Kansas Smoking Ban Booklet - Sheila Martin

8/7/2019 Kansas Smoking Ban Booklet - Sheila Martin

1/19

Secondhand Smoke

and Smoking Bans__________

Is The Debate Real ly Over?

Law-abiding business owners

have a right to operate their

establishments free from the

tyranny of government officials

who overstep their authority

and trample personal property

rights, all while in pursuit of

the extraction of fees. - 1851

Center for Constitutional Law

Director, Maurice Thompson

"The Surgeon General's office takes

the award for disseminating widely

throughout the media the blatant liethat even brief exposure to

secondhand smoke can cause

cardiovascular disease and that

inhaling even the smallest amount of

tobacco smoke causes cancer."- Dr.

Michael Siegel

"They have created a fear that is based on

nothing. - Dr. Philippe Even


2/19

Table of Contents, Why we Fight the Bans 1

A Non-Smoking Doctor Opposed To Smoking Bans 2

Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed 3

Still Pooping In My Salad 4

Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Are Just Smoke 6The Economic Losers From Smoking Bans 8

The Air According to OSHA 13

Huffing And Puffing 15

Debunking Carmona's 2006 Surgeon General's Report 16

Additional Reading 17

Clearing the Air 18

____________________________________________________________________________

Why we fight the bansWell-meaning caretakers often

use scare tactics and propagandato discourage certain behavior bychildren. It's kind ofunderstandable.

"You'll shoot your eye out!""That will stunt your

growth!"

"Keep doing that and youllgo blind!"

To some degree these warnings are basedon exaggerations or downright lies propelledby wishes for what some see as appropriatesocial behavior.

This is not, however, a good tactic to useon adults. Most of us know that a whiff ofsmoke does not cause anyone to fall over deadand that smoking does not automatically leadto lung cancer. We do know that throwing

your smoking customers out the door darnsure does cause business losses and closures.

Perhaps the nannies have talked down tochildren so long that they dont know how totalk eye-to-eye with adults. Perhaps they thinklying to adults is the same as lying to kids, anappropriate way to accomplish what they see

as a greater good, an appropriateway to fulfill their agenda.

This may work with someelected representatives those whocannot or will not come to theirown conclusions through searchingthe truth, but independent thinkers,including a growing number of

elected representatives, are guidedby the discovery of truth and they

are rising up and shouting back against thepropaganda.

True scientists follow a methodicalprocess to discover truth and discard falsenotions. Business owners make decisionsaffecting the security of themselves, theirfamilies and those on their payroll based onfacts, not wishes.

Freedom-loving citizens know that their

happiness cant be bought with others stolenliberty.

We do not appreciate lies, even for ourown good. We want the truth, not propaganda.We want laws based on truth from unbiasedsources, not convenient lies and exaggerationsused to sell snake oil.


3/19

A non-smoking doctor opposed to smoking bansA letter from a practicing physician and member of American Cancer Society

By Robert E. Madden, M.D

Im Robert E. Madden MD, FACS. I am also a non-smoker. HOWEVER I am a passionateopponent smoking bans. Most of the opposition to the smoking bans has been based uponeconomic factors such as loss of business revenue, even closings. My opposition is due to loss ofindividual freedom and abuse of scientific fact.

I am a practicing chest surgeon, a teacher and a former cancer researcher. I am also pastpresident of the NY Cancer Society. I will not tell you that smoking is harmless and without risk,in fact one in eight hundred smokers will develop lung cancer. Asthmatics should avoid tobaccosmoke. What I will say is: 1) its a personal choice and 2) so called second smoke (ETS) isvirtually harmless. One may not like the smell but it has not been shown to cause cancer, even inbartenders. If people do not like the odor then they may go elsewhere. Those who support theban have no right to deny 24% of the adult population their enjoyment of a popular productbased on dislike, possibly hatred of smoking. This attitude is that of a bigot, akin to anti-Semitism or racism.

To me the most offensive element of the smoking bans is the resort to science as proving thatenvironmental smoke, second hand smoke, causes lung cancer. Not only is this unproven butthere is abundant and substantial evidence to the contrary. It is frustrating, even insulting, for ascientist like myself to hear the bloated statistics put out by the American Cancer Society (ofwhich I am a member) and the American Lung Association used to justify what is best describedas a political agenda. Smokers enjoy smoking. Most non-smokers are neutral. Anti-smokers hatesmoking. It is this last group that drives the engine of smoking bans. Smoking sections inrestaurants, ventilated bars and the like have been satisfactory and used for years. To those whochoose to smoke they do so at their own risk. To those eschew smoking let them patronizeestablishments whose owners prohibit smoking. To impose a city wide or a state wide ban is todeny people of their rights.

Respectfully, Robert E. Madden, M.D

Dr. Madden was contacted by Sheila Martin in preparation of this booklet. Dr. Madden

verified that he is the author of this letter and still holds the views expressed.


4/19

Exposures to second-hand smoke lower than believed, ORNL study findsOAK RIDGE, Tenn., Feb. 2, 2000

Exposures to environmental tobaccosmoke may be lower than earlier studies

indicated for bartenders, waiters andwaitresses, according to a study conducted

by researchers at the Department of Energy'sOak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL).

While people who work as wait staff andbartenders may generally be considered tobe more highly exposed to environmentaltobacco smoke, data from our study suggeststhat the situation is more complex," saidRoger Jenkins of the Chemical andAnalytical Chemistry Division.

The study, which involved 173 peopleemployed at restaurants or taverns ofvarying sizes in the Knoxville area,

concluded that exposures to respirablesuspended particulate matter (RSP), forexample, were considerably below limits

established by the Occupational Safety andHealth Administration (OSHA) for the workplace.

Subjects, who were non-smokers, wore pumps that sampledthe air they were breathing while at work for a minimum offour hours. Researchers recorded a maximum RSP level of

768 micrograms per cubic meter. The OSHA standard forRSP is 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter over eight hours.Samples from the subjects were analyzed for ultravioletabsorbing and fluorescing particulate matter, solanesol, 3-

ethenyl pyridine, nicotine and RSP.Other constituents of environmental tobacco smoke,

sometimes called second-hand smoke, also were not presentin the levels previously thought, Jenkins said. For example, astudy published in the Journal of the American Medical

Association in 1993 concluded that average RSP levels were

117 and 348 micrograms per cubic meter for bars andrestaurants, respectively, while the ORNL study found those

levels to be 67 and 135, respectively.While the higher estimates in earlier studies may be

explained by the choice of the establishments in which thestudies were conducted, another reason for the differencecould be that today's ventilation systems are more efficient,Jenkins said.

The Knoxville study also showed that for bartenders who

live with smokers, the away-from-work exposure is at least asimportant as the at-work exposure. And people who arehighly exposed at home tend to be more highly exposed atwork, probably because they don't avoid it as much, Jenkins

said.

Jenkins' paper, "Determination of Exposure toEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke in Restaurants and TavernWorkers in One U.S. City," is scheduled to be published inthis month's issue of Journal of Exposure Analysis and

Environmental Epidemiology.The "Restaurant and Tavern Workers" study builds upon

findings of an earlier ORNL study involving 16 cities and

more than 1,500 subjects nationwide. Inthat study, test subjects wore separate airsampling devices at work and away from

work over a 24-hour period. Resultsfrom this approach differ dramatically

from stationary air sampling, which doesnot take into account the constantly

changing conditions as people movefrom place to place throughout the day,Jenkins said.

"The fact is that while individuals maylive or work in environments where thereis smoke, stationary monitors cannottake into account changes in smokeexposure resulting from changes in a

person's micro-environment," Jenkinssaid. "In these micro-environments, aperson may be closer to or farther away

from various sources of environmentaltobacco smoke."

Over the last six or seven years, moredata on personal exposure to tobacco smoke has becomeavailable and the methods for measuring and analyzing the

smoke have become more sophisticated.The 16-cities study, the largest of its kind ever conducted in

a single country, found the highest levels of environmentaltobacco smoke nicotine levels in workplaces where smokingis permitted to be between 9.41 and 14.9 micrograms percubic meter, far lower than the numbers assumed by EPA and

OSHA."A well-known toxicological principle is that the poison is

in the dose," Jenkins said. "It's pretty clear that theenvironmental tobacco smoke dose is pretty low for mostpeople."

Extensive controls were employed in collecting and

analyzing the air samples collected by the 1,564 participantsin the study, Jenkins said. Test subjects also submitted tosaliva tests that would reveal cotinine, a constituent oftobacco smoke. Smokers were excluded from the study.

Cities used for the study were Baltimore; Boise, Idaho;Buffalo; Columbus, Ohio; Daytona Beach, Fla.; Fresno,

Calif.; Grand Rapids, Mich.; Indianapolis; Knoxville; NewOrleans; Philadelphia; Phoenix; Portland, Maine; SanAntonio, Texas; Seattle and St. Louis.

A book that delves into this work, "The Chemistry ofEnvironmental Tobacco Smoke: Composition and

Measurement: Second Edition," is expected to be released inMarch. Co-writers are Jenkins, Mike Guerin and BruceTomkins of the Chemical and Analytical Sciences Division.

Authors of the restaurants and tavern workers study areJenkins, Mike Maskarinec and Amy Dindal of the Chemical

and Analytical Sciences Division and Richard Counts of theComputer Science and Mathematics Division.

The research was funded by the Center for Indoor AirResearch. ORNL is a DOE multiprogram research facilitymanaged by Lockheed Martin Energy Research Corporation.


5/19


6/19

The Master Settlement Agreement funds the

American Legacy Foundation, which runs thetelevision ads you often see attacking smokers andtobacco companies. The American Legacy

Foundation spends $130 million a year opposing

smoking and has awarded grants of more than

$150 million to other groups since its inception. Ithas net assets of more than $1 billion.

All this is just the tip of abillion-dollar industry devoted

to attacking smokers.

Thousands of people now workfull-time attacking smokers, andthey have life-long funding.

They are the ones quoted in

newspapers and talking on theradio. They design and run the

ads. They lobby in state capitols

and Washington DC.What does the average Joe

Lunch Bucket think? He just

wants to be left alone.

Economics of BansWhy should we actively oppose smoking bans?

One good reason is because bans really do hurtbars and restaurants. Two of the best studies of theeconomic impact of smoking bans -- a 2002

survey of 300 businesses in California by KPMG,

the big accounting firm, and a 2004 study byDeloitte & Touche -- found major negative effectsof smoking bans on restaurants and bars. The first

study found 59 percent of bars and restaurants thatserved alcohol experienced a decrease in business.

The average decline in sales was 26 percent, and

29 percent laid off staff. The second study founddeclines in annual sales of 36 percent atrestaurants in communities with smoking bans.

Its about FreedomThe attack on smokers and bar and restaurant

owners is the tip of a spear aimed at the heart of allof our liberties. Smoking bans say private

businesses are actually public places and can be

regulated by the state. By what authority does thestate say a person cannot smoke in a particularplace, regardless of whether there are others in the

room, and regardless of whether the owner of that

place approves?

This is unprecedented interference with theprivate property rights of owners. It starts with

workplaces, then restaurants andbars, then parks and sidewalks,

and soon it will be homes and

private cars. Once we say the statecan violate peoples privateproperty and privacy rights, where

does it end?

Like all victimless crime laws,the laws against smoking are

difficult to enforce. With 23

percent of the adult population ofthe U.S. still smoking, it would

require a police state to actually

enforce a ban on smoking in all places that servethe public. Is that what we want?.

Time to Speak OutUnfortunately, many people who generally

support less government, lower taxes, and free-market solutions to social and economic problems

nevertheless stand on the sidelines of this debate,

saying, I dont smoke, so this isnt my issue. Orthey smoke and blame themselves for being poorparents or poor citizens -- they believe what the

television ads say -- and so they dont turn out tovote against smoking bans.

Its time for that to stop. Fundamental liberties

are being put at risk by the anti-smokingcampaign. These rights didnt come to us easily oras a matter of entitlement. Our forefathers fought a

war for independence to secure these rights. We

owe it to them not to abandon these rights withouta fight.

Joseph Bast ([email protected]) is presidentof The Heartland Institute.


7/19

Smoking Ban Advocate Says Some Claims Are Just SmokeBy Paul Soutar/KansasWatchdog.org February 20, 2010

Opponents to a statewide smoking ban say anti-tobacco advocates are playing a little loose with theirfacts.

They have an unlikely ally in Michael Siegel, amedical doctor and professor of community healthsciences at Boston Universitys School of PublicHealth. Hes a long-standing anti-tobacco advocate, aproponent of smoking bans and a strong critic of badscience.

In a story published Feb. 18 on his weblog, Therest of the Story: Tobacco News Analysis andCommentary, Seigel wrote, It is irresponsible todisseminate conclusions that are not supported by anyscientific evidence, especially if that information will

be used to infringe upon the freedom, autonomy, andrights of individuals.

I believe that anti-smoking groups have beenrecently exaggerating the evidence in several ways,Siegel said during a phone interview Wednesday.To me, the truth is enough. I really dont understandwhy these groups are exaggerating when I think itwould be enough to tell the truth.

A lot of groups have been saying that 30 minutesof exposure to secondhand hand smoke is enough to

cause heart disease. I think thats an exaggeration.Its not true that somebody walks into a smokyrestaurant for thirty minutes and theyre going tosuffer a heart attack.

The proposed ban would not exempt bars and

other gathering spots for adult smokersAnother exaggerated claim Siegel sees is thatpassing a smoking ban will immediately anddramatically reduce heart attacks. The evidenceshows that in countries which have enacted these

bans, they havent seen a decline in heart attackswithin one or two years of the ban, Siegel said.

The third claim Siegel objects to is called third-hand smoking. Some smoking ban advocates saynicotine left on a persons clothing and skin isdeposited on the surfaces away from the smokingarea then create vapor that exposes non-smokers toharm. I think thats just a gross exaggeration, andthe levels of exposure are so small that its notcreating any meaningful hazard,

Siegel says credibility is the key to changingpublic attitudes about health. Once we startexaggerating the evidence and the public becomesaware of this theyre going to lose trust in everythingthat we say.

Proponents of a statewide total ban on publicsmoking came under fire at a recent Health andHuman Services committee meeting of the Kansas

House of Representatives. Committee Chair BrendaLandwehr, R-Wichita, and other committee memberschallenged smoking ban advocates claims about

studies used to support a ban.Several ban supporters referenced a study led by

Dr. David Meyers, professor of cardiology andpreventive medicine at Kansas University MedicalCenter. The study, officially released Sept. 29, 2009,in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology

(JACC), claimed bans correlated to at least a 17percent reduction in heart attacks shortly afterenacted.

On Nov. 10, 2009, JACC published a correctionto the study. The language of the correction gave no

hint of its importance nor did it say the studys mostquoted claim was nullified.

Siegel, who was critical of the studys originalfindings, published the correction and clarified itsmeaning on web sites he operates. The KU study wasan analysis of smoking ban studies in 11 locations.Data from one of the studies was incorrectly reported,thus throwing off the broader analysis.

As it turns out, the study findings were due to acareless error. In the original study, the authors had

inadvertently reported the Pueblo study has havingreported a 70 percent reduction in heart attacks (aresult that is completely implausible and clearlyshould have been noticed as having been in error).Instead, that study actually reported a 34 percent

reduction in heart attacks. The meta-analysis authorspublished a correction in which they re-analyzed thecorrect data.

It turns out that the 11 studies did not find a 17percent reduction in heart attacks, only an 8%reduction.

This level of decline in admissions for heartattacks is obviously not significantly different fromthe levels of decline in heart attacks that are beingobserved in the absence of smoking bans, which havevaried between 5 percent and 10 percent per year inmany communities.

The studys original claims of a dramatic decreasein heart attacks was heralded by dozens of anti-smoking groups and reported by media across Kansasand around the world.

The correction received far less exposure. Forexample, the Lawrence Journal World reported thestudys 17 percent claim on Sept. 27, 2009. Wellafter the correction was published by the JACC, aFeb. 9, 2010, article the Lawrence newspapersonline edition included a link to the original,uncorrected story.


8/19

Dr. Mike Munger, president of the KansasAcademy of Family Physicians, used the uncorrectedstudys findings in the Feb. 10 HHS committeemeeting. His office sent notice of the correction toLandwehr Feb. 16 after committee members were

made aware of the correction by an anti-banadvocate.

Dr. Jason Eberhart-Phillips testifies in support ofthe smoking ban before the HHS Committee.UPDATE: He has since been fired.

Dr. Jason Eberhart-Phillips, director of the HealthKansas Department of Health and Environment, alsoused the data and sent a detailed explanation of thecorrection to a committee member around the sametime.

Smoking rights advocates support a House billbecause it creates a uniform public smoking ban

statewide, preempting a hodgepodge of localordinances. It permits smoking in bars so long assigns outside warn that smoking is permitted inside,

prohibits anyone under 21 from entering and requiresa $1 per square foot fee for an exemption. The Housebill does not automatically exempt state-ownedcasinos.

Anti-tobacco activists support a Senate bill whichleaves existing local bans intact and offers noexemption for bars, private clubs or other drinkingestablishments. Several ban proponents said theyrewilling to accept the bills exemption for state-ownedcasinos in order to avoid broader exemptions.

Siegel says the casino exemption is rankhypocrisy that, along with some shady science, helpsfuel the skepticism tobacco supporters have for real

science he says supports smoking bans.Siegel says his colleagues have attacked him for

his stand. People think somehow if Im saying thesethings, if I dont buy every single line that the anti-smoking groups say, somehow I must be working forbig tobacco.

He says he decided to speak out when hisconscience would no longer allow him to be silent.Im trying to tell it like it is. When it comes tosmoking bans and their effect on youth the evidenceshows an effect. When it comes to an effect on adult

cessation, I dont see an effect. Im basically callingit as the science sees it.

That perspective is not welcome in the anti-smoking movement, Siegel says. They dont see thattheres any role for scientific objectivity. Either you

just spout the entire line of propaganda or you aresomehow not worthy of being in the movement.

Siegel sees parallels to suppression of dissent inthe global warming issue. This is why there isnt alot of dissent in the anti-smoking movement, because

people are afraid to speak out because this is the waytheyre going to be treated. They know that if theyspeak out their funding is going to be at risk andtheyre going to be not able to participate in thetobacco control community. Theyre not going to be

invited to speak at conferences. It hurts their careers.He says the parallels extend to the animal rights

movement as well. It went so far that they basicallylost credibility. I think this is the way eventually thatthings are going in the anti-smoking movementunless they kind of wake up and change theirapproach.

Smoking rights advocates have created severalweb sites monitoring the Robert Woods JohnsonFoundations spending on anti-smoking efforts. Thefoundation was created in 1968 by the founder ofJohnson & Johnson and became the largest singleinvestor in the worlds largest health products maker.

Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiaries make andmarket more smoking cessation products than anyother company and critics say RWJFs anti-smokingadvocacy is merely a way to redirect tobacco moneyto smoking cessation product sales.

Siegel says he doesnt believe RWJF is motivatedby anything other than a genuine public healthmovement but he is worried that talk of an profitmotive does not bode well for a scientific approach topublic health.

Even the fact that theres a perception thatsomehow this is a movement that Johnson & Johnsonis behind, it sounds like people are already losing

sight of the fact that this is a significant health hazardand this is the problem when you make hystericalhealth claims.

____________________

For more stories on the smoking ban go tohttp://kansas.watchdog.org and search forsmoking ban.


9/19

The economic losers from smoking bansShould policymakers worry about harm to bars, VFWs, and fraternal organizations?

BY MICHAEL L. MARLOW

Smoking bans in public places are promoted for

a variety of reasons, including protecting publichealth and discouraging smoking. Such bans have

become increasingly common inThe United States. According to the ban-advocacy group

Americans for Nonsmokers Rights, 29 states now prohibitsmoking in restaurants and 25 in bars. The group furtherclaims that 17,628 municipalities are covered by either localor state bans on smoking in workplaces, restaurants, and/orbars. Business owners often raise concerns that they will beeconomically harmed by the bans. Ban proponents dismiss

those concerns. The proponents typically cite two literaturereviews, one by M. Scollo et al. in 2003, and the other byMichael Eriksen and Frank Chaloupka in 2007, that describethe academic literature as showing that the bans have nostatistically significant negative economic effects on bars and

restaurants, and may even have positive economic effects.Economists are naturally skeptical of assertions that agovernment intervention could yield benefits with no costs.Such intervention would be an example of the proverbialfree lunch, and free lunches are few and far between. Thisarticle uses empirical evidence from Ohios recently adoptedsmoking ban to determine if such bans have negativeeconomic effects on bars and restaurants. The articleexamines ban noncompliance data from Ohio, under the

hypothesis that establishments that regularly violate the bando so because it is profitable to do so. The detail of the

noncompliance data allows this analysis to determine whatsorts of establishments, if any, are harmed by the bans andwhat sorts of establishments are not. Ohios comprehensiveban took effect in May of 2007.By the end of 2009, over

21,000 citations for violating the prohibition were issued to4,422 restaurants and bars, and another 11,000 citations wereissued to 1,190 veterans organizations, fraternalorganizations, and private clubs. The data indicates that

individuals owners, employees, customers, and smokersassociated with bars and organizations are much more likelyto be harmed than their counterparts in restaurants. Animportant implication of this research is that previous studiesunderestimated harm because they did not consider theimplications of establishments not complying with the bans.This article also raises the important question of whetherpolicymakers pay less attention to the desires of someestablishments and their clientele namely, bars and clubs,

along with their patrons than to others namelyrestaurants and their customers. Thus, a fuller accounting ofwho bears the costs of bans should be weighed against anygainsboth economic and public healthin a debate over thedesirability of smoking bans.

PREVIOUS STUDIESPrevious studies of the economic effect of smoking bans

have typically used community effects methodology in theiranalysis. That is, they used aggregate data in their analysis,

looking for changes in total revenues or tax receipts for allrestaurants, bars, organizations, and other establishments

combined. Community effects studies often conclude thatbans do not exert harm because nonsmokers outnumbersmokers, and thus bans cause more nonsmokers to frequent

businesses and out-spend smokers who may lower theirfrequency and spending. The problem with this methodologyis that it is like looking at a community with 30 bars andrestaurants and, after observing that total revenues have been

$150 million for each of the past five years, concluding thatno changes occurred over that time. Lost in the aggregation isthe possibility that some owners gained $2 million inrevenues, some lost $2 million, and still others experienced nochange. An unchanged or rising community aggregate cannotuncover whether revenues for some owners fell, or someowners went out of business, or if new businesses entered thecommunity during the examination period. More carefulstudies that disaggregate analysis to the level of individual

businesses find that smoking bans exert differential effects:some establishments gain, some lose, and others are

unaffected. A 1996 study that I conducted with WilliamBoyes of bar and restaurant owners following the 1990smoking ban in San Luis Obispo, CA found that 17 percentgained, 25 percent lost, and 57 percent were unaffected. A2000 nationwide study that I conducted with John Dunhamonthe anticipated effects of a smoking ban found that surveyedbar owners predicted losses from smoking bans twice as oftenas restaurant owners. For bars, 82 percent predicted harm, 2percent reported gains, and 14 percent were unaffected. Forrestaurants, 39 percent predicted losses, 10 percent reported


10/19

gains, and 51 percent were unaffected. Owners who catered tomany smokers predicted losses much more often than thosewho did not. A 2003 study that I also conducted with JohnDunham of Wisconsin bar and restaurant owners concludedthat bar owners lost business 50 percent more often than

restaurant owners following adoption of a local smoking ban.Smoking ban studies that disaggregate to the level of business

in the United Kingdom, Scotland, and India also yieldevidence of differential effects. Common sense suggeststhat owners who had not found it profitable to voluntarilyforbid smoking prior to a ban will be harmed by a ban moreoften and more likely to be cited for noncompliance. As forclaims that smoking bans boost the value of bars and

restaurants, a recent study by Robert Fleck and AndrewHanssen suggests that, because bans are often adopted mostreadily in areas that are experiencing above-average rises inproperty values, studies of those bans mistakenly concludethat they cause rising business values, when actually businessvalues were merely rising in step with overall real estate gainsin those communities. Bars probably suffer more harm frombans than restaurants because bars provide a more social

atmosphere where customers enjoy mingling with one

another. Bar owners find it more expensive, and manycustomers would find it unappealing, to segregate smokersfrom nonsmokers, as would more normally occur inrestaurants where such mingling is less important. Most barsare also too small to profitably offer smoking/nonsmokingchoices for billiards, darts, or dancing. Research showing thatrestaurant owners offer substantially more nonsmoking

seating than bars is consistent with this hypothesis. A newstudy by Dinska Van Gucht et al. of 110 Belgian smokersassessed over four days is consistent with expectations thatlocations that focus on alcohol and social gathering are muchmore strongly associated with smoking than other locations.Over one-half of all 6,397 cigarettes (14.5 per person perday, on average) smoked were in just five types of locations:living rooms, kitchens, outdoors, in cars, and in bars. The

most frequent circumstances under which these cigaretteswere smoked were after eating, while watching TV orlistening to the radio, on a work break, on the go, togetherwith alcohol, in the company of others, while having coffee,and at work. This study is consistent with expectations thatsocial settings in which alcohol is present are more associatedwith smoking than restaurants where smokers apparently aremore content to smoke upon leaving the premises than duringmeals. Moreover, studies also suggest that alcohol

consumption influences both the magnitude and the emotionalvalence of cigarette cravings, thus again forging theconnection between alcohol establishments and smoking.

SOME MATTER MORE THAN OTHERS?Ban proponents who cite community effects analyses are

not arguing that the bans are Pareto-optimal, as that wouldrequire either no harm to any bar or restaurant owner oradequate compensation to those who are injured by the ban.They probably mean that harm to individual owners are

matched, or smaller than, gains to other owners. However,this distinction is usually never discussed. Community effectsstudies do not disaggregate to the level of individual owners,thus making it unclear who gains or loses and whethercharacteristics of gainers and losers differ in any significantmanner. A recent exception is a 2009 study by Hans Melbert

and Karl Lund of Norways ban, in which aggregate revenuegains of restaurants were found to outweigh aggregate lossesfor bars. The authors conclude, Some smaller sub-sectorsmight experience a decline, but the hospitality industry on thewhole will not experience a statistically significant decline in

revenue. Apparently, the authors used a social welfarefunction in which all bars and restaurants are treated equally

and that, as long as the overall sum of revenues did notdecline, the net economic damage is either zero ornonexistent. Of course, this also ignores gains or lossesimposed on workers, customers, nonsmokers, and smokers.

This discussion raises questions of whether a policy thatcreates winners and losers is ethical certainly an issue that

deserves clarification when advocating bans on the groundsthat somehow the overall community is either unaffected orgains from bans. If, for example, most winners are restaurantsand most losers are bars, does this fact matter? Does it matterif most bars that lose are small, local mom and popestablishments that serve little or no food, rather than largecorporate chains that offer full-service bars along with large-scale food operations? Unfortunately, the community

effects methodology does not allow inspection of who

actually gains or loses.

NONCOMPLIANCE AS AN INDICATOR OF HARMA few compliance studies exist based on independent

observations of small subsets of affected businesses. A 2003study by M.D. Weber et al. examining 650 Californiaestablishments per year for five years found compliance ratesrose from 46 percent to 76 percent for bars and from 92percent to 99 percent for bars/restaurants over 19982002. A2009 study by Roland Moore et al. of 121 stand-alone bars inSan Francisco found a 30 percent noncompliance rate during20022003. A 2008 study by Douglas Eadie et al. ofScotlands ban found that, despite government claims of 98percent compliance, compliance rates from a sample of eightbars varied substantially, with the lowest levels observed in

bars located in lower-income neighborhoods. These studiesnever entertain the hypothesis that noncompliance indicatesbans harm some businesses. An advantage of examining

compliance data is that commonly used measures of revenueor tax receipts may not always reflect harm. Data on profits atthe level of individual firms have never been examined either,though such data would provide better measurement of harmthan revenues. Moreover, bans affect owners, employees, andcustomers in ways that involve revenues, prices, services,hours of operation, wages, hours worked, menu items, andother factors. Measuring harm by any subset of these factors

is clearly not possible since research has shown that bansexert different effects on these many factors across differentbusinesses. A recent example makes clear that bans pushowners to rearrange their business attributes. Nick Hogan, a

former pub landlord, became the first person to be jailed inconnection with the UK smoking ban after refusing to pay afine and costs of roughly $11,000. Hogan argued: Ninetypercent of people who come into my pub want to smoke.

Even the nonsmokers think there should be a choice. Theselaws are ridiculous. In contrast, Deborah Arnott, chiefexecutive of the anti-smoking group ash, insisted it was amyth that the smoking bans in any way damaged pubs. Arnottstated: Many pubs have shifted their focus to serving food,so they have changed their nature. But her analysis is flawed;


11/19

shifting away from alcohol and toward food reflects harmreduction efforts, and likely would have been implementedprior to the ban if they were truly profit-enhancing. A focuson revenues or tax receipts is unlikely to measure true levelsof harm. Owners who do not find it profitable to comply with

a ban will predictably be those with the most to lose fromfuller compliance and, other than those who close their

businesses, are those most damaged by a ban. Fullercompliance could be promoted through higher fines, morefrequent inspections, and possible confiscation of liquorlicenses or forced closures of businesses. Continuednoncompliance would thus appear to be a useful indicator ofharm from bans and does not force us to choose any one

attribute such as revenues or tax receipts to measureharm.

OHIOS SMOKING BANOhio voters approved the states indoor smoking ban in

November of 2006. The Ohio Department of Health estimatesthat 280,000 public places and places of employment arecovered by the ban, which excludes only private residences,family-owned businesses with no non-family employees,

certain areas of nursing homes, outdoor patios, and someretail tobacco stores. Business owners have threeresponsibilities: prohibit smoking in any public place or placeof employment, remove ashtrays, and post clearly legible no-smoking signs with the toll-free enforcement number inconspicuous places. The law allows for both businesses andindividuals to be fined for violations, though recent courtactions have called into question the legality of fining ownersfor smoking by customers. Businesses receive warning lettersfor first violations,

$100 fines for second violations, $500 fines for thirdviolations, $1,000 for fourth violations, and $2,500 for fifthand subsequent violations. Fines may also be doubled forintentional violations at the discretion of the enforcemententity and may also be assessed on a daily basis for

continuing violations. Individuals receive warning letters forfirst violations, and then $100 for the second and subsequentviolations. There are also penalties for retaliation against

complainants that begin with a warning letter for firstviolations, $1,000 fines for second violations, and $2,500fines for third and subsequent violations.

NONCOMPLIANCEA complete list of citations for violating Ohios smoking

ban beginning with initial enforcement in May 2007 to year-end 2009 was obtained Through the kind efforts of PamParker of the group Opponents of Ohio Bans. This listcontains the entire population of citations and thus does not

suffer from small sample bias that hampered the few previousstudies that collected compliance data. Locations of citations

were separated into four categories by inspection of theirbusiness name and, when it was not obvious, an Internetsearch was undertaken in order to judge which group theybelonged in.

The four groups are: Bars, which are businesses thatfocus on alcohol sales or, if they also serve food, prominently

list alcohol on their menu. Business names often containbar, pub, brew, club, drinking, sports bar,

billiards, darts, lounge, or public house in their title.Most are small bars, but there are also national corporatechains, such as Chilis and Applebees, that offer full-servicebars. This category was selected on the basis of previousresearch indicating that businesses that focus on alcohol are

more frequently harmed by bans. Previous research alsoindicates a connection between smoking and alcohol

consumption, thus suggesting bars attract relatively manysmokers.Restaurants, which provide food and non-alcoholic

beverages, though some provide limited alcoholic drinkmenus that are not prominently listed on their menu.Examples of national corporate chains are Dennys and Bob

Evans Restaurants, as well as fast food chains (e.g.,McDonalds, Burger King, Wendys) and manybreakfast/lunch businesses. Previous research has indicatedthat smokers tend to smoke following meals, thus suggestingsmokers frequenting restaurants are less apt to want to smokewhile in restaurants than when in bars.

Organizations, which include fraternal organizations (e.g.,Elk and Moose lodges), veterans groups (e.g., Veterans of

Foreign Wars, American Legion), and private clubs (e.g.,

shooting clubs, country clubs, swim clubs). Many of theseorganizations offer full-service bars and thus are closer tobar than restaurant categories. Research also indicatesthat smoking prevalence of veterans is as much as 25 percenthigher than nonveterans. Research suggests that the militaryssmoking culture is bolstered by a high rate of alcoholconsumption, which many believe to be associated with

smoking as well.Other, which includes all other locations in which citations

were given. Locations are highly varied and includeelementary and secondary schools, universities, parkinggarages, courthouses, gasoline stations, supermarkets,convenience stores, floralshops, apartment andoffice buildings, hotels,

manufacturing plants,nursing homes, rental carcompanies, buses, medicaloffices, and hospitals.

Figure 1 displays thenumbers of citationsissued for noncompliancefor bar, restaurant, andorganization categories

from May 2007 toDecember 2009. Theother category ofroughly 14,000 citationswill not be analyzedfurther because it is heterogeneous and has not been the focusof previous inquiry. Bars lead in violations with 20,138 (60percent), with organizations cited 11,543 times (35 percent),

and restaurants 1,666 times (5 percent). The data thus indicatethat bars and organizations find noncompliance moreprofitable than restaurants. That organizations experience somany citations suggests they are more like bars thanrestaurants.


12/19

Figure 2

displays individual

locations cited for

noncompliance. In

cases of multiplelocations of thesame businessname, each unique

location was

counted once; e.g.,

multiple Mikes

Bar and Grill

locations in a town

would each be

counted once. Bars

again lead citations with 3,471 (62 percent), followed

by organizations with 1,190 (35 percent), andrestaurants with 951 (17 percent).

Table 1 displays average citations per location. Barsaverage 5.8 citations, restaurants 1.7 citations, andorganizations 9.7 citations. Maximum citations ranged

from48 for restaurants (specifically, a restaurant focusing onchicken wings), 119 for bars (specifically, a night club), to218 for organizations (a vfw). Conventional tests indicatedifferences in means are significant between these categoriesand confirm that bars and organizations experience continuednoncompliance more often than restaurants. Figure 3 displaysthe distribution of citation frequency by individualestablishments. The evidence indicates restaurants are muchless likely to be found in continued noncompliance.

Table 2 displays the top 10 bars and organizations cited

for Continued noncompliance. Specific names andidentifying lodge numbers are removed to protect privacy.Alltop10 bars contained the words saloon, tavern, nightclub, pub or lounge in their names. Large corporatechains with full-service bars (e.g., Chilis and Applebees)

received just one citation. The top 10 organizations are vfwsand Moose and Eagle lodges.

Table 3 displays summary statistics of the organizationscited foremost continued noncompliance. The Fraternal Orderof Eagles leads with 2,648 citations issued to 164 branches,followed by Veterans of Foreign Wars with 2,239 citationsissued to 253 branches. In total, these eight organizationswere issued 9,606 citations to 851 branches. The eight

organizations accounted for 83 percent of all citations and 71percent of individual locations within the organizationgrouping. Obviously, citations represent few of the instancesin which the ban has been violated and citation data aresubject to various biases. It is unlikely that public healthauthorities pick their visits on a purely random basis, andcommon sense suggests locations with relatively manysmokers violating the law are targeted. Thus, citation data

probably indicate bars and organizations are where smokerscontinue to smoke the most. No information is available onhow many inspections found full compliance. Owners,employees, and customers who prefer to keep smoking have

also undoubtedly developed sophisticated tactics to avoiddetection. Working hours of enforcement officers areprobably well known, and their faces are likely becomingcommon knowledge.

CONCLUSIONNoncompliance data indicate that smoking bans impose

economic harm on some bars, restaurants, and organizations,with continued noncompliance mostly in bars andorganizations. Cases of continued noncompliance apparently

indicate where smokers congregate and continue to smoke inthe presence of the ban. Previous studies underestimated harmto the degree that continued noncompliance indicates higherlosses from greater enforcement. Public health authoritiesrarely publicly complain about noncompliance, since drawingattention to these owners is inconsistent with claims that bans


13/19


14/19

THE AIR, ACCORDING TO OSHAThough repetition has little to do with "the truth," we're repeatedly told that there's "no safe level of

exposure to secondhand smoke."OSHA begs to differ.

OSHA has established PELs (Permissible Exposure Levels) for all the measurable chemicals,including the 40 alleged carcinogens, in secondhand smoke. PELs are levels of exposure for an 8-hour

workday from which, according to OSHA, no harm will result.Of course the idea of "thousands of chemicals" can itself sound spooky. Perhaps it would help to note

that coffee contains over 1000 chemicals, 19 of which are known to be rat carcinogens.-"Rodent Carcinogens: Setting Priorities" Gold Et Al., Science, 258: 261-65 (1992)

There. Feel better?

As for secondhand smoke in the air, OSHA has stated outright that:"Field studies of environmental tobacco smoke indicate that under normal conditions, the components

in tobacco smoke are diluted below existing Permissible Exposure Levels (PELS.) as referenced in the Air

Contaminant Standard (29 CFR 1910.1000)...It would be very rare to find a workplace with so much

smoking that any individual PEL would be exceeded."

-Letter From Greg Watchman, Acting Ass't Sec'y, OSHA, To Leroy J Pletten, PHD, July 8, 1997

Indeed it would.Independent health researchers have done the chemistry and the math to prove how very very rare that

would be.

As you're about to see in a moment.

In 1999, comments were solicited by the government from an independent Public and Health PolicyResearch group, Littlewood & Fennel of Austin, Tx, on the subject of secondhand smoke.

Using EPA figures on the emissions per cigarette of everything measurable in secondhand smoke,

they compared them to OSHA's PELs.The following excerpt and chart are directly from their report and their Washington testimony:

CALCULATING THE NON-EXISTENT RISKS OF ETS"We have taken the substances for which measurements have actually been obtained--very few, of

course, because it's difficult to even find these chemicals in diffuse and diluted ETS."We posit a sealed, unventilated enclosure that is 20 feet square with a 9 foot ceiling clearance.

"Taking the figures for ETS yields per cigarette directly from the EPA, we calculated the number of

cigarettes that would be required to reach the lowest published "danger" threshold for each of these

substances. The results are actually quite amusing. In fact, it is difficult to imagine a situation where

these threshold limits could be realized.

"Our chart (Table 1) illustrates each of these substances, but let me report some notable examples."For Benzo[a]pyrene, 222,000 cigarettes would be required to reach the lowest published "danger"

threshold."For Acetone, 118,000 cigarettes would be required."Toluene would require 50,000 packs of simultaneously smoldering cigarettes."At the lower end of the scale-- in the case of Acetaldehyde or Hydrazine, more than 14,000 smokers

would need to light up simultaneously in our little room to reach the threshold at which they might beginto pose a danger."For Hydroquinone, "only" 1250 cigarettes are required. Perhaps we could post a notice limiting this

20-foot square room to 300 rather tightly-packed people smoking no more than 62 packs per hour?"Of course the moment we introduce real world factors to the room -- a door, an open window or two,

or a healthy level of mechanical air exchange (remember, the room we've been talking about is sealed)

achieving these levels becomes even more implausible."It becomes increasingly clear to us that ETS is a political, rather than scientific, scapegoat."-"Toxic Toxicology" Littlewood & Fennel


15/19

Coming at OSHA from quite a different angle is litigator (and how!) John Banzhaf, founder and

president ofAction on Smoking and Health (ASH).Banzhaf is on record as wanting to remove healthy children from intact homes if one of their family

smokes. He also favors national smoking bans both indoors and out throughout America, and has

litigation kits for sale on how to get your landlord to evict your smoking neighbors.

Banzhaf originally wanted OSHA to ban smoking in all American workplaces.

It's not even that OSHA wasn't happy to play along; it's just that--darn it -- they couldn't find the real-world science to make it credible.

So Banzhaf sued them. Suing federal agencies to get them to do what you want is, alas, a new trick inthe political deck of cards. But OSHA, at least apparently, hung tough.

In response to Banzhaf's law suit they said the best they could do would be to set some official

standards for permissible levels of smoking in the workplace.Scaring Banzhaf, and Glantz and the rest of them to death.Permissible levels? No, no. That would mean that OSHA, officially, said that smoking was permitted.

That in fact, there were levels (hard to exceed, as we hope we've already shown) that were generally safe.

This so frightened Banzhaf that he dropped the case. Here are excerpts from his press release:"ASH has agreed to dismiss its lawsuit against OSHA...to avoid serious harm to the non-smokers

rights movement from adverse action OSHA had threatened to take if forced by the suit to do

it....developing some hypothetical [ASH's characterization] measurement of smoke pollution that might bea better remedy than prohibiting smoking....[T]his could seriously hurt efforts to pass non-smokers' rights

legislation at the state and local level...Another major threat was that, if the agency were forced by ASH's suit to promulgate a rule regulating

workplace smoking, [it] would be likely to pass a weak one.... This weak rule in turn could preempt future

and possibly even existing non-smokers rights laws-- a risk no one was willing to take.As a result of ASH's dismissal of the suit, OSHA will now withdraw its rule-making proceedings but

will do so without using any of the damaging [to Anti activists] language they had threatened to include."-ASH Nixes OSHA Suit To Prevent Harm To Movement

Looking on the bright side, Banzhaf concludes:"We might now be even more successful in persuading states and localities to ban smoking on their

own, once they no longer have OSHA rule-making to hide behind."

Once again, the Anti-Smoking Movement reveals that it's true motive is basically Prohibition(stopping smokers from smoking; making them "social outcasts") --not "safe air."

And the attitude seems to be, as Stanton Glantz says, if the science doesn't "help" you, don't do thescience.


16/19

Huffing and puffingBy Dan Deming - Community columnist Jan. 20, 2009

I'm convinced that the recent

City Council decision to nolonger pursue additionalrestrictions on smoking inHutchinson was correct, and thethree members who reached thatconclusion - Bob Bush, DaveRazo and a reluctant but eventual

"light-seeing" Ron Sellers - deserve praise from those

of us who feel government is already too much in ourlives and needs to "butt out," pun intended.

Listening to the debate over two council meetingswas fascinating, including Mayor Trish Rose'sassertion (correctly) that "civil rights are restricted all

the time by government" and are often "arbitrary" insome limits on how citizens may lawfully act. HerHonor argued that handwriting is on the wall for

additional smoking restrictions, and so Hutchinsonwon't get stuck with an ordinance that bars smokingin private offices and virtually everywhere else, asfavored by the Reno County Tobacco Use PreventionCoalition, we ought to negotiate a limited ban thatexcludes bars and taverns, where opposition tofurther restrictions has been strongest. There issomething to be said for that position.

Councilwoman Cindy Proett, who has developedinto an effective, sensible public servant who is

willing to ask good questions, noted the push forvastly restricting rights of smokers and rights ofproperty owners to decide how to use their officesand buildings, was "spawned by a small group whoare not business owners," and later suggestedworking out a compromise with those pushing formajor restrictions.

Councilman Dave Razo made his position clearfrom the outset: Leave the current restrictions againstsmoking in restaurants alone, it is working well, anddon't expand it. Bob Bush challenged the mayor'sdefense of restricting civil rights by maintaining theremust be a "valid reason to act." In Bush's view,guarding people from secondhand smoke and theproven dangers of smoking doesn't meet that "validreason" test and giving in to the small band oftaxpayer-funded proponents of a total ban wouldamount to "government by blackmail" and"compromising values."

This issue could have and would have gone to the

"let's sit down with the proponents and see if we can

work out a watered-down yet more restrictiveordinance route" had it not been for the somewhatlate awakening of Ron Sellers, who initially declaredhimself "on the fence" in knowing what is the bestthing to do. Seemingly moved by a woman from theaudience who argued most people in private officesand businesses had no idea of their rights that wereabout to be taken away, coupled with concerns that if

the publicly financed Tobacco Coalition advocatesgot their way, poor old Joe The Smoker, whooperates his own repair shop and puffs away whilefixing vehicles, could also find himself a lawbreakerand subject to being cited by the smoking police,

Sellers eventually sided with Razo and Bush.Noticeably absent from attending these key

discussions on expanding smoking restrictions were

representatives of the county health department'sTobacco Coalition. They had launched the effort tofurther limit smoking in Hutchinson, seemed put offwhen the council didn't respond favorably to theircause, then disappeared into the night when theimportant and decisive discussions at City Hall tookplace. This group may come back with a petition,aimed at sufficient signatures to force adoption of abroadly worded smoking ban or forcing a cityelection. We can only hope that if they do, they will

be responsible enough to time that petition so the citydoesn't have to hold a costly special election to settlea question that many of us believe the City Councilmajority has already properly decided.

While most people in Hutchinson don't smoke,don't like to be around smokers, appreciate theopportunity to go to a local restaurant without havingunwanted smoke with their food, they also don't wantgovernment telling other businesses whether they canor cannot allow smoking. It is a problem that thelocal marketplace has largely decided. Governmentalready abridges many of our rights and is far tooinvolved in everyday lives, although some of this"involvement" is necessary and in the majority's bestinterests. The time for an expanded government-mandated smoking ban and its infringement onindividual and property owners' rights has not come.Let's hope the smoking police and their governmentgrant do-gooders will take the hint and shift theirefforts to more worthwhile and productive causes.

Dan Deming was elected to the Reno County Commission after this commentary was published in The HutchinsonNews. He is a retired general manager of Hutchinson radio station KWBW,


17/19

The Debate on Secondhand Smoke

Debunking Carmona's 2006 Surgeon General's ReportOn June 27, 2006, Surgeon General Richard Carmona made this statement[i] about his reportHealth Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke:

"The debate is over, the science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere

annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death anddisease in children and nonsmoking adults.

BUT Carmona points out flaws in his

methodology in his reportOn page 21 of his report[ii], Carmona states

"Recognizing that there is still an active

discussion around the use of meta-analysis to

pool data from observational studies (versus

clinical trials), the authors of this Surgeon

General's report used this methodology to

summarize the available data when deemed

appropriate and useful, even while recognizing

that the uncertainty around the meta-analytic

estimates may exceed the uncertainty indicated

by conventional statistical indices, because of

biases either with the observational studies or

produced by the manner of their selection."

"Did Carmona Read His Own Report?[iii]"Jacob Sullum of Reason Magazine interviewed

Dr. Michael Siegel, Professor in the Departmentof Community Health Services, Boston

University School of Public Health, aboutCarmona's report. Siegal criticizes the Office ofthe Surgeon General for falsely claiming or

implying that brief, transient exposure tosecondhand smoke raises the risk of lung cancer,

cardiovascular disease, and heart attack. Theinaccurate or misleading statements appear not

in the surgeon general's report on secondhandsmoke but in the press release, fact sheet, and

remarks by Surgeon General Richard Carmona

that accompanied the report's publication.Dr. Seigel writes: No evidence is presented in

the Surgeon General's report to support this

claim. And certainly, the Surgeon General's

report draws no such conclusion.

In fact, such a conclusion flies in the face of

common medical sense. How could it possibly be

that a brief exposure to secondhand smoke can

cause heart disease? It takes many years for

heart disease to develop. It takes years of

exposure to tobacco smoke even for a smoker to

develop heart disease. I estimate that it takes at

least 25 years of exposure (based on the fact that

very few smokers are diagnosed with heart

disease before age 40). So how could it possibly

be that for an active smoker, heart disease takes25 years of exposure to tobacco smoke to

develop, but for a passive smoker, it only takes a

single, transient, brief exposure?

It is also quite misleading to tell the public that

a brief exposure to secondhand smoke increases

the risk of lung cancer. There is certainly no

evidence for this and the Surgeon General's

report itself draws no such conclusion. In fact,

the report makes it clear that most of the studies

linking secondhand smoke and lung cancer

studied nonsmokers with many years of intense

exposure.

In his remarks, Carmona similarly claimed that

"breathing secondhand smoke for even a short

time can damage cells and set the cancer

process in motion. Brief exposure can have

immediate harmful effects on blood and blood

vessels, potentially increasing the risk of a heart

attack." Clearly, it's not just the news media that

are misrepresenting the findings of the surgeon

general's report. So is the surgeon general.

[i]http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/news/speeches/06272

006a.html

[ii]

http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/secondhandsm

oke/report/chapter1.pdf

[iii]http://reason.com/blog/2006/06/29/did-carmona-

read-his-own-repor


18/19

Additional readingFrom Jeremy Richards, Ph.D.

Southeast Regional Director and

Director of Historical Research

Citizens Freedom Alliance

Associate Professor of History

Gordon College

Failing smoking bans:Failed York County, SC ban (ban partially scaled

back)

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/10/05/17

39822/across-the-region-the-latest-from.html

Failed Galveston, TX ban (Galveston partiallybacktracks)

http://galvestondailynews.com/story/178330

Failed Dutch ban (Partial scaleback):http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/08/the-new-law-

will-allow-consume

Failed Illinois casino ban (Casinos will beexempt under this bill, state needs $$$$)http://www.wlsam.com/Article.asp?id=2039403&

spid=

Failed Greek ban to be partially scaled back

(also ignored anyway):http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_p

olitics_100008_19/11/2010_

121278

http://www.earthtimes.org/ar

ticles/show/307671,greeces

-smoking-ban-not-working-

say-officials.html

Failing French ban:http://www.time.com/time/w

orld/article/0,8599,1949817,

00.html

Failing Indian ban:http://timesofindia.indiatime

s.com/city/kanpur/Defying-

law-smoking-continues-

unchecked-at-public-

places/articleshow/5518223

.cms

Failing Maltese ban (even cops break it):http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20100

207/local/smoking-laws-widely-ignored-even-by-

police

Failing Bahrain ban:

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=266697

Failing Isreali ban:http://www.jpost.com/LocalIsrael/TelAvivAndCen

ter/Article.aspx?id=166424

Failing Big Apple (NY, NY) ban:http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=pos

ted_news&rid=96765&catid=101

Failing American bans:Bars and clubs all over the country pretty much:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2009-12-06-bars-ignore-smoking-bans_N.htm#LogIn

Failing Nanny Bloomberg NYC ban again:NYTimes, late to the game as it frequently is

these days. Better late than never:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/fashion/03s

moking.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=

rss

Even around hospitals bans are ignoredhttp://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2010/04/28/28

85190.htm

List of 600 Ohiosmokeasie businessesthat ignore the Ohio banhttp://www.smokechoke.co

m/

Failing North Carolinaban (merely five monthslater)http://www.wsoctv.com/new

s/23636558/detail.html

History of smoking bandisasters:http://www.heartland.org/po

licybot/results/23460/Histor

y_Shows_Smoking_Bans_

Likely_to_Be_Repealed.ht

ml


19/19

Clearing The AirPrivate pharmaceutical nicotine entities (RWJF / Johnson & Johnson Co.) fund the smoking ban

movement in order to promote their financial interests...

Friday, January 05, 2007100 bars and restaurants put out of business in less than two years since Minneapolis, St. Paul, andBloomington, MN. enacted smoking bans

http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2009/03/worldwide-economic-meltdown-and.html

Update: Nearly 400 Minneapolis and St. Paul area bars and restaurants closed after smoking bans were

implemented. These businesses and jobs were eliminated by government intervention long before the

economic crisis of '08-'09......and in fact were the cause of the aforementioned economic turmoil as the

economic effects were identical in hundreds of other smoking bans around the globe.See which MN lawmakers voted to eliminate choice and jobs here in MN.

Just remember what the Nicoderm (RWJF) funded smoking ban lobbyists told lawmakers "...smokingbans are good for business....." They just didn't mention that the business they were referring to was the

Johnson & Johnson pharmaceutical nicotine business:http://cleanairquality.blogspot.com/2007/12/minnesota-smoking-ban-triples-demand-of.html

As of 10/1/2007 a new Minnesota statewide smoking ban is beginning to have a negative financial impacton bars and restaurants outside of the metro area, the metro area closings started to occur after Mpls, St.

Paul, and Bloomington smoking bans in 4/2005)

According to this 2004 end of year Star Tribune article only 14 establishments closed in '04.....the last full

year without a smoking ban. (Scroll down to The party's overheading) Since implementing smoking bansthe Twin Cities area has seen nearly 400 closings......the facts speak for themselves, smoking bans are

very bad for business.

Kansas Smoking Ban Booklet - Sheila Martin

Documents

Transcript of Kansas Smoking Ban Booklet - Sheila Martin