers by including anti-smoking information in school health curriculums will continue help them to make better choices.
Ongoing support of efforts to keep the public safe from the impacts of smoking undoubtedly will have a positive impact on overall community health. If you are a smoker, talk to your primary care provider about options to help you quit – doing so can help you establish a healthier future.
Dr. Anthony Phillips specializes in hematology and oncology at ThedaCare Cancer Care in Appleton and Waupaca.
