Skip to main content

Smoking ban linked to annual 5% drop in emergency admissions for asthma

There are some who still question the merits of banning smoking in pubic places. Oppositin is largely on two grounds: that it infringes civil liberties of those who wish to smoke andthat it has damaged trade in public houses. Neither of these holds much credibility. Civil liberties can equally be used to justify protecting others from risks of passive smoking. Such considerations in public health are always going to be balanced judgements. Evidence is mounting that such a judgement is right for banning smoking in public places. 

New evidence now shows that emergency admissions for asthma among adults fell by just under 5% in each of the first three years after the ban on smoking in public places was introduced in England. The results come from the largest study of its kind, published online in Thorax.

This adds up to around 1900 fewer such admissions every year, the authors calculate, and confirms the value of public health interventions, such as smoking bans.

They base their findings on the number of emergency admissions for asthma among adults aged 16 and over in England between April 1997 and December 2010.

Smoking in all public places was banned in July 2007 in England, where the prevalence of asthma is one of the highest in the world, affecting almost 6% of the population.

During the study period, 502,000 adults with asthma were admitted to hospital as emergencies. As expected, admissions were higher during the winter months than during the summer, although the numbers of admissions varied widely from region to region.

After taking account of seasonal temperatures, variations in population size, and long term trends in the prevalence of asthma, the figures showed that emergency admissions for the condition fell by 4.9% among adults for each of the first three years following the introduction of the smoking ban.

The percentage drop was similar across all geographical regions of the country.

Across England as a whole, the authors calculate that this adds up to around 1900 fewer such admissions in the year immediately following the ban, with a similar number in each of the two subsequent years.

The authors point out that although these figures are lower than those in other countries where smoking bans have been introduced, this might be because many workplaces in England had already adopted smoke free policies before the nationwide ban took effect.

The authors emphasise that although the association they found was significant, it does not prove that the legislation was responsible for the fall in emergency admissions for asthma. Nevertheless, they point out that their data are consistent with other research linking the smoking ban to measures of improved health, and attribute the association to a reduction in second hand exposure to tobacco smoke.

Furthermore, the size of the study population, plus the efforts to account for other underlying factors, add weight to the findings, they suggest.

“[The study] provides further support to a growing body of national and international evidence of the positive effects that introducing smoke free polices has on public health,” they conclude.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As