Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Health & Wellness

The Tobacco Industry's Secondhand Smoke Cover-Up

By Anne Landman, PR Watch. Posted January 15, 2009.


Researchers are still uncovering the shocking lengths to which the industry has gone to protect itself from smoking bans.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Many of the tobacco industry's underhanded strategies and tactics have been exposed, thanks to landmark legal cases and the hard work of public health advocates. But we are still uncovering the shocking lengths to which the industry has gone to protect itself from public-health measures like smoking bans. Now we can thank the city of Pueblo, Colo., for an opportunity to look a little bit deeper into how the industry managed the deadly deceptions around secondhand smoke.

A new study, the ninth of its type and the most comprehensive one yet, has shown a major reduction in hospital admissions for heart attacks after a smoke-free law was put into effect.

On July 1, 2003, the relatively isolated city of Pueblo enacted an ordinance that prohibited smoking in workplaces and indoor public areas, including bars and restaurants. For the study, researchers reviewed hospital admissions for heart attacks among area residents for one year prior to, and three years after the ban, and compared the data to two nearby areas that didn't have bans (the part of Pueblo County outside city limits, and El Paso County, which includes Colorado Springs). Researchers found that during the three years after the ban, hospital admissions for heart attacks dropped 41 percent inside the city of Pueblo, but found no significant change in admissions for heart attacks in the two control areas.

The eight previous studies in other locales used similar techniques and yielded similar results, but covered shorter periods of time -- usually about one year after the smoking ban went into effect. The results of this longer, more comprehensive study support the view that not only does secondhand smoke have a significant short-term impact on heart function, but that lives, and money, are probably being saved by new laws proliferating around the world in recent years that minimize public exposure to secondhand smoke.

Tobacco Smoke and the Heart

When most people think "cigarette smoke," they immediately think "lung cancer," but far less public attention has been paid to how secondhand smoke effects heart function. In a memo dated 1980 that I discovered in 1999, a Philip Morris scientist points out that nicotine lowers the heart's threshold to ventricular fibrillation -- an inefficient heart-pumping pattern -- which increases people's susceptibility to heart attacks.

A 1991 report sponsored by the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that secondhand smoke kills 53,000 Americans year, mostly from heart disease. A public health study published in 2001 showed that exposure to secondhand smoke for even short periods of time, as little as 30 minutes, causes changes in blood platelets and cardiac epithelium. Lung cancer takes many years to develop, but heart function is affected more rapidly upon exposure to secondhand smoke.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, public health, smoking, cigarettes, tobacco, smoking bans

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Health and Wellness! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Regulating tobacco doesn't work. Try legalizing Cannabis and
Posted by: Jennifer Bedingfield on Jan 15, 2009 4:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
let's see which one wins in the market. After all, that's what a truly free market should be all about.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Off topic?
Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx on Jan 15, 2009 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Or is this somehow related to tobacco studies and I don't make the connection?

Or is this a reply to the pro-cannabis reform comment posted above - a reply suggesting cannabis reform commentary needs to be banned?

dis·sen·tient (d-snshnt)
adj.
Dissenting, especially from the sentiment or policies of a majority.
n.
A dissenter.


Why do super-christians not like dissent?

It looks like off-topic spam to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Off topic? Posted by: nen
» RE: Off topic? Posted by: Xynyx
Tobacco is unconscionably dangerous
Posted by: xxdr_zombiexx on Jan 15, 2009 5:00 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yet totally legal and despite studies like this, which are redundant - EVERYBODY knows tobacco and cigarettes are a death sentence.

Why is cannabis illegal? They want to what? Save Lives?

Gimme a friggin' break. If YOU, personally, believe such tripe, you are worse than wrong.

There is NO salient argument for keeping marijuana illegal and heavily demonized when it's NOT KILLING ANYBODY, when its NOT LINKED TO CANCER or ALCOHOL POISONING.

The people who still support cannabis reform who STILL believe - wrongly - that there must be some sort of legitimate reason for it to be illegal - they are just totally and completely wrong and have no hope of mounting anything similar to a rational defense of their arcane and backwards belief.

You are free to believe in rainbow unicorns if you want. YOu can believe all the bullshit the federal government pumps into your brain, but you are stupid for doing so and there is nothing you can do about it besides accept that I am correct.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» According to smokenazi logic Posted by: esactun
Correlation between Non smoking and Ignorance?
Posted by: Purple Girl on Jan 15, 2009 7:38 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some studies have also claimed that tabacco stimulates the synapsis of the brain.
Have you noticed the correlation between the campaign against smokers and the increase of Neo con objective in the last few decades. Wonder why so many are Screaming 'Wake Up' to their co patriots about the high crimes our gov't and their Corp buddies have been committing.
I am not encouraging anyone to start smoking, but I do find it facinating the 'Dumbing Down' of american Ideology to the most base knee jerk issues. More concerned about Bob & tom amrrying than Global Warming. More concerned about Betsy terminating a pregancy than a 1000 Palestinians being slaughter like fish in a barrel.
In fact other studies have claimed that smoking pot may actually ward off Alzhiemers. so maybe the Stupidity of not legalizing it has more to it than merely Pharamcutical Profits. I tried one of their drugs for awhile, unitl I nearly choked to death because I couldn't swallow. Never had that problem before.
As a smoker I have no quams about not exposing non smokers to my habit. However, I, as a FREE American, Choose to partake in this little pleasure. Waht truely Outrages me is th eattempt to ban smoking even in Bars. Now which endangers the public more, the smoker or the Drunk Driver.
As for heart disease, lets then bar any American from eating ANY food which could possibly result in heart attacks...Big Macs, Butterfingers, Ice Cream.
I have 'massive heart attack' in my genetic make up and honestly I am hedging my bet on the 'Big One', my other alternatives are Cancer, or alzheimers. Smokers may be helping eliminate those expensive long term care costs, so maybe you all owe Us a thanks.Smoke and you go quick and with your wits still intact- sounds like a game plan to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thanks for the common sense suggestions Posted by: tommy_slothrop
» Totally Agree! Posted by: billslm
» RE: Total Bull Posted by: Crazy H
Disinformation is Bad Whatever The Source
Posted by: NoPCZone on Jan 15, 2009 8:24 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all I smoke, therefore I have let you know up front.

I do not object to reasonable smoking restrictions or taxation, but the self-righteous Jihad conducted by many is way beyond the pale and is based upon some pretty shoddy work.

I have not read the Pueblo study, but know that much of the work early smoking ban laws were based upon were bad science based upon cooked or cherry picked data.

Using such data or not supporting reasonable laws does no good. Bad laws hurt everyone in the long run.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Smoking bans are anti-progressive
Posted by: esactun on Jan 15, 2009 9:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Smoking bans suck. They undermine freedom of individuals and businesspersons alike. They're isolating, oppress the lower classes and interfere with social interaction--very non-progressive!

They're also distastefully authoritarian, they trash thousands of years of North American tradition, and are clearly at odds with the left's commendable drives for harm reduction and safe shooting centers for all drugs, it seems, except for tobacco and alcohol...

And yes, while the dangers of cigarette smoking are well-known, the science coming forth these days are weak and shot through with boas and assumption. read them and look at the confidence intervals and p values. Weak. Wouldn't be published in most fields.

Also most literature deliberately obfuscates the differential risks of differing tobacco products. Pipes and cigars are not cigarettes. The 1964 report found that pipesmokers live LONGER than nonsmokers. Smokeless users have no lung risks, and users of european nasal snuff have not been proven to face any real risks at all.

Secondhand smoke for most people exposed is about as dangerous as eating a few hambugers a week. Marinating in diesel exhaust in traffic as city dwellers do is far worse than suffering through a dude with a cigarette down the end of the bar. Sheesh.

Smell like propaganda and jihad to you? It should. Never mind the diabolical idea behind tying children's healthcare expansion to butt taxes....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

not to mention
Posted by: esactun on Jan 15, 2009 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... that there is a whole INDUSTRY out there with the sole goal of demonizing tobacco and its users. Whole journals with nothing but that. (Think they'd publish, say, findings of antioxidants in tobacco leaves?)

Their science shows it. It's weak and obfuscatory. Things like "ZOMG, there's polonium 210 in tobacco!" are flashy fear messages that ignore that fact that any plant grown in dirt contains traces of crap like that.

And they ignore the vile air in our cities. Well that would require systemic change that costs rich people money, whereas beating on smokers is just kicking poor people. So.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

...& in case you've remaining doubts about the tobacco industry...
Posted by: ctuck622 on Jan 15, 2009 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FL "slawmakers" in Special Session, a/k/a "Special Slaughter," just made massive cuts to social services in FL, in addition to overtly robbing from the Lawton Chiles Endowment Fund, which is earmarked solely for social services, all to avoid raising cigarette taxes in FL, one of the lowest cigarette taxes in the nation...anyone else smelling KICKBACKS from the tobacco industry? This goes along with FL "slawmakers" continued denial of global warming...which they won't acknowledge until a polar bear wanders into the Capitol Bldg. or Governor's mansion & hops in bed with "Uncle Chuckie" & his new bride.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Continuing Struggle
Posted by: calmecac5 on Jan 15, 2009 10:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The city of Cuernavaca, Mexico has a law that states that bars and restaurants must provide separate smoking and non-smoking areas for patrons, but the restaurant industry stubbornly refuses to obey, claiming it is too costly to implement. Meanwhile, they are crying about losing customers, as if only smokers utilize their services.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's BIG PHARMA, in case you were wondering
Posted by: Vince2 on Jan 15, 2009 11:14 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Pueblo studies are an amusing fraud, the fraud that keeps on giving (yet has been amply debunked by scientists within the anti-smoking movement itself).

But how can Alternet be so clueless as to run this "Big Tobacco Frames All the Issues" piece---an analysis at least 15 years out of date? The major force in the smoking wars today is Big Pharma. Tobaccos co's don't even play anymore. This has been the case for some time.

Big Pharma, which has compromised most of the studies on secondhand smoke with big money, is the force behind smoking bans and most of the attendant propaganda. Their strategy is to make smoking inconvenient as hell but not illegal, thus putting smokers in "chronic quit" mode.

The point is to sell truckloads of nicotine-replacement therapy. All those "quit now" ads your local gov't brings you on TV? Designed to move product: You call the toll-free number and they set you up with some nicotine gum or nicotine patches. That's the whole point. Your city paid Glaxo SmithKline or Pfizer a lot of money for that shit---but, rest assured, lobbyists for Glaxo and Pfizer made it worth the while of your political reps. (By the way---Big Pharma's quit-smoking products don't work, as any honest doctor will tell you---it's just a case of one industry making a grab for another's addicted clientele.)

THIS is the big-business story, the high-level corruption story, the story Alternet should be reporting. Unfortunately we're getting this "Tobacco Free Kids" bullshit instead.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

One valid smokers' complaint
Posted by: Crazy H on Jan 15, 2009 12:12 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whenever one of these topics comes up, we get a lot of noise from smokers complaining that they're being 'discriminated against.' 99% of those claims are bunk.

HOWEVER - one complaint is spot on. Hotels and motels are becoming increasingly 'smoke free.' Even in Vegas there are places where you can smoke on the casino floor, but not in the rooms upstairs. They claim that it's "for the health of the customers and staff."

Bulldookey.

They are jumping on the bandwagon to ban smokers not because of any concerns about their employees' or customers' health; but because it's one more way to cut down on damage to their rooms and/or cut insurance costs. (I mean, c'mon - HOTEL MANAGERS? Concerned about PEOPLE??! gimme a break.)

If they had their way, they'd ban people entirely. That way their rooms would never suffer any wear and tear. (How about a hotel that bans children? I'd stay there happily - and I bet children do a heck of a lot more damage than the occasional cigarette burn.)

They've got lots of other options. They could charge a surcharge for smoking rooms, or a damage deposit or...?

What they've got now just encourages people to sneak cigarettes in non-smoking rooms, which exposes those who are truly allergic to smoke. They are defrauding their insurance companies with their claims that no-one smokes in their hotels.

I dislike being lied to by hotels just as much as I dislike being lied to by the Tobacco Research Institute.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Good points
Posted by: esactun on Jan 15, 2009 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Also made by Dr Brad Rodu in his piece "For Smokers Only".

And Heck Chantix can lead to suicide!

Also look up the writings of Dr Petr Skrabanek.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's the anti-smokers who ruthlessly lie!
Posted by: CarolT on Jan 17, 2009 1:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The anti-smokers are guilty of flagrant scientific fraud for ignoring more than 50 studies, which show that human papillomaviruses cause over ten times more lung cancers than they pretend are caused by secondhand smoke. Passive smokers are more likely to have been exposed to this virus, so the anti-smokers' studies, because they are all based on nothing but lifestyle questionnaires, have been cynically DESIGNED to falsely blame passive smoking for all those extra lung cancers that are really caused by HPV.

http://www.smokershistory.com/hpvlungc.htm

The anti-smokers have committed the same type of fraud with every disease they blame on smoking and passive smoking, as well as ignoring other types of evidence that proves they are lying, such as the fact that the death rates from asthma have more than doubled since their movement began.

http://www.smokershistory.com/newviews.htm

And it's a lie that passive smoking causes heart disease. The death rates from AMI in Pueblo actually ROSE the year after the smoking ban. Those anti-smoker frauds only claimed that the rates of HOSPITALIZATION for AMI declined, not deaths! And, they could create a false impression of a decline merely by being too free with admissions (and raking in extra money for it) beforehand, and then magically reduce the admission rate by tightening up the policy.

http://www.smokershistory.com/etsheart.html#Pueblo

They create their bogus "smoking cost" claims by pretending that costs paid by smokers were paid by non-smokers, that diseases caused by infection were caused by smoking, and that non-smokers' costs don't exist at all!

http://www.smokershistory.com/BIGLIE.htm#SAMMEC

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

But what about FREEDOM OF CHOICE?
Posted by: rickiey on Jan 18, 2009 11:31 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets face it, everyone knows that cigarrettes are bad for you. Perhaps every minute detail, (such as the heart issue mentioned above) isn't publicized, but the link between cigarrettes and death has been firmly established and firmly publicized.

And yet, people still want to smoke.

The question is, should they be allowed, or should the government have the authority to make your decisions for your own good?

I, for one, choose the former.

It is about CHOICES, and I'm a big fan of people being able to CHOOSE.

Would you like the government to tell you that your abortion may be unhealthy, so you can't have it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement