The Facts About The Smoking Ban. If you're a business owner or not, this is a must read!

The Facts Online ^ | 11-01-03 | Dave Hitt

[E Rocc]

Conclusion: All of the best designed studies report no impact or a positive impact of smoke-free restaurant and bar laws on sales or employment. Policymakers can act to protect workers and patrons from the toxins in secondhand smoke confident in rejecting industry claims that there will be an adverse economic impact.

Translation: we must protect you from yourselves.

The part about these laws being to "protect" bar employees can be easily debunked. Most if not all of them do not penalize smokers for smoking in a bar, they fine the bar.

It's of course easier to collect fines this way as the bar has a known address and a license to protect. However, this forces the employees, not the statists, to enforce the ban, with the attendant risks that IMO are worse than low concentrations of ETS. One NYC bouncer has already been killed attempting to enforce Bloomberg's Folly.

-Eric

[Gabz]

Thank you for your honesty.

You're quite welcome. a bit of that from the other side of this issue would be refreshing for a change.

However you did not comment on the main point of my post, which was that at most my tobacco smoke is nothing more than an annoyance to some without a pre-existing health problem, not the cause of those problems.

[lewislynn]

Did someone tell them smokers aren't allowed?

Do you smoke while grocery shopping, clothes shopping, or other enclosed places where people gather too?

You managed to find one business in California with a population of over 35million and it happens to be a bowling alley (does anyone bowl anymore?) in the liberal college town of SLO where even drive-thru fast food restaurants aren't allowed.

Record Liquor License Applications in California

[Gabz]

I don't understand what insulation has to do with this topic, but I'll bite.

The house I grew up in was about 20 years old when my parents bought it in 1965 and was totally and fully insulated. And just like the house I now live in (built 1945)it was so tight that I had to have a window open in the winter even though we had steam radiators for heat.

OTOH the house I sold in Dover this past spring was built around 1970 and was so leaky and poorly insulated that my monthly natural gas bills the last few winters were more than my mortgage payment.

[E Rocc]

However you did not comment on the main point of my post, which was that at most my tobacco smoke is nothing more than an annoyance to some without a pre-existing health problem, not the cause of those problems.

Their attempt to equate annoying smell with toxicity is the reason they reject the principle of the Permissable Exposure Limit, which is the cornerstone of all other occupational toxicity exposure regulations.

-Eric

[Gabz]

Simply requiring a "smoking permitted in this establishment" sign at each entrance accomplishes the same thing without governmental interference.

Unfortunately the neeco-nasties don't see the logic in this.

[CSM]

I read the article you provedided and it is not convincing in the least. The article shows that the population growth is the only acceptable way to issue new liscences in any new area. The additional applications is more a function of the population growth.

[cherinfl]

I am CHERINFL and hope none of you confuse me with CINFLA!!

I wouldn't be associated with this person for all the tea in China!!

I live in Florida and apparently he does also! I agree with you "why is he so focused on Delaware"! Why doesn't he start giving us statistics about Florida!! Maybe he is too afraid to!!! He probably knows what the smoking ban has done to this state and doesn't want to go there!!

[CSM]

No confusion here. Good to see that the whole state isn't braindead!

[lewislynn]

The additional applications is more a function of the population growth.

Oh, OK...

I guess the fact someone buys a NEW liquor license doesn't mean there's a NEW demand for MORE non-smoking bars and restaurants, which is contrary to the myth (in California) that smoking bans cause businesses to close.

In California a license is a commodity that can be sold. In other words a business closing can sell their license and NEW licenses or record #'s of applications for them wouldn't be necessary...Would they.

AND as to growth, I thought everyone is leaving California.

[hotshot]

Maybe no has asked about the effect of closed(non-recirculating) air in a energy efficient house. It is no different than the kids trapped in the car. (check family court docs. to find out how many kids have been taken for exposure to smoke).
It would require a thought process, not a closed mind. I bought an energy house in which brown water stains would run down the walls when the humidity in the house was up due to cooking or showers.(guess what the brown running down the walls was?)

[cherinfl]

Thanks!! The way the people in this state voted for this ridiculous smoking amendment, I have to agree with you , "Most of them are Braindead"!!

They have absolutely no clue what they voted for! The anti's think it was for them, that they shouldn't have to be submitted to secondhand smoke. They voted to protect the workers not themselves!!!
I think we need to impose a non-smokers tax here in the State of Florida. Add it to their restaurant bill and then give it to the business owners who are hurting so desperately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Gabz]

CSM - you're probably going to hate me for this, but I don't think TheOtherOne's idea is really all that bad.

Think about it - a license is required to sell acoholic beverages and a different one is required to permit the consumption of said alcoholic beverages on the premises.

A license is required (in most places I am aware of) to sell tobacco products, so why not treat tobacco completely the way of alcohol?

[Hittman]

Thanks for the URLs, Gaml. I knew about Empire, and as much as I'd love to put all of their locations on the list (along with all the jobs lost) they didn't specificly say it was the result of smoking bans, just that that was a bit of a contributing factor. Unless the owners are specific, I don't put it on the list. I need this list to be as accurate as possible, and that will mean leaving out a few iffy places. After all, if I wanted to lie about it, I'd be a nicotine nanny, not a freedom fighter.

As for articles that don't post a % of loss, they're still handy for another page I'm doing, so keep 'em coming.

Where does it end?

In your own home. While some nannies claim they have no desire to go after people in their houses, anyone who has dealt with them knows they are compulsive liars. Your home is next. There is already legislation in California that would encourage apartment dwellers to sue their smoking neighbors. And in a 2001 interview John Banzhaf, one of the top nicotine nannies in the country, had this to say: "The next two obvious steps, already in progress, are restricting smoking on beeches, parks, lines, doorways, where people have to go through what they call the gauntlets of tobacco smoke, and then restricting it in homes, particularly where there are sensitive children."

As to the increases in Asthama, note that when everyone smoked everywhere, asthma was at 10% of the population. Now that smoking is prohibited just about everywhere, asthma is up to about 25%. There's some fascinating research going on about this, but the results won't be known for years. It appears that making our environemtnst too clean is unhealthy for us. We need to be exposed to toxins and irritants to build up a resistance to them. Discover magazine had a great article about it.

Keep that info coming folks! It won't appear immediately, as I add it to a database and then generate a new page after several new entries, but it will show up in a few days. And please send it directly to me at hittman@davehitt.com. That way you can be sure I'll get it.

[maryz]

As to the increases in Asthma, note that when everyone smoked everywhere, asthma was at 10% of the population. Now that smoking is prohibited just about everywhere, asthma is up to about 25%. There's some fascinating research going on about this, but the results won't be known for years. It appears that making our environemtnst too clean is unhealthy for us. We need to be exposed to toxins and irritants to build up a resistance to them. Discover magazine had a great article about it.

Sounds related to an article I read about a British physician hypothesizing that the increase was due to overvaccination, preventing the proper development of the immune system. I've also read recently that children raised from babyhood in homes with pets are far less likely to develop severe allergies.

[Gabz]

In a typical anti-smoker fashion "cinnie" only gave part of the facts in regard to the one place he claimed to have called, the coach House.

As I explained in another post "cinnie" is correct the Coach House is open and serving lunch - what he failed to explain is the FACT that the Coach House was closed because of the smoking ban and put on the market for sale.


But of course that is typical of the spin put on these things by the antis. Honesty is not a word in their vocabulary if the truth varies even one iota from their talking points.

[Gabz]

Good grief - don't get me started about roach droppings and associated problems!!!!

Believe me I am more than happy to have an occasional mouse in a trap now that I live in the country than ever again deal with the roach problem of "city" living!!!!

[BlueNgold]

Here's an idea: perhaps we actually let the ATF do it's job and quit farming out their business to every other dept under the sun... License for a business to allow smoking, sure I'm fine with that. Post prominently that smoking IS allowed in this establishment. Many restaurants/bars post menus and schedules at the door so people can decide at the door if they want to enter ... why can't non smokers/smokers choose the same way? The insane part is that 'private clubs' are also restricted in many places, how stupid is THAT?

[CSM]

"I think we need to impose a non-smokers tax here in the State of Florida. Add it to their restaurant bill and then give it to the business owners who are hurting so desperately!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Finally, a tax proposal I could support! Lets gore that ox!

[CSM]

Gabz, I could never hate you. You have done to much for freedom for me to take one aspect of an opinion and hold it against you....

Anyway, I see liscenses for anything as a restriction of use of private property. They do nothing more than confiscate that property. I understand the point and if the offer was made to back off of a ban by issuing liscenses, then I would consider it an improvement. However, I still wouldn't accept it as right!

What you would end up with is the same situation as the liquor liscenses. You would have a state mandated limit as to the number of liscenses by ratio of the population. If they don't restrict the number, then what would be the point of a tobacco liscense? They could accomplish the same thing by just forcing all businesses to pay an extra annual tax and allow the business owner to make the decision. The only thing a liscense ends up being is a tax!