[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

“Informed by this strong evidence, we should now act to protect all workers in North Carolina, not just those working in restaurants and bars, from the hazards of second hand smoke.”

Does this mean that people who hire domestic workers won't be able to smoke in their own homes while the workers are on the premises?

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

A joint government-university study that shows good results from a government policy? I’m shocked!

(In all fairness, it is backed up by other studies.)

Nanny State PING!

[tallyhoe]

That is because nobody is working and there is no stress setting at home collecting un-employment!

[running_dog_lackey]

“Emergency room visits by North Carolinians experiencing heart attacks have declined by 21 percent since the January 2010 start of the state’s Smoke-Free Restaurants and Bars Law”
That means that smokers are staying home and eating better and drinking less.

[Sir Napsalot]

Oh yea?

Have the researchers checked the traffic fatality or incident rate way up since they pass the law?

Speaking of ‘cause and effect’, completely non-related, of course.

[WhistlingPastTheGraveyard]

CNN: Long hours at work may boost heart-attack risk

Higher unemployment means fewer hours worked. Fewer hours means fewer heart attacks. Unemployment saves lives!

[NCLaw441]

The figures from the study actually suggest otherwise. The reduction from 2008 to 2009 was about 900 ER visits. In 2010 the reduction was around 500. It could be argued that the legislation slowed the reduction by about half.

[stylin19a]

unfreaking beleivable. The law didn't take effect until 2010-01-01.

It was trending downward before the law went into effect. There was a bigger overal decrease from 08-09, than 09-10. and Women 18-59 from 09-10 ? geeze...

"Number of Emergency Department visits in North Carolina with a first-listed diagnosis for acute myocardial infarction for years 2008 to 2010, overall and by categories of age and gender."

Men................................ Women
Year All events 18-59 60 + 18-59 60+

2008 9,066 2,106 2,778 1,288 2,894
2009 8,113 1,962 2,630 1,093 2,428
2010 7,669 1,523 1,873 1,735 2,538

[manic4organic]

As good old Dad used to say: “Horse Puckey.”

[tomkat]

Bullshit

/.02

[eXe]

Yeah its BS alright.. these govt funded “Studies” always manage to come out right after a ban is passed.. means nothing because the sole purpose of the “study” is to simply say “See we were right govt knows best”

Your best bet is to ignore these kind of silly fake studies.

[wbill]

There are lies, dammed lies, and statistics.

The correct question for the "reporter" to ask is how the incidence of heart attacks dropped in the previous 2 year period ('08-'10), and in the 2 year period prior to that.

I'd bet that it's not too different from the period measured (1/10 to current, I'm supposing, but the article conveniently left that out as well).

[Gabz]

NO NO NO NO

This is all bogus BS. All “studies” in regard to this have been proven to be doctored in one way or another.

[Just another Joe]

I used to debunk these type of studies on a point by point basis.

It's just too tiring anymore and it comes down to the same thing each time.

All I can say to this study right now is, "PPPPFFFFFFTTTTTT".

[CSM]

I’ve seen enough of these to be debunked, so I’m not buying.