REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

This chapter presents the related literature and studies from other sources. This focuses
more on the smoking bans and its effects on the perceptions and smoking behavior of
people. The researchers believe that the following studies are very much related to the
problem; thus providing other possible additional effects of the smoking ban to the
smoking behavior to target respondents.
Several studies have documented health and economic benefits related to smoking
bans. A 2009 report by the Institute of Medicine concluded that smoking bans reduced
the risk of coronary heart disease and heart attacks, but the report's authors were
unable to identify the magnitude of this reduction. Also in 2009, a systematic review and
meta-analysis found that bans on smoking in public places were associated with a
significant reduction of incidence of heart attacks. The lead author of this meta-analysis,
David Meyers, said that this review suggested that a nationwide ban on smoking in
public places could prevent between 100,000 and 225,000 heart attacks in the United
States each year.
Legislating on smoking of tobacco in public places has reduced the cause of heart
disease among adults. Such legislations include banning smoking in restaurants, buses,
hotels and workplaces. Institute of Medicine (IOM) convened by the Center for Disease
Control (CDC) found out that there are cardiovascular effects from exposure to
secondhand smoke. An epidemiology report says that the risk of coronary heart disease
is increased to around 25-30% when one is exposed to secondhand smoke. The data
shows that even at low levels of the smoke, there is the risk and the risks increases with
more exposures.
A 2012 meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was associated with a lower rate
of hospitalizations for cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases, and that
"More comprehensive laws were associated with larger changes in risk. The senior
author of this meta-analysis, Stanton Glantz, told USA Today that, with respect to
exemptions for certain facilities from smoking bans, "The politicians who put those
exemptions in are condemning people to be put into the emergency room. A 2013
review found that smoking bans were associated with "significant reduction in acute MI
[myocardial infarction] risk".
A 2014 systematic review and meta-analysis found that smoke-free legislation was
associated with approximately 10% reductions in preterm births and hospital attendance
for asthma, but not with a decrease in low birth weight. A 2016 Cochrane review found
that since the previous version of that review was published in 2010, the evidence that

smoking bans improved health outcomes had become more robust, especially with
respect to acute coronary syndrome admissions.
Smoking bans are generally acknowledged to reduce rates of smoking; smoke-free
workplaces reduce smoking rates among workers, and restrictions upon smoking in
public places reduce general smoking rates through a combination of stigmatization and
reduction in the social cues for smoking. However, reports in the popular press after
smoking bans have been enacted often present conflicting accounts as regards
perceptions of effectiveness.
One report stated that cigarette sales in Ireland and Scotland increased after their
smoking bans were implemented. In contrast, another report states that in Ireland,
cigarette sales fell by 16% in the six months after implementation of the ban. In the UK,
cigarette sales fell by 11% during July 2007, the first month of the nationwide smoking
ban, compared with July 2006.
A 1992 document from Phillip Morris summarized the tobacco industry's concern about
the effects of smoking bans: "Total prohibition of smoking in the workplace strongly
effects tobacco industry volume. Smokers facing these restrictions consume 11%15%
less than average and quit at a rate that is 84% higher than average.
In the United States, the CDC reported a levelling-off of smoking rates in recent years
despite a large number of ever more comprehensive smoking bans and large tax
increases. It has also been suggested that a "backstop" of hardcore smokers has been
reached: those unmotivated and increasingly defiant in the face of further legislation.
The smoking ban in New York City was credited with the reduction in adult smoking
rates at nearly twice the rate as in the rest of the country, "and life expectancy has
climbed three years in a decade."
In Sweden, as an alternative to smoking, has risen steadily since that nation's smoking
ban.
Smoking restrictions may make it easier for smokers to quit. A survey suggests 22% of
UK smokers may have considered quitting in response to that nation's smoking ban.
Restaurant smoking restrictions may help to stop young people from becoming habitual
smokers. A study of Massachusetts youths, found that those in towns with smoking
bans were 35 percent less likely to be habitual smokers.