According to two new public health studies, smoking bans can lead to a dramatic reduction in heart attacks, strokes, and heart- or stroke-related hospitalization rates.

The first study compared health statistics in the time before and after two separate smoking bans — a workplace ban in 2002 and a bar smoking ban in 2007 — were instituted in a Minnesota county. The second study scoured dozens of reports on anti-smoking laws across multiple countries and U.S. cities to assess their impact on public health trends. And according to CBS News, the results from both indicate that regions that take action against public smoking experience substantial health benefits:

For [Dr. Richard Hurt's] study, published in the Oct. 29 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, researchers at the Mayo Clinic looked at the number of heart attacks and sudden cardiac deaths that occurred in the 18-month period before and after smoke-free laws were passed in a particular town. [...]

By comparing data from before and after both laws were implemented, researchers found heart attacks fell by 33 percent from about 151 to 101 heart attacks per 100,000 people due to the laws, and the incidence of sudden cardiac death declined by 17 percent from 109 to 92 incidents per 100,000 people. [...]

The next study, published Oct. 29 in the American Heart Association’s journal, Circulation, looked at the link between smoke-free legislation and hospitalization rates. [...]

They found comprehensive smoke-free laws were associated with a “rapid” 15 percent decrease in hospitalizations caused by heart attacks and a 16 percent drop in stroke-related hospitalizations. The laws were also tied to a rapid 24 percent fall in rates of hospitalizations caused by respiratory diseases like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The most comprehensive laws — such as those that applied to workplaces, public areas, restaurants and bars — were linked to the greatest health benefits.

Researchers from both studies conclude that public officials should pursue stringent anti-smoking policies to reduce the incidence of smoking-related illnesses, hospitalizations, and emergency room costs. Dr. Stanton Glantz of the University of California study went as far as to say, “The public, health professionals and policy makers need to understand that including exemptions and loopholes in legislation — such as exempting casinos — condemns more people to end up in emergency rooms… These unnecessary hospitalizations are the real cost of failing to enact comprehensive smoke-free legislation.”

And as ThinkProgress has previously reported, states that pursue aggressive anti-smoking efforts — such as California and Washington — experience significant returns on their investments through lower health care costs. Since cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in America, public smoking bans and other anti-smoking efforts present lawmakers with a simple means for reducing health care costs and increasing Americans’ well-being.

Since the adoption of the World Health Organization’s Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC) by 168 member countries in 2005, it has been illegal for companies to publicly advertise tobacco products via any medium — including the internet. But as News-Medical reports, the tobacco industry is circumventing this public health convention by exploiting lax oversight in the smartphone app market, peddling pro-smoking, often youth-targeted digital content in violation of international and local laws.

A recent study on tobacco advertising undertaken by the University of Sidney finds that the popular Apple and Android app marketplaces are filled with “pro-tobacco” apps — i.e., apps that provide information on various tobacco brands, point users towards tobacco vendors, or contain depictions or simulations of tobacco product use — that do not meet most countries’ regulatory standards:

“The regulation of these apps is lagging behind the legislation in Australia and many other countries which ban tobacco advertising including through the internet and virtual stores,” said Nasser Dhim, lead author of the study and a PhD candidate from the [University of Sidney's] School of Public Health.

“This is despite the fact that the Apple and Android app stores have the technological infrastructure to block the sale of apps in accordance with local laws. As we show in our study Apple has already used this technology to ban access to certain content on its app store, in both China and Saudi Arabia.”

The study identified 107 English language pro-smoking apps looking at the two dominant marketplaces – 65 from the Apple app store and 42 from the Android app store.

By February 2012, the pro-smoking apps available in Google Play were downloaded by an average of 11 million users worldwide over the lifetime of the apps. These figures are only for the Android apps as those for Apple apps are unavailable but are likely to be even higher, given the greater popularity of its store.

Strikingly, many of these apps are available under categories more likely to appeal to children, such as “Entertainment” and “Games” — others, ironically, under “Lifestyle” and “Health and Fitness.” Smoking simulation apps might be cleverly branded as resources to help smokers kick the habit — but the University of Sydney study’s Nasser Dhim believes they actual serve a far more nefarious purpose. “This is because other independent studies have shown that such virtual images of cigarettes are more likely to trigger smoking craving behavior than to help them quit,” Dhim says. And youth-targeted advertising aimed at recruiting lifelong users at a vulnerable age is nothing new for alcohol and tobacco distributors.

Unfortunately, despite a concerted anti-tobacco backlash by elected officials in the last decade, global smoking rates are still quite high and investment in anti-smoking initiatives relatively low — this, despite the fact that investments in anti-tobacco programs can have up to a 50:1 return on investment.

‘Twas The Night Before Christmas has been a Christmas staple since it was first published in the early 1820s. But despite the classic story’s timeless appeal, its main character, jolly St. Nick, is also susceptible to some of the 19th century’s less savory habits — including taking regular puffs from a large tobacco pipe throughout the course of the poem.

As the Los Angeles Times reports, Pamela McColl, a Canadian publisher and anti-smoking advocate, decided that it was time to bring Santa’s behavior more in line with 21st-century public health norms. So with the help of publishers Grafton and Scratch, she set out to release a version of the work that leaves out illustrated depictions of Santa’s bad habit, and includes a note from Mr. Claus himself saying that he has left that “old, tired business of smoking well behind us”:

“I just really don’t think Santa should be smoking in the 21st century,” McColl said by telephone…”I grew up in the ’60s, in the ‘Mad Men’ series,” said McColl, herself a former smoker. And when she looked at her childhood edition of the Christmas Eve story, she found Santa smoking on half of the pages.

“A lot of people my age have lost someone to smoking,” McColl said. “And I thought, ‘Oh my. This is a great project.’” [...]

The reaction, McColl said, has been mixed: support from children’s advocates and pediatricians but strong criticism from librarians and those who oppose censorship.

Some depictions of tobacco in the media still specifically target children, although public health advocates are working to change that. McColl’s quest to make Santa into a public health role model for children is a fairly cost-free way to communicate the harms of smoking to a younger generation. But when states do choose to spend money to invest in anti-smoking initiatives, such as California and Washington, they see a considerable return on their investment — by some estimates, as high as $50 saved in preventable future health costs for every dollar spent on anti-tobacco programming.

Despite intensified anti-smoking campaigns over the past decade, the overall global smoking rate actually remains quite high, while investments in anti-smoking initiatives are relatively low. In the United States, cigarette smoking rates have dropped while purchases of cheaper tobacco products has surged.

A new interactive map from the non-profit Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) breaks down campaign donations from the tobacco industry to Congressional races by state and district. The goal of the map, according to a press release issued by ASH, is to educate Americans about the extent of the industry’s influence in American politics despite its conflict with public health goals:

“The United States has joined with the rest of the world in calling for serious action about tobacco, and part of that is acknowledging that the tobacco industry is the vector of the disease,” said ASH director Laurent Huber. The U.S. signed on to a UN political declaration last year that recognizes the need to tackle the tobacco epidemic and highlights “the fundamental conflict of interest between the tobacco industry and public health,” the reason why big tobacco should stay away from public policy. Huber added, “The public interest and the interests of the tobacco industry are diametrically opposed. It is simply unethical for politicians to take tobacco money.” [...]

The tobacco industry is bi-partisan when it comes to buying political favors. Dozens of Democrats as well as Republicans gladly accept donations from tobacco corporations, and for decades members of both parties have returned the favor by voting for tobacco interests. After years of effort, Congress finally gave FDA limited authority over tobacco in 2009, but only after Philip Morris, the number one tobacco industry donor, said it was OK. Even now the tobacco industry seeks to undermine the effectiveness of FDA regulation.

Smoking rates are still high around the world and, in the United States, tobacco-related illnesses disproportionately afflict the LGBT community. Smoking cessation programs, in addition to their obvious health benefits, have proven highly efficient in economic terms.

When Mitt Romney was President of Bain and Co., the consulting firm advised Phillip Morris to slash cigarette prices, a move that helped raise profits partly by increasing sales among teens.

In 2009, the World Health Organization reported that regular indoor tanning before age 30 increases the risk of melanoma — one of the fastest-growing rates of cancer by 75 percent. Facing criticism and increasing state restrictions on youth tanning, the $4.8 billion tanning industry is pursuing a misinformation strategy borrowed from the tobacco industry, according to a report from Bridget Huber at FairWarning.

The International Smart Tan Network has created a training video for salons with instructions to undermine medical consensus. The report chronicles the tanning industry’s campaign, which provides salon employees talking points that tanning is good for you:

At the heart of the industry’s message is the idea that tanning critics such as dermatologists, sunscreen manufacturers and even charities like the American Cancer Society are part of a profit-driven conspiracy. These critics are described as a “Sun Scare industry” that aims to frighten the public into avoiding all exposure to UV light. The tanning industry blames this group for causing what it calls a deadly epidemic of vitamin D deficiency, and tries to position itself as a more trustworthy source of information on tanning’s health effects.

Pointing to tanning as a solution to a “vitamin D deficiency epidemic,” the video echoes early tobacco company efforts to confuse the public on carcinogenic risks. Smart Tan’s misleading training video, bizarrely enough, actually casts health professionals in the same light as Big Tobacco — as villians “lying for money and killing people.”

This is the latest of the embattled tanning industry’s quiet efforts to draw in more business and prevent further regulation. As more states place age restrictions on tanning salons, the industry has stepped up its political efforts, by sending an increasing amount of campaign contributions to federal lawmakers, and employing lobbyists at the state level.

The consumption of loose tobacco and cigars increased a remarkable 123.1 percent from 2000 to 2011 despite an overall downward trend of tobacco consumption, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Annual cigarette consumption declined each year during 2000–2011, but the amount of loose pipe tobacco sold last year was enough to make 17.5 billion cigarettes, suggesting that certain smokers have switched from traditional cigarettes to other tobacco products in the wake of the 2009 federal law that created tax differences between product types:

This analysis shows that cigarette consumption continues to decline in the United States, a trend that has persisted since the 1960s. However, recent changes in consumption patterns, particularly increases in large cigar and pipe tobacco use, have resulted in a slowing of the decline in consumption of all combustible tobacco, and indicate that certain cigarette smokers have switched to using lower-taxed noncigarette combustible products. Moreover, a 2012 Surgeon General’s report found that youths and young adults had even higher rates of cigar use and simultaneous use of multiple tobacco products.

Tobacco companies have always had a knack for adapting. In the 1950s and 60s, as a wave of new research began to show the harmful effects of smoking, Camel coined the “more doctors smoke camels” refrain to ease consumer fears. According to the report:

Recent analysis of excise tax data for pipe tobacco, roll-your-own cigarette tobacco, small cigars, and large cigars reveals that the tobacco industry is adapting the marketing and production of cigars and roll-your-own tobacco products to minimize federal excise tax and thus reduce these tobacco products’ prices compared with cigarettes. [...] The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recommends modifying federal tobacco taxes to eliminate large tax differentials between roll-your-own and pipe tobacco and small and large cigars. In addition, because Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations currently do not apply to cigars and pipe tobacco, these products can be produced with flavoring, can be labeled with misleading descriptors such as “light” or “low tar,” and can be marketed and sold with fewer restrictions than apply to cigarettes.

Marketing a tobacco product as “light” or “mild” is blatantly misleading. Under the 2010 FDA rule, it’s now illegal for the tobacco industry to do so: Marlboro Lights are now “Marlboro Golds” and Camel Lights are “Camel Blue.” As the CDC report notes, though, these regulations do not apply to “roll your own” type products — which are much cheaper than packaged cigarettes but just as deadly. The solution, according to the report, is to increase prices, which “has been one of the most effective ways to reduce tobacco use and prevent youth smoking initiation.”

– Steven Perlberg