One last smoke
Sam Tovar, Special to The Gazette
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
First off, let’s be honest. Smoking is bad.
Whoever offered you that first smoke deserves a figurative punch in the gut (please don’t actually punch them, that may be construed as assault).
Smoking is bad for you socially. The smoke debris sticks to the environment. It makes your clothes stink, it makes your house stink, and it stains your teeth and fingers. Smoke decreases the resale value of your house and car. You may burn holes in clothes, furniture, and even burn up your house. Cigarettes are expensive. We are facing a bad economy and a one-pack-per-day habit will cost you about $150 per month.
Smoking is absolutely bad for your health. Of course it can cause cancer. It also contributes to development of emphysema, clogged arteries, and blood clots. If you’re sick, it makes your sickness linger. It can aggravate your asthma.
What else?
Nagging cough, annoying throat clearing habit, trembling hands and fingertips, mini-withdrawal symptoms during the day. This is the short list. The list can go on and on.
Let me rephrase — inhaling tar, gas and carbon debris into your lungs is very, very bad in many, many ways. You should really consider quitting.
External help
I do not mean to imply that to stop smoking is easy. You have my sympathy and support in trying to quit.
In some ways, now is an easier time to quit than 20 years ago. Cigarette smokers are discriminated against. You can only light up in certain places. You have to be a certain age to be able to buy cigarettes. People start fake-coughing when you’re around and give you dirty looks. You are treated like some disease-spreading leper and are forced to smoke outside in restaurants and even bars.
Most tragic of all, no one really feels sorry for you.
Conversely, now you find a very supportive community if you do want to quit. There are Internet resources that can help you come up with a plan. Or you can just read on…
• First, I would suggest you write a list of pros and cons to smoking. Having an objective list will help you identify why you want to quit and give you motivation to continue to abstain from smoking. If your “pro” smoking list is longer than your “con,” you’re not really interested in stopping. Don’t waste your time.
• Write down a stop date and let people around you know that you want to quit and ask for their support. While we’re waiting for the stop date, let’s address the hard part.
Smoking is part addiction and part habit. Both must be dealt with.
Let’s briefly address the habit. People hate change. We embrace routine. We have a shower routine, a bedtime routine, a certain drive to work. The act of smoking is also linked to certain routines.
What are your smoking triggers? Some common triggers are drinking alcohol, driving, being around other smokers, smoking after finishing a meal, during stressful periods, etc…
Replacement
When you quit, you need to replace the habit of smoking with something else to occupy that time. The first three weeks will be the most challenging, but after three weeks you will have entered into a healthy habit of not smoking.
What habit are you going to incorporate to occupy your hands and mind? Most people use food — not a good idea. I suggest activity that engages your mind and hands. Try walking, word puzzles, reading, crocheting, chess, training for a triathlon, etc…
The addiction part also needs to be addressed. Nicotine is an addictive stimulant. Without nicotine you may feel irritable, anxious, hostile, depressed and hungry. Nicotine replacements and prescription medications help to address these symptoms. Talk to your doctor about nicotine gum, nicotine patches or other medications like Zyban or Chantix.
Zyban is an antidepressant. This medicine is especially helpful if you suffer from depressive symptoms or anxiety. Chantix is a newer prescription medicine that occupies the brain’s nicotine receptor. People who use Chantix gleen no pleasure from smoking.
There you have some of my ideas and suggestions. If you are ready, make a plan, set a date to stop and enlist some help. Don’t forget the experience of ex-smokers. They’ve been there. Ask for their advice.
Whatever way you use to quit smoking — I congratulate you on trying to live healthy.
Shape Up, Emporia! is a weekly fitness and health column aimed at readers of all ages to get off the couch and get into shape. Each week will feature a fitness, health or nutrition professional from around the area who will share some friendly tips on how to improve your overall health. Our goal is to make getting in shape fun and easy to fit into your existing lifestyle and daily routine.
cowboy (anonymous) says...
Her we go again about smoking can anybody give up the issue.
May 5, 2009 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bjnemp (anonymous) says...
Jeez. Let it go. If you don't like smoking, don't do it, but shut up about it. Life is a series of choices we make; good and bad, right or wrong. Let people make their own choices and live with the consequences. Adults don't need nannys, monitors, or baby sitters. Someone please pass that information on to Walters and Sauders.
May 5, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wildcatnurse (anonymous) says...
smoking is everyone's problem. With the rising costs of healthcare, one of the major cloggers of the system...no pun intended...is smoking. Why should I have to pay for other people habits? Especially when they are bad. My insurance premiums are higher than most smokers I know...how is that fair? But we cannot raise their premiums because then they won't get insurance and then we'll all end up paying their hospital bills. Smokers need to quit whining about their rights and take a really good look at what they are doing to their bodies, their families bodies...because most smokers smoke in front of their families...and the economy.
May 5, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
tzkmom (anonymous) says...
If you would notice, this is a Dr. so I would say this is his business to talk about. Imagine how many people he sees each day that he wouldn't have to if they stopped smoking.
May 5, 2009 at 3:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gemini (anonymous) says...
Who was it that needed proof from a DOCTOR that smoking can cause cancer???????
Here it is!
"Smoking is absolutely bad for your health. Of course it can cause cancer."
Needed that a month ago...maybe the ban would have passed by a larger margin!
May 5, 2009 at 3:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
My father quit using Zyban when it first came out years ago. A good friend almost died of a massive heart attack the drs said was caused by smoking. That finally shook him up enough to give it a 100% effort to quit. He said the medicine really helped. Good luck to anyone who tries to quit smoking.
May 5, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
" Of course it can cause cancer."
The key word in this quote from Dr. Tovar is the word " CAN ", which is neither conclusive nor difinitive ! A more convincing and difinitivly conclusive quote from Dr. Tovar would have been or could be, " Of couse smoking and shs, is the only thing that does, by itself, absolutely, without any doubt, is the sole cause of any and all cancers, illnesses or health problems and I as a doctor have said so on many death certificates that the difinitive, single, cause of death was smoking or shs. "
You will also notice the " plug " for nicotine gum, nicotine patches or other medications like Zyban or Chantix.
Could this be the start of a campaign for more bans personal, bans on individuals freedoms ?
May 5, 2009 at 3:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Good luck to all who wish to quit smoking, I hope you can do it. Me, I'm not ready yet. I'll probably quit smoking when they shut the crematory burners off.
May 5, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Were is the article on the health benifits of drinking? I hear good things.
May 5, 2009 at 5:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
Where.... I meant Where not were. My bad.
May 5, 2009 at 5:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
I quit smoking 8 years ago. The money I saved equaled a car payment so that's what I did, bought a car. What to do with your hands? I started quilting. Those are expensive beauties, but well worth it.
May 5, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
BigE (anonymous) says...
Methusla, with all due respect, you CAN be an idiot sometimes. The key word is can. Does that mean you are an idiot all the time? Or just when you write on these forums? I don't know...
No one ever said that smoking was the sole, absolute, definitive cause of anything. You guys wanted to hear from a Dr. during the entire debate up 'til the vote. Now you hear an opinion from 1 and you b**ch about that too. Why are you so unhappy all the time? Has anything in your life ever pleased you? Just wondering.
Have a nice day!
May 5, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
Despite my strong opposition to the smoking ban....I personally quit smoking several years ago and have never regretted that decision. Even though I waited too long to quit to gain maximum health benefits I would recomend it to any one.
Besides if you smoking ban opponents really want to garner some revenge....quit smoking and thereby shut of the cash flow to groups like CAE.....Then listen to them howl.
Having said all that, I also know from my experience that the decision to quit...and the will to succeed.....can only come from within...and only when you are ready. All the preaching, pleading, and nagging in the world, will accomplish nothing until you decide its time.
May 5, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MisterO (anonymous) says...
gemini posted, "Who was it that needed proof from a DOCTOR that smoking can cause cancer??????? Here it is!"
Distortions and misquotes again, gemini?
I believe what was asked for was not 'proof from a DOCTOR that smoking can cause cancer' as you stated.
What was asked for was a statement from a doctor that they were treating a patient who's cancer was a direct result of exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
I ask that you back up your claim that someone asked for proof from a doctor that smoking can cause cancer. Please copy and paste the date and time of the post.
Those who don't need others to do their thinking for them know that there is a difference between smoking and exposure to 2nd hand smoke.
May 5, 2009 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Bellbottom (anonymous) says...
I smoked for many, many, many years and have been smoke free for almost one year. I would assume you have never smoked. I for one NEVER had "people start fake-coughing" when I was around, "give me dirty looks", and I was never treated like I was some "disease-spreading leper". I don't know what kind people you hang around with but I'm sure glad I don't know you or them.
May 5, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spectator (anonymous) says...
I hazard to guess, wildcatnurse, that your high insurance premiums have more to do with the uninsured than the smoker/obese/whatever-you-plug-in-here. Surely as a nurse, you are aware of the many people that have no or inadequate insurance....who do you think is picking up that bill? You and me. As a nurse, don't you know hospitals have had to shut down because they treat a tremendous amount of uninsured individuals? And no, I do not advocate turning someone in need away but to blame the tobacco user for the high insurance premiums is out of line. Insurance is little more than legalized and well-organized crime anyway. One more thing, I do not use tobacco. My 2 cents.
May 5, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
oh4theluvof (anonymous) says...
Bellbottom:
I'm very glad you never had those experiences, but I know as a witness to many occasions that people treat smokers badly. There is a public smoking ban in Emporia now because of such attitudes. Dr. Tovar was simply pointing out that behavior like that is common and can cause a smoker to self-comfort with nicotine even more. He was being compassionate to the plight off the smoker.
This letter had NOTHING to do whatsoever with second-hand smoke, however, which is what the ban supporters tried to say is so toxic. There is no information in this letter that supports the ban. It only supports improving your health by replacing the smoking habit... the kind of info that is truly convincing our society to shun tobacco use, but not intended to cause shunning the user. Quit reading things in, everybody.
May 5, 2009 at 8:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
It would please me very much if the world was free of intollerant, inconciderate boobs such as you, and others like you Big E, whos only obvious goal in life is to dominate and rule others who don't fit into your particular " scheme of life " or your particular " intollerant cast " !
May 5, 2009 at 9:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
wildcatnurse.....with logic like yours I hope I never wake up in the hospital and find you at my bedside...I fear I would have to go running and screaming out the door with my inmodest hospital gown streaming behind.
You claim your insurance premiums are higher than most smokers....
#1....how do you know that?
#2....if your premiums are so high you might consider looking into why...rather than just blaming it on smokers with no proof whatsoever.
Then you claim smokers would all drop their insurance if their premiums were increased....that may be one of the most rediculous statements I have ever heard. If you are going to say things like that you better have some proof to back it up.
The only thing you said that made any sense was smokers should take a really good look at what they are doing to their bodies.....and Dr. Tovar's article offered good advice in that regard. But as a "reformed ex-smoker" I can assure you that rants like yours will do nothing to convince anybody of anything.
Unless of course it convinces me to go running and screaming from the hospital with my inmodest night shirt streaming behind when I see wildcatnurse on a name tag.
May 6, 2009 at 5:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
For smokers that are thinking about quitting I have some free advice.....and we all know what free advice is worth
During all my run-up attempts to quit smoking (and there were several) I would very quickly start thinking to myself.....do you mean I will never again be able to smoke a cigarette. Once that nagging thought entered my mind I was doomed.
So the last time I ripped a page from the 12-step programs of AA and NA.....I just quit one day at a time. I even carried a pack of cigs in my pocket for sometime. But every morning when I woke up I would say to myself....let's just get through this day without one...just this day.
Sometimes even that wasn't good enough. Sometimes I had to just get to lunch....or get through this hour...or even just for a few more minutes. But eventually the times started getting longer....I quit carrying the crutch in my pocket and the time has grown to about eight years now.
But you know what...I still don't say I'll never have another smoke...because when I do then I start wanting one. Because there is something else the 12-step programs teach.....addiction is forever. You never beat it you only control it. But that's not to say you will never be relaxed and comfortable not using. I am proof that you can be.
If this can help somebody that will be good. If not remember what you paid for it.
May 6, 2009 at 6:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
CRAZE (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
May 5, 2009 at 7:53 p.m. ( permalink )
CRAZE (anonymous) says...
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
May 5, 2009 at 8:24 p.m. ( permalink )
driveonby (anonymous) says...
Gwen Larson, Just for the sake of appearing to be unbiased, please print the study that was sent to the paper last Friday. It IS the largest one ever done on second hand smoke. Your failure to print it clearly demonstrates the paper's bias.
May 6, 2009 at 8:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Weltha (anonymous) says...
Biscuitboy- I really like your last post. So true and anyone who hasn't been through it doesn't understand it.
May 6, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
Big E,
I and others who opposed the smoking ban have never said that smoking was not bad. However we are also intelligent enough to know that smokers, smoking and shs are not the only sole, absolute risk of anyone contracting cancer or any other illness and we do not blame nor hold those who smoke responsible for all of the worlds ills as you and other intollerant, insensative and inconsiderate morons seem to have a penchant to want to do ! Some of your particular cast of do gooders, know it all, holier than thou morons have gone so far as to insinuate that smokers are a plague upon them !
There are numerous health risks in the world that everyone is exposed to everyday that can also cause cancer, etc. and yet you and others in your particular cast explain these away or make excuses for these health risks, as being necessary and beneficial ! What a load of Bull S_ _ t ! A health risk is a health risk, no matter what it is and if you are going to ban something that is perceived as a health risk, then ban everything that is perceived as a health risk.
No, you cannot convince me that this particular ban was not entirely a health issue and targeted noone but the smokers and the businesses that allowed smoking, because it was something that offended you and your fellow intollerant, dictatorial morons and went against your beliefs and wishes !
I can' t wait to see what the next unnecessary, intollerant, personally targeted ban that the holier than thou social cast will force upon their fellow man !
May 6, 2009 at 8:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
driveonby,
Your request for the Gazette to publish or print any info or study that may show that Emporia's powers that be are or were wrong and how hypocrital the powers that be, can be and sometimes are, will never be printed and I will be very suprised if it is printed !
May 6, 2009 at 8:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
spectator (anonymous) says...
Oh yes, crack, he is SOOOOO amazing. I ass/u/me you believe he walks on water as well as does the president......I wish I was as perfect as this aforementioned trio. Give it a rest, people. I hate to burst your bubble but you begin to die from something immediately after you're born. Let's just ban everything and be done with it.
May 6, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
crack,
FYI, I looked at all or most of the information, test results, etc. I could find that was pertinent to the issue and came to the conclusion that, yes smoking and shs may be a health risk, but most of the test results and conclusions were deemed " inconclusive " by several authorities on the matter and even the ACS publicly stated that even though smoking and shs is a risk factor and even though a person is exposed to shs, they may not contract cancer, etc. and that there are several factors to consider in determining what causes cancer, etc.
As I have stated before, many times ! If you are going to use the excuse of banning something because of a health risk, then you should ban everything that has been purported as being a health risk ! However smokers etc., were purposly singled out and targeted for an unnecessary ban, because they were doing something an individual or group of individuals did not agree with, fit in with their beliefs, way of living or life style !
Also using the excuse of " necessary" or " beneficial " for not targeting or banning everything that is purported as a health risk, is pure Bull Sh_t at best ! Something that is a health risk, is a health risk whether it may be perceived as necessary or benifical and should be considered for a ban, under the general excuse of banning it because of being a health risk !
lAs adults, capable of making adult decisions as to whether we as individuals want to live a certain life style or expose ourselves to what we know to be a health risk, should be an individual choice, made by that individual and that individual only !
Insinuating that smokers are a plague, murders or soley responsible for the bad decisions, deaths or failing health of others is irresponsible and shows just how intolerant and selfish certain individuals or group of individuals are and can be !
May 6, 2009 at 11:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
josiesbar (anonymous) says...
Seig = Victory
Heil = Well-being or health
Hey, we're halfway there!
May 6, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
spectator.....
I like Dr. Tovar and I voted for President Obama.....But I completly agree with one thing you said.....
The one absolute sure fire way to die is to be born. Nobody has ever gotten out of here alive yet....and despite some peoples religious beliefs....nobody ever will.
May 6, 2009 at 12:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
While we are on the subject of studies...I'm still waiting to learn where that Euphoria restaurant is that has air thirty some times more pure than outside air.
Come on people. I would still like to go there so I can refresh and rejuvinate my lungs. What Up...is this place some kind of a state secret....or maybe its just more baseless propoganda.
Oh Well...So much for refresh and rejuvinate
May 6, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jcook66801 (anonymous) says...
This huge study driveonby is talking about: where is it so that I can read it.
May 6, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
solong (anonymous) says...
Methusla, I am so glad I don't have to share the drug addicts of Emporia's drugs with them anymore in the public spots we congregate, let alone smell their drugs on our clothes and hair. We have evolved for the better in most instances, time will show this was a positive change for all.
May 6, 2009 at 1:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
People that smoke are drug addicts now? More proof that it was about snobbery not health.
May 6, 2009 at 1:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I was there, sorry I missed you.
"I just don't see what is so appealing about smoking all the time."
You should give it a shot, see what all the fuss is about.;)
May 6, 2009 at 2:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
A new study by researchers from the RAND Corporation, Congressional Budget Office, University of Wisconsin, and Stanford University is the first to examine the relationship between smoking bans and heart attack admissions and mortality trends in the entire nation, using national data. All previous U.S. studies only examined one particular city. In contrast, this study examined data from the Nationwide Inpatient Survey (NIS), which is nationally representative and includes 20% of all non-federal hospital discharges in the United States. The study has been published as Working Paper 14789 of the National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper Series.
Study citation: Shetty KD, DeLeire T, White C, Bhattacharya J. Changes in U.S. hospitalization and mortality rates following smoking bans. Working Paper 14790. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2009. The study is copyright 2009 by Kanaka D. Shetty, Thomas DeLeire, Chapin White, and Jayanta Bhattacharya.
The key conclusions of the study are as follows:
May 7, 2009 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
"In contrast with smaller regional studies, we find that workplace bans are not associated with statistically significant short-term declines in mortality or hospital admissions for myocardial infarction or other diseases."
2. "An analysis simulating smaller studies using subsamples reveals that large short-term increases in myocardial infarction incidence following a workplace ban are as common as the large decreases reported in the published literature."
The study uses state and local workplace smoking ordinance data from the American Nonsmokers' Rights Foundation tobacco control database for the years 1990 through 2004 and national data on heart attack admissions and mortality from the National Inpatient Survey (1993-2004), as well as from the Multiple Cause of Death database (1989-2004). Using a fixed effects regression model, the authors analyze outcomes (heart attack admissions and mortality) before and after the implementation of all workplace smoking bans in the nation, as identified in the ANR database.
more:
The regression coefficient of interest represents the change in heart attack admissions or mortality associated with the implementation of a smoking ban, while controlling for secular trends in the outcome variable as well as regional differences in outcomes and regional differences in population size, number of physicians, number of hospital beds, household income, and percent of the population in the labor force.
May 7, 2009 at 7:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
more:
The study also simulates the results from the comparison of all possible combinations of regions in the U.S. by examining subsets of the data, where one region is an intervention unit and the other is a comparison or control unit. The authors are therefore able to simulate what the results would be for each of the 19,406 possible comparisons of intervention and control regions in the country.
The main study result is that the regression coefficients for the smoking ban variable is not statistically significant in either the heart attack admission or heart attack mortality model, indicating that the smoking bans had no effect on either heart attack admissions or heart attack mortality.
The study estimates that workplace smoking laws reduced heart attack mortality by a non-significant 1.5%, with a 95% confidence interval of -4.8% to +1.8%. The study estimates that workplace smoking laws reduced heart attack admissions among 18-64 year-old adults by a non-significant 4.2%, with a 95% confidence interval of -10.2% to +1.7%.
May 7, 2009 at 7:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
MORE:
Most interestingly, the simulation of all possible comparison studies of local regions in the U.S. finds that just as many studies would find an increase in heart attacks associated with smoking bans as would find a decrease in heart attacks (see Figure 2). The mean difference in heart attack admissions among all studies was 0. The exact same result was found for heart attack mortality (see Figure 3).
The paper concludes: "We find no evidence that legislated U.S. smoking bans were associated with short‐term reductions in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction or other diseases in the elderly, children or working‐age adults." ...
May 7, 2009 at 7:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
"We also show that there is wide year‐to‐year variation in myocardial infarction death and admission rates even in large regions such as counties and hospital catchment areas. Comparisons of small samples (which represent subsamples of our data and are similar to the samples used in the previous published literature) might have led to atypical findings. It is also possible that comparisons showing increases in cardiovascular events after a smoking ban were not submitted for publication because the results were considered implausible. Hence, the true distribution from single regions would include both increases and decreases in events and a mean close to zero, while the published record would show only decreases in events. Thus, publication bias could plausibly explain why dramatic short‐term public health improvements were seen in prior studies of smoking bans."
May 7, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Without a doubt, this is the most definitive study yet conducted of the short-term effects of smoking bans on cardiovascular disease.
To give you an idea of the scope of this study compared to previous ones, the Helena study involved a total of 304 heart attack admissions in one community over a period of six months. This study examined a total of 217,023 heart attack admissions and 2.0 million heart attack deaths in 468 counties in all 50 states over an eight-year period.
This study fails to find any significant short-term effect of smoking bans on heart attack admissions or heart attack mortality, although a small effect cannot be ruled out. The study refutes the claims from previous studies that smoking bans result in a short-term reduction in heart attacks in the range of 20-40%, as many anti-smoking groups are asserting.
The most important finding of this study is that there are just as many smoking ban communities in which heart attack admissions and mortality have increased in comparison with control communities as there are smoking ban communities in which heart attacks have decreased relative to control communities. The mean difference was found to be zero.
May 7, 2009 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
Thus, the study not only fails to find a short-term effect of smoking bans on heart attacks, but it also explains the positive findings of previous studies. What appears to be going on is what is referred to as publication bias.
What this means is the following: if one wanted an unbiased estimate of the effect of smoking bans on heart attacks, one would ideally include all communities that have enacted a smoking ban. In reality, what has occurred is that there have been what essentially amount to anecdotal studies conducted in several communities. These few studies have been published in the literature. It is possible that similar studies were conducted that failed to find an effect and that these studies were therefore not published. It is also possible that the finding of positive results in the few communities studied was essentially a result of chance. There may be other reasons why certain communities were selected for study. For example, researchers may subconsciously have a feeling that heart attacks have decreased and may want to conduct research to confirm if this is the case or not.
For whatever reason, it is apparent that the sample of communities in which this issue has been studied represents a biased sample of all possible studies that could have been conducted. When one examines, systematically, data for all regions in which smoking bans have been enacted, one fails to find a significant effect of smoking bans on either heart attack admissions or heart attack mortality.
May 7, 2009 at 7:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steve_Corbin (anonymous) says...
The above study was posted here in segments because
jcook66801 asked to read it. Hope it lasts.
May 7, 2009 at 7:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
biscuitboy (anonymous) says...
.......publication bias.....is that like when the Gazette published a biased study the weekend before an election on the topic. HMMMMMM.......
May 7, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
biscuitboy,
Surely, you don't think that there was any bias on the part of the Gazette do you ? What the Gazette did was just good business practice ! Think of all the advertising revenue they may have lost if they hadn't published the article, which you are referring to and at the time it was published ! Publishing bias, possibly not, however being prressed to do so by threating to pull advertising accounts, maybe !
May 7, 2009 at 8:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
methusla (anonymous) says...
P.S. I am not taking the Gazettes side, just saying how things are done !
May 7, 2009 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
glarson (anonymous) says...
To the forums:
http://www.emporiagazette.com/forums/...
May 7, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )