meta-roj

a while ago, i posted a brief comment on the news from new york on the economic impact of the smoking ban in the city.

since then, that story proved a bit controversial as smoking proponents complained that the study didn’t represent the real picture – it lumped mcdonalds in with the local bar. ok, so the economic case may be harder to make. we also recently saw much news of the smoking ban in ireland.

now we have a study based on data fom montana. it’s getting some coverage around the world. but this isn’t without controversy either (statistics are just like that, i guess).

Six-Month Public Smoking Ban Slashes Hart Attack Rate in Community [university of california, san francisco]

In the first study of its kind, researchers have found that the number of heart attack victims admitted to a regional hospital dropped by nearly 60 percent during the first six months that a smoke-free ordinance was in effect in the area.

Smoking ban could halve number of heart attacks [the independent]

…a study conducted in a town that outlawed smoking in enclosed public places. It showed that hospital admissions for heart attacks fell by 40 per cent in the six months covered by the ban.

How anti-smoking law saved lives [edmonton journal]

Every year the town of Helena, Mont., counts how many people suffer heart attacks. Every year the number stayed about the same — until the town banned smoking in workplaces, bars and restaurants in 2002.

Instantly the number of attacks among Helena’s townspeople plummeted by more than 40 per cent.

so, 40% or 60%… i guess someone should take this to the next level and compare the public-health economic impact to the retail-sales economic impact…. and pity the poor tobacco farmers.