Comments on: Smoking Ban Spurs Drop In Heart Attacks

41 Percent Drop In Hospitalized Cases Reported 3 Years After Pueblo, Colo. Adopts Ban

[McHineguy]

Its scientifically documented that smoking increases health risks. Now, we expect to provide health insurance to everyone. Why should I pay more for health insurance (or new taxes) to help pay medical costs for people who smoke?

Its now being studied, and early results are coming in that even we who do not smoke suffere increase health risks when we associate with people who do. I don tthink that is fair.

Smokers, its ok if you insist on smoking. Just do it by yourselves and dont ask the rest of us to share the costs of your care. Maybe you can form separate clubs where you sneak off and "have one" but stop claiming the laws limit your freedom when you so openly abuse mine.

[debinok1]

Troutfish, You really irk me. You like so many others "assume" someone at risk for Diabetes or diagnosed with it is FAT. I have news for you. Diabetes does not care how much you weigh. My Grandmother was tiny, she was 5'' and weighed maybe 90 lbs, my Mother was 5''2" and weighed 110. Diabetes can cause complications that include, Heart Disease, High Blood pressure, Kidney Disease, Blindness, among many others. It is a hereditary disease that affects over 23 million people. Out of those 23 million, almost 16 million will die from Heart Disease.

[debinok1]

Some of you people are so square-headed you can''''t see reality for living in your dream world. Well I am telling you you better wake up, because they may not be knocking at your door today, but they could be tomorrow.

Unless we stand together, we will all fall together. Everyday, law makers pass another law, and it may not affect you today, but the one tomorrow may well. I advise you all to watch what you ask for, because you might get a lot more than you wanted.

Happy New Year.

Posted by renrivers
*****************
So true. My Grandmother always said to watch the bandwagon you go jumping on because the next on coming through may be after you.

[Renegade.Rivers]

This is just another crappy piece of tainted journalism like so many others that the corporate media puts out day after day.

Another piece written to justify the taking of our freedoms that they are taking little by little, and some of you cheer them on like idiots. If you don''t like smoking fine don''t, if you don''t like going to smoke filled rooms, don''t.

At the same time what about the other person who does? Aren''t his rights just as important as yours? Today they take his rights, tomorrow they take yours. Yet, today you cheer them on like you believe fascism and tyranny is the way it should be.

Some of you people are so square-headed you can''t see reality for living in your dream world. Well I am telling you you better wake up, because they may not be knocking at your door today, but they could be tomorrow.

Unless we stand together, we will all fall together. Everyday, law makers pass another law, and it may not affect you today, but the one tomorrow may well. I advise you all to watch what you ask for, because you might get a lot more than you wanted.

Happy New Year.

[debinok1]

suspect you are also obese, due to the comment about diabetes.

Your health, your choice.


Posted by troutfisher4
**********************************
Actually, NO I am not obese I am 5''5" and 125lbs.
The Diabetes risk is hereditary.

[troutfisher4]

So without a scientific study how can they make the claim that it was ONLY the result of the smoking ban.

Posted by DebinOK1


As a smoker, you are simply in denial. My mother did the same thing, until smoking eventually killed her. I suspect you are also obese, due to the comment about diabetes.

Your health, your choice.

[debinok1]

As far as my "technical background". No I am not a Doctor, what I am is a Daughter and Grand Daughter of Heart Disease victims. Neither smoked or lived with smokers. The one thing they had in common and the same thing I am monitored for very closely is DIABETES. They both had it, it caused them both to have Heart Disease. My blood sugar is tested every three months. I smoke, My Doctor worries more about the onset of Diabetes than he does my smoking, because Diabetes is MY risk factor.

[debinok1]

Over the same three year period Doctors have implemented testing of at risk patients and medicated those who showed signs of being at risk.
Over the same three year period Doctors have encouraged loweer fat diets.
Over the same three years they have encouraged more active lifestyles.
So without a scientific study how can they make the claim that it was ONLY the result of the smoking ban.

[debinok1]

RIGHT. It''''s pure coincidence that the heart attack rate HALVED after the ban was enacted, and of course it''''s logical to conclude everyone immediately started eating salads and running marathons as a result. Yep, it had to be the salads, not the smoking ban.

It''''s no coincidence that the only people who doubt the findings of the study are those with ZERO technical background.

Posted by clathrate
*********************
Did you even bother to read the flipping article?

The last paragraph was most intersting.

"The study assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban, but did not try to measure that. The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it''s unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke."

Now please tell me exactly how they were able to come up with the headline:
Smoking Ban Spurs Drop In Heart Attacks
41 Percent Drop In Hospitalized Cases Reported 3 Years After Pueblo, Colo. Adopts Ban

When they do not even know how many admissions were even smokers or ex smokers.

[shanev137]

Why do we really want millions and millions of people living longer?

[clathrate]

Isn''''t it just as likely that healthier diets, better earlier testing and healthier exercise routines could have been just as responsible for the drop. To not include these factors in a study related to health is not only unscientific but downright misleading.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by DebinOK1

RIGHT. It''s pure coincidence that the heart attack rate HALVED after the ban was enacted, and of course it''s logical to conclude everyone immediately started eating salads and running marathons as a result. Yep, it had to be the salads, not the smoking ban.

It''s no coincidence that the only people who doubt the findings of the study are those with ZERO technical background.

[tcoleman12]

If it is clear that first hand smoke is unhealthy and presumed that second hand smoke is unhealthy, then why not ban cigarettes period? Something that is that harmful should just be outlawed, right?

[debinok1]

Oh and did I mention DEADLY.
To "assume" that there were no other factors involved in the drop in heart related admissions implies that if a person quits smoking BUT continues a sedentary lifestyle, fat enhanced diet and goes undiagnosed that they will reduce their risk of heart disease is dangerous.

[banthebans]

WOW, and this is a NEWS item???? "The study assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban, but did not try to measure that. The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it''s unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke." Did anyone proof this story before it made its way into print? Does any media member EVER examine the "studies" they tout, or do they just print it all as long as the headline supports the anti-smoking zealot''s agenda. To help you out, please read the above quote from your story, ask yourself what this study really did, (nothing will be your answer) and then explain why a "journalist" would print such ***.

[debinok1]

Isn''t it just as likely that healthier diets, better earlier testing and healthier exercise routines could have been just as responsible for the drop. To not include these factors in a study related to health is not only unscientific but downright misleading.

[banthebans]

WOW, and this is a NEWS item???? "The study assumed declines in the amount of secondhand smoke in Pueblo buildings after the ban, but did not try to measure that. The researchers also did not sort out which heart attack patients were smokers and which were not, so it''s unclear how much of the decline can be attributed to reduced secondhand smoke." Did anyone proof this story before it made its way into print? Does any media member EVER examine the "studies" they tout, or do they just print it all as long as the headline supports the anti-smoking zealot''s agenda. To help you out, please read the above quote from your story, ask yourself what this study really did, (nothing will be your answer) and then explain why a "journalist" would print such ***.