[qam1]

And using anything with Stanton Glantz's name on it is bogus - he has publicly stated that if a study isn't coming up with the results he wants it gets scrapped (I'm paraphrasing)

The euphemism ole Stan the sham uses for scrapping a study doesn't come up the way he wants he claims is the study wasn't the best designed study.

From his study looking at 97 other studies (Many/Most of which were his own previous ones)

Review of the quality of studies on the economic effects of smoke-free policies on the hospitality industry

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.

Well who do you think defines which are the best designed studies, He does of course and any study that didn't come to his conclusion of course didn't make it as a best designed study.  

[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