Public smoking ban: Europe on the move
Medizinische Klinik II, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, D-23538 Lübeck, Germany
* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 451 500 2500; fax: +49 451 500 6437. E-mail address: heribert.schunkert{at}innere2.uni-luebeck.de
This editorial refers to ‘Short-term effects of Italian smoking regulation on rates of hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction’
by F. Barone-Adesi et al., on page 2468
Smoking, clearly, is the single most important avoidable cause of mortality and morbidity in developed countries. Adverse health effects of smoking are extensive, including lung cancer, cerebrovascular diseases, and chronic pulmonary obstructive disease.1 A recent report estimated that worldwide, a total of nearly five million premature deaths annually are attributable to smoking.2 In addition, overwhelming evidence demonstrates increased mortality and morbidity as a result of passive smoking (second-hand smoking).3,4 Smoking, therefore, cannot be accepted as a matter of personal preference anymore. It clearly is a significant health threat to everybody exposed to cigarette smoke. Legal bans, together with increased taxation, are the most effective measures to decrease overall smoking.5 Such bans do not only regulate smokers, but also—as a result—decrease active smoking. Perhaps, more importantly, these bans are likely to be effective in decreasing passive smoking.
Barone-Adesi et al.6 provide another piece of evidence supporting the effectiveness of smoking regulations. The Italian Government has banned smoking in all indoor public places, including cafes, restaurants, and bars, from 10 January 2005. The authors thought of evaluating whether the introduction of the public smoking ban resulted in a short-term change of hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction. In fact, Barone-Adesi and co-workers describe a significant reduction in the absolute number of admissions for acute myocardial infarction in patients <60 years from February–June 2004 (before ban) to February–June 2005 (after ban). Such a reduction was not seen in the control period (October–December 2003 to October–December 2004). On the basis of these observations in a population of more than four million inhabitants, the authors suggest that the observed reduction in smoking could account for an 11% reduction in admissions for acute myocardial infarction. A reduction of passive smoking might account for most of the observed effect.
Barone-Adesi et al. provide further pieces of evidence from national registries and surveys (i.e. 8.9% decline in cigarette sales, 7.6% reduction in cigarette consumption, >90% reduction in nicotine vapour phase concentration in pubs and discos) suggesting that the smoking ban in Italy did reduce overall smoking likely leading to the observed effect on myocardial infarction admissions.
The implications of the study for public measures of health are important. However, this study is not without limitations. First, epidemiological studies are potentially biased by confounding factors (i.e. seasonal variations) that are difficult to assess or control. Furthermore, the size of the effect among active compared with passive smokers remains rather speculative and is not supported by hard data. It would also have been interesting to learn more about potential changes in the relative prevalence of smokers among patients with myocardial infarction. Finally, the increase in acute myocardial infarction in patients >60 years remains incompletely understood. Nevertheless, this study confirms and extends recent observations following regulatory changes in the USA. Particularly, a significant decrease in hospital admissions for acute myocardial infarction was observed in the much smaller community of Helena, Montana, USA, after smoking had been banned from public and workplaces.7
Smoking bans have been criticized over the past decades for numerous reasons including the loss of profits from tax on tobacco products, potential property rights of bar or restaurant owners, and obvious financial interests of the tobacco industry. The argument of the ‘victimless crime’, however, clearly and finally has to leave the discussion based on accumulating data, including the current article by Barone-Adesi et al.
Historically, Pope Urban VII gave way to the world's first known public smoking ban in 1590,8 as he threatened to excommunicate anyone who ‘took tobacco in the porchway of or inside a church, whether it be by chewing it, smoking it with a pipe, or sniffing it in powdered form through the nose’. Scientifically, already in 1938, Raymond Pearl reported in Science that tobacco smoke shortened life span by about 10 years in ‘heavy smokers’.9 The deleterious consequences of passive smoking and the beneficial effects of smoking bans are increasingly discussed in the current literature. Furthermore, a growing number of public initiatives for smoking regulation—like the General Public Awareness Initiative ‘World No Tobacco Day 2006’ of the European Society of Cardiology—are actively campaigning. As a result, an increasing number of cities, states, and countries worldwide have instituted smoking-free legislation (see Table 1). South Africa was the first country in the world to ban smoking in all public areas. Furthermore, states (such as California) and cities (such as New York City) in the USA instituted smoking-free regulations before EU countries did. Importantly, Ireland was the first country in the Northern Hemisphere to ban smoking in all enclosed spaces from 29 March 2004. Ireland, thereby, became a leading model for Europe regarding smoking regulations. Since then, Norway, Sweden, Italy, and Scotland have instituted countrywide smoke-free legislations and further EU countries will follow. It took quite a long time to implement smoking-free policies in the ‘old world’, but Europe is on the move.
|
Conflict of interest: none declared.
Footnotes
The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.
doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl201 
References
- Edwards R. (2004) The problem of tobacco smoking. BMJ 328:217–219.
[Free Full Text] - Ezzati M and Lopez AD. (2003) Estimates of global mortality attributable to smoking in 2000. Lancet 362:847–852.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
- Glantz S and Parmley W. (2001) Even a little secondhand smoke is dangerous. JAMA 286:462–463.
[Free Full Text] - Raupach T, Schafer K, Konstantinides S, Andreas S. (2006) Secondhand smoke as an acute threat for the cardiovascular system: a change in paradigm. Eur Heart J 27:386–392.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Fichtenberg CM and Glantz SA. (2002) Effect of smoke-free workplaces on smoking behaviour: systematic review. Br Med J 325:188–194.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Barone-Adesi J, Vizzini L, Merletti F, Richiardi L. (2006) Short-term effects of Italian smoking regulation on rates of hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 27:2468–2472 First published on August 29, 2006, doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehl201.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Sargent RP, Shepard RM, Glantz SA. (2004) Reduced incidence of admissions for acute myocardial infarction associated with public smoking ban: before and after study. BMJ 328:977–983.
[Abstract/Free Full Text] - Nicotine. (1985) In Jack E (Ed.). An Old-Fashioned Addiction(Chelsea House Publishers, Henningfield) pp. 96–98.
- Pearl R. (1938) Tobacco smoking and longevity. Science 87:216–217.
[Free Full Text]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
Related articles in EHJ:
- Short-term effects of Italian smoking regulation on rates of hospital admission for acute myocardial infarction
- Francesco Barone-Adesi, Loredana Vizzini, Franco Merletti, and Lorenzo Richiardi
EHJ 2006 27: 2468-2472.[Abstract] [FREE Full Text]
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||