Comments (9) | Add a comment
Study ties Nevada's indoor smoking ban to dip in strokes, heart attacks
-
Chris Pritsos, University of Nevada, Reno researcher, is the co-author of the study of the effects of the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act.
Tools
LAS VEGAS BUSINESS PRESS
Updated: May 19, 2011 | 8:58 a.m.
Could Nevada's ban on indoor smoking be good for the economy and good for your health?
Perhaps. In a new study, University of Nevada, Reno researchers report that hospital bills related to heart problems in the Silver State have decreased by an average of more than $33 million per year since the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act went into effect in late 2006.
"The consensus is the smoking ban has had an effect on the health of Nevadans," said Chris Pritsos, the lead UNR researcher and the study's co-author. "There has been a significant reduction in the amount of heart attacks and strokes."
During the ban's first years of 2007-2009, Nevada recorded $14 million a year in savings, on average, in combined Medicare and Medicaid costs for the treatment of two ailments sensitive to secondhand smoke: heart attacks and strokes.
Nevada hospital admissions for stroke sufferers have declined by an average 4 percent or 315 per year and heart attack cases declined by an average of 12 percent or 346 per year since 2007, the study found. The researchers attribute the drop solely to the change in the indoor smoking law.
"The smoking rate didn't change in Nevada and the population went up," Pritsos said. "What else could it be?"
Nevada's experience mirrors findings from other states that have similar laws, Pritsos said.
While a significant change in Nevada, the act wasn't universal.
"Stand-alone taverns and casino floors are exempt, and so it is not just their customers that are exposed to secondhand smoke, but also their employees," Pritsos said.
The falloff in Nevada hospital visits resulted in an average annual savings of $23.5 million for heart attack treatment, and netted an average yearly savings of an additional $9.8 million for stroke care, the UNR study found.
Researchers say those numbers outweigh the loss of business reported by some establishments.
"The partial smoking ban's (health care) savings dwarfs the purported economic losses of taverns," said co-author John Packham, who is also the University of Nevada School of Medicine's director of health policy research.
The Nevada Tavern Owners Association has said that about 100 Southern Nevada taverns have closed as a result of financial losses related to the smoking ban. Others, like Jonathan Fine, owner of the Rockhouse bar and nightclub, changed their business models in response.
Fine did away with food service at the Rockhouse because only taverns that serve food are covered by the law. Although he's a nonsmoker, he opposes the Nevada Clean Indoor Air Act because he said it hurts small businesses.
"Small bars have an uphill battle already, against the Station Casinos of the world,'' Fine said. "Then you put another roadblock in their way."
But Pritsos challenged opponents of the law to come up with their own hard numbers.
"They go out and say, 'We are losing money,' '' Pritsos said. "I say, 'Prove it is due to the ban.' "
The law is being challenged both in court and in the Nevada Legislature. Earlier this month, the parent company of Bilbo's Bar & Grill on West Charleston Boulevard challenged the law's constitutionality before the Nevada Supreme Court. That case is pending.
Pritsos said efforts to scrap the law helped determine the timing of the study's release.
"The act should be expanded, not repealed," Pritsos said. "We wanted to get these numbers out there now."
Fine maintained that common sense shouldn't be mandated by law.
"If somebody has a bad heart, they shouldn't be around smoke" he said. "And you don't need a smoking ban for that."
Contact reporter Valerie Miller at vmiller@lvbusinesspress.com or 702-387-5286.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
I dont think there is one person who believes this story. The tides are turming and the ban in the taverns will be lifted soon. All other locations will remain non smoking.
@Gary D: maybe they will just come up with the statistics to prove that gunsmoke cures cancer.
Now, if we can ged rid of the Mexican Street Gangs, Nevadans will have a chance to stay alive outside the Casino's as well.
I agree with Mr. Fine. I do not need the government thinking for me. I smoked for 30 years and quit over 10 years ago so I feel I can speak on this subject with complete understanding. If you are a business owner the government should not be allowed to tell you who you can serve. What is wrong in posting on the door of you establishment that we allow smoking in this building. Than you as a non smoker can make a informed decision whether to go in or not this also is the same for a non smoking establishment the smoker in this case can go in or not but has made the decision on their own not the government. What has happened to common sense and indepent thinking.
It's usually good to see health improvement along these lines and electronic cigarettes are another way to enjoy the feeling of smoking without tobacco. I've tried several brands and enjoy Green Smoke and Blu, so see www.greensmoke.com/morgs or http:goo.gl/xpfmk for more.
Does this study also include consideration of the fact that the population of NV has declnied by 70,000? This is a significant factor/variable in any study.
So the "study" was from the government?
The left wing educators?
The very ones who get paid by US?
Sounds fair and balanced to me!
Could they have an agenda? Naw!
The nanny state is alive and well. Just ask the global warming conspirators.
Although if Nevadans are eating better and exercising more, I don't think the co-author of the "study" is among them. Maybe he needs to take off the fake lab coat and get out more.
More propaganda. Find a statistic to get where you want to get and make the leap of a causal connection and you are through. What else could it be, well let's see... maybe Nevadans are eating better and exercising more? Some scientific study... "we just wanted to get these numbers out there now". Exactly.