±ÏÎÞÑÌ

Ô­ÎÄ£ºHealth impact of smoke-free regulations

Smoke-free laws reducerespiratory symptoms

Because of the immediate drop in pollution levels and second-hand tobacco smoke exposure after implementation of smokefree laws (64), improvements in respiratory health are experienced very quickly. In Scotland, bar workers reported a 26% decrease in respiratory symptoms, and asthmatic bar workers had reduced airway inflammation within three months after comprehensive smoke-free legislation was enacted (65). In California, bartenders reported a 59% reduction in respiratory symptoms and a 78% reduction in sensory irritation symptoms within eight weeks after implementation of the law requiring bars to be smoke-free (66).

Smoke-free laws reduce illness from heart disease

Even low-level exposure to second-hand tobacco smoke has a clinically significant effect on cardiovascular disease risk (67). Smoke-free environments reduce the incidence of heart attack among the general population almost immediately, even in the first few months after being implemented (68). Several studies have confirmed decreases in hospital admissions  for heart attacks after comprehensive smoke-free legislation was enacted (69¨C74). Moreover, many of these studies, conducted in subnational areas (states/ provinces and cities) where smoke-free laws had not been enacted on a national level, show not only the impact of such laws, but also the potential benefit of enacting smoke-free legislation on a local level when national bans are not in place.

Smoke-free laws are expected to reduce lung cancer

Because of the long time lag between second-hand smoke exposure and the development of lung cancer, complete data are not yet available regarding the expected decline in lung cancer after implementation of smoke-free policies.

Between 1988 and 2004, a period during which the state of California implemented comprehensive smoke-free legislation, rates of lung and bronchial cancer declined four times faster in California than in the rest of the United States, although at least some of this decrease may result from the sharper decline in smoking prevalence experienced in California compared with the rest of the country that began in the early 1980s (75).