The calcium antagonist (CA) controversy has been fueled in part by disagreements among scientists and clinicians over the scientific documentation required for drugs used to treat lifelong conditions. From a public health perspective, there are three unanswered questions: (1) Does long-term use of CAs convey health benefits to patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD)? (2) Is the long-term use of CAs safe? (3) Is the use of CAs cost effective? The answers to these questions determine the pertinence of three secondary questions: (4) Do the effects of CAs reflect a class action or are there important differences in health outcomes among subclasses of CAs? (5) Are the short-acting, immediate-release (IR) formulations different from the long-acting or the slow-release (SR) formulations? (6) What is prudent use of CAs? The purpose of this report is to summarize the answers to these questions from a public health perspective. (1) To date, use of CAs has not been documented to reduce the risks of cardiovascular complications of hypertension-stroke, myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or renal dysfunction. (2) The clinical trial database is inadequate to determine the long-term safety of CAs. The available data suggest that some formulations of CAs may be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular and noncardiovascular events. (3) Even if slow-release CAs conveyed a benefit, their cost-effectiveness ratios are unlikely to be acceptable. (4) The non-dihydropyridines may offer an advantage over the dihydropyridines. (5) Whether the slow-release formulations differ from the immediate-release formulations in terms of their health effects remains to be seen. (6) It may be prudent clinically to restrict the use of CAs until proper documentation of long-term safety and efficacy and cost effectiveness is available.